Curt Doolittle updated his status.

(FB 1548777714 Timestamp)


(I don’t want to interfere in Maximus’ thread, because he certainly doesn’t need my help in arguing propertarian natural law, but I like the suggestion that I should do a video. I have already done the subject with our favorite Aussie, and I will do the video now that you bring it up.

Let’s understand these facts.
1 – Christianity teaches natural law – just poorly.
2 – Christianity teaches (exhaustive tit-for-tat) optimum IN-GROUP strategy as an extension of natural law – but does do poorly, and because it does so poorly – does not limit to kin, (is universalist (outgroup)) and therefore a mixture of good and bad.
3 – Christianity made us, particularly our women, vulnerable to marxism, postmodernism, and feminism, because these three ‘replacement religions’ are communicated by the same false promise and sophomoric argument, but
4 – The evidence is that christianity produces prosperity wherever it goes, but is a higher demand than Islam, like judaism is a higher demand than christianity. But the fact remains that western people still retain both Legal (roman) intellectual (greek), familial (heathen european), and political(semitic) ‘cults’. And these cults are all reflections of our classes. And all of the classes make use of what set of cults is necessary for cooperation at their level of agency.(ability to act).
5 – The purpose of christianity, marxism, postmodernism, and feminism, was to destroy the empirical, rational, military, legal, and commercial order and replace it with Egyptian, south semitic, north semitic, and Persian means of ruling an underclass through false promises (life after death), false debt(‘for our sins”, “original sins”) using supernatural frauds in the ancient world, and using economic (marxist), social (postmodern), and political (feminism and multiculturalism) in the modern world.

My understanding is that especially among those who will fight, christianity must be accommodated, and the law says that it can be accommodated because among religions it teaches natural law.

Evidence is that churches are emptying. Particularly in mixed areas. and you haven’t seen the law on religion I’m proposing yet, so you don’t know that I’m suggesting restoring the economy to the church and restoring competition with the state – under certain conditions.

And i’m also suggesting how any of our ‘natural religions’ can obtain this same cultural, economic, political centrality once again, by providing particularly powerful incentives, including restoring education and educational funding to ‘churches’ in the broadest sense (and ending centralized education). (in other words, prohibiting falsehood is different from demanding certain skills).

Under these incentives I believe our religions will slowly (possibly rapidly) migrate away from falsehood to truthfulness due to incentives of (a) simple economics (b) increasing vastly their influence, (c) defending themselves from the state. In other words, ‘let nature take its course’, and keep the state out of christian faith, and keep christian faith out of TRUTH CLAIMS.

This sets up a market for the three categories of religion, while providing mindfulness.

A christian can say “i hold [xxxx] as a matter of faith, I do not claim it is true, because what is true must be open to testimony, and Faith itself is not open to testimony. As long as I do not try to use truth claims (arguments) in matters commercial, financial, economic, and political, then I have not broken the law.”

One cannot claim something false is true for the purpose of induction (consequential argument). And in particular (islam/judaism/catholicism) because one may not claim there is any law other than the natural law (no competitor). And one may not advocate a religion that is duplicitous because of that (Judaism and Islam are duplicitous and poly-ethical.).

With the prohibition on judaism and islam, the preservation of christianity due to its natural law, the universal education in stoicism (mindfulness), and the combination of christian and european (heathen) festivals, my understanding is that we will see our religion return to its natural condition where the poor are christian, the middle ancestral (heathen), an the upper-classes, as always, purely empirical and giving respect to the middle and lower through participation in oath, ritual and festival.

So it is not so much that we need to end Christianity, as it is we need to create a range of churches (wholistic mindfulness, socialization, and education) that will serve the interest of the different classes In content, while the same underlying constraint on adherence to natural law.

In other words, we must make a practical accommodation for faith in those who need faith because they have no alternative to faith for the purpose of obtaining that mindfulness necessary in a complex society in which many of us lack the familial, social, economic, political relations, as well as perhaps the genetics to provide value in social, economic, and political markets.

So there is ‘something for everyone at a cost to everyone’ in my proposal. But it is hard to argue against the cllection of goods. we know this because while people will claim they are christian, go to church, celebrate festivals, take oaths, abide by rules, they will very rarely, under oath, claim such things are true.

All humans follow interests. They follow interests becasue it is in their interests. And they use propaganda an arugment and belief to justify the pursuit of those interests.

This is a small part of a very complex subject, and was the most complex subject I had to tackle with. Religion is the hard problem of social science, because it is, in the end, education in the ability of people to work in harmony with their intuitions as animals and in harmony with each other in groups, and therefore reach personal, familial, social, economic, political, and military benefits from one another.)

Leave a Reply