Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • WINDOW SHIFTS

    https://thedailycoin.org/2018/12/19/paul-craig-roberts-overthrow-is-the-only-answer-video/THE WINDOW SHIFTS

    https://thedailycoin.org/2018/12/19/paul-craig-roberts-overthrow-is-the-only-answer-video/

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-29 03:59:00 UTC

  • How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery by Paul Craig Roberts

    How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery

    by Paul Craig Roberts

    When I read Professor Thomas DiLorenzo’s article ( http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/21/lincoln-myth-ideological-cornerstone-america-empire/ ) the question that lept to mind was, “How come the South is said to have fought for slavery when the North wasn’t fighting against slavery?”

    Two days before Lincoln’s inauguration as the 16th President, Congress, consisting only of the Northern states, passed overwhelmingly on March 2, 1861, the Corwin Amendment that gave constitutional protection to slavery. Lincoln endorsed the amendment in his inaugural address, saying “I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

    Quite clearly, the North was not prepared to go to war in order to end slavery when on the very eve of war the US Congress and incoming president were in the process of making it unconstitutional to abolish slavery.

    Here we have absolute total proof that the North wanted the South kept in the Union far more than the North wanted to abolish slavery.

    If the South’s real concern was maintaining slavery, the South would not have turned down the constitutional protection of slavery offered them on a silver platter by Congress and the President. Clearly, for the South also the issue was not slavery.

    The real issue between North and South could not be reconciled on the basis of accommodating slavery. The real issue was economic as DiLorenzo, Charles Beard and other historians have documented. The North offered to preserve slavery irrevocably, but the North did not offer to give up the high tariffs and economic policies that the South saw as inimical to its interests.

    Blaming the war on slavery was the way the northern court historians used morality to cover up Lincoln’s naked aggression and the war crimes of his generals. Demonizing the enemy with moral language works for the victor. And it is still ongoing. We see in the destruction of statues the determination to shove remaining symbols of the Confederacy down the Memory Hole.

    Today the ignorant morons, thoroughly brainwashed by Identity Politics, are demanding removal of memorials to Robert E. Lee, an alleged racist toward whom they express violent hatred. This presents a massive paradox. Robert E. Lee was the first person offered command of the Union armies. How can it be that a “Southern racist” was offered command of the Union Army if the Union was going to war to free black slaves?

    Virginia did not secede until April 17, 1861, two days after Lincoln called up troops for the invasion of the South.

    Surely there must be some hook somewhere that the dishonest court historians can use on which to hang an explanation that the war was about slavery. It is not an easy task. Only a small minority of southerners owned slaves. Slaves were brought to the New World by Europeans as a labor force long prior to the existence of the US and the Southern states in order that the abundant land could be exploited. For the South slavery was an inherited institution that pre-dated the South. Diaries and letters of soldiers fighting for the Confederacy and those fighting for the Union provide no evidence that the soldiers were fighting for or against slavery. Princeton historian, Pulitzer Prize winner, Lincoln Prize winner, president of the American Historical Association, and member of the editorial board of Encyclopedia Britannica, James M. McPherson, in his book based on the correspondence of one thousand soldiers from both sides, What They Fought For, 1861-1865, reports that they fought for two different understandings of the Constitution.

    As for the Emancipation Proclamation, on the Union side, military officers were concerned that the Union troops would desert if the Emancipation Proclamation gave them the impression that they were being killed and maimed for the sake of blacks. That is why Lincoln stressed that the proclamation was a “war measure” to provoke an internal slave rebellion that would draw Southern troops off the front lines.

    If we look carefully we can find a phony hook in the South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession (December 20, 1860) as long as we ignore the reasoning of the document. Lincoln’s election caused South Carolina to secede. During his campaign for president Lincoln used rhetoric aimed at the abolitionist vote. (Abolitionists did want slavery abolished for moral reasons, though it is sometimes hard to see their morality through their hate, but they never controlled the government.)

    South Carolina saw in Lincoln’s election rhetoric intent to violate the US Constitution, which was a voluntary agreement, and which recognized each state as a free and independent state. After providing a history that supported South Carolina’s position, the document says that to remove all doubt about the sovereignty of states “an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”

    South Carolina saw slavery as the issue being used by the North to violate the sovereignty of states and to further centralize power in Washington. The secession document makes the case that the North, which controlled the US government, had broken the compact on which the Union rested and, therefore, had made the Union null and void. For example, South Carolina pointed to Article 4 of the US Constitution, which reads: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” Northern states had passed laws that nullified federal laws that upheld this article of the compact. Thus, the northern states had deliberately broken the compact on which the union was formed.

    The obvious implication was that every aspect of states’ rights protected by the 10th Amendment could now be violated. And as time passed they were, so South Carolina’s reading of the situation was correct.

    The secession document reads as a defense of the powers of states and not as a defense of slavery. Here is the document: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/south-carolina-declaration-of-causes-of-secession/

    Read it and see what you decide.

    A court historian, who is determined to focus attention away from the North’s destruction of the US Constitution and the war crimes that accompanied the Constitution’s destruction, will seize on South Carolina’s use of slavery as the example of the issue the North used to subvert the Constitution. The court historian’s reasoning is that as South Carolina makes a to-do about slavery, slavery must have been the cause of the war.

    As South Carolina was the first to secede, its secession document probably was the model for other states. If so, this is the avenue by which court historians, that is, those who replace real history with fake history, turn the war into a war over slavery.

    Once people become brainwashed, especially if it is by propaganda that serves power, they are more or less lost forever. It is extremely difficult to bring them to truth. Just look at the pain and suffering inflicted on historian David Irving for documenting the truth about the war crimes committed by the allies against the Germans. There is no doubt that he is correct, but the truth is unacceptable.

    The same is the case with the War of Northern Aggression. Lies masquerading as history have been institutionalized for 150 years. An institutionalized lie is highly resistant to truth.

    Education has so deteriorated in the US that many people can no longer tell the difference between an explanation and an excuse or justification. In the US denunciation of an orchestrated hate object is a safer path for a writer than explanation. Truth is the casualty.

    That truth is so rare everywhere in the Western World is why the West is doomed. The United States, for example, has an entire population that is completely ignorant of its own history.

    As George Orwell said, the best way to destroy a people is to destroy their history.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-29 03:55:00 UTC

  • The White Law: The White Pill

    The White Law: The White Pill.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-28 21:06:00 UTC

  • ( Hardware problems today. Both the 15 and 17 batteries went. Sigh…. )

    ( Hardware problems today. Both the 15 and 17 batteries went. Sigh…. )

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-28 15:23:00 UTC

  • By Eli Harman I was just reminded of an old argument of Bryan Caplan’s. One argu

    By Eli Harman

    I was just reminded of an old argument of Bryan Caplan’s.

    One argument he makes for open borders involves a hypothetical. Say one of us went to Haiti, on an aid mission or something. When they were done and ready to come back, we tell them “no, you can’t come back. You have to stay in Haiti.” That would be a dick thing to do to one of our own, argues Bryan Kaplan, and therefore it’s a dick thing to do to Haitians too.

    The difference, of course. Is that in the one case, we are inflicting the shittiness of Haiti on one of our own, by denying their request to return. While in the other case, we are PREVENTING Haitians (who are not our ingroup) from inflicting the shittiness of Haiti on ALL of our own, by denying their request to enter. So they are not in any way, shape, or form, equivalent cases.

    This is an example of casuistry (sometimes known as “pilpul”) improperly reasoning from a specific case to a general rule, in this case a bad rule that accomplishes parasitic and destructive ends desired by Bryan Caplan for malicious reasons (Bryan Caplan is by his own admission, scared of majorities and reflexively desires to undermine and attack them. He is a majorityphobe. But Bryan Caplan’s insecurities and ethnic fragility inpose no obligations on us to cater to them.) Casuistry (“Pilpul”) is the cornerstone of their arts of deception and their parasitic group evolutionary strategies.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-28 15:20:00 UTC

  • “WHAT ABOUT NEPOTISM IN THE MONARCHY?”– The evidence is that families guard the

    –“WHAT ABOUT NEPOTISM IN THE MONARCHY?”–

    The evidence is that families guard their status jealously and that fratricide and patricide are the most common origins of regicide.

    Secondly, a monarchy has only to defend the very longest term interest and its income from the overall performance of the polity.

    Monarchies have exceptional records for almost all of human history with the fragility not one of nepotism (since a monarchy has management teams selected from across the realm, many of whom are the best shareholders), but monarchies fail because agrarian production was the only means of competition and therefore territorial expansion the only means of competition. And territorial expansion only achievable by the high risk and high cost of european warfare and consequent ransom.

    The monarchies simply DID NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO when the landed and military aristocracy was replaced by the commercial aristocracy, and after the french revolution, the church aristocracy replaced by the state bureaucracy.

    We know what to do: Increase participation to shift, then decrease participation once shifted. Increase participation by expanding the franchise for each additional class, or decrease the franchise for each additional class once the change has been implemented. During that era guns were far more effective at forcing political change than archers. So the state could no longer use professional warriors to deny the franchise.

    The only solution is to retain the franchise for those who have demonstrated interests in the preservation of rule of law and the discretion of the monarchy, the republic, or the democracy in the determination of the production of commons.

    THere no longer a force on earth that can occupy territory against men with small arms (battle rifles) and rpg’s (close proximity man-portable artillery). It cannot be done. Ergo the transition is complete and we have restored the symmetry of power between men.

    WE need only choose to impose our will on those who would deprive us of rule of law, and the reciprocity that rule of law both depends upon and enforces.

    It is very hard to read Hoppe, Michels, and Burnham (or machiavelli for that matter) and not understand this.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-28 12:52:00 UTC

  • CLOSURE WITH ERIC ORWOLL AND IVANTHEHEATEN You don’t really understand the debat

    CLOSURE WITH ERIC ORWOLL AND IVANTHEHEATEN

    You don’t really understand the debate of the war period, postwar period, any more than our debate in the present do you? lol..

    I realize you are desperately trying to frame this discourse to suit your present knowledge but let’s point out a few things you’re doing besides that framing, the perpetuation of the error of the era (induction), reliance upon antique thought (set operations, idealisms), using conflation (‘meaning/justification’ vs ‘truth/testimony’) all of which are archaic (and false) methods of investigation of anything other than scripture.

    1) When the positivists used the term “meaningful”, (giving us an exceptional demonstration of a failure of grammar), they meant meaningful *for what purpose*? (Induction).

    2) What was the difference between Carnap and company’s position and Popper’s position? (Trying to solve the problem of induction vs Popper’s “Induction does not exist”.) (Not that Taleb isn’t beating this dead horse daily.)

    3) What was Popper’s alternative to induction? (Verisimilitude, or more correctly: “market competition”).

    4) What has the scientific field adopted as their method of exploration? (market competition).

    5) What does a Bayesian network accomplish (accounting of marginal measurements producing market competition between successes and failures – the same as our brains do)

    6) Why can’t a formal grammar of science be produced and why has the formal grammar of logic been a dead end except for training people to detect error? (because there is no closure, and because induction does not exist, and because the only unclosed vocabulary and grammar is operational language.)

    7) What does an hypothesis, theory, law consist of? (A rule of arbitrary precision used as a search algorithm for opportunities to apply recipes – sequences of operations. Forming a market competition between general rule of opportunity discovery and application-recipe) (this is all the mind is capable of so it is what we do).

    8) What is the principle innovation of the post darwinian era: the abandonment of ‘mathiness’ and justification and the universal application of market competition between positive language and demonstrated action. (we call this, dynamic stochastic equilibrium in economics, and various names not limited to fluid dynamics, and quantum mechanics in physics.)

    9) What do we do in court to determine who is at greater fault? (conduct a market competition between the offense and the defense by reduction of arguments to the sequence of incentives and operations).

    In a wonderful case of PAINFUL IRONY you are able to ‘get away’ with your error because you failed to define the term ‘meaning’ in a complete sentence in operational language. “I have a question: are untestable statements meaningful meaningful for the purpose of induction?”

    Well of course, no, because induction (guessing) only assists us in free association for the purpose of discovering opportunities which must later be subject to falsification (attempts to falsify), and through this continuous competition we discover more information (recipes for action, and opportunities for discovery), and with that information more competitions to run between language (search) and operation (action).

    So I continue the Poppertian program of “critical rationalism” (under which popper had no empirical evidence, or he would have discovered that decidability in scientific investigation is and can be, and is, determined by cost benefit) by expanding where he failed to ,from physical to social to cognitive sciences as “Critical Naturalism”. And I apply this critical naturalism to the field with the greatest scope of testing claims: law. Because law only comes into account under material disputes, and only admits that which is testifiable, and searches for incentives whether testifiable or not.

    The positivist debate was not merely ideal or technical but was an attempt to ether further (frankfurt) or constrain (vienna) marxism (theft), and the incentives tell us what the undecidability of their argument failed to: fraud. And this is the purpose of the law: Can we find criteria under which the untestifiable yet asserted to be testifiable is not a cover for a falsehood, fraud, theft or harm? ( Where ‘true’ = testimony(speech) that correspondent with reality(existence) or a possibly-shared experience of existence.) The positivist debate was a ‘victorian’ if not ‘priestly’ discourse in which the means motive and opportunity were unstated. Because we had no evidence of yet what would occur under marxism/socialism (or today’s postmodernism) to counter the rationalizations of the marxists (frankfurt school) who were, in all things, attempting to use the ancient tools of greek platonism/socratic skepticism, and jewish pilpul/critique, as had many previous generations of theologians and philosophers (textualists), to conduct a fraud, when there words were promissory (rational) not testifiable (scientific and warrantable).

    It is far harder to think in equilibrial terms in all walks of life, and all disciplines in thought, but this is the current model of all phenomenon from math (see Wolfram’s new math of complex operations), computer science (operational logic), sentience (cognition to defeat entropy), to discourse (language to defeat entropy) to economics(cooperation to defeat entropy), to biology (life defeating entropy), to chemistry (limited to entropy) to subatomic through macro physics(producing entropy). And this is why the discipline of philosophy is being unfunded and combined with theological departments, because other than the use of basic logic to train people to detect errors, the program of the 19th-20th by which philosophers sought to convert their discipline into a science, has been replaced by computer science and what used to be called ‘cognitive science’, in order to end the previous generation’s failure to adapt to computer science, and now failure to adapt to the study of the brain. The purpose of the study of philosophy is largely the study of middle class rebellion against the ruling class’s application of law or theology, and aside from the “scientists” aristotle, machiavelli, locke, smith, hume, darwin, maxwell, menger, pareto etc, they are little more than a catalog of human error and deceit, with The Rabbinical Jews, Plato/Socrates, Saul of Tarsus, Augustine, Mohammed, Kant, Marx, and now Derrida et all the most

    Metaphysics is nothing other than the study of cognitive processes. It is an ancient pseudoscience for the simple reason that Aristotle did the best he could, but knew too little and had no model, by which to discuss the operational construction of cognitive phenomenon from the stimulation of the nervous system, and the continuous recursive interaction between those stimuli and memory, producing a continuous stream of prediction, over which we have some modicum of control – and in particular, given our ability to use language, can calculate using language (names of categories) to perform comparisons that other life forms we are aware of are unable to do. However, in all our language, every bit of it, every name of every category of name (noun, verb, adjective, adverb…) consists of nothing more than an n-dimensional network of constant and contingent and inconstant relations between our senses, in a fascinating and beautiful complexity the scale of which is only matched by the stars themselves.

    The most parsimonious terms we have to describe these networks are Models (descriptive operational simulations), Networks of largely Compatible Paradigms (current information products), Competing incompatible Paradigms (new market entries), Theories and Hypotheses (new market features), Norms, Presumptions, and intuitions (established markets), and a field of ‘Grammars’ of deflationary to descriptive to inflationary to fictionalisms – and there is every bit of evidence to suggest that we can produce one most parsimonious paradigm in the grammar of constant relations we call operations, and their constant relations to existential reality.

    So when you say “an alternative metaphysics” this means an alternative physical cognitive ability. When you say “an alternative ontology” the question is one of competitive parsimony, correspondence, consequence, and incentive.

    No more sophisms. Science is the universal language of truth, even if there are a host of allegorical grammars for the communication of meaning. The question is what is the difference in meaning (information, consequence, and incentive) between the more testifiable, and every other alternative.

    And for any alternative, what is one’s incentive to produce that alternative? Is it the cost of reformation of one’s networks? Or is it the benefits one obtains through the use of those networks to create fraud?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-28 12:41:00 UTC

  • FIXING INSTITUTIONALIZED LONELINESS by Michael Churchill You can look at lonelin

    FIXING INSTITUTIONALIZED LONELINESS

    by Michael Churchill

    You can look at loneliness in America and say it was bound to get to this point: Capitalism + mobile workforce + jobs in cities (so smart people all move away from home) + natural resistance to in-grouping by Northwestern Europeans + persecution of the productive minority (Northwestern Europeans) + the four economic changes that sparked feminism (birth control, mobility, ability of women to support themselves, technological change that liberated women from the household drudgery).

    It almost HAD to come to this point in America.

    Now we get to fix it.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-28 12:09:00 UTC

  • BUT WHAT ABOUT NEPOTISM???? —“If you have the time can anyone explain to me ho

    BUT WHAT ABOUT NEPOTISM????

    —“If you have the time can anyone explain to me how you deal/curtail with nepotism in your hierarchy ? A link to read perhaps? Worthy men aren’t always from the same family e.g. the son is not always the father by far. I’m curious.”–David England

    What ended nepotism in european peoples?

    In what industries did nepotism persist until today?

    Why did those instances of nepotism persist and why did the other instances not persist?

    What could be done to end the kind of nepotism that survives?

    What kind of nepotism can (should) continue to survive? (why is nepotism always a bad thing, or why is it indicative of a bad thing since it is hard to make the case that nepotism is a universal bad?)

    The answer will be obvious once you work thru it.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-28 12:04:00 UTC

  • THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF IMMIGRATION Another topic via Nick Dahlheim: Just as soci

    THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF IMMIGRATION

    Another topic via Nick Dahlheim:

    Just as social safety (redistribution) is incompatible with immigration, Abortion is incompatible with immigration.

    I’m fine with social safety and abortion as long as it’s not suicide by immigration.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-28 12:00:00 UTC