Curt Doolittle

Theme: Religion

  • THE REBELLION CONTINUES I mean, I don’t know were current mythology and propagan

    THE REBELLION CONTINUES

    I mean, I don’t know were current mythology and propaganda developed, but Judaism is a counter-revolution against (a) hellenic reason because of the conquest of alexander (hellenic judaism), (b) roman law under the conquest of rome (rabbinical judaism), (c) and western science (socialism: boas, marx, freud, cantor, lenin/trotsky, mises, rand/rothbard)

    The entire history of judaism is merely inverting western truth, reason, law, and technology as a means of resistance, undermining, and insurrection.

    Whatever innovation in truth we bring the world, they have produced a counter-revolution by which to return people to ignorance.

    Why? (The female brain).

    Seriously.

    And the data increasingly suggests it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-01 19:02:00 UTC

  • The Janissary System and Europe

    by Emil Prelic The Janissary System It (JS) was the literal theft of Balkan children, overwhelmingly Serbs, who were then turned into elite Islamist terrorists of their day (except they were more like cops due to the Sharia element of the Ottoman Empire) and sent back to murder, rape, pillage, and torture their literal brothers and sisters after being properly brainwashed. The greatest lie that the Clinton News Network ever told (by omission) is, “how do you end up with a predominantly Muslim nation state in the literal heart of Europe, where only a statistically insignificant portion of residents speak, read, or write in Arabic/Turkish?” and of course by extension, “why is it that we’re militarily supporting these people, against their centuries-long victims hell-bent on not allowing an Ottoman Reconquista while they create a terror training state in the heart of Europe.” Indeed, I am alleging that we have multiple variations of the Janissary system being utilized against the Western world today and that as much as the media has trained you to think about ISIL, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, The House of Saud, Palestinians, etc…the greatest enemy of our civilization over the past half-a-millennium-and-change has always been the Turks and it is only the destruction of Turkey, or its own willing departure from Greek, Armenian, and Kurdish lands that would allow for a discussion about peace to even begin.

  • The Janissary System and Europe

    by Emil Prelic The Janissary System It (JS) was the literal theft of Balkan children, overwhelmingly Serbs, who were then turned into elite Islamist terrorists of their day (except they were more like cops due to the Sharia element of the Ottoman Empire) and sent back to murder, rape, pillage, and torture their literal brothers and sisters after being properly brainwashed. The greatest lie that the Clinton News Network ever told (by omission) is, “how do you end up with a predominantly Muslim nation state in the literal heart of Europe, where only a statistically insignificant portion of residents speak, read, or write in Arabic/Turkish?” and of course by extension, “why is it that we’re militarily supporting these people, against their centuries-long victims hell-bent on not allowing an Ottoman Reconquista while they create a terror training state in the heart of Europe.” Indeed, I am alleging that we have multiple variations of the Janissary system being utilized against the Western world today and that as much as the media has trained you to think about ISIL, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, The House of Saud, Palestinians, etc…the greatest enemy of our civilization over the past half-a-millennium-and-change has always been the Turks and it is only the destruction of Turkey, or its own willing departure from Greek, Armenian, and Kurdish lands that would allow for a discussion about peace to even begin.

  • The History of the Sophism of Pilpul

    THE HISTORY OF PILPUL Pilpul is the Talmudic term used to describe a rhetorical process that the Sages used to formulate their legal decisions. The word is used as a verb: one engages in the process of pilpul in order to formulate a legal point. It marks the process of understanding legal ideas, texts, and interpretations. It is a catch-all term that in English is translated as “Casuistry.” (CD: Casuistry means “Sophistry” or more specifically “clever but unsound reasoning, especially in relation to moral questions”.) In order to maintain the distinction between the Written Torah — the Hebrew Bible — and the Oral Law, the Talmudic Sages conceived of the idea of pilpul as a means to join each Law to its Biblical prooftext. The Ashkenazi rabbis saw pilpul as a substantive debate over the content of the Law rather than as a simple rhetorical matter. Their understanding of Talmudic pilpul took the form of a radical reinterpretation of the Law. (CD: let’s repeat that: —“radical reinterpretation of the Law.”—) “Reinterpretation” is actually a misleading term. More accurately one should ask what led them to read the Talmud, to perceive the Talmud, in a fashion which could be construed as a justification of the status quo. (CD: let’s repeat that: —“..justification of the status quo.”— The Ashkenazi rabbis were less concerned with promulgating the Law transmitted in the Talmud than they were with molding it to suit their own needs. Pilpul was a means to justify practices already fixed in the behaviors of the community by re-reading the Talmud to justify those practices. As if this was not enough, the Tosafists instituted one more pilpul principle into Talmudic discourse. This was called the Lav Davqa method. In English we might call it the “Not Quite” way of reading a text. When a text appeared to be saying one thing, the Tosafot — in order to conform to the already-existing custom — would re-interpret it by saying that what it seemed to mean is not what it really meant! The Tosafist reading based on the Lav Davqa method completely transformed Judaism; the Ashkenazi tradition was the one that ultimately triumphed. Pilpul occurs any time the speaker is committed to “prove” his point regardless of the evidence in front of him. The casuistic aspect of this hair-splitting leads to a labyrinthine form of argument where the speaker blows enough rhetorical smoke to make his interlocutor submit. Reason is not an issue when pilpul takes over: what counts is the establishment of a fixed, immutable point that can never truly be disputed. What is thought to be the Jewish “genius” is often a mark of how pilpul is deployed. The rhetorical tricks of pilpul make true rational discussion impossible; any “discussion” is about trying to “prove” a point that has already been established. There is little use trying to argue in this context, because any points being made will be twisted and turned to validate the already-fixed position. Pilpul is the rhetorical means to mark as “true” that which cannot ever be disputed by rational means. by David Shasha Director, Center for Sephardic Heritage

  • The History of the Sophism of Pilpul

    THE HISTORY OF PILPUL Pilpul is the Talmudic term used to describe a rhetorical process that the Sages used to formulate their legal decisions. The word is used as a verb: one engages in the process of pilpul in order to formulate a legal point. It marks the process of understanding legal ideas, texts, and interpretations. It is a catch-all term that in English is translated as “Casuistry.” (CD: Casuistry means “Sophistry” or more specifically “clever but unsound reasoning, especially in relation to moral questions”.) In order to maintain the distinction between the Written Torah — the Hebrew Bible — and the Oral Law, the Talmudic Sages conceived of the idea of pilpul as a means to join each Law to its Biblical prooftext. The Ashkenazi rabbis saw pilpul as a substantive debate over the content of the Law rather than as a simple rhetorical matter. Their understanding of Talmudic pilpul took the form of a radical reinterpretation of the Law. (CD: let’s repeat that: —“radical reinterpretation of the Law.”—) “Reinterpretation” is actually a misleading term. More accurately one should ask what led them to read the Talmud, to perceive the Talmud, in a fashion which could be construed as a justification of the status quo. (CD: let’s repeat that: —“..justification of the status quo.”— The Ashkenazi rabbis were less concerned with promulgating the Law transmitted in the Talmud than they were with molding it to suit their own needs. Pilpul was a means to justify practices already fixed in the behaviors of the community by re-reading the Talmud to justify those practices. As if this was not enough, the Tosafists instituted one more pilpul principle into Talmudic discourse. This was called the Lav Davqa method. In English we might call it the “Not Quite” way of reading a text. When a text appeared to be saying one thing, the Tosafot — in order to conform to the already-existing custom — would re-interpret it by saying that what it seemed to mean is not what it really meant! The Tosafist reading based on the Lav Davqa method completely transformed Judaism; the Ashkenazi tradition was the one that ultimately triumphed. Pilpul occurs any time the speaker is committed to “prove” his point regardless of the evidence in front of him. The casuistic aspect of this hair-splitting leads to a labyrinthine form of argument where the speaker blows enough rhetorical smoke to make his interlocutor submit. Reason is not an issue when pilpul takes over: what counts is the establishment of a fixed, immutable point that can never truly be disputed. What is thought to be the Jewish “genius” is often a mark of how pilpul is deployed. The rhetorical tricks of pilpul make true rational discussion impossible; any “discussion” is about trying to “prove” a point that has already been established. There is little use trying to argue in this context, because any points being made will be twisted and turned to validate the already-fixed position. Pilpul is the rhetorical means to mark as “true” that which cannot ever be disputed by rational means. by David Shasha Director, Center for Sephardic Heritage

  • The IE Peoples and Their Religions

    As far as I know the IE peoples separated into european and indo-iranian branches, and my understanding via Armstrong is that it was because the eastern peoples ‘left’ (created a diaspora) because they could not compete against the west but they could compete south and east. As far as I know (from the record) The Indo-Iranian religion was polytheistic. As far as I know, zoroaster lived closer to 1000bc (earlier), even if the religion was formalized (like most were) centuries later. As far as I know zoroaster and his work were addressed to the iranian branch, and to no small degree, to intentionally cause conflcit between the iranian and indian branches. As far as I know the indian version of religion is the closest to our EASTERN ancestral religion. But again the western ancestral and the eastern ancestral differed greatly in that in the western, men traded with and could often defeat the gods, where in the eastern version, men were dependent upon or submissive to the gods. The difference is that IE’s disappeared through interbreeding with the peoples of india, the persians (iranians) were boxed in between india and the semites, Although they seem to have preserved most of their genetic independence until the arab conquest. And the west were isolated by the urals, mediterranean, black sea and alps, as were india and the chinese.

  • The IE Peoples and Their Religions

    As far as I know the IE peoples separated into european and indo-iranian branches, and my understanding via Armstrong is that it was because the eastern peoples ‘left’ (created a diaspora) because they could not compete against the west but they could compete south and east. As far as I know (from the record) The Indo-Iranian religion was polytheistic. As far as I know, zoroaster lived closer to 1000bc (earlier), even if the religion was formalized (like most were) centuries later. As far as I know zoroaster and his work were addressed to the iranian branch, and to no small degree, to intentionally cause conflcit between the iranian and indian branches. As far as I know the indian version of religion is the closest to our EASTERN ancestral religion. But again the western ancestral and the eastern ancestral differed greatly in that in the western, men traded with and could often defeat the gods, where in the eastern version, men were dependent upon or submissive to the gods. The difference is that IE’s disappeared through interbreeding with the peoples of india, the persians (iranians) were boxed in between india and the semites, Although they seem to have preserved most of their genetic independence until the arab conquest. And the west were isolated by the urals, mediterranean, black sea and alps, as were india and the chinese.

  • The Next Reformation of Our Church (Religion)

    I can find dozens of liars throughout history, and tens of thousands to rewrite their words, and millions to repeat their words – on any subject. Just as we can find millions of liars today in the postmodern movement, just as we could find millions a few decades ago in the marxist and bolshevik movement. Che was one of the worst people to live in modernity, but his image is used world round as a savior of modernity. Marx caused 100M dead and he is treated as a savior. Mohammed caused 750M deaths at a minimum, destroyed the great civilizations of the ancient world, and is the longest threat to prosperity man ever made, yet he is a prophet, his words memorized, his warfare deified. The christians were instrumental in the destruction of the roman empire, and the church in undermining the aristocracy, and empire, and the church responsible for the conversion and submission, and illiteracy of europeans to the point where without the vikings, and the remilitarization of europe to resist them, they would have been too weak to resist the muslims. And today christians and their postmodern descendants are the advocates of bringing in the Hordes among us. By the time we overthrew the church half of the capital in europe was ‘dead’ (static), feeding the parasitic, corrupt, church and her politics. Today the church works daily to undermine western civilization. What separates evangelicals from the church is that they have half-recovered. The history of the church is of appropriation of credit they did not earn, and avoidance of criticism that they did. We nearly escaped her with 19th century romanticism, yet the catholic, half catholic, and orthodox countries destroyed germany, which was the remaining engine of our traditions. That we need a church or temple is one thing. That charity must be personally performed is another. That mindfulness is necessary for the many is yet another, but the cancer upon mankind that is abrahamism must end forever as the most evil lie ever invented.

  • The Next Reformation of Our Church (Religion)

    I can find dozens of liars throughout history, and tens of thousands to rewrite their words, and millions to repeat their words – on any subject. Just as we can find millions of liars today in the postmodern movement, just as we could find millions a few decades ago in the marxist and bolshevik movement. Che was one of the worst people to live in modernity, but his image is used world round as a savior of modernity. Marx caused 100M dead and he is treated as a savior. Mohammed caused 750M deaths at a minimum, destroyed the great civilizations of the ancient world, and is the longest threat to prosperity man ever made, yet he is a prophet, his words memorized, his warfare deified. The christians were instrumental in the destruction of the roman empire, and the church in undermining the aristocracy, and empire, and the church responsible for the conversion and submission, and illiteracy of europeans to the point where without the vikings, and the remilitarization of europe to resist them, they would have been too weak to resist the muslims. And today christians and their postmodern descendants are the advocates of bringing in the Hordes among us. By the time we overthrew the church half of the capital in europe was ‘dead’ (static), feeding the parasitic, corrupt, church and her politics. Today the church works daily to undermine western civilization. What separates evangelicals from the church is that they have half-recovered. The history of the church is of appropriation of credit they did not earn, and avoidance of criticism that they did. We nearly escaped her with 19th century romanticism, yet the catholic, half catholic, and orthodox countries destroyed germany, which was the remaining engine of our traditions. That we need a church or temple is one thing. That charity must be personally performed is another. That mindfulness is necessary for the many is yet another, but the cancer upon mankind that is abrahamism must end forever as the most evil lie ever invented.

  • AFRICA You see, I see african ‘humility’ as both a blessing and a curse. It is n

    AFRICA
    You see, I see african ‘humility’ as both a blessing and a curse. It is not that helpful, but humility is easier to transform into heroic optimism, than islamic overconfidence, and hindu overinvestment in ‘magic’.

    Islam is the greatest danger to africa for this reason.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-30 15:58:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/990983779161395200