Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • About a year ago I wrote a review of Podol Plaza hotel, criticizing the “Russian

    About a year ago I wrote a review of Podol Plaza hotel, criticizing the “Russian” Customer Service (sterile), and the attempt of the front desk guys to lie about how full the hotel is, and try to upsell you.

    Now I love this hotel ok? And In my stupid American head, I think that the owners need to know this, so I put it in my review. “Hey, you know, hire some local Ukrainian women who have been trained in hospitality”.

    The clearly Russian female manager is very not happy with me.

    And demonstrates my point by not caring about my opinion in typical Russian style.

    The correct answer of course is “we are from different cultures and we always try to learn about each other. Maybe you should learn about us too.”

    I found the service in most post-soviet states to be terrible. But then they even know it. They just are adapting slowly.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-26 04:47:00 UTC

  • Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton walk in to a bar. Donald leans over, and with a

    Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton walk in to a bar.

    Donald leans over, and with a smile on his face, says,

    “The media is really tearing you apart for that Scandal.”

    Hillary: “You mean my lying about Benghazi?”

    Trump: “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “You mean the massive voter fraud?”

    Trump: “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “You mean the military not getting their votes counted?”

    Trump: “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “Using my secret private server with classified material to Hide my Activities?”

    Trump: “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails and everything Else?”

    Trump: “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “Using the Clinton Foundation as a cover for tax evasion, Hiring Cronies, And taking bribes from foreign countries?”

    Trump: “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “You mean the drones being operated in our own country without The Benefit of the law?”

    Trump: “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “Giving 123 Technologies $300 Million, and right afterward it Declared Bankruptcy and was sold to the Chinese?”

    Trump: “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “You mean arming the Muslim Brotherhood and hiring them in the White House?”

    Trump: “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “Whitewater, Watergate committee, Vince Foster, commodity Deals?”

    Trump: “No the other one:”

    Hillary: “Turning Libya into chaos?”

    Trump: “No the other one:”

    Hillary: “Being the mastermind of the so-called “Arab Spring” that only brought chaos, death and destruction to the Middle East and North Africa?”

    Trump: “No the other one:”

    Hillary: “Leaving four Americans to die in Benghazi?”

    Trump: “No the other one:”

    Hillary: “Trashing Mubarak, one of our few Muslim friends?”

    Trump: “No the other one:”

    Hillary: “The funding and arming of terrorists in Syria, the destruction and destabilization of that nation, giving the order to our lapdogs in Turkey and Saudi Arabia to give sarin gas to the “moderate” terrorists in Syria that they eventually used on civilians, and framed Assad, and had it not been for the Russians and Putin, we would have used that as a pretext to invade Syria, put a puppet in power, steal their natural resources, and leave that country in total chaos, just like we did with Libya?

    Trump: “No the other one:”

    Hillary: “The creation of the biggest refugees crisis since WWII?”

    Trump: “No the other one:”

    Hillary: “Leaving Iraq in chaos? “

    Trump: “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “The DOJ spying on the press?”

    Trump: “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “You mean HHS Secretary Sibelius shaking down health insurance Executives?”

    Trump: “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “Giving our cronies in SOLYNDRA $500 MILLION DOLLARS and 3 Months Later they declared bankruptcy and then the Chinese bought it?”

    Trump: “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “The NSA monitoring citizens’ ?”

    Trump: “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “The State Department interfering with an Inspector General Investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?”

    Trump: “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “Me, The IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?”

    Trump: “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “Threats to all of Bill’s former mistresses to keep them quiet?”

    Trump: “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “You mean the INSIDER TRADING of the Tyson chicken deal I did where I invested $1,000 and the next year I got $100,000?”

    Trump: “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “You mean when Bill met with Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, just before my hearing with the FBI to cut a deal?”

    Trump” “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: ” You mean the one where my IT guy at Platte River Networks asked Reddit for help to alter emails?”

    Trump” “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “You mean where the former Haitian Senate President accused me and my foundation of asking him for bribes?”

    Trump” “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “You mean that old video of me laughing as I explain how I got the charges against that child rapist dropped by blaming the young girl for liking older men and fantasizing about them. Even though I knew the guy was guilty?

    Trump” “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “You mean that video of me coughing up a giant green lunger into my drinking glass then drinking it back down?”

    Trump” “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “You mean that video of me passing out on the curb and losing my shoe?”

    Trump” “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “You mean when I robbed Bernie Sanders of the Democratic Party Nomination by having the DNC rig the nomination process so that I would win?”

    Trump” “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “You mean how so many people that oppose me have died in mysterious was?”

    Trump” “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “Travel Gate? When seven employees of the White House Travel Office were fired so that friends of Bill and mine could take over the travel business? And when I lied under oath during the investigation by the FBI, the Department of Justice, the White House itself, the General Accounting Office, the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, and the Whitewater Independent Counsel?”

    Trump” “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “The scandal where, (while I was Secretary if State), the State Department signed off on a deal to sell 20% of the USA’s uranium to a Canadian corporation that the Russians bought, netting a $145 million donation from Russia to the Clinton Foundation and a $500,000 speaking gig for Bill from the Russian Investment Bank that set up the corporate buyout?. That scandal?”

    Trump” “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “That time I lied when I said I was under sniper fire when I got off the plane in Bosnia?”

    Trump” “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “That time when after I became the First Lady, I improperly requested a bunch of FBI files so I could look for blackmail material on government insiders?”

    Trump” “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “That time when Bill nominated Zoe Baird as Attorney General, even though we knew she hired illegal immigrants and didn’t pay payroll taxes on them?”

    Trump” “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “When I got Nigeria exempted from foreign aid transparency guidelines despite evidence of corruption because they gave Bill a $700,000 in speaking fees?”

    Trump” “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “That time in 2009 when Honduran military forces allied with rightist lawmakers ousted democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya, and I as then-Secretary of State sided with the armed forces and fought global pressure to reinstate him?”

    Trump: “No, the other one.”

    Hillary: “I give up! … Oh wait, I think I’ve got it! When I stole the White House furniture, silverware, when Bill left Office?”

    Trump: “THAT’S IT! I almost forgot about that one”.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-25 12:56:00 UTC

  • NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF ALT RIGHT-ERS? I THINK THAT”S A GOOD THING. 🙂 ( ) 1

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/09/the-caste-system-of-the-alt-right/I’M NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF ALT RIGHT-ERS? I THINK THAT”S A GOOD THING. 🙂

    ( http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/09/the-caste-system-of-the-alt-right/ )

    1) I don’t know whether to be thrilled or hurt by not being included in this list. 🙂 I think… I think maybe … that I like it. 🙂

    2) I wrote a similar list a few weeks ago. <a href=”https://propertarianism.wordpress.com/2016/09/23/the-new-right-class-structures/”>The New “Right” Class Structures</a> But I organized it by argumentative structure. Given our differences in abilities, we tend to argue differently at about every 10 points of IQ (with significant overlap). This division corresponds to both social and occupational classes as well as IQ. And I placed people in the alt-right given their method of argument. Which of course some people found insulting. But just as the English language contains three sets of terms: german for the lower class, french for the ruling class, and latin for the intellectual class, all political movements use a different language and argumentative method for every caste or class. (expressive, ridicule, moral justification, rational/historical justification, ratio-empirical-correspondence, and institutional. (And I consider myself in the NEW RIGHT rather than ALT RIGHT – for this reason: class argument method.) So view the world as the outgoing ‘hopeful’ old right(political). The resigned alt right(cultural). The traditional right in transition(religio-familial). The New Right (scientific-institutional).

    3) And, I do understand why I am not included in this post’s list:

    (a) I view the world as abandoning the 20th century battle between feminine universalism(socialism) and its paternal opponent masculine particularism(fascism), and that worldwide all groups are returning to Nationalism and Tribalism – in recognition of the failure of the anglo-contractual-commercial-universalism, and Jewish socialism-libertarian-neo-conservatism (ie: puritans and jews). And that we are just like everyone else – trying to reassert our traditional history now that the ‘market’ has been maximized by the universal adoption of consumer credit capitalism worldwide.

    (b) I blame us (whites) for not manning the fortress Europa , not those who have succeeded in breaching our walls – it is after all, the purpose of competition, and we are losing because we are lazy and unwilling to fight.

    (c) I spend my time worrying about institutional solutions, not trying to appease my bruised ego by ridiculing the wildlife for merely being wildlife. The scorpion DOES kill the frog before they get to the other side of the stream. Only a fool trusts the scorpion to act against its nature.

    So:

    i) Nationalism is for everyone, not just us. And anyone that it’s not for, is someone to be exterminated as a threat to the rest, not just us – to mankind.

    ii) We must fight, and stop talking as if we will win a democratic election. Hillary is just the Left’s Dole: the next anointed apparatchik available in a weak field of options.

    iii) We need a solution to fight for that restores our walls, and a process of transition, and a process of disrupting the economy and government such that surrender is obtained rather than ongoing hardship.

    CLOSING

    The alt-right is still a working-class and lower middle-class movement. because that’s where all the disenfranchised males are. And disenfranchised males are the only people who matter in creating a revolution. Unfortunately, the alt right has no answers to offer and is just a resistance movement.

    But Resistance is insufficient for revolution. Rebellion is insufficient for Rule. Criticism is insufficient for proposing a solution. And a solution is necessary to coordinate action. Instead we must have a solution to demand, a plan of transition, and a plan by which to demand our solution.

    The alt right is succeeding by adopting the methods of the Marxist/Socialist/Feminist/cultural-Marxists: poison the virtue signals of the opponents and make their status signals a worthless commodity. It’s working. And all we had to do was give up our ‘honor’ to do it. But once that’s done – “What’ch ya’ got there sonny?” Nothin’.

    Necessary does not mean sufficient. The Alt right is necessary but insufficient. That’s where others come in. And that combination of ALT-RIGHT(Culture/aesthetics), TRAD-RIGHT(Ethics and Family), and NEW-RIGHT(institutions), will be what provides the full compliment of classes necessary to change the power structures.

    But, in the end. “We gotta’ fight.”

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    L’viv Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-23 03:06:00 UTC

  • “Writing in eprime produces language that sounds closer to an accurate descripti

    —“Writing in eprime produces language that sounds closer to an accurate description of the actual experience, and involves fewer covert assumptions”—

    Note the word COVERT”

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-22 12:42:00 UTC

  • STEVE HOROWITZ’S OBFUSCATORY JUSTIFICATIONISM (argumentative weaponry. use it.)

    STEVE HOROWITZ’S OBFUSCATORY JUSTIFICATIONISM

    (argumentative weaponry. use it.)

    He’s using the ancient technique of stating a Half Truth for the purpose of “suggesting” a lie.

    Cultural Marxism is taught in nearly all classes. The fact that the Paleos all use Marx and Marxism as a bucket-label for Marxism(social science), Communism(politics), Socialism(economics), Freudianism(psychology), Boazianism(anthropology), cultural marxism(aesthetics), Rothbardian libertinism(normative communism), Straussian neo-Conservatism(Zionism), is just a matter of verbal convenience. Which is obvious once you rattle off all those pseudosciences. We just say Marx and Marxist, and Marxism. What we should say is “Cosmopolitanism”: Jewish Pseudoscientific Enlightenment – the second “Great Lie”. The Counter-Enlightenment against completion of the enlightenment by Maxwell, Darwin, Spencer, Nietzsche, and Poincare.

    So ask the question differently: show me where they teach natural law? You won’t find it outside of a few Christian universities, and they don’t even understand that “Natural Law= Social Science”. They teach it as philosophy or religion – not science.

    I don’t know why I have to apologize every day for my ancestors failed colonialism, despite dragging humanity out of ignorance, starvation, poverty, superstition, and disease, yet the other tribes don’t need to apologize for the damage done by their reactions to the enlightenment.

    (Please don’t jump on the anti-Semite bus ok? I care about fixing problems. I don’t think jews know what they’re doing any more than we do, women do, or any other group does. It’s all information problems and genetic adaptation problem. Both of which can be solved by institutions that transform us away from deception and closer to truth.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-22 05:56:00 UTC

  • WHERE TO BEGIN? —“Just show us how to begin, how we start removing error, bias

    WHERE TO BEGIN?

    —“Just show us how to begin, how we start removing error, bias, and deception and we will begin. Give us the nuts and bolts.”—

    We begin with e-prime. I suppose I could teach that first. Although I don’t know how I have time to teach such a thing right now. It’s all available on the web anyway….

    I don’t think categorical, logical, and empirical consistency are very difficult if we start with E-prime – they are all well understood and must only be stated in consistent language.

    Propertarianism provides moral consistency and full accounting. I don’t think scope consistency (limits) is very hard either.

    The hard part is provided by the problem of operational language exposes our ignorance.

    It is very hard to learn to speak without the use of the verb to be. But this is the first step. After that, Propertarian ethics. And the rest is just practice.

    Compared to mathematics?

    Language ( logic ) requires we supply limits and consistency that is provided by the assumptions of consistency in mathematics.

    In other words, logic of action is a shallower model, and mathematics a deeper model, but logic is more complicated than mathematics because of the inconstancy of external categories ( referents ) must be rendered commensurable by the grammar of human operations.

    If we understand this we will see that we solved mathematics first because it is much more simple.

    I should perhaps point out that this is the purpose of operationalism: the use of human action to produce consistent logical categories.

    Thank you for allowing me an opportunity to express this important insight.

    ( I hope I don’t forget about this comment because it is an important insight into the grammar of truth. )

    So, let us take this as a sequence for informative purposes:

    LOGICS:

    1 – Mathematics : commensurability provided by operational, positional, names, and mathematical operations.

    2 – Physical sciences and engineering : commensurability provided by physical determinism (laws of nature).

    3 – Economics : commensurability provided by operationally produced prices

    4 – Politics : commensurability provided by voluntary exchanges, articulated as fully accounted transactions.

    3 – Testimony : commensurability provided by all possible human actions stated objectively as operations.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-22 05:29:00 UTC

  • I believe in elves ghosts and Angels. But they exist only in our imaginations. M

    I believe in elves ghosts and Angels. But they exist only in our imaginations.

    Mixing truth, history, myth, literature, fantasising, and dream states is just and act of deception by conflation.

    We can compare truth and any other state to determine what we may learn from either.

    But our ability to compare by analogy for the purpose of meaning does not mean these things possess equal truth content.

    They don’t.

    All religions are extremely disciplined forms of literature no different from the Star Wars universe or the world of the Greek myths or that of the Upanishads.

    This is all fantasy literature for the purpose of CONFLATION, thus mixing some combination of psychology, literature, law, and education.

    In the west we disallow this conflation and instead specialise in psychology literature, law, and education.

    We do this to force them into competition so that they cannot be used for deception.

    The west was infected by the oriental technique of literary deception – probably because of Alexander.

    But just because fantasy literature is easier for simple minds to assimilate that does not mean the consequences of simplicity do not produce consequences that manufacture ignorance poverty and deceit.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-22 02:51:00 UTC

  • Cultural differences. Legal dispute. In America, lying if any kind is a serious

    Cultural differences.

    Legal dispute.

    In America, lying if any kind is a serious thing and reason for the judge to decide against you. In Ukraine lying is a reasonable response to uncertainty and distrust.

    Ukrainian police are much more akin to American sheriffs. They talk to you. They are reasonable. The try to understand they don’t try to find an opportunity to trip you up or prosecute you and make inquiry someone else’s problem.

    I also prefer to pay a twenty dollar bribe that improves his income rather than a 200 dollar fine that enriches the bureaucracy.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-21 06:36:00 UTC

  • Information Is A Form Of Production No Different From Any Other

    –“You’ve said that you see information as a commodity and therefore lies should be punishable fraud. Could you expand on what you mean as a commodity and how you would determine what forms of “lies” (you usually say leftist pseudo-science) should be punished?”— I said I see information as a kind of production that is dumped into the commons, just as pollutants are dumped into the air, land, and water. We don’t care much if you dump clean water into the commons, or clean air into the commons, or even oxygen, and to some degree heat or cold. But why should you be able to pollute the informational commons any more than you can pollute air, land, water, or damage parks, infrastructure, buildings, and monuments? It was one when we all have equal voices in the Thang, Square, Church, or Parliament. But it becomes quite different when you can make use of Altar, Pulpit, Throne, Press, media, and entertainment. It’s very different to tell a white lie, a gray lie, a black lie, and a white, gray, or black propaganda lie. And it’s far worse if you force a legislative lie. Our civilization has been nearly conquered by the Jewish pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, and outright falsehood movements, by the academy, media, and state, just as the ancients were conquered as much by the lies of Jewish monotheism and it’s distribution by pulpit and state. Likely with equally dark ages to follow. So how do we prevent correct it now, and prevent it in the future? Well, we make it as illegal to lie in politics as it is to commit any other kind of fraud, by removing the right to free speech and replacing it with the right to truthful speech. But why is the problem of truth and falsehood so challenging? The answer is that until approximately now, we didn’t know what ‘truth’ was any more than we knew what ‘justice’ was. What I’ve tried to do is provide a set of warranties of due diligence (which is what scientists do) that if performed means that a proposition may not be true, but it is very difficult for it knowingly to be false. IF we then simply create universal standing for matters of the commons and remove the ability of the state to intervene in matters of the commons, then people will regulate speech in the commons as rigorously as they regulate fraud in the commons. Advertisers are highly regulated, but most of us would suggest we regulate them far further. Some speech is regulated, but we could regulate it further. We used to teach grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and adding warranties of truthfulness is certainly not harder than teaching logic or geometry. And if you cannot state logic or geometry or truthfulness we have a question whether you can say anything other than what you desire, versus what is true. In my grandmother’s generation, it wasn’t uncommon for people to say “I don’t know about such things” because that was a truthful statement. Yet in pursuit of socialism, we have told generations to express opinions as if they were a truth that they understood. This attack on truth in favor of self-expression, in order to empower the incompetent classes, has been central to the anti-aristocratic strategy we incorrectly call ‘socialism’. So in brief there is absolutely no reason we cannot state in comprehensible and observable legal language the requirements for due diligence in truthfulness when speaking of matters in the commons. We do it with creating a hazard (‘fire in a theater’), and we do it with inciting a riot (‘taking advantage of mob instinct’), and we do it with libel and slander, and prior to the outlawing of judicial duels we did it even for insults. It is not clear at all that the world is a better place for our tolerance of insult, libel, slander, advertising representation, political representation, teaching of pseudosciences, and other conflationary public speech. It’s just the opposite. We’ve just endured a century of pseudoscience.

  • Information Is A Form Of Production No Different From Any Other

    –“You’ve said that you see information as a commodity and therefore lies should be punishable fraud. Could you expand on what you mean as a commodity and how you would determine what forms of “lies” (you usually say leftist pseudo-science) should be punished?”— I said I see information as a kind of production that is dumped into the commons, just as pollutants are dumped into the air, land, and water. We don’t care much if you dump clean water into the commons, or clean air into the commons, or even oxygen, and to some degree heat or cold. But why should you be able to pollute the informational commons any more than you can pollute air, land, water, or damage parks, infrastructure, buildings, and monuments? It was one when we all have equal voices in the Thang, Square, Church, or Parliament. But it becomes quite different when you can make use of Altar, Pulpit, Throne, Press, media, and entertainment. It’s very different to tell a white lie, a gray lie, a black lie, and a white, gray, or black propaganda lie. And it’s far worse if you force a legislative lie. Our civilization has been nearly conquered by the Jewish pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, and outright falsehood movements, by the academy, media, and state, just as the ancients were conquered as much by the lies of Jewish monotheism and it’s distribution by pulpit and state. Likely with equally dark ages to follow. So how do we prevent correct it now, and prevent it in the future? Well, we make it as illegal to lie in politics as it is to commit any other kind of fraud, by removing the right to free speech and replacing it with the right to truthful speech. But why is the problem of truth and falsehood so challenging? The answer is that until approximately now, we didn’t know what ‘truth’ was any more than we knew what ‘justice’ was. What I’ve tried to do is provide a set of warranties of due diligence (which is what scientists do) that if performed means that a proposition may not be true, but it is very difficult for it knowingly to be false. IF we then simply create universal standing for matters of the commons and remove the ability of the state to intervene in matters of the commons, then people will regulate speech in the commons as rigorously as they regulate fraud in the commons. Advertisers are highly regulated, but most of us would suggest we regulate them far further. Some speech is regulated, but we could regulate it further. We used to teach grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and adding warranties of truthfulness is certainly not harder than teaching logic or geometry. And if you cannot state logic or geometry or truthfulness we have a question whether you can say anything other than what you desire, versus what is true. In my grandmother’s generation, it wasn’t uncommon for people to say “I don’t know about such things” because that was a truthful statement. Yet in pursuit of socialism, we have told generations to express opinions as if they were a truth that they understood. This attack on truth in favor of self-expression, in order to empower the incompetent classes, has been central to the anti-aristocratic strategy we incorrectly call ‘socialism’. So in brief there is absolutely no reason we cannot state in comprehensible and observable legal language the requirements for due diligence in truthfulness when speaking of matters in the commons. We do it with creating a hazard (‘fire in a theater’), and we do it with inciting a riot (‘taking advantage of mob instinct’), and we do it with libel and slander, and prior to the outlawing of judicial duels we did it even for insults. It is not clear at all that the world is a better place for our tolerance of insult, libel, slander, advertising representation, political representation, teaching of pseudosciences, and other conflationary public speech. It’s just the opposite. We’ve just endured a century of pseudoscience.