Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • THE EPIPHANY AND THE BLOODSHED WE WILL LOOSE Once you experience the epiphany th

    THE EPIPHANY AND THE BLOODSHED WE WILL LOOSE

    Once you experience the epiphany that we live in an age of largely pseudoscientific discourse, changing only the terms from supernatural, to moral, to rational, and now to pseudoscientific, your understanding of the world will change so dramatically that you may (as I have) experience profound anger at those who invented and perpetuated the new pseudoscientific religion we are all the victims of – we are the wage and credit slaves of pseudoscience rather than religion.

    We replaced the rule of law reducible to experience that we can all judge, and the payment of taxes we can all observe with rule of finance and credit which is not – and is nothing but a vehicle for fraud.

    In other words -and get ready for this to shock you – we replaced the mysticism of religion with the promise of afterlife in exchange for hard labor on behalf of others in the now, for the promise of retirement and the abandonment of want in our later lives in exchange for hard labor on behalf of others in the now.

    We transitioned from the treatment of money and credit as beneath those who rule, and limited by rule of law, and moral hazard, and outsourcing it to ‘lower people of lesser character’, to abandoning rule of law that we can sense, perceive, and taxes we can sense and percieve, to the expropriation of everything we produce by those who use our inability to sense and percieve to defraud us.

    There is no secret to fiat money – it is merely shares in the corporation of the commons we call ‘the state’. There is no reason to require third parties to distribute shares – and there never was. And with the advent of fiat money (paper shares), credit money (promises of future paper shares), and digital money (the elimination of the need for paper to represent the shares) there is no reason whatsoever to preserve the ‘trick’ of making consumers pay for access to their own shares (as common shareholders) rather than forcing business, industry, banking, and finance, as well as the state, to fight with each other in order to obtain some portion of them.

    Moreover, there is no reason any of this process is not fully governable by rule of law, independent of human discretion, and forbidden by teh constitution, defended by the courts, and enforced by militia, and the army if necessary. And therefore fully transparent and free of deceit and parasitism upon the people.

    We will need to draw a lot of blood.

    Do a lot of killing.

    Do a lot of burning.

    And enact a few legislative changes.

    But in the end, the people who lie cheat and steal, will be deprived of that opportunity. And those who still live after our cleansing of their kind, will have to search for other useful means of surviving under the rule of natural law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 10:54:00 UTC

  • ***The vast majority of our arguments in the past century of modernity can be re

    ***The vast majority of our arguments in the past century of modernity can be reduced to poetry using pseudoscientific rather than moral, literary, or mythological verse.***

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 10:36:00 UTC

  • West, Russia, China We play ooda-loops and always have (mobility). Russia plays

    West, Russia, China

    We play ooda-loops and always have (mobility). Russia plays wait for weakness (aggressive opportunism). china plays accumulate, delay and deceive until winning is impossible against them (aggressive defense).

    That mobility as a team, opportunism but weakness in maneuver, and absorbing damage while accumulating strength reflect military strategies – it should not surprise us that their practice of ‘truth’ follows the same strategy, or that their systems of government follow the same strategy.

    I would note that german and catholic europe are just living in denial.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 18:02:00 UTC

  • I know that in the global intellectual pool of people who deeply understand econ

    I know that in the global intellectual pool of people who deeply understand economics, there are those of us who understand the Chinese strategy to destroy the USA, and how successful it will be. I know that there is nothing our government can do to stop it. I know that Russia is counting on it. I know that we are dead. What I don’t understand is just letting it happen rather than managing our decline. Democracy is the evil that prevents it. Russia and china can adapt. We no longer can adapt.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 16:58:00 UTC

  • IS FACEBOOK CENSORING ME? ” (and what to do about it) —“Hi Curt – Wanted to le

    IS FACEBOOK CENSORING ME? “

    (and what to do about it)

    —“Hi Curt – Wanted to let you know that Facebook has been hiding your posts from me … They used to appear in my feed, about two weeks ago they stopped appearing in my feed and I had to go to your actual profile to see them. I check my account once a week.”— A Friend

    —‘I added Curt as a close friend. I now see every post, hope that helps.’— Bjorn Moritz

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-01 17:20:00 UTC

  • “CENSORSHIP” TOOL – FILTERS EMOTIONAL LOADING. HOW LONG BEFORE ITS DEFEATED? NOT

    http://www.perspectiveapi.com/GOOGLE’S “CENSORSHIP” TOOL – FILTERS EMOTIONAL LOADING. HOW LONG BEFORE ITS DEFEATED? NOT LONG.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-31 22:16:00 UTC

  • COUNTER-SIGNALING NEO-LIBERALISM 😉 (contra free trade)(from econlog) (COMMENT R

    COUNTER-SIGNALING NEO-LIBERALISM 😉

    (contra free trade)(from econlog)

    (COMMENT REJECTED BY ECONLOG – WOW_

    Gentlemen (and the economic academy as a whole)

    1) it is fairly evident that the value of lower prices declined with completion of the transition from agrarianism. In fact, investors, inventors, entrepreneurs, manufacturers, and distributors, and merchants, have a very hard time selling anything but marketing and status signal deltas. (See research on phones, phone plans, and software for them). What pent up demand for consumption exists? Other than for signals? In fact, it is quite possible to make an argument that status signal consumption is evidence of hyperconsumption and a misallocation of all forms of capital.(See virtue signaling in Austrialia, Canada, and the UK, and among progressives in the USA. What is the cost of virtue signal spirals? How are they made possible? The answer is non-trivial.)

    2) Cherry-picking consumption without measuring offsetting costs, and declines in intra-generational, inter-generational capital( capital in toto), is not practicing science. It’s practicing pseudoscience.

    3) When was the last time you saw a balance sheet rather than an income statement, and what is the difference in the aggregates illustrated by each?

    4) Why does the myth persist that there is a difference in personal, familial, local, regional, and national economics without stating that difference is limited to monetary not capital in toto constraints?

    So no. There is a limit to comparative advantage (capital consumption). Free trade, like investment in literacy, is a transitional good not a persistent one. Cities create a false efficiency under all but the German postwar model. They are transitional not absolute goods. Measurement of consumption is a transitional good, not a persistent one. Democracy is a transitional good in the presence of windfalls from technology or resources, republicanism superior during status quo, and fascism superior during periods of war.

    A necessary test of pseudoscience is whether limits have been articulated, so that we do not make the error of confusing temporal utility with ‘ideal’ good.

    There are no theories without limit except the theory that there are no theories without limit.

    20th century economics consists of the study of transition from agrarianism, to industrialism, to informational economies.

    What measures are missing? How do we know when the model we used for transition is no longer transitional but purely consumptive of longer term capital?

    (Signals)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-30 08:47:00 UTC

  • ‘velvet glove’ n. : superficial gentleness and courtesy masking a strong and uny

    ‘velvet glove’ n.

    : superficial gentleness and courtesy masking a strong and unyielding will or determination

    (cd: Hmm… I didn’t know that’s what it meant. I’ve always taken it literally.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-28 12:20:00 UTC

  • EXERCISE: Fiction vs Fictionalism What separates fiction from fictionalism? Fict

    EXERCISE: Fiction vs Fictionalism

    What separates fiction from fictionalism?

    Fictionalism is constructed with at least these techniques:

    1 – pseudo-science,

    2 – pseudo-rationalism,

    3 – pseudo-history, and

    4 – pseudo-mythology(Religion).

    And each technique includes three tools:

    a) a lie

    b) an obscurantism

    c) a conflation

    Can you give an example of each technique, and the tools used to construct it?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-27 12:04:00 UTC

  • EXAMPLE: THE IMPORTANCE OF SERIES ‘hate on’ (v. slang) To express hatred toward.

    EXAMPLE: THE IMPORTANCE OF SERIES

    ‘hate on’ (v. slang)

    To express hatred toward.

    ‘hate’ v.

    The feeling we experience towards those who betray us, steal from us, threaten us, harm us, and whom we desire to harm more so, even to the point of paying the high cost of altruistic punishment. (Hate evolved as the extreme retaliation against violations of reciprocity.)

    ‘anger’ v.

    ( … )

    ‘dislike’ v.

    That feeling we experience toward others who betray us ethically or morally, by violating reciprocity, such that we seek to boycott all offers or opportunities to cooperate with them.

    ‘disapprove’ v.

    The feeling we experience towards others who take unethical, immoral, actions by violating reciprocity by imposing costs upon others directly, ethically by informational asymmetry, or morally, by externality.

    ‘reject’ / ‘rejection’ v.

    That feeling we experience toward others whose offers of cooperation are undesirable either directly, ethically by asymmetry, or morally by externality.

    ‘tolerate’ v.

    ( … )

    ‘negotiate’ v.

    ( … )

    ‘accomodate’ v.

    ( … )

    ‘cooperate’ v.

    ( … )

    ‘give preference’ v.

    ( … )

    ‘advocate’ v.

    ( … )

    …

    ‘love’ v.

    ( … )

    From bearing costs to punish(hate), to bear costs to advance(love).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-27 11:32:00 UTC