Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • NLI: NEOLOGISM WARNING. 😉 –“We call these agents Narrativores—those who feed o

    NLI: NEOLOGISM WARNING. 😉
    –“We call these agents Narrativores—those who feed on narrative, manufacture pseudo-moral frameworks, and monetize epistemic hazard.”– Natural Law Volume 1 – The Crisis of the Age, Chapter 22.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-08 14:40:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1931722978070581558

  • Science has proven the opposite. Don’t lie. Even if you like out of ignorance an

    Science has proven the opposite. Don’t lie. Even if you like out of ignorance and incompetence. Rule of thumb is that the average 14 year old boy can defeat mature professional female athletes.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-03 18:07:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1929963048783229105

  • Answering The Other Taboo: The Jews and Germany I work in falsification. This me

    Answering The Other Taboo: The Jews and Germany

    I work in falsification. This means I study falsehood, ignorance, error, bias, and the full spectrum of deceits and frauds. Among the deceits and frauds are very often taboo subjects – the study of which provides us more insight into human nature than any study of ‘the goods’ humans are so proud of.

    Of course this doesn’t exactly make you friends – well other than the marginalized discontents.

    So, I’m navigating one of the most dangerous but necessary topics in the study of group evolutionary strategies, civilizational failure, and the pursuit of full-accounting truth. If we treat this analytically, operationally, and without appeal to moral sentimentality or selective historical amnesia, then we can state the structure of the problem clearly and derive decidable insights.

    So, we’ll treat this not as a question of moral justification (which is subjective) but of civilizational strategy, group evolutionary adaptation, and failure of reciprocal constraint—with emphasis on commons production, institutional strategy, and intergroup conflict.

    I will proceed by:
    1. Framing the Comparison as a Question of Group Evolutionary Strategy (GES).
    2. Stating the Operational Differences in Institutional Output and Externalities.
    3. Evaluating the Recurrence of Conflict Across Time and Place.
    4. Explaining Expulsion as an Institutional Response to Persistent Asymmetry.
    5. Explaining Why Moralization and Suppression Prevent Resolution.
    6. Concluding with the necessary resolution under Natural Law.
    All groups evolve strategies for survival under constraints of:
    • Climate (selection pressure)
    • Environment (resource density)
    • Demographic Composition (neoteny)
    • Population size (internal competition)
    • External pressure (neighboring groups)
    • Relationship between ruling and working classes (trust vs predation)
    • Time preference (extraction vs investment)
    • Path Dependency of Institutions (religion, state, or law first)
    • State of Development (institutions and trust)
    From this perspective:
    • Germans (especially Prussians) evolved a high investment, high-trust, low-time-preference strategy based on:
      – Martial discipline
      – Bureaucratic excellence
      – Cultural and institutional commons
      – Sovereign nationalism with universal military and civic participation
    • Jews, by contrast, evolved under diasporic constraint, resulting in a high-verbal, high-mobility, high-time-preference strategy focused on:
      – Arbitrage across host population asymmetries
      – Niche optimization in finance, law, media, and metaphysics
      – In-group solidarity over out-group integration
      – Absence of territory and external commons production
    Let’s define the two models in operational terms:
    These are not moral judgments—they are descriptions of civilizational strategies under different ecological constraints.
    The strategy is not moral. It’s adaptive. Each evolved under entirely different existential pressures. The conflict emerges only under proximity and competition for influence, particularly in information-era societies where verbal and financial capital outweigh material production.
    The Germans optimized for sovereign commonwealths with bounded territory and high interdependence. The Jews optimized for unbounded mobility, adaptive parasitic/niche roles, and use of host legal and economic asymmetries.
    The German (especially Prussian) model represented the apex of Western civic-industrial civilization, achieving a civilizational equilibrium that surpassed its contemporaries in nearly every commons-producing dimension:
    I. Strengths of the German Model
    • Maximum investment in public goods: education, law, infrastructure, and military readiness—especially under the Prussian model.
    • Institutionalization of meritocracy: military-civil integration, universal education, technical excellence, and a service-oriented elite.
    • High-trust, high-effort, high-duty culture: born from geographic encirclement and a historic demand to outperform continental competitors in every domain.
    • Academic and scientific supremacy: having captured the intellectual initiative from Britain in the late 19th century across physics, chemistry, engineering, and medicine.
    • Technological and industrial dynamism: built upon precise organization of labor, skilled technical instruction, and efficient state-private coordination.
    • Ethno-national reciprocal norms: a model of self-determination that emphasized sovereignty, loyalty, and duties to the commons.
    • Rationalist continuity: the only civilization attempting to construct a fully rational and institutional alternative to Christian universalism—first via Protestantism, then Idealism, and eventually civil service law.
    Despite this achievement, Germany’s entry into modernity occurred late in the colonial game, after Britain had secured global naval dominance, and France had colonized much of Africa. Germany was thus:
    • Resource-poor, relying on continental competition rather than oceanic extraction.
    • Surrounded, facing adversaries on all borders: France, Britain, Russia, and eventually the USA.
    • Threatened by ideology: caught between British liberalism (market imperialism), French socialism (moral imperialism), Jewish-Russian communism (revolutionary imperialism), and an internally unstable post-Christian elite.
    II. Structural Vulnerabilities and Strategic Constraints
    • Incomplete Eastern Settlement: Germany remained vulnerable on its eastern frontier due to centuries of Teutonic expansion being halted under Polish and Russian resistance.
    • Lack of colonies: Naval inferiority prevented German access to overseas resources, forcing them to extract more value from continental holdings and internal productivity.
    • Late Unification: The 1871 unification under Prussia was brilliant but fragile, leaving it culturally divided between Protestant North and Catholic South, and diplomatically isolated.
    III. Ideological Pressure and Encirclement
    • After WWI, Germany was blamed disproportionately, disarmed, humiliated, and starved under the Versailles regime.
    • The “Stab-in-the-back” myth, though exaggerated, captured the sense of betrayal from:
      – Leftist uprisings (Rosa Luxemburg, Spartacist movement),
      – Jewish-led revolutionary and Bolshevik movements,
      – British intelligence and financial sanctions,
      – American liberal idealism exported as moral absolutism.
    • Germany correctly perceived a triple-ideological encirclement:
      –       Liberal Capitalism (Anglo-American),
      –       Jewish Marxist Internationalism (Soviet and subversive),
      –       French Republican Secularism (egalitarian and anti-national).
    • Italy’s fascism offered the only reciprocally ethno-national model of modern statehood with commons investment and military-civil integration.
    IV. Why It Was Destroyed, Not Failed
    Germany did not fail—it was destroyed. Its system:
    • Was militarily defeated, not internally collapsed.
    • Was morally delegitimized by propaganda campaigns that exploited the atrocities of Nazism to indict all German culture.
    • Was systematically dismantled after WWII by Allied policy (deindustrialization, denazification, cultural pacification).
    • Was prevented from revival by postwar institutions: Americanization, consumerism, demilitarization, and enforced guilt narrative.
    V. Consequences of the Destruction
    • The loss of Germany was the loss of the last serious Western experiment in:
      – High-duty citizenship,
      – Ethnic reciprocity,
      – Civilizational self-determination,
      – Rational governance grounded in responsibility and merit.
    • What replaced it was:
      –       Anglo managerialism (rule-by-procedure),
      –       French moral universalism (rule-by-feelings),
      –       Jewish media-intellectual hegemony (rule-by-narrative),
      – All under the umbrella of       American consumerism (rule-by-pleasure).
    The most reciprocal polity in modern history was not defeated for failing—but for succeeding too well at offering a viable alternative to liberalism, socialism, and global finance. That could not be tolerated.
    The term baiting into hazard refers to the technique of inducing overreaction by provoking host populations (through perceived or real parasitism, manipulation, or subversion), then leveraging the backlash to extract moral, legal, or institutional concessions.
    This strategy works because:
    • The spurious accusations of women under pretense of innocence.
    • The entire spectrum of loans, irreciprocal risk, moral hazards on credit, irreciprocal financial speculation, irrreciprocal risk advertising and marketing, irreciprocal risk values, norms, traditions, institutions, and in particular the intellectual promotion of false promise (baiting) into violations of the laws of nature (scarcity, self interest in demonstrated interests, natural selection and genetic load)
    • The left’s violence under pretense of oppression.
    • The entirety of the left’s claims of oppression as a means of hiding behind systemization of theft from others.
    • Where host populations with high trust and conscience are vulnerable to moral accusations.
    • And Jewish groups, having high verbal intelligence and narrative mastery, are effective at reframing counteraction as persecution.
    Over 100 expulsions across millennia reflect a recurring failure of host populations to detect, measure, and constrain asymmetric behaviors before tensions escalated to violence or systemic breakdown.
    I. The Evolution of Verbal Intelligence through Feminine Cognition
    • The Ashkenazi Jewish population underwent intensive selection pressure during the medieval period: specifically on verbal, social, and memory faculties required for rabbinical reasoning, legal disputation, and interpersonal negotiation under diasporic conditions.
    • The community evolved under female choice in high-verbal male reproduction subsidized by rabbinical privilege, with upward reproductive skew via arranged marriage.
    • This created a narrow, high-IQ verbal elite under extreme bottlenecking, leading to:
      – High       verbal over spatial IQ divergence.
      –       High system manipulation / low system construction cognitive asymmetry.
      – Emphasis on       narrative, justification, and moral inversion as survival tools.
    This pattern is analogous to feminine cognition—which specializes in social, interpersonal, and linguistic problem-solving, status manipulation, and coalitional politics—rather than male cognitive strategies of physical, mechanical, and territorial construction and defense.
    • Jews produced no canon of natural science, no technological revolution, no architectural or artistic tradition, and no institutional innovations for the commons before emancipation and integration into Western society (post-17th century).
    • Jewish achievement prior to 1500 was almost entirely legal-religious, internal to the community, and reliant on host institutions for survival.
    • There is a conspicuous historical amnesia or obfuscation about this premodern period—a moral firewall that avoids introspection about Jewish roles in medieval hazard creation (debt, vice, ideological dissent).
    • Only post-integration, once given access to Western institutions, did Jewish individuals begin to dominate in:
      – Behavioral sciences
      – Mass media
      – Finance
      – Jurisprudence
      – Political narrative warfare
    However, the civilizational tools they used were European inventions—legal rationalism, scientific method, university systems, printing press, Protestant textual culture. Jews entered as hyper-competent verbal operators into systems built by constructive European civilizations.
    • Once within the academy, Jewish intellectuals began producing narrative-coherent but testifiably false frameworks in the behavioral, economic, and social sciences, tailored to suit Jewish group interests.
    • These frameworks:
      –       Pathologized ethnocentrism—except when Jewish.
      –       Universalized minority insecurity as normative ethics.
      –       Deconstructed family, tradition, duty, and excellence as oppressive.
      –       Promoted individualism, hedonism, consumerism, and egalitarianism.
    • The list of ideologies is clear:
      –       Marxism (economic envy as moral weapon)
      –       Freudianism (psychosexual dysfunction as universal)
      –       Boasian anthropology (cultural relativism as anti-race realism)
      –       Frankfurt School (critical theory as civilizational deconstruction)
      –       Second-wave feminism (gender inversion and sex warfare)
      –       Postmodernism (truth as oppressive narrative)
      –       Neoconservatism (instrumental moral universalism for ethnic gain)
      –       Wokeism (permanent moral revolution as status acquisition strategy)
    Each of these served to invert or undermine Western evolutionary adaptations: heroism, honor, duty, truth, hierarchy, beauty, and intergenerational continuity.
    • Jewish survival depends on minority strategy universalism: projecting minority insecurity as a global moral standard, and prosecuting majority resistance as immorality.
    • This strategy is effective because:
      – It       weaponizes guilt in high-trust Christian cultures.
      – It       outcompetes majority elites in verbal arenas.
      – It       defrays responsibility by hiding under victimhood status.
    • The net effect is:
      –       Minoritarianism as state religion
      – Deconstruction of majority interests as liberation
      – Ethnic capture of the institutions of moral production       (media, academy, judiciary)
    • The problem is not Jewish intelligence—it is unconstrained group strategy in host institutions with insufficient tests of reciprocity.
    • The solution is not scapegoating, but:
      Truthful accounting of history,
      Restoration of institutional reciprocity, and
      Reimposition of responsibility and liability for all speech and institutional action—including verbal-intellectual contributions.
    • Jewish group strategy cannot function in a civilization with high epistemic, moral, and legal constraint on hazard manufacture and parasitism.
    Again, operationally:
    • Diasporic Jewry’s evolutionary strategy centered around hyper-adaptive intermediation: trade, law, finance, and narrative.
    • This strategy thrives in open societies but does not invest in the commons—instead it arbitrages host institutions.
    • High in-group preference and legal-moral exceptionalism create a perception of parasitism in host societies.
    • Combined with rhetorical and legal skill, this can lead to the baiting of elites and populaces into moral, economic, or legal hazard—especially when outgroup constraints (truth, reciprocity, proportionality) are not enforced.
    • The result: recurring patterns of resentment, scapegoating, expulsion, and sometimes pogrom.
    To be clear: this is not justification for persecution—it’s an evolutionary-political pattern resulting from misaligned group strategies and insufficient institutional constraints on parasitism, deception, or betrayal of host trust, real or perceived.
    Across 100+ societies, the same dynamic:
    1. Inclusion of Jewish populations for their economic or intellectual utility.
    2. Success and specialization in high-trust or elite domains (law, finance, media).
    3. Perceived corruption or disloyalty, especially during crisis or class conflict.
    4. Populist backlash, elite betrayal, or state coercion.
    5. Expulsion, pogrom, or flight.
    This is not unique to Jews—similar dynamics can be found in mercantile castes, client minorities, and middlemen minorities (e.g., Chinese in Southeast Asia, Lebanese in Africa, Indians in East Africa, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire). The common failure condition is asymmetry of contribution to vs. extraction from the commons.
    Expulsion is not arbitrary. It’s an institutional immune reaction:
    • It occurs after long exposure to perceived asymmetric extraction or subversion.
    • It often follows financial crises, class conflict, or religious agitation—where Jewish roles are over-represented in elite or rentier positions.
    • It is logistically costly, but repeatedly chosen over attempted integration or regulation.
    This implies a universal pattern, not an anomaly:
    • Jewish evolutionary strategy is mutually unreciprocated with agrarian, nationalist, or commons-producing host populations.
    • Once asymmetries reach awareness, the demand for restitution exceeds the perceived value of continued coexistence.
    • Post-Holocaust moral inversion forbids any discussion of Jewish group strategy that isn’t framed as victimhood.
    • Institutional capture by Jewish elites in media, law, and academia has produced an epistemic closure on group-level criticism.
    • The false universalism of postwar ethics prohibits distinctions between groups, even if empirically testifiable, for fear that it justifies exclusion or inequality.
    This leads to:
    • Prohibition on truth (about differences in cognitive, behavioral, or strategic group traits),
    • Suppression of full accounting, and
    • Moralized asymmetry, where one group (Jews) is permanently immune from criticism, while others are perpetually guilty.
    There is no moral resolution—only a strategic one.
    1. All groups have the right to their own commons, optimized for their trust strategies, time preferences, and interdependence.
    2. Group strategies that produce negative externalities across host societies must be regulated or separated—not moralized.
    3. Reciprocity in testimony, trade, and institutions must be enforced regardless of group, class, or religious distinction.
    4. Full accounting must be restored—even for the Jewish Question—without exception, and without privileging moral status over operational consequences.
    • Germans built a high-constraint, high-investment, high-trust civilization that collapsed under external and internal ideological pressure—but left behind the last serious attempt at a commons-maximizing European polity.
    • Jews, by ecological necessity, built a hyper-adaptive strategy of mobile, minority, high-verbal, high-IQ, intermediation-based survival—but that avoids long-term commons investment and tends toward asymmetrical power via host institutions.
    • The conflict between these strategies is inevitable unless institutional constraints enforce reciprocity, transparency, and prohibition on moral exceptionalism—for all groups.
    Thus, reconciliation is possible only by:
    1. Acknowledging civilizational strategies without moralizing.
    2. Constructing institutions that prevent parasitism by any group.
    3. Allowing separation where interdependence fails, while preserving cooperation in markets.
    Final Statement:

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-01 20:28:17 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1929273821732983058

  • Humans develop narratives to justify the siezure or evasion of incentives. The s

    Humans develop narratives to justify the siezure or evasion of incentives. The study of history in the absence of those incentives is a story of human creative will – while in the presence of those incentives, a story of adaptive utility.

    In the study of history it is too oft overlooked that some civilizations consistently choose narratives poorly and some choose better. Because the narratives are capable of persisting error. And foundational narratives most capable of persisting error.

    Hence the near impossibility of chanigng a civilization the farter from the natural law it has evolved through the accumulation of narratives in support of poor choices.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-27 17:17:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1927413940016832795

  • You know, I usually admonish the Russians for their fascination with pseudoscien

    You know, I usually admonish the Russians for their fascination with pseudoscience – but as painful as it is to admit, Americans aren’t far behind. What a bunch of nerdy nitwittery from the midwittery.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-24 02:38:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1926105529010586091

  • Liberal Democracy is non existent -We Have Classical Liberal Democracies or Soci

    Liberal Democracy is non existent -We Have Classical Liberal Democracies or Social Democracies. 😉

    Interesting. You know, I find this whole ‘Liberal Democracy’ term deceptive. Let’s help everyone with a bit of clarity. What precisely does ‘liberal democracy mean’ in operational terms?
    Liberal democracy, in operational terms, is a system of government that combines democratic processes with liberal principles to ensure both popular rule and individual protections. It functions through:
    • Free and Fair Elections: Regular, competitive elections where citizens vote for representatives or policies, with universal suffrage and minimal barriers. Outcomes are determined by majority or plurality rule, with protections against fraud or manipulation.
    • Rule of Law: Laws apply equally to all, enforced by an independent judiciary. No one, including government officials, is above the law. Legal frameworks protect rights and prevent arbitrary state action.
    • Protection of Individual Rights: Constitutional guarantees for freedoms like speech, press, assembly, religion, and property. These rights are enforceable, often through courts, and limit government overreach.
    • Separation of Powers: Distinct branches (executive, legislative, judicial) with checks and balances to prevent any one branch from dominating. This ensures accountability and deliberation.
    • Pluralism and Open Society: Diverse political parties, civil society groups, and media operate freely, fostering debate and preventing monopolies on power or information.
    • Limited Government: The state’s authority is constrained by law and rights, focusing on public goods (security, infrastructure) while respecting personal autonomy.
    In practice, liberal democracy requires institutions—like electoral commissions, courts, and free press—to function independently. It demands active citizen participation and mechanisms to correct imbalances, like judicial review or impeachment. Variations exist (e.g., parliamentary vs. presidential systems), but the core is balancing majority rule with minority rights and individual liberties. No perfect example exists; systems like the U.S., Germany, or Canada approximate it with flaws.
    I think that’s classical liberalism you’re describing. When people use the term liberal democracy I think they mean social democracy with classical liberal institutions: big government as insurer of last resort, but preservation of some of the independence of the economy left to the private sector.
    You’re right to point out the distinction, as “liberal democracy” in modern usage often gets conflated with social democracy or systems blending classical liberal institutions with expansive government roles. Let’s clarify in operational terms, addressing your specific framing:
    Classical Liberalism vs. Modern “Liberal Democracy”:
    • Classical Liberalism, as reflected in my prior answer, emphasizes limited government, individual liberties (speech, property, etc.), rule of law, and free markets, with institutions designed to maximize personal freedom and restrain state power. Think Locke or Mill.
    • Modern “Liberal Democracy”, as you’re describing, often implies a hybrid: classical liberal institutions (elections, independent judiciary, rights protections) combined with social democratic elements—a larger state acting as an insurer of last resort, providing safety nets (healthcare, welfare, education) while preserving private sector autonomy to varying degrees.
    Operational Definition of “Liberal Democracy” (Modern Sense)
    In this context, liberal democracy operates through:
    1. Democratic Institutions with Classical Roots:
    • Free, fair, and regular elections to select representatives, ensuring popular sovereignty.
    • Independent judiciary to uphold constitutional rights (e.g., free speech, privacy) and check government power.
    • Separation of powers to prevent authoritarianism, with legislative and executive branches accountable to voters and courts.
    2. Big Government as Insurer of Last Resort:
    • Extensive welfare state programs, like universal healthcare (e.g., NHS in the UK, Medicare in Canada), unemployment benefits, or public pensions, to mitigate inequality and provide security.
    • Progressive taxation to fund social programs, redistributing wealth while maintaining private property rights.
    • Regulatory frameworks to correct market failures (e.g., environmental protections, labor laws) without fully nationalizing industries.
    3. Preservation of Private Sector Independence:
    • Market-driven economy with private ownership of businesses and capital, distinct from socialism’s state control.
    • Government intervention limited to regulation, subsidies, or bailouts (e.g., 2008 financial crisis) rather than direct management of industries.
    • Encouragement of competition and innovation through policies like antitrust laws or R&D tax credits.
    4. Balancing Individual Rights and Collective Welfare:
    • Classical liberal rights (e.g., free press, assembly) remain, but interpreted to include positive rights (e.g., right to healthcare or education).
    • Civil society and pluralistic media persist, though debates arise over state influence (e.g., public broadcasting).
    5. Mechanisms for Stability and Adaptation:
    • Bureaucratic agencies (e.g., social security administrations, health ministries) manage large-scale programs efficiently.
    • Political processes allow debate over the state’s role, with parties ranging from market-friendly to social democratic competing within the system.
    • Constitutional flexibility to expand government’s role (e.g., via amendments or judicial reinterpretation) while preserving core liberties.
    Examples in Practice
    • Nordic Countries (e.g., Sweden, Denmark): Often labeled social democracies, they combine liberal democratic institutions (free elections, independent courts) with robust welfare states (universal healthcare, education) and market economies. Private sector thrives (e.g., Volvo, Novo Nordisk), but high taxes fund social safety nets.
    • Canada: Parliamentary democracy with classical liberal roots (Charter of Rights and Freedoms), but universal healthcare and social programs reflect the “insurer of last resort” role. Private sector dominates outside regulated areas like energy or telecom.
    • U.S. (to a lesser extent): Classical liberal core (Bill of Rights, checks and balances), but programs like Social Security, Medicare, or Obamacare nod to social democratic principles. Private sector independence is stronger than in Europe, with less redistribution.
    Key Tensions
    This hybrid model isn’t seamless:
    • Scope of Government: Debates over how “big” the state should be (e.g., U.S. fights over healthcare mandates) strain the balance between liberty and welfare.
    • Economic Freedom vs. Equality: High taxes and regulation can clash with classical liberal emphasis on free markets, as seen in critiques from libertarian groups.
    • Rights Conflicts: Expanding positive rights (e.g., healthcare access) can infringe on negative rights (e.g., property via taxation), sparking legal and political battles.
    Why the Confusion?
    The term “liberal democracy” gets muddled because it’s stretched to cover both classical liberalism’s minimal state and social democracy’s interventionist one. In popular discourse, especially in the U.S., “liberal” often just means left-leaning policies, further blurring lines. Your framing nails the modern usage: a system that keeps classical liberal guardrails (elections, rights, markets) but leans on government to cushion capitalism’s edges.
    If you want to zoom in on a specific country, policy, or tension (e.g., how healthcare fits this model), or if you’d like me to analyze a source or X post to ground this further, just say so.
    No. I just wanted to clarify this usage where we use classical liberalism on one hand and social democracy on the other, and liberal democracy is some half-truth we use to include both without insulting either.
    Exactly, you’ve hit the nail on the head. “Liberal democracy” in modern usage is often a catch-all term, a convenient half-truth that papers over the tension between classical liberalism’s focus on individual liberty and limited government and social democracy’s push for a bigger state to ensure equity and welfare. It’s a rhetorical bridge, letting people nod to the institutions of classical liberalism (free elections, rights, independent courts, market economies) while embracing social democratic policies (welfare, healthcare, redistribution) without fully committing to either’s purer form. This vagueness avoids alienating those who lean toward libertarian instincts or those who want robust safety nets, but it muddies the waters by implying a seamless blend when, in practice, the two can clash—say, when high taxes for social programs butt up against property rights or personal autonomy.
    Operationally, it’s a system that tries to have it both ways: (A False Equivalency) classical liberal structures to keep power in check and markets humming, plus social democratic interventions to soften capitalism’s rough edges. The term’s flexibility is its strength and its flaw—it’s inclusive but imprecise, letting everyone project their preferred balance onto it. If you want to dig deeper into how this plays out in a specific context or debate, just point me there.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-14 17:27:41 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1922705388937543691

  • The OP’s author is posting a bit of a polemic about “The problem of manufacturin

    The OP’s author is posting a bit of a polemic about “The problem of manufacturing consent”. Or under tyranny, the problem of manufacturing obedience. Unfortunately like many he is missing the point: politics is necessary for the formation of the spectrum of obedience to consent. And he’s presuming it isn’t possible to constrain politicians to truthful reciprocal and moral limits when addressing the polity (market) when in public, to the public, in matters public.
    This is a common conservative failing: if the conservative does not understand what to do, claim the problem is unsolvable. Or, worse, which is almost universal among conservatives, and is responsible for conservative political factions: “whatever I understand (a hammer) is what I will propose as the solution (a nail)”. This is why (a) conservatives cannot ally as easily as consumptives (progressives) and (b) why conservative initiatives almost always fail and (c) why previous solutions came out of libertarians and classical liberals and NOT conservatives.
    One must sell. Politics is the art of sales of consent or obedience necessary for organizing populations in the production of commons. And the only value of societies and polities is this concentration of human attention, effort, and resources to produce commons which provide discounts on everything to all despite whatever price is required.
    Politics is merely a market at large scale trying to sell the public a portfolio of possible costs and returns.
    The fact that the public vastly varies in capacity to comprehend requires pragmatisms. And worse, means that the message must appeal to the median of the distribution of the ability of the polity. Ergo the greek and roman aristocracy’s legendary political speeches, those of the founding fathers (the only equivalent), followed by postwar mass media and mass democracy and the total loss of aristocratic responsibility by their replacement with middle and proletarian class politicians, and the utter failure of credentialism in the bureaucracy.
    The solution of course is to constrain political speech to the truthful (testifiable) reciprocal (ethical and moral) fully accounting for costs and externalities, and prohibiting pseudoscientific claims about humanity – this would effectively end our problems and also end the cultural divide as the left is dependent upon lying and pseudoscience as much as the right is dependent upon moralizing.
    So, we have a market for the suppression of lying called the courts, and we merely need to facilitate the suppression of this lying and fraud and pseudoscience such that political speech is prohibited from it’s industrialization of lying over the past few centuries.
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-14 17:02:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922699000979112386

  • @CommunityNotes The Community note is mistaken as it argues against a straw man.

    @CommunityNotes

    The Community note is mistaken as it argues against a straw man. The author “George” used an incomplete sentence “…Americans bear the costs” should read “… Americans bear the cost of world defense, finance, transport, and trade.”
    Fully stated, Americans pay the cost of Pax Americana, european defense, insurance of borders, insurance of human rights, Insurance of free trade, freedom of the seas, minimization of oil prices to protect european economies, world patterns of finance, production, transport and trade, created the postwar institutional model of the IMF and the World Bank as well as the United Nations. At the expense of the american working and middle classes.
    The USA did this when in the postwar period it could have continued to conquer china and russia, and set up a taxation system to pay for this policing of the world under the pax americana.
    Americans were so successful at their mission to end communism and it’s replacement with islamism, that they have raised the world to near parity, and as such no longer hold postwar competitive economic advantage and can no longer afford to pay for policing the entire world system of sovereignty transport and peaceful trade.
    So everyone has to ‘step up’ and pay their way, so that americans can have such things as taxpayer subsidized healthcare (“Medicare for All”) instead of state run healthcare (“waiting times”). And that the few remaining wanna-be-empires (iran, russia, china) and their predation on their people can be contained producing a world of peaceful nation states insulated from fear of conquest and exploitation.
    Frankly americans are rather ‘fed up’ with european claims of moral high ground when americans have burned their working and middle classes to create the luxury of european peace and prosperity.
    Cheers
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-14 16:38:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922692896001753243

  • @CommunityNotes The Community note is mistaken as it argues against a straw man.

    @CommunityNotes
    The Community note is mistaken as it argues against a straw man. The author “George” used an incomplete sentence “…Americans bear the costs” should read “… Americans bear the cost of world defense, finance, transport, and trade.”
    Fully stated, Americans pay the cost of Pax Americana, european defense, insurance of borders, insurance of human rights, Insurance of free trade, freedom of the seas, minimization of oil prices to protect european economies, world patterns of finance, production, transport and trade, created the postwar institutional model of the IMF and the World Bank as well as the United Nations. At the expense of the american working and middle classes.
    The USA did this when in the postwar period it could have continued to conquer china and russia, and set up a taxation system to pay for this policing of the world under the pax americana.
    Americans were so successful at their mission to end communism and it’s replacement with islamism, that they have raised the world to near parity, and as such no longer hold postwar competitive economic advantage and can no longer afford to pay for policing the entire world system of sovereignty transport and peaceful trade.
    So everyone has to ‘step up’ and pay their way, so that americans can have such things as taxpayer subsidized healthcare (“Medicare for All”) instead of state run healthcare (“waiting times”). And that the few remaining wanna-be-empires (iran, russia, china) and their predation on their people can be contained producing a world of peaceful nation states insulated from fear of conquest and exploitation.
    Frankly americans are rather ‘fed up’ with european claims of moral high ground when americans have burned their working and middle classes to create the luxury of european peace and prosperity.
    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @BehizyTweets @TomReevesMBA @CommunityNotes

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-14 16:38:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922692895787843584

  • James Lindsay is one of those upper proletarians who finds self image and status

    James Lindsay is one of those upper proletarians who finds self image and status in the pretense of morality and insight, when instead he’s just another attention seeking practitioner of feminine marxist critique, and the female means of adversarial undermining (“GSRRM”), simply applied to the more radical wing of his left biased demographic of pseudo intellectuals.
    As a critical book reviewer explaining the radical’s thoughts, he’s shown capability and we must give credit where credit is due. But ss someone with personal knowledge wisdom and character sufficient to compose arguments, recommendations, and solutions – rather than feminine Gossiping Shaming Ridicule, Rallying and Moralizing in lieu of rational debate, he’s an utter failure by every measure. The left and women’s mass institutionalization of GSRRM has so normalized the technique we no longer view it as the fraud that it is.
    The Woke-Right nonsense he’s propagating is merely another feminine abrahamic marxist-sequence technique of “distraction-by-rolling-accusation” to evade the great difference between the rebellion of left and right. The left and right like the female status seeking and male status seeking consist of the left search for unearned consumption, irresponsibility and unaccountability and the right search for earned capitalization, responsibility and accountability that they cannot achieve in the current social, economic, and political order.
    These problems are solvable through (a) reciprocity – exchanges, (a) truthful speech, (b) transparent argument and debate (c) rational policy modifications.
    The feminine always fears being left behind or missing out. The masculine fears being unable to demonstrate competency and value, and inability to form or participate in a tribe capable of securing mates.
    It’s not complicated.
    James is just another ‘Fictionalist” using the feminine abrahamic marxist sequence of verbal mythicism which we call one of the four fictionalisms:
    1) Imaginary: occult to mythology to theology to secular theology.
    2) Verbal: sophistry to idealism to ideology
    3) Physical: magic to alchemy to pseudoscience
    4) Operational: divination to fortune telling to innumeracy.
    and Critique:
    5)
    A fictionalist at best is guilty of the pretense of knowledge, on the average guilty of deception, and when it involves the manipulation of the organis of the state, it’s just another category of fraud.Snake oil for the Nitwittery advanced by the Midwittery.

    So yes, our good friend Josh Lisec is correct – in spades.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute.

    Reply addressees: @JoshuaLisec

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-13 19:06:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922367984921935874

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922093708624724342

    IN REPLY TO:

    @JoshuaLisec

    Christians, you’ve got to stop platforming James Lindsay.

    He’s only here to divide and conquer. https://t.co/gsaxdqUktN

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922093708624724342