Curt Doolittle

Theme: Religion

  • RELIGIONS: SEPARATING THE OPERATIONS FROM THE CONTENT I understand the value of

    RELIGIONS: SEPARATING THE OPERATIONS FROM THE CONTENT

    I understand the value of Myth(Decidability), Ritual (Mass), and Mindfulness (prayer).

    But do you understand that there is nothing in what you call ‘christianity’ that cannot be produced by truthful means, rather than lies?

    So my opinion is, like a woman, or a child, you cannot separate the OPERATIONS: teaching myths for the purpose of shared decidability, performing rituals for the purpose of shared trust reinforcing thost patterns of decidability, and performing contemplative disciplines for the purpose of adapting to those patterns of decidability – from the CONTENT of those operations.

    But that it is the OPERATIONS, regardless of the CONTENT that produce the ‘goods’ that result from performing those operations.

    So as far as I know, you are ‘owned’ by your inability to deflate the operations, the content, and the training from those operations. And you treat the content as material, when it is the operations that are material regardless of the content.

    It is trivially easy to reform our church. It is trivially easy to reform the operations in our churches. And trivially easy to reform the mythos of our churches. That is because the good that is in our churches is the use of Myth, Ritual, and Mindfulness to produce that High Trust of the European Peoples.

    And we do not need the lies of the semites, who do not practice this high trust. We do not need the mental disease of the semites, to demand submission – that is the antithesis of our european peoples.

    We have plenty of myths and decidability, we can always use the Feast (Church/Mass) ritual of Toast (preaching), Oath (Creed), Feast (bread) as an opportunity for creating common decidability and common trust.

    And we can always use the some combination of self-analysis (Stoicism), internal dialog with archetypes (prayer), mindless repetitive chanting, and mental discipline (meditation) to adapt ourselves to the order we create by those means of decidability.

    The difference is that we will need to return to the era when the men who lead such civic ceremonies are worthy of our audience.

    Where the decidability provided by the content is materially transcendent, heroic, good, true, and beautiful – in the european heroic ethic not the semitic tyrannical.

    Where the Feast Ritual heralds western man’s achievements in the real world, not the lies of the semitic world that imprisons men in ignorance.

    We can reform our church.

    But the first step is realizing that you err. That you value the content rather than the operations. But that you are wrong. It is the operations regardless of the content that makes a religion valuable.

    And most importantly: there is no content on earth superior to the european scientific, technical legal, political, economic, cultural and historical.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-24 08:06:00 UTC

  • ABRAHAMISM *why do you need to lie?* *why do you need lies?* *why do you fear tr

    ABRAHAMISM

    *why do you need to lie?*

    *why do you need lies?*

    *why do you fear truth rather than lies?*

    The left has produced a false secular religion. They did it with pseudoscience and lies.

    The right tried (failed), but is finally producing a secular religion without pseudoscience pseudo-rationalism and lies.

    WHY DO YOU NEED TO LIE?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-24 07:30:00 UTC

  • YOU KNOW THAT FUNGUS THAT MAKES ANTS ZOMBIES? Um. That’s Abrahamism in humans

    YOU KNOW THAT FUNGUS THAT MAKES ANTS ZOMBIES?

    Um. That’s Abrahamism in humans.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-23 19:49:00 UTC

  • BECOMING OURSELVES ANEW By Daniel Gurpide It is impossible to ‘bring back the Gr

    BECOMING OURSELVES ANEW

    By Daniel Gurpide

    It is impossible to ‘bring back the Greeks,’ i.e., resuscitate the pre-Christian world. A genuine Aryanism can only be neo-pagan and post-Christian, rather than merely pagan or pre-Christian, and revolutionary.

    ‘Neo-pagan’ because with the ‘death of God,’ the old gods that Christianity maintained indirectly alive as promise and nostalgia of a diverse world, also died. They metamorphosed into a mythical and exemplary return to the origins that make a new beginning possible.

    Revolutionary in the proper sense of the word (re-volution, from the Latin revolutus, revolvere: to turn over, to return) because we want to ‘turn over’ the existing system of values, ‘change the world,’ and return to or reproduce a moment that was. Our attitude towards our present world should be similar to the one adopted by the first Christians towards the Greco-Roman world.

    Before the development of diachronic linguistics, the Aryans or Indo-Europeans did not exist! The term ‘Indo-European’ may be used to classify fossils or bio-macrophysical remnants, and so doing might be considered appropriate in that history is founded on human biology. Nevertheless, we know that an historical Indo-European entity has never existed: no record has been found of a people calling themselves ‘Indo-European,’ or demonstrating awareness of possessing that identity. This is scarcely surprising: an historical fact finds its reality only at the level of human consciousness. The Indo-European fact does not enter history, does not become historical agent, until it is ‘discovered’: that is, until human consciousness, bound to a determined epochal perspective—a consciousness and a perspective which are ours—conceives it as the past of its own present.

    It is no exaggeration to say that the Indo-European fact becomes such only in us and through us. It is the projection of ourselves onto the past; at the same time it is the reinvented myth through which we project ourselves into the future.

    Indo-European roots are the source, the past of which we may be future heirs—but only if we dare to become what we are. For us, indeed, an effective response to the challenges of modernity must re-produce, readapt, and reinvent it: the Indo-European adventure. It is for this reason that we project the Indo-European inheritance twice: as re-presentation of the past—and as imagination and re-creation of the future.

    The re-appropriation of our deepest roots entails, in itself, the rediscovery, valorisation, and defence of our identity as Europeans. By exclusion we may decide what is ‘originally’ ours—in the sense of being created by us, and in harmony with our own perception of the world, our own psyche—and what does not belong to us, but has been incorporated at a later stage, lacking authenticity and genuineness. If the two inheritances of the European world, Christian-Semitic and Indo-European, reveal themselves as irreconcilable, it is for us—the current heirs—to decide which is our own, original, and originative, and which is not.

    Furthermore, in a world which has become planetary—and where Europe, at risk of losing its identity and independence, is condemned to transform its centuries-old ethno-cultural unity into an organic whole—the rediscovery of our common roots, of our affiliation with the Indo-European past, has immense political significance as foundation myth of a community of destiny of European peoples. A synthesis—political, ideological, and philosophical—capable of safeguarding European civilisation—can be articulated only by returning to the primordial source: to the cornerstone of European humankind—the core of our human specificity. There, the archetypes of our psyche can be reactivated anew.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-23 15:07:00 UTC

  • No matter what excuse you make for Abrahamism, in order to justify your priors,

    No matter what excuse you make for Abrahamism, in order to justify your priors, you’re stuck with one question: if it’s good, then why do you need to lie about it?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-23 10:18:00 UTC

  • THE LIMITS OF THE MONOMYTH – ENDING DECEIT BY MYTHOS BY ENDING ABRAHAMISM (more

    THE LIMITS OF THE MONOMYTH – ENDING DECEIT BY MYTHOS BY ENDING ABRAHAMISM

    (more on extending – or limiting – Peterson’s thesis)

    Whereas:

    It is very hard to create a fiction (myth) that fails to ‘ring true’ because it makes use of the Monomyth, Limited Plots, the Archetypes, and the Virtues – and these categories reflect the methods of acquisition of methods of transcendence available to our psychology.

    It is very easy to create fictions in western civilization’s group evolutionary strategy by (a) the use of hyperbole (illustration by magnification), while avoiding idealism and supernaturalism, (b) the only difference between men, heroes, demigods, and gods, is the degree of their mortality or immortality, and the degree of hyperbolic exaggeration of their abilities, (c) men, heroes, demigods, and gods, are all bound by the forces of nature (d) the gods and demigods are flawed and capricious members of extended families (e) men, heroes and demigods can defeat the flaws and capriciousness of the gods, demigods, the heroes of our enemies, and our enemies by means of courage, wit, discipline, and sacrifice – “man can defeat evil men, the god and nature” (e)

    It is very easy to create fictions that are incompatible with western civilization’s group evolutionary strategy by means of inserting deceptions in the form of (a)idealism, (b)supernaturalism, (c)the power of gods over the forces of nature (d) contriving man’s inability to defeat gods (e) misrepresenting the will and intention of gods (f) demanding submission to gods, (g) directing protagonists to submit to this world of the gods rather than to transform it for the betterment of man. (h) directing we circumvent the costs of changing the world for the better because of its hopelessness.

    It is very easy to create fictions that are critical of western civilization’s group evolutionary strategy, by lionizing protagonists that defeat it. (marxist, and postmodern myths and pseudo-histories)

    It is very easy to create many trivial ‘essays’ rather than narratives outside of the monomyth in order to communicate experiences not lessons – as a means of criticizing the ‘meaningful’ monomyths and its Transcendence. (Postmodern literature)

    It is all too easy to create pseudoscience – Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor – (marxists), by overloading the knowledge and reasoning of people thereby forcing appeal to intuition rather than reason.

    It is all too easy to create pseudo-rationlism (pretense of philosophy) by loading, framing, overloading the rather limited abilities of people to reason thereby forcing appeal to intuition instead of reason – yet calling it philosophy (reason).

    It is all too easy to outright lie and chant propaganda (political correctness), thereby overloading their ability, desire, and NEED to reason, thereby forcing appeal to intuition instead of reason – yet calling it philosophy rather than simply propaganda, falsehood, and lie.

    It is all too easy for humans to fall prey to comforting lies, just as they fall prey to alcohol and drugs and gambling and a hundred other destructive vices. And that some myths *are designed precisely to do that*. After all, what is the difference between pedagogical myth for the purpose of transcendence so that one can succeed in the ‘market’ we call reality, and deceptive myth for the purpose of containment so that one can merely survive in a reality absent a market for transcendence because it is either impossible or one has been deluded that it is not desirable?

    Therefore:

    (1) the monomyth/archetype/plot/virtue structure is not enough to teach the virtues because it is not enough to defend against entrapment in deceit that counters the virtues. We can teach with the myths, but we can also DECEIVE with the myths. Because both teaching and deception require the use of ‘suggestion’ which provokes free association, which results in meaning. So we can either create true and good or false and bad meaning.

    (2) the *limits of myths* are just as necessary as the contents of those myths. In particular there is a vast difference between history, fiction, hyperbolic myth, idealism and supernaturalism. And a vast difference between submission and transcendence through action. So the myths constructed from the monomyth architecture can use good or bad virtues, good or bad limits, and good or bad methods of discourse. The good: historical, fictional, and hyperbolic, or the bad: ideal and supernatural and fictionalism.

    (3) myths can be used to harm mankind – and abrahamism in the form of judaism, christianity and islam have been used to harm mankind. In the case of judaism, the most literate people contributed nothing until converted to Aristotelianism; the christian dark ages were not exited until the reassertion of aristotelianism, and islam destroyed four ancient civilizations during their period of expansion, caused the majority of the european dark age, caused more death than the black plagues, and has caused ignorance, dysgenia, and poverty wherever it has gone. The the german abrahamists tried kantian idealism (pseudo-rationalism), the Jewish abrahamists tried pseudoscience via marx, freud and boaz; the french abrahamists tried postmodernism(anti reason, anti-logic, anti-truth, anti-science), and now the islamists have doubled-down on fundamentalism (anti-reason), raiding (terrorism), and dysgenia (overpopulation), and invasion (immigration) and propaganda (conversion).

    Summation:

    Reality is difficult. The universe is hostile to us. Other peoples are hostile to us. the west, the iranian branch, and the vedic branch created aristocracy

    The western group evolutionary strategy is profoundly expensive. We must act heroically. We must suppress our impulses. We must speak the truth regardless of its costs to the dominance hierarchy. We must participate in a militia. We can only gain the franchise through demonstrated sacrifice for the polity.

    The enemy of Aristocracy (meritocracy, truth, heroism, eugenics, excellence) is abrahamism (equality, dysgenia, falsehood, submission, subsistence).

    This battle has raged at least since 500bc. Arguably it has raged since the invention of fictionalism by Zoroaster: Zoroaster > Abrahamism > Judaism > the heresy of christianity > The heresy of Islam > the french, german, jewish and russian counter-enlightenments.

    REMEDY

    Today we will either end the second conquest of the west by waves of abrahamism, using a demand for (scientific) truth, goodness(heroism), and beauty(excellence), or we will collapse again into a dark age from which man may never recover – abrahamism is a desirable cancer of the mind, just as much as alcohol and opiates and religions are a desirable cancer of the mind.

    Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism provide a method for the value neutral, loading neutral, framing neutral, analysis of the truth and falsehood, good and bad, of all human expression – including that of the Myths: Monomyth > Plots > Archetypes > and Virtues.

    End abrahamism, and end idealism, and require truth in matters of politics and thereby limit all actions and speech to fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfers of goods, services, and information, free of imposition by externality of costs upon the investments of others.

    It’s trivial. But we must abandon convenient habitual lies just as we have abandoned the convenience of fraud, the convenience of theft, and the convenience of violence, and the convenience of murder.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-23 08:25:00 UTC

  • THE MONOMYTH, ITS LIMITS, AND THE ENDING OF ABRAHAMISM It is very hard to create

    THE MONOMYTH, ITS LIMITS, AND THE ENDING OF ABRAHAMISM

    It is very hard to create a fiction (myth) that fails to ‘ring true’ because it makes use of the Monomyth, Limited Plots, the Archetypes, and the Virtues – and these categories reflect the methods of acquisition of methods of transcendence available to our psychology.

    It is very easy to create fictions in western civilization’s group evolutionary strategy by (a) the use of hyperbole (illustration by magnification), while avoiding idealism and supernaturalism, (b) the only difference between men, heroes, demigods, and gods, is the degree of their mortality or immortality, and the degree of hyperbolic exaggeration of their abilities, (c) men, heroes, demigods, and gods, are all bound by the forces of nature (d) the gods and demigods are flawed and capricious members of extended families (e) men, heroes and demigods can defeat the flaws and capriciousness of the gods, demigods, the heroes of our enemies, and our enemies by means of courage, wit, discipline, and sacrifice – “man can defeat evil men, the god and nature” (e)

    It is very easy to create fictions that are incompatible with western civilization’s group evolutionary strategy by means of inserting deceptions in the form of (a)idealism, (b)supernaturalism, (c)the power of gods over the forces of nature (d) contriving man’s inability to defeat gods (e) misrepresenting the will and intention of gods (f) demanding submission to gods, (g) directing protagonists to submit to this world of the gods rather than to transform it for the betterment of man. (h) directing we circumvent the costs of changing the world for the better because of its hopelessness.

    It is very easy to create fictions that are critical of western civilization’s group evolutionary strategy, by lionizing protagonists that defeat it. (marxist, and postmodern myths and pseudo-histories)

    It is very easy to create many trivial ‘essays’ rather than narratives outside of the monomyth in order to communicate experiences not lessons – as a means of criticizing the ‘meaningful’ monomyths and its Transcendence. (Postmodern literature)

    It is all too easy to create pseudoscience – Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor – (marxists), by overloading the knowledge and reasoning of people thereby forcing appeal to intuition rather than reason.

    It is all too easy to create pseudo-rationlism (pretense of philosophy) by loading, framing, overloading the rather limited abilities of people to reason thereby forcing appeal to intuition instead of reason – yet calling it philosophy (reason).

    It is all too easy to outright lie and chant propaganda (political correctness), thereby overloading their ability, desire, and NEED to reason, thereby forcing appeal to intuition instead of reason – yet calling it philosophy rather than simply propaganda, falsehood, and lie.

    It is all too easy for humans to fall prey to comforting lies, just as they fall prey to alcohol and drugs and gambling and a hundred other destructive vices. And that some myths *are designed precisely to do that*. After all, what is the difference between pedagogical myth for the purpose of transcendence so that one can succeed in the ‘market’ we call reality, and deceptive myth for the purpose of containment so that one can merely survive in a reality absent a market for transcendence because it is either impossible or one has been deluded that it is not desirable?

    THEREFORE

    (1) the monomyth/archetype/plot/virtue structure is not enough to teach the virtues because it is not enough to defend against entrapment in deceit that counters the virtues. We can teach with the myths, but we can also DECEIVE with the myths. Because both teaching and deception require the use of ‘suggestion’ which provokes free association, which results in meaning. So we can either create true and good or false and bad meaning.

    (2) the *limits of myths* are just as necessary as the contents of those myths. In particular there is a vast difference between history, fiction, hyperbolic myth, idealism and supernaturalism. And a vast difference between submission and transcendence through action. So the myths constructed from the monomyth architecture can use good or bad virtues, good or bad limits, and good or bad methods of discourse. The good: historical, fictional, and hyperbolic, or the bad: ideal and supernatural and fictionalism.

    (3) myths can be used to harm mankind – and abrahamism in the form of judaism, christianity and islam have been used to harm mankind. In the case of judaism, the most literate people contributed nothing until converted to Aristotelianism; the christian dark ages were not exited until the reassertion of aristotelianism, and islam destroyed four ancient civilizations during their period of expansion, caused the majority of the european dark age, caused more death than the black plagues, and has caused ignorance, dysgenia, and poverty wherever it has gone. The the german abrahamists tried kantian idealism (pseudo-rationalism), the Jewish abrahamists tried pseudoscience via marx, freud and boaz; the french abrahamists tried postmodernism(anti reason, anti-logic, anti-truth, anti-science), and now the islamists have doubled-down on fundamentalism (anti-reason), raiding (terrorism), and dysgenia (overpopulation), and invasion (immigration) and propaganda (conversion).

    SUMMATION

    Reality is difficult. The universe is hostile to us. Other peoples are hostile to us. the west, the iranian branch, and the vedic branch created aristocracy

    The western group evolutionary strategy is profoundly expensive. We must act heroically. We must suppress our impulses. We must speak the truth regardless of its costs to the dominance hierarchy. We must participate in a militia. We can only gain the franchise through demonstrated sacrifice for the polity.

    The enemy of Aristocracy (meritocracy, truth, heroism, eugenics, excellence) is abrahamism (equality, dysgenia, falsehood, submission, subsistence).

    This battle has raged at least since 500bc. Arguably it has raged since the invention of fictionalism by Zoroaster: Zoroaster > Abrahamism > Judaism > the heresy of christianity > The heresy of Islam > the french, german, jewish and russian counter-enlightenments.

    REMEDY

    Today we will either end the second conquest of the west by waves of abrahamism, using a demand for (scientific) truth, goodness(heroism), and beauty(excellence), or we will collapse again into a dark age from which man may never recover – abrahamism is a desirable cancer of the mind, just as much as alcohol and opiates and religions are a desirable cancer of the mind.

    Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism provide a method for the value neutral, loading neutral, framing neutral, analysis of the truth and falsehood, good and bad, of all human expression – including that of the Myths: Monomyth > Plots > Archetypes > and Virtues.

    End abrahamism, and end idealism, and require truth in matters of politics and thereby limit all actions and speech to fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfers of goods, services, and information, free of imposition by externality of costs upon the investments of others.

    It’s trivial. But we must abandon convenient habitual lies just as we have abandoned the convenience of fraud, the convenience of theft, and the convenience of violence, and the convenience of murder.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-23 08:21:00 UTC

  • THE CONFLICT: ABRAHAMISM OR ARYANISM? By Daniel Gurpide (excellent) I think hero

    THE CONFLICT: ABRAHAMISM OR ARYANISM?

    By Daniel Gurpide (excellent)

    I think heroism boils down to the monomyth, as Curt usually reminds us: transcendence.

    The possibility of transcendence for Abrahamism takes place in the world beyond, in meta-physics; for Aryanism, on the other hand, it takes place in this world, in meta-history, through the announcement of the the Nietzschean “Übermensch”.

    In this sense, the hero’s journey might require sometimes an enemy, which can also be oneself, or the representation that we choose to have of our own past, and more generally of the universe, in relation to the future, the destiny that we want to create.

    Virgil stated, ‘We make our destiny by our choice of the Gods.’ Any decision on the future is always a decision on the past—on the origins—and vice versa.

    The cultural battle today implies, as always, a conflict of genealogies: Abrahamism or Aryanism?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-23 07:25:00 UTC

  • “Pilpul offends me. The fact that we’re not allowed to simply kill such creature

    —“Pilpul offends me. The fact that we’re not allowed to simply kill such creatures offends me. The fact that there is an entire people/culture/religion based around psychopathy as a group evolutionary strategy, offends me. Wasting a minute of my time slogging through that dreck, when it’s obvious someone is motivated to their core, by malice and duplicity, and will never even state a plain fact unless pinned down, with all alternatives denied, offends me to my core. It’s cognitively, and emotionally draining dealing with them. And they don’t even seem human. It’s like a malignant, unfathomable, hostile, alien, entity, with a human mask. And the damage it’s done, down through the years. It’s worth a lot of false positives to avoid false negatives in the identification and elimination of such evil.”—- Eli Harman

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-22 22:17:00 UTC

  • Londonistan has turned into Sodom and Manchester into Gomorrah

    Londonistan has turned into Sodom and Manchester into Gomorrah.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-22 17:38:00 UTC