Curt Doolittle

Theme: Predation

  • —”The enemy does not care about being perceived as sane, cogent, rational, or re

    —”The enemy does not care about being perceived as sane, cogent, rational, or reasonable. In short they completely lack agency, and therefore must be domesticated by any means necessary.”—-Chris M. Silbaugh

    (Quote Reposts)

  • —”The enemy does not care about being perceived as sane, cogent, rational, or re

    —”The enemy does not care about being perceived as sane, cogent, rational, or reasonable. In short they completely lack agency, and therefore must be domesticated by any means necessary.”—-Chris M. Silbaugh

    (Quote Reposts)

  • The Smith and The Demon – Our Oldest Folk Tale and Our First Moral Lesson: Baiting Into Hazard

    THE SMITH AND THE DEMON – OUR OLDEST FOLK TALE AND OUR FIRST MORAL LESSON: BAITING INTO HAZARD According to research applying phylogenetic techniques to linguistics by folklorist Sara Graça da Silva and anthropologist Jamie Tehrani,”The Smith and the Devil” may be one of the oldest European folk tales, with the basic plot stable throughout the Indo-European speaking world from India to Scandinavia, possibly being first told in Indo-European 6,000 years ago in the Bronze Age. Our ancestors were metalworkers – and the most common name – smith – a reminder. Medieval hell evolved from the blacksmith’s forge. The oldest myth of the west is Faust (the devil and the blacksmith) The Europeans worship a sky god (nature, sun) and magic, the Semites a moon and star (astrology, heavens) Why isn’t Faust Europe and the devil Abrahamism’s false promise? In other words, why isn’t our foundational myth a warning against Abrahamism/Semitism? Because what does the demon practice? False promise, baiting into moral hazard, defended with pilpul and critique.

  • The Smith and The Demon – Our Oldest Folk Tale and Our First Moral Lesson: Baiting Into Hazard

    THE SMITH AND THE DEMON – OUR OLDEST FOLK TALE AND OUR FIRST MORAL LESSON: BAITING INTO HAZARD According to research applying phylogenetic techniques to linguistics by folklorist Sara Graça da Silva and anthropologist Jamie Tehrani,”The Smith and the Devil” may be one of the oldest European folk tales, with the basic plot stable throughout the Indo-European speaking world from India to Scandinavia, possibly being first told in Indo-European 6,000 years ago in the Bronze Age. Our ancestors were metalworkers – and the most common name – smith – a reminder. Medieval hell evolved from the blacksmith’s forge. The oldest myth of the west is Faust (the devil and the blacksmith) The Europeans worship a sky god (nature, sun) and magic, the Semites a moon and star (astrology, heavens) Why isn’t Faust Europe and the devil Abrahamism’s false promise? In other words, why isn’t our foundational myth a warning against Abrahamism/Semitism? Because what does the demon practice? False promise, baiting into moral hazard, defended with pilpul and critique.

  • Economics of Inter-Group and Intra-Group Morality

    Nov 20, 2019, 10:56 AM by Micah Pezdirtz (flawless, brilliant)

    —“Morality describes good in-group behavior. The in-group defines the limit of moral utility. Outside of the in-group, “moral” actions cease congruence with moral actions within it (betraying outsiders does not carry the same cost as betraying your kin). Westerners have a proclivity to universalize the in-group in part due to the particular pro-social behavior selected for by ice age survival conditions. Easterners have evolved differently, where in-group members demand morality towards each other and demand immorality towards outsiders. Reciprocity completes the moral system. A Hegelian synthesis, if you will, of the universalist hypothesis and dualist antithesis. A problem we face switching over to Reciprocity comes from the counter selection factors from both groups: to the universalist, reciprocal behavior violates the silver rule (do not do unto others what you would not have done unto you); to the polymoralist, reciprocal behavior accepts costs to the in-group instead of transference to out-groups. Monomoralists bear costs rightfully owed by out-groups and polymoralists impose costs rightfully due by in-group. So how does this relate to scale? Scale does not only present an explosively high quantity of group members, in and out, but an explosively high quantity of groups. Calculation costs of identifying groups individuals belong to as well as identifying a spectrum of group allegiance to hostility becomes completely heuristically impossible for any practical effectiveness. which may explain why Polymoralism has gained an upper hand (focus on in-group identity, plunder all others) but it destabilizes itself over time as all other out-groups eventually unify against them.” –

    (via Brandon Cheshire )

  • Economics of Inter-Group and Intra-Group Morality

    Nov 20, 2019, 10:56 AM by Micah Pezdirtz (flawless, brilliant)

    —“Morality describes good in-group behavior. The in-group defines the limit of moral utility. Outside of the in-group, “moral” actions cease congruence with moral actions within it (betraying outsiders does not carry the same cost as betraying your kin). Westerners have a proclivity to universalize the in-group in part due to the particular pro-social behavior selected for by ice age survival conditions. Easterners have evolved differently, where in-group members demand morality towards each other and demand immorality towards outsiders. Reciprocity completes the moral system. A Hegelian synthesis, if you will, of the universalist hypothesis and dualist antithesis. A problem we face switching over to Reciprocity comes from the counter selection factors from both groups: to the universalist, reciprocal behavior violates the silver rule (do not do unto others what you would not have done unto you); to the polymoralist, reciprocal behavior accepts costs to the in-group instead of transference to out-groups. Monomoralists bear costs rightfully owed by out-groups and polymoralists impose costs rightfully due by in-group. So how does this relate to scale? Scale does not only present an explosively high quantity of group members, in and out, but an explosively high quantity of groups. Calculation costs of identifying groups individuals belong to as well as identifying a spectrum of group allegiance to hostility becomes completely heuristically impossible for any practical effectiveness. which may explain why Polymoralism has gained an upper hand (focus on in-group identity, plunder all others) but it destabilizes itself over time as all other out-groups eventually unify against them.” –

    (via Brandon Cheshire )

  • The Undermined Our Third Way on Purpose

    —“We import millions of people, and as they start to commit crime because of the oppressive system, which wipes out the unlucky ones, Steven Pinker publishes a book about how we never had less crime. Or something like that.”—@ArturBooth

    But that’s the whole point of our system: The Third Way. Neither priesthood(poor) or aristocracy(strong) but the third way (meritocracy and the natural law of tort). The question is, why did we in ’65 under Johnson’s Great Society imitation of the Soviets, bring in underclasses? They did it on purpose to DESTROY OUR THIRD WAY through immigration. They failed with economic marxism. The failed with cultural marxism. They failed with postmodernism. But they succeeded in destroying the west only because of immigrating people who can’t exist under The Third Way.

  • The Undermined Our Third Way on Purpose

    Nov 29, 2019, 12:48 PM

    —“We import millions of people, and as they start to commit crime because of the oppressive system, which wipes out the unlucky ones, Steven Pinker publishes a book about how we never had less crime. Or something like that.”—@ArturBooth

    But that’s the whole point of our system: The Third Way. Neither priesthood(poor) or aristocracy(strong) but the third way (meritocracy and the natural law of tort). The question is, why did we in ’65 under Johnson’s Great Society imitation of the Soviets, bring in underclasses? They did it on purpose to DESTROY OUR THIRD WAY through immigration. They failed with economic marxism. The failed with cultural marxism. They failed with postmodernism. But they succeeded in destroying the west only because of immigrating people who can’t exist under The Third Way.

  • The Undermined Our Third Way on Purpose

    Nov 29, 2019, 12:48 PM

    —“We import millions of people, and as they start to commit crime because of the oppressive system, which wipes out the unlucky ones, Steven Pinker publishes a book about how we never had less crime. Or something like that.”—@ArturBooth

    But that’s the whole point of our system: The Third Way. Neither priesthood(poor) or aristocracy(strong) but the third way (meritocracy and the natural law of tort). The question is, why did we in ’65 under Johnson’s Great Society imitation of the Soviets, bring in underclasses? They did it on purpose to DESTROY OUR THIRD WAY through immigration. They failed with economic marxism. The failed with cultural marxism. They failed with postmodernism. But they succeeded in destroying the west only because of immigrating people who can’t exist under The Third Way.

  • A Viking Christmas Story

    Dec 23, 2019, 8:20 PM (worth repeating) Twas the night before Christmas, and all through the village The men sharpened knives and the boys dreamt of pillage. The skulls were all hung by the chimney with care In hopes on the morrow, more would be there. The girls were nestled all snug in their beds, While visions of jewelry, danced in their heads. And mamma in her gown, and I in my shirt, Had just caught our breath from a quick winter’s flirt. When out on the river there arose such a clatter, I sprang from the bed, to see what was the matter. Away to the Hall, I flew in a rush, Tore open the shutters, and threw up the sash. The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow Gave the lustre of mid-day to objects below. When, what to my wondering eyes should appear, But a longboat with shields, and great men with their gear. With a bearded old man, lively and wisened, I knew in a moment it must be Lord Odin. More rapid than eagles his warriors they came, And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name! “Now, Dasher! now, Dancer! now, Prancer and Vixen! On, Comet! On, Cupid! on, Donner and Blitzen! To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall! Now dash away! Dash away! Dash away all!” As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly, When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky. So up to the house-top the coursers they flew, With bags full of booty, and Lord Odin too. And then, in a twinkling, I heard at the door The laughter of brethren hardened by war. As I drew in my head, and was turning around, Lord Odin, through the portal, came with a bound. He was dressed all in grey, from his head to his foot, And his clothes were all fouled with snow and with soot. A bundle of booty he had flung on his back, And he looked like a merchant, just opening his pack. His eyes-how they twinkled! his laughter how merry! His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry! The beard of his chin was as white as the snow, And his purses, hung neatly, from his belt, in a row. The stump of a pipe, he held tight, in his teeth, And the smoke it, encircled his head, like a wreath. He had a long face, pointed hat, and grey cloak, That shook when he laughed, like the bough of an oak. He was tall and thin, but a jolly old elf, And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself! But a wink of his eye, and a twist of his head, Soon gave me to know, I had nothing to dread. He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work, And filled all the stockings, then turned with a jerk. And laying his finger, aside of his cheek, And giving a nod, tossed my share to my feet. He sprang to his boots, and to men gave a whistle, And away we all flew like the down of a thistle. And I heard him exclaim, ‘ere we ran into the night, “Happy Viking to all, and to all a good-fight!” -Curt Doolittle (With Apologies to Clement Moore) Edit