Form: Critique

(FB 1545397804 Timestamp) MORE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST FRAUD —“It does not claim that “reality” is socially constructed, that would be ridiculous. It claims that the means by which we conceive of reality is socially constructed, which seems pretty obvious really.”—- Twitterite This is an artful conflation of terms of ‘reality’ (action), and ‘model’. Evidence is very clear that people distinguish between reality and model. The violence in video games being the most current example, or the greco roman distinction between religious myth and reality. So even the the phrase ‘reality is socially constructed’ is an attempted fraud. The model we use to determine action in reality is and must be produced as a market good like any other, and is limited to the supply and demand of that market – like any other. However… …. the narratives and VALUES we use to NEGOTIATE actions in reality are constructed within that market given the references and referents available. In other words, WE SOCIALLY CONSTRUCT LIES, we SCIENTIFICALLY DISCOVER TRUTHS. And those that work by truth compete best. What surprises me is that it’s not obvious that there is a difference between reality and action and cost and imagination and speech, and not bearing a cost – and that those of us who have achieved in life in the markets for force and commerce, and those who achieve in life … … in the market for fraud, are readily distinguished by whether we use the languages of truth, science, economics, and law, or the language of utility, theology, philosophy, and morality. The fact that you (anyone who subscribes to neo-abrahamism) are speaking about the pseudoscientific origins of such a thing,rather than the GOALS TO ACHIEVE WITH IT, is merely another alt-right nerd-variation on memes. Yeah. Meme’s are fun. Yeah. Sophism is fun. Yes you’re witty. But in the end you’re just poisoning the same well we eventually drink from. Words and priests are cheap, unwarrantied, and without cost. artists, soldiers, craftsmen, engineers, lawyers, accountants, executives, and financiers ACT to produce an end for which they pay the cost. Social construction refers to our ability to create narratives like priests do that cost us nothing, but force costs on the people, by the process of creating moral hazard, by the process of diversion from truth. period. You aren’t philosophers or scientists, but sophists using the ancient technique of deceit by priests with the pretension of special knowledge that doesn’t exist,to fool by complex language and suggestion those who are suckers -and the first sucker is always the man in the mirror.

(FB 1545321894 Timestamp) ORGANIZED TRUTH SUPPRESSION HERE ON FB It appears that Andrew Taylor (who I don’t know) and Claire Khaw – an asian-brit, of questionable mental ability and unquestionable mental instability, who is an apologist for authoritarian religion – particularly islam – are attempting to get me (us) shadow banned by inviting muslim fanatics to our pages, and creating multiple sock accounts, and then having them report us. This is why we are so careful with filtering friend requests and follows. We had the same problem with another woman who shall remain nameless. Anyway, that’s why some of you are seeing shadow ban activity. I don’t quite have my arms around the FB algorithm yet but it does seem to require numbers.

(FB 1545397804 Timestamp) MORE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST FRAUD —“It does not claim that “reality” is socially constructed, that would be ridiculous. It claims that the means by which we conceive of reality is socially constructed, which seems pretty obvious really.”—- Twitterite This is an artful conflation of terms of ‘reality’ (action), and ‘model’. Evidence is very clear that people distinguish between reality and model. The violence in video games being the most current example, or the greco roman distinction between religious myth and reality. So even the the phrase ‘reality is socially constructed’ is an attempted fraud. The model we use to determine action in reality is and must be produced as a market good like any other, and is limited to the supply and demand of that market – like any other. However… …. the narratives and VALUES we use to NEGOTIATE actions in reality are constructed within that market given the references and referents available. In other words, WE SOCIALLY CONSTRUCT LIES, we SCIENTIFICALLY DISCOVER TRUTHS. And those that work by truth compete best. What surprises me is that it’s not obvious that there is a difference between reality and action and cost and imagination and speech, and not bearing a cost – and that those of us who have achieved in life in the markets for force and commerce, and those who achieve in life … … in the market for fraud, are readily distinguished by whether we use the languages of truth, science, economics, and law, or the language of utility, theology, philosophy, and morality. The fact that you (anyone who subscribes to neo-abrahamism) are speaking about the pseudoscientific origins of such a thing,rather than the GOALS TO ACHIEVE WITH IT, is merely another alt-right nerd-variation on memes. Yeah. Meme’s are fun. Yeah. Sophism is fun. Yes you’re witty. But in the end you’re just poisoning the same well we eventually drink from. Words and priests are cheap, unwarrantied, and without cost. artists, soldiers, craftsmen, engineers, lawyers, accountants, executives, and financiers ACT to produce an end for which they pay the cost. Social construction refers to our ability to create narratives like priests do that cost us nothing, but force costs on the people, by the process of creating moral hazard, by the process of diversion from truth. period. You aren’t philosophers or scientists, but sophists using the ancient technique of deceit by priests with the pretension of special knowledge that doesn’t exist,to fool by complex language and suggestion those who are suckers -and the first sucker is always the man in the mirror.

(FB 1545321894 Timestamp) ORGANIZED TRUTH SUPPRESSION HERE ON FB It appears that Andrew Taylor (who I don’t know) and Claire Khaw – an asian-brit, of questionable mental ability and unquestionable mental instability, who is an apologist for authoritarian religion – particularly islam – are attempting to get me (us) shadow banned by inviting muslim fanatics to our pages, and creating multiple sock accounts, and then having them report us. This is why we are so careful with filtering friend requests and follows. We had the same problem with another woman who shall remain nameless. Anyway, that’s why some of you are seeing shadow ban activity. I don’t quite have my arms around the FB algorithm yet but it does seem to require numbers.

(FB 1546302111 Timestamp) GETTING TIRED OF LITTLE BOYS WITH COMIC BOOK IDEAS RIDING ON THE COATTAILS If anything is to be said, in furtherance of some set of ideas, it must be said about the totality of the market of ideas, not just me and mine. Or it is, as is obviously the case, in this case, just an attempt at drawing attention from that which is successful to that and those who are unsuccessful. Little boys have little boy dreams, of little boy complexity. Men raise, armies, organize logistics, and write laws, and build institutions, because men understand organization at scale – because they have built organizations at scale. Little boys likewise play ‘climb on to the coattails’ of better men. Because they have no experience with constructing ideas, organizations, or solving problems more complicated than those in comic books. Proclamations are not arguments. If it is necessary for me to invest time in further humiliation pretenders, I’m loathe to waste my time at it, but happy to do good service. But these feeble attempts at getting attention with sophisms are embarrassing. And frankly I consider responding beneath me. Since anyone stupid enough to be so fooled is not someone that is helpful to an intellectual movement, nor safe enough to allow to carry arms. Please stop wasting my time with coat-tailing. -Curt Doolittle — VIA ANONYMOUS — (1) Militia “sovereignty” and rule by law are myths. Someone must always rule, someone must decide on the exception. Pushing Middle sovereignty is just continuing the same liberal hysteria against authority, which has led to the HLvM as the logical result. The HLvM won’t stop until we either acquire language better able to validate sovereign authority or war and collapse our tribal structures down low enough where we are able to make such validations, which would represent a massive civilizational regression, all while not possessing those linguistic innovations we would need to scale back up. (2) In evaluating reciprocity, the dimensional tests of identity are not actually how humans evaluate a moral context. Human language is not a closed, declarative system, as much as Curt needs it to be. We wouldn’t even have self-consciousness if language was a closed system, recursive as he still will claim it to be. Curt is a computer scientist trying to force a computer paradigm on to humans, and he ironically hasn’t done the due diligence he speaks so much about by widely studying philosophy of language. Chomsky himself wouldn’t support the simple Shannon-Weaver model of language that Curt’s operationalism relies on, and the field of linguistics has gone so much further than Chomsky by now, into cognition and intentionality, not “signals” and identical “operations” (how computers “communicate,” except that they’re not even self-conscious agents, so it’s a projected metaphor by an anti-philosopher). I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it, again: what is good in Propertarianism (pragmatist legal theory, i.e. unloading claims into processable ‘chunks’) is unoriginal—jurists have naturally known and done such things since the very beginning. The problem would then lie in why our elites have incentives for a HLvM, and the solution to that isn’t doubling-down on why the elites have incentives for a HLvM (hysteria against pre-declarative authority). What is bad in Propertarianism is loosely ‘original’, but in the sense that it’s the latest iteration of the disease of scientistic liberalism. So, we’re left with what you concluded the show with: who watches the watchers, what are the mechanisms of moral accountability? Is it authoritarianism—’absolutism’? Is it rule by law—’nomocracy’? Well, we’d have to drill down on theory of language to answer that question (the short answer is that, yes, there must always be a leader of any size group—someone must always be leading discourse and shaping linguistic frames, but also that there is a moral feedback loop; it’s just not ultimately validated through declarative science), and I think once you do that you’ll see how empty Propertarianism comes up, but it’s okay, because there are plenty enough intelligent people who’ve come before you through his system and have been doing work exploring and filling in gaps that he refused to. I don’t mean that reassurance patronizingly. There are many reasons, trivial and dire, moral and practical, why these naive, young men shouldn’t get led astray with a half-baked, anti-human system.

—- VIA MEGAN USUI Megan K. Usui —- Are you saying the Curt does not think there should be a ruler for a city and nation state in addition to the law? The ruler should follow the law in most cases but everyone knows about war and other extreme cases? — ???? via unknown — Oh, he has been known to talk about constitutional monarchy, but it’s the same anti-absolutism, for humoring ‘constitutionally limited’ (he also seems to think absolutism implies completely arbitrary, out-of-nowhere dictates, which is what a tyrant does, not a leader). When we can finally get past a naive view of language, absolutism (and everyday experiences inside human groups) makes complete sense. It opens up other areas of inquiry more helpful to resolving modern politics. Of course, I’m not going to be going around, trying to ideologically convince people of ‘absolutism’, like it’s some kind of historical aesthetic. We should use the discourse of the day and seek to be harmonizing the culture. Sometimes, self-defense will be necessary, but it’s a serious problem if a system only has threats of violence and bribery as motivations. A system with no way of speaking of the sacred is going to be left with only commerce and violence—very modern, very confused.

(FB 1546302111 Timestamp) GETTING TIRED OF LITTLE BOYS WITH COMIC BOOK IDEAS RIDING ON THE COATTAILS If anything is to be said, in furtherance of some set of ideas, it must be said about the totality of the market of ideas, not just me and mine. Or it is, as is obviously the case, in this case, just an attempt at drawing attention from that which is successful to that and those who are unsuccessful. Little boys have little boy dreams, of little boy complexity. Men raise, armies, organize logistics, and write laws, and build institutions, because men understand organization at scale – because they have built organizations at scale. Little boys likewise play ‘climb on to the coattails’ of better men. Because they have no experience with constructing ideas, organizations, or solving problems more complicated than those in comic books. Proclamations are not arguments. If it is necessary for me to invest time in further humiliation pretenders, I’m loathe to waste my time at it, but happy to do good service. But these feeble attempts at getting attention with sophisms are embarrassing. And frankly I consider responding beneath me. Since anyone stupid enough to be so fooled is not someone that is helpful to an intellectual movement, nor safe enough to allow to carry arms. Please stop wasting my time with coat-tailing. -Curt Doolittle — VIA ANONYMOUS — (1) Militia “sovereignty” and rule by law are myths. Someone must always rule, someone must decide on the exception. Pushing Middle sovereignty is just continuing the same liberal hysteria against authority, which has led to the HLvM as the logical result. The HLvM won’t stop until we either acquire language better able to validate sovereign authority or war and collapse our tribal structures down low enough where we are able to make such validations, which would represent a massive civilizational regression, all while not possessing those linguistic innovations we would need to scale back up. (2) In evaluating reciprocity, the dimensional tests of identity are not actually how humans evaluate a moral context. Human language is not a closed, declarative system, as much as Curt needs it to be. We wouldn’t even have self-consciousness if language was a closed system, recursive as he still will claim it to be. Curt is a computer scientist trying to force a computer paradigm on to humans, and he ironically hasn’t done the due diligence he speaks so much about by widely studying philosophy of language. Chomsky himself wouldn’t support the simple Shannon-Weaver model of language that Curt’s operationalism relies on, and the field of linguistics has gone so much further than Chomsky by now, into cognition and intentionality, not “signals” and identical “operations” (how computers “communicate,” except that they’re not even self-conscious agents, so it’s a projected metaphor by an anti-philosopher). I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it, again: what is good in Propertarianism (pragmatist legal theory, i.e. unloading claims into processable ‘chunks’) is unoriginal—jurists have naturally known and done such things since the very beginning. The problem would then lie in why our elites have incentives for a HLvM, and the solution to that isn’t doubling-down on why the elites have incentives for a HLvM (hysteria against pre-declarative authority). What is bad in Propertarianism is loosely ‘original’, but in the sense that it’s the latest iteration of the disease of scientistic liberalism. So, we’re left with what you concluded the show with: who watches the watchers, what are the mechanisms of moral accountability? Is it authoritarianism—’absolutism’? Is it rule by law—’nomocracy’? Well, we’d have to drill down on theory of language to answer that question (the short answer is that, yes, there must always be a leader of any size group—someone must always be leading discourse and shaping linguistic frames, but also that there is a moral feedback loop; it’s just not ultimately validated through declarative science), and I think once you do that you’ll see how empty Propertarianism comes up, but it’s okay, because there are plenty enough intelligent people who’ve come before you through his system and have been doing work exploring and filling in gaps that he refused to. I don’t mean that reassurance patronizingly. There are many reasons, trivial and dire, moral and practical, why these naive, young men shouldn’t get led astray with a half-baked, anti-human system.

—- VIA MEGAN USUI Megan K. Usui —- Are you saying the Curt does not think there should be a ruler for a city and nation state in addition to the law? The ruler should follow the law in most cases but everyone knows about war and other extreme cases? — ???? via unknown — Oh, he has been known to talk about constitutional monarchy, but it’s the same anti-absolutism, for humoring ‘constitutionally limited’ (he also seems to think absolutism implies completely arbitrary, out-of-nowhere dictates, which is what a tyrant does, not a leader). When we can finally get past a naive view of language, absolutism (and everyday experiences inside human groups) makes complete sense. It opens up other areas of inquiry more helpful to resolving modern politics. Of course, I’m not going to be going around, trying to ideologically convince people of ‘absolutism’, like it’s some kind of historical aesthetic. We should use the discourse of the day and seek to be harmonizing the culture. Sometimes, self-defense will be necessary, but it’s a serious problem if a system only has threats of violence and bribery as motivations. A system with no way of speaking of the sacred is going to be left with only commerce and violence—very modern, very confused.