Why Our Religion Fails

(why our religion fails)

It was a very long time ago, and that the levant was a very poor and backward ghetto of the empire, and that while we had roman rule, law, and commerce, and greek philosophy, reason, mathematics, the primitive people had only their primitive language to speak with and they did the best that they could – they spoke in primitive language.

Like the few primitive people living today, they had no reason, no philosophy, no science, no mathematics. And so they had to say something was good or ‘true’ because it was commanded by the gods, not because it was reasonably comprehensible, rationally consistent, philosophically sound, scientifically demonstrable, or mathematically consistent.

They had only ‘because the boss says so’ to use as ‘this is true’. We can, today, say the same things without primitive language, and by making truth claims using reason, rationalism, philosophy, science and mathematics. But … our words, grammar, and pronunciation, are not the only content of language, but the meaning, values and emotions that we describe with those sounds, to produce those words, using that grammar.

So just as we have difficulty losing our accents, and our grammar, we have difficulty losing the ideas that we learned with which to produce those sounds, words, grammar and language. We all have trouble losing our vocalized and intuited ‘accents’ – what we call ‘biases’. They are the foundations upon which all our consequential words, sentences, paragraphs, and stories depend.

So just as the chinese sound very differently from region to region, yet use the same character set for writing, we can, in the same culture, do similarly: use the same words and grammar despite very different meanings, and values in our minds that we describe them with. And so, if someone is raised using english, but learns archaic semitic parables; or someone is raised using english but learns historical and biographical parables; or someone is raised using english but learns scientific and mathematical principles “parables”, then these are very different internal meanings using very similar words.

The difference between the ancient parables, the historical parables, and the scientific parables, is that we can empathize with anthropomorphized parables without much general knowledge, empathize a bit less with historical parables with quite a bit of general knowledge, and empathize with sciences only if we possess very specific knowledge in addition to general knowledge. So that the cost of learning to speak each language increases in time, and effort.

And so we tell primitive people and children parables of animals and people and gods and heroes. We tell young adults rules that require reason. We tell adults about law that is internally consistent requiring rationalism. We educate specialists in the sciences where specialized knowledge is necessary. And the old and wise, among us who have studied all of the parables, the histories, the laws, and the sciences, can try to provide answers for all those groups in the languages that they can hopefully one day understand.

Once you grasp that we use spoken languages with common, uncommon, and specialized terms, across all people in a political system. But within that system we use multiple languages of MEANING. And that each of these languages of meaning, relies upon that universal spoken language; and that each of these languages of meaning uses a technology of ‘validation’ or ‘truth testing’, that varies from the primitive and experiential, and anthropomorphic, to the historical analogy, to the legal evidence, to the scientifically precise; and that it requires much more knowledge and often, much more intelligence, for each additional level of precision that we add on top of the anthropomorphic.

Then you realize that while we use the same basic words and grammar, we do not use the same vocabularies; and that vocabularies tell us which technology of understanding that a person relies upon, the relative inferiority or superiority of that language in solving problems of increasing precision; how much general knowledge is requires for that person to retain that technology of meaning; and the likelihood of the intelligence of that person who employs that technology of meaning. And this is what we do.

We form hierarchies and classes and each class uses the same root spoken language and grammar, but uses the language of meaning suited to his upbringing, his degree of ability, and his degree of accumulated knowledge. So we do not only judge people by their dress, and by their body language, and by their manners, but by the spoken language, and language of meaning that they rely upon. Because these are demonstrated rather than reported evidence of the person who acts, speaks, and thinks by those dress, actions, manners, and words.

Religion · Uncategorized

Why Does The Church Fail Europeans?


How can you advocate christianity as a market good (something that people want to believe), when it so clearly is failing to compete in the market?

What do socialism and cultural marxism, and postmodernism sell that people prefer to buy over christianity?

What does islam sell that people prefer to buy over socialism, cultural marxism postmodernism – as well as christianity?


Why Do We Need Religion: Alone-ness, and therefore Mindfulness

As far as I know, aloneness, or what marx called disenfranchisement, or what I call distance from the pack, is where religion fills the hole in us.

that’s level one: eliminating aloneness thru mindfulness.
level two is a common mythos (strategy).
level three is festival, holiday, ritual. (equality) reinforcing strategy.
level four is norm and law. (limits.)
We need these things.
But of them the one thing that defeats aloneness is what we loosely categorize as religion, but is better described as mindfulness.

Mindfulness is necessary because of consciousness.

Religion · Uncategorized

Why Cant We Speak Religion In The Language of Truth?

If you cannot speak in the language of truth how do we know you do not lie, and how do we know you are capable of making a truth claim?

To rationalize is to make excuses. To tell children’s stories is to rationalize by imitation rather than reason. To analogize in history is to offer evidence. To argue in physical and natural law is to offer proof. The truth is forever unknown to us even if we speak it. The best we can do is offer proof that we have performed due diligence against all known alternatives.

So we see the simple truth: that simpletons talk in Children’s stories, semi-simpletons in rational excuses, those that argue using wisdom stated historical references, and those that have obtained that wisdom in the laws of nature that cause that history to occur without our comprehension of it at the time.

To be christian is to be european, is to follow the law of nature and natural law, in correspondence with reality.

To argue in Christan verse is to argue in children’s stories. To argue in rationalism is to argue in excuses. To argue in law and history is to argue basted on the evidence of our actions. To argue in science is to argue in the laws of nature, and in natural law, drawn from that evidence, corresponding to that history, in spite of excuses, and children’s stories.

Have we not transcended? Are we still ignorant, illiterate, poor, lacking knonwledge, technology and institutions? Do we still require morality by children’s story, rather than by literature, history, law, science, and mathematics?

Are we admitting we are children and that we are not able to speak and think in the language that the gods have written the universe with?

if you speak the truth then why must you lie?
The judeo christian of the church constitutes a framing: a lie.

Why must you have that lie? Can’t you look at history as a greater story than the children’s story of the myths and superstitions? the chidren’s stories for the dim, the ignorant, and the impoverished?

Why aren’t your own histories superior to those? They are.
I can speak the words of natural law in the words of jesus(myths), of augustine(wisdom), of plato(ideals), and of aristotle(description). WE can obtain meaning from myth, wisdom and ideals, But I will only argue them in the language of truth: Aristotle.

To deny Natural Law is to destroy mankind. Islam and Judaism deny natural law.
Natural Law of the West > Laws of Men, Sharia of Islam, Talmud of Jews.

Natural Law results in man’s transcendence into gods. Abrahamism, Paul, and Muhammed results in landlessness and parasitism (jews) or mindlessness and parasitism (islam). The god of Abraham is the devil.

in order to prevent the poverty of every other civilization, we must develop trust. In order to prevent the stagnation of every other civlization we must develop markets. In order to prevent the fall of our markets and trust we must develop market institutions. In order to prevent the failure of our institutions we must develop methods of measurement.

A civilization fails when it can no longer measure success and failure.

What must we measure? The treasury? In part. Because it is the first capital to expire. But in sum, all capital.

What have we done in the 21st century to our measurements and to our capital?


The Content of Religion – and the Failure of the Church

Apr 13, 2017 1:53pm

Why did the church fail to reform?
– anti-intellectualism.
– superstition rather than myth.
– peasant rather than middle class
– agrarian rather than industrialism
– suffering rather than heroism and possibility.
– Semitic rather than European.

Why did the church fail to produce a reformer?
– why no Augustine, or Luther?
– why was Smith/Hume/Jefferson insufficient?
– why no accommodation for Darwin, Menger, Maxwell, Durkheim, Nietzsche?

The answer:
Too much of a change. The academy took possession away from the church. The academy took funding away from the church. The state took all lands from the church.

My response:
Then it might have been possible if not for the world wars and communism. However, the germans were very close. The british traditionalists were very close. The church could have seized the opportunity, or it could have defeated the opposition: marxism. But it did neither. It was LAZY AND INTELLECTUALLY INCOMPETENT.

As far as I know, all that matters in a religion is:

(a) a community setting where individual expression prohibited. (signal free environment)
(b) a very simple set of comprehensible laws (strategy)
(c) a method of achieving mindfulness, and excuse for it.
(d) recitation of myths, legends, history, heroes
(e) application of past wisdom to current issues.
(f) participatory rituals (praying, singing, moving).
(g) participatory holidays ( relief – vacation days )
(h) participatory feasts (special holidays – family)
(i) participatory festivals (sports, plays, games)
(j) an institutional means of transference of all of the above between generations. (profession)

The acts matter much more than the words. The acts produce the experience. The words JUSTIFY it.


3.1-Introduction · Core · Languages (Precision) · Religion · Sequences · Truth

Truth, Law of Information, Natural Law of Cooperation, Physical Law of the Universe

(religion) (read it and weep) (advances on hume, damning of rawls)

[O]ur brains are smaller than those of our distant ancestors.

With the evolution of language we were able to learn more by shared calculation: in the form of thinking and reasoning than we could by our own observation, memory, and judgement.

By communicating using language thereby transferring experience, we extended our perception, could make use of other’s memories.

But with greater perception and less individual certainty of that perception, we needed a means of judgement. Or what we call, a method of decidability.

With greater numbers, and a greater division of perception, we required even greater tools of judgement, of choice, of decidability.

We needed ‘theories’ of the good. And those theories evolve in parallel with the extent of our cooperation:
“What is good for me?” and “What is true enough for me to act?” using the criteria “So that what I gain by the action is preferable to not doing so.”

1) What is good for me : what is true enough for me to act without retaliation

2) What is good for me and good for us : what is true enough to encourage future cooperation?

3) What is good for me and good for us, and good for all those like us, so that we encourage cooperation of others, and do not encourage retaliation.

4) What is good for me, and good for us, and good for all mankind, so that we TRANSCEND. (Evolve).

This problem of decidability is the origin of our myth, religion, and philosophy – and now science. These techniques
Just as in ethics we start with mythical inspiration, and evolve into ethical virtues, to ethical rules, to ethical outcomes, we evolve from the actions of the individual, to the ethics of cooperation, to the ethics of cooperation at scale, to the ethics of transcendence of man.

So, to confer decidability upon all, from the young child to the old and wise, the method of decision making must be accessible for use by everyone from the young child to the old and wise.

A religion comprises a group evolutionary strategy, wherein members are taught metaphysical, mythical, traditional, and normative methods of decidability, by means of analogy.

Traditional law codifies this strategy in prohibitions. Why prohibitions? Because we can all equally refrain from the violation of that group evolutionary strategy, but we cannot equally contribute to the furtherance of that group evolutionary strategy. We are equal in ability to not do, but we are not equal in ability to do.

A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful or unsuccessful in the persistence of the group – such as by being dependent upon local phenomenon that can change: the worship of the sun so logical in the agrarian era, is no longer so logical in an era of trade, or of industry, or of energy, or of information.

A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful but violate principle three: in that it encourages retaliation: murder, career thievery, Gypsy petty parasitism, Jewish organized and systemic parasitism, muslim invasion and raiding, Russian low trust propaganda and lying, and Chinese and European ‘Asymmetric Colonialism’.

A groups evolutionary strategy can violate principle four by inhibiting transcendence – such as islam’s demand for respect and mandated ignorance – or a strategy can construct transcendence: Western Indo European Natural Law.

A group’s evolutionary strategy can provide the minimum resistance to transcendence and the maximum possibility of transcendence:

Truth telling law (Truth), Natural Law (cooperation), and physical law (correspondence), the incremental, total suppression of parasitism, under the Common Law. And genetic suppression by the incremental culling of the parasitic from the group by separation, sterilization, and hanging.

And while we can perhaps tech these concepts to children through repetition, we cannot teach it to them as inspiration, without myth, ritual, tradition, and norm to persist it across generations, and to convey it to all those regardless of age and ability.

That we require ‘religion’: myth, ritual and tradition, in narrative, literary form is a product of man’s intellectual evolution from innocent and ignorant child to jaded and experienced sage.

But whether stated as religious narrative, reasoned moral argument, rational justification, strictly constructed law, ratio-scientific criticism or testimonial truth, the actions that result from the use of these forms of communication must produce correspondent results.

So it is not the method of conveyance that we judge – since the method of argument is a measure of the speaker and the audience – but whether
The only transcendent philosophy must be natural law of man and physical law of the universe, stated testimonially – the best that man’s words are able to state.

And therefore the only transcendent religion is Testimonial Truth, The Natural Law of Cooperation, The Physical Law of Correspondence.

All else is lie to obscure parasitism and predation, or it is error that not must be not tolerated, but corrected.

If any mythological, reasonable, rational, ratio-scientific argument is incompatible with natural law, then it is merely an act of predation – an act of war – not a religion.

Christianity and Indo European Paganism are compatible with Natural Law in the production of resulting behavior, as long as inbreeding is prohibited, tolerance for violation of natural law is limited, and the culling of the underclasses by expulsion, separation, incarceration, sterilization, and hanging is encouraged as necessary for the preservation of natural law and the achievement of transcendence.

The Church may not preserve its dependents at the expense of natural law or at the expense of transcendence. That would be the work of the self interest of the bureaucracy of man, not the work of Truth and Transcendence.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine