Curt Doolittle

Theme: Religion

  • SACRED – “SACREDNESS” AS A COMMONS

    SACRED – “SACREDNESS” It is very hard to build the concept of ‘sacred’ into the values of a population. External threat, common strife, shared ambition, education, and indoctrination all can achieve it. Sacred concepts are a form of The Commons. They are a community property. And a community property, whether real land, built capital, formal institution, or cherished narrative, may be used by all, but not consumed by any. Conservatives invest in a large portfolio of such commons, and as such treat them as sacred. Conservatism is, by and large, a government of norms. It is intrinsically anarchic, but not intrinsically libertarian. And as such, ‘Sacredness’ is pervasive in conservative culture. Rothbardian Libertarians disavow the existence of a commons, other than the institution of property itself – a seeming contradiction. But the purpose of that denial is to forbid the existence of a state which must arbitrate the use of such commons. Hoppeian Libertarians restored the commons into libertarianism, while prohibiting any commons that consists of an organizations of human beings- thereby forbidding the existence of a state, while allowing for the existence of contractual, private government. Social democrats treat all property as a commons, and the means of distributing it as a commons. But they treat nothing as sacred other than the emotional predisposition to prevent harm and express care-taking. Sacredness is an act of self denial, and progressives avoid deprivation at all costs. As such, all forms of property other than the current-consensus for the purpose of reducing conflict, are absent. With that absence must also go the sacred. Under this analysis, Sacredness is not exclusive to conservatism. It is only that conservatism treats moral capital – forgoing opportunities, and building moral capital in the population – as of high value, Rothbardian libertarianism of little to none, and to progressives, an antithesis of their world view. This is somewhat confusing unless we take into account that those with predispositions toward libertarianism and progressivism are searching for experience and stimulation. While conservatives are searching for improving the excellence of established themes. This is why conservative art tends to be illustrative and progressive art tends to be experiential. Contrary to popular, studied, and academic belief, the debate as to whether the enormous power of fiat money eliminates the need for sacredness – forms of property we call norms which require self denial – is not over. Fiat money can be used Conservatism is not so much about the seen as unseen. Its pretense is a form of respect of the sacred. And the sacred consists of common property that they pay for with constant acts of self denial. Having paid this high price for the commons, it is no wonder why they object to the consumption of it by progressives, or the destruction of its institutions by Rothbardians.

  • SACRED – “SACREDNESS” It is very hard to build the concept of ‘sacred’ into the

    SACRED – “SACREDNESS”

    It is very hard to build the concept of ‘sacred’ into the values of a population. External threat, common strife, shared ambition, education, and indoctrination all can achieve it.

    Sacred concepts are a form of The Commons. They are a community property. And a community property, whether real land, built capital, formal institution, or cherished narrative, may be used by all, but not consumed by any.

    Conservatives invest in a large portfolio of such commons, and as such treat them as sacred. Conservatism is, by and large, a government of norms. It is intrinsically anarchic, but not intrinsically libertarian. And as such, ‘Sacredness’ is pervasive in conservative culture.

    Rothbardian Libertarians disavow the existence of a commons, other than the institution of property itself – a seeming contradiction. But the purpose of that denial is to forbid the existence of a state which must arbitrate the use of such commons.

    Hoppeian Libertarians restored the commons into libertarianism, while prohibiting any commons that consists of an organizations of human beings- thereby forbidding the existence of a state, while allowing for the existence of contractual, private government.

    Social democrats treat all property as a commons, and the means of distributing it as a commons. But they treat nothing as sacred other than the emotional predisposition to prevent harm and express care-taking. Sacredness is an act of self denial, and progressives avoid deprivation at all costs. As such, all forms of property other than the current-consensus for the purpose of reducing conflict, are absent. With that absence must also go the sacred.

    Under this analysis, Sacredness is not exclusive to conservatism. It is only that conservatism treats moral capital – forgoing opportunities, and building moral capital in the population – as

    Contrary to popular, studied, and academic belief, the debate as to whether the enormous power of fiat money eliminates the need for sacredness – forms of property we call norms which require self denial – is not over. Fiat money can be used

    Conservatism is not so much about the seen as unseen. Its pretense is a form of respect of the sacred. And the sacred consists of common property that they pay for with constant acts of self denial.

    Having paid this high price for the commons, it is no wonder why they object to the consumption of it by progressives, or the destruction of its institutions by Rothbardians.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-16 11:55:00 UTC

  • ON DAWKINS: THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN PROPERTARIAN LIBERTARIAN LANGUAGE

    http://www.youtube.com/comment?lc=Jb5710g4e6zNsbln0KYCrwvbbpebYN70xdFGO6Dg4xkRIFFING ON DAWKINS: THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN PROPERTARIAN LIBERTARIAN LANGUAGE

    Source date (UTC): 2012-08-16 20:50:00 UTC

  • CONTRA THE ATHEISTS American christianity is a revolt against the state, not an

    CONTRA THE ATHEISTS

    American christianity is a revolt against the state, not an advocacy of mysticism. The purpose of all religion; to place limits upon the state. To determine the limits of rule. To place control of society into the hands of small local groups, each with a variety of different interpretations and preferences. To make the individual in control of his or her life, and his or her destiny.

    Seeing christianity as a movement consisting of irrational statements toward an irrational end, is very different from seeing it as practical means of achieving a rational end, regardless of the irrationality of its arguments.

    Marxism is based on a false assumption. Democracy is based upon many false assumptions. Inter-temporal redistribution is based upon many false assumptions. Why is it that Religious Conservatism must be based upon true assumptions?

    All movements are political. I find the argument about the FORM of religious doctrine always somewhat childish – judging a book by its cover. The CONTENT of religious doctrine can be analyzed. The RESULTS of applying religious doctrine can be criticized.

    There is no evidence that most of what we debate in society is rational. And as Caplan has tried to show us, it may not be possible for public discourse to be rational. FORM does not matter. CONTENT matters,and content can be judged by the RESULTS it produces.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-08-15 13:48:00 UTC

  • “DIRTY STORY” By John Patrick Shanley, Directed by Valerie Curtis The Intiman Th

    “DIRTY STORY”

    By John Patrick Shanley, Directed by Valerie Curtis

    The Intiman Theater

    An allegorical story with four characters representing the Jews, the Palestinians, the Americans and the English. Starts out well, perhaps even deep, which gives the audience hope that something good might follow. But then rapidly devolves into freshman level writing, and embarrassing attempts at slapstick and farce. Humor is a very hard thing. And some subjects make it even more difficult.

    The best thing I can say is that the actors did an exceptional job with material unbefitting either the author or the subject. The cartoonish representation of each position, provided little humor and even less insight into the plight of each, and served to reinforce stereotypical falsehoods rather than provide solutions. In particular it represents the USA as an ignorant buffoon rather than a distant country desperately trying to drag ancient peoples with mortal feuds into the modern world of cooperative consumerism, entirely for their benefit, but entirely against their wishes, using every possible device available. And of course, the author then throws the usual gratuitous, false and apologetic homage to the most primitive ambitions.

    I am too respectful of actors to walk out on a play except at intermission. But the last half hour was so painfully tedious, common and predictable that I desperately wanted to, and literally counted down the minutes to the end. I estimated the theatre’s take for the evening at $750. A pittance. And the economist in me argues that at least we’re keeping people off the streets. But I’m not sure it’s worth it for this kind of fare. Walking the streets would undoubtably be better for both mind and body.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-08-03 01:14:00 UTC

  • ACCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS: THE METAPHYSICS OF REACTIONARIES: AMISH VS HASSIDIM In

    ACCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS:

    THE METAPHYSICS OF REACTIONARIES:

    AMISH VS HASSIDIM

    In a coffee shop in Leavenworth. An Amish family, father, perhaps 60, mother about the same, and adult daughter perhaps 30, ordering iced mocha coconut coffee drinks with whipped cream. I didn’t take a photo, because I didn’t want to be rude. So description will have to do: they were dressed impeccably, and had nearly perfect, radiant, clear skin. The man was gentlemanly and spoke with a few other customers, asking about where they lived, and other friendly idle talk. The women were obviously avoiding eye contact and conversation.

    My own reaction was precognitive and involuntary: I treat these people with sacred reverence. They are the souls of the germanic peoples. Certainly more so than priests, public intellectuals, or politicians. Probably because there is no question as to the honesty of there commitment and no political art of persuasion we must defend ourselves from. They are a statement of truth, purely by their actions.

    Most of us with northern european heritage long for our medieval, agrarian, communal, and familial past, even as we celebrate our longer lives, greater health, lack of hunger, freedom from brutal physical labor, and insulation from violence. These people are the embodiment of the idea of our past, perhaps more so than the actuality of it.

    I suppose the Jews may think of their Hassidic sect with the same reverence. (Although as I understand it, opinions about the hassidim – particularly their overbreeding and communist dependence upon redistribution in Israel – like most opinions in the Jewish community, vary pretty widely.)

    Because I simply haven’t spent time thinking about this topic before, it’s pretty obvious that both reactionary sects represent the different world views of Germanic and Hebrew peoples: social actions and individual responsibility versus individual thoughts, and collectivism. Action versus mysticism, both wrapped in religious ritual and insular pacifism that protects their alternate reality from competition with the chaos of the modern world. This difference can be reduced to: the people of the land and action versus the people of the mind and words.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-07-25 14:31:00 UTC

  • TODAY IS CELEBRATE THE FIRST CRUSADE DAY! July 16, 1099 – First Crusade: Christi

    TODAY IS CELEBRATE THE FIRST CRUSADE DAY!

    July 16, 1099 – First Crusade: Christian soldiers take the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem after the final assault of a difficult siege. The First Crusade was the result of the Byzantine emperor Alexios I’s appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim Turk advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire.

    Happy First Crusade Day! 🙂

    (And people say I have no sense of humor.)

    Source date (UTC): 2012-07-15 14:08:00 UTC

  • Is Iraq An Unofficial “vassal” Of Iran?

    All civilizations have a ‘core state’ (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The…)  except islam, which last relied upon the Turks as the core state.  Iran wants to become the core state of islamic civilization, control middle eastern oil, capture the profits from it, and build a military strong enough to ensure it’s centrality, with those profits.  If possible, the strategic route to making this come about is to create an alliance, dependency, or at least lack of opposition with Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Pakistan and Iran hold nuclear weapons. 

    That is the Iranian strategic objective.

    Whether or not Iraq is a Vassal of Iran is an improper use of language. Iraq is no longer capable of opposing Iranian strategic initiatives, and is subject to iranian political pressure.  So it is perhaps better to categorize Iraq as successfully within the sphere of influence of Iran, and therefore contributing to the potential of Iran to become the Core State of Islamic civilization — against the wishes of the southern states.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-Iraq-an-unofficial-vassal-of-Iran

  • Political Theory: Is The West’s Problem With Middle Eastern ‘democracy’ That It Tends To Be Religious?

    I HAVE TO DISAGREE with the other answers.

    The USA’s strategic policy equates democracy with consumer capitalism,  human rights, and economic and military stability. They are a set, for which ‘democracy” is a simply a shorthand. Which is unfortunate, since that brevity obscures the complexity of the strategy.

    The USA spent the majority of the past century trying to prevent the alternative to consumer capitalism, world communism, from developing the military and economic power necessary to interfere with world oil production, and world trade – as well as preventing the further death and suffering that are the result of managed economies.

    Therefore the simplistic statement “democracy is good”, means “Democracy that is good is democracy that advances consumer capitalism, will create states that are good world citizens and will not disrupt the world system of trade, and world production of oil.”

    The problem that the USA has with islamic states, is that, having spent the past century trying to prevent the rise of anti-capitalist states, it appears that the muslim world is going to coalesce into three or so factions all of whom are militant and at least one of whom’s ambitions  (Iran) is to control the price of oil as a means of concentrating the capital necessary to build a military strong enough to defeat the other two factions, thereby restoring the islamic empire. 

    So the USA is very cautious, and one should not confuse “democracy” which is simply the means of transitioning power, with the broader concept of democratic, consumer capitalism of small independent states all of whom are good world citizens.  Those are different things.

    Party politics is a nonsense-sport to entertain the population. The USA generally follows strategic policy, because the consequences are so serious, which is why all politicians, once in office, tend to follow it.  If the world system of trade is dramatically threatened, the average american can lose a third to a half of his standard of living in far shorter order than we did in the great depression. And at the current level of social discord, the government may not be able to prevent civil conflict.

    https://www.quora.com/Political-Theory-Is-the-Wests-problem-with-Middle-Eastern-democracy-that-it-tends-to-be-religious

  • Political Theory: Is The West’s Problem With Middle Eastern ‘democracy’ That It Tends To Be Religious?

    I HAVE TO DISAGREE with the other answers.

    The USA’s strategic policy equates democracy with consumer capitalism,  human rights, and economic and military stability. They are a set, for which ‘democracy” is a simply a shorthand. Which is unfortunate, since that brevity obscures the complexity of the strategy.

    The USA spent the majority of the past century trying to prevent the alternative to consumer capitalism, world communism, from developing the military and economic power necessary to interfere with world oil production, and world trade – as well as preventing the further death and suffering that are the result of managed economies.

    Therefore the simplistic statement “democracy is good”, means “Democracy that is good is democracy that advances consumer capitalism, will create states that are good world citizens and will not disrupt the world system of trade, and world production of oil.”

    The problem that the USA has with islamic states, is that, having spent the past century trying to prevent the rise of anti-capitalist states, it appears that the muslim world is going to coalesce into three or so factions all of whom are militant and at least one of whom’s ambitions  (Iran) is to control the price of oil as a means of concentrating the capital necessary to build a military strong enough to defeat the other two factions, thereby restoring the islamic empire. 

    So the USA is very cautious, and one should not confuse “democracy” which is simply the means of transitioning power, with the broader concept of democratic, consumer capitalism of small independent states all of whom are good world citizens.  Those are different things.

    Party politics is a nonsense-sport to entertain the population. The USA generally follows strategic policy, because the consequences are so serious, which is why all politicians, once in office, tend to follow it.  If the world system of trade is dramatically threatened, the average american can lose a third to a half of his standard of living in far shorter order than we did in the great depression. And at the current level of social discord, the government may not be able to prevent civil conflict.

    https://www.quora.com/Political-Theory-Is-the-Wests-problem-with-Middle-Eastern-democracy-that-it-tends-to-be-religious