Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • PHASES OF WARFARE 1 non-military asymmetric warfare (info, psycho, ideological,

    http://romaninukraine.com/new-paper-on-russian-military-thinking/8 PHASES OF WARFARE

    1 non-military asymmetric warfare (info, psycho, ideological, diplo, economic)

    2 special operations to mislead pol & mil leadership via diplomatic, media, channels, leaks, false data & orders

    3 intimidation, deceiving, and bribing govt and military officers, to make them abandon duties etc

    4 destabilizing propaganda to increase public discontent, boosted by the arrival of Russian bands of militants, escalating subversion.

    5 establishment of no-fly zones & blockades, extensive use of private military in close cooperation with armed opposition units.

    6 military action, preceded by special ops, cyber, sabotage, espionage, subversion

    7 info ops, electronic warfare, air harrassment, high precision weapons, EMP,

    8 mopping up, with artillery, airdrops etc

    10 PRINCIPLES

    1 direct influence matters more than direct destruction

    2 instead of direct annihilation of opponent, promote his inner decay

    3 war using culture matters more than weapons & technology

    4 special forces & commercial irregular forces instead of conventional military

    5 from the traditional (3D) battleground to information/psychological warfare and war of perceptions;

    6 from direct clash to contactless war;

    7 from a superficial and compartmentalised war to a total war, including the enemy’s internal side and base;

    8 from war in the physical environment to war in human consciousness and cyberspace

    9 from symmetric to assymetric warfare, combining political, economic, info, techno & ecological campaigns

    10 From war in a defined period of time to a state of permanent war as the natural condition in national life.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 18:37:00 UTC

  • SMART PEOPLE DISCOUNT THE COST AND FREQUENCY OF DECEPTION (worth repeating) (rep

    SMART PEOPLE DISCOUNT THE COST AND FREQUENCY OF DECEPTION

    (worth repeating) (reposted for archiving)

    —“One of the problems those of us at the lofty reaches fall prey to is ‘smart people disease’. (Projection Bias) Because we are both better able to identify deception and error, and because we associate with people better able to identify deception and error, and because we and those we associate with encounter less deception and error, we discount the near universal presence of deception even if we do not discount the near universal presence of error. The biggest threat to rational discourse is not error, or fallacy, it is deception, obscurantism, and postmodernism. Against which, Victorian ethics are a handicap.”—

    This is politics.

    Draw intellectual blood.

    Defeat your opponent completely.

    In public, with fanfare.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 18:00:00 UTC

  • EFFECTIVE INTELLECTUAL ENGAGEMENT VS IDEOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL ARGUMENT. (I’m ri

    EFFECTIVE INTELLECTUAL ENGAGEMENT VS IDEOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL ARGUMENT.

    (I’m riffing off Peter’s point. Not so much countering it. Because political debate is not in the same class as intellectual and academic engagement.)

    Status Update

    By Peter Boettke

    Four rules of effective intellectual engagement — from Daniel Dennett

    How to compose a successful critical commentary:

    (1) You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”

    (2) You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).

    (3) You should mention anything you have learned from your target.

    (4) Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

    I was taught these rules by Don Lavoie, I wish I was good enough of a person and scholar to always follow them. I will strive to do better.

    ====

    Curt Doolittle

    Very victorian Peter. It depends on the sector and the consequences. The history of Ideological debate does not agree with your advice. The history of academic study does.

    I learned a hard lesson from Hayek’s gentlemanly failure, and Friedman, Rothbard and Krugman’s immediate impact: if you’re debating science then that’s a gentleman’s game. Science is a luxury good. Politics is a proxy for war, and ideology is the weapon of influence.

    Time is precious.

    (Affections as always.)

    Curt Doolittle

    –” This is granting several enormous assumptions; (1) that your fellow actually believes what he says, (2) that he is stating the same reasons that he actually has for his position, and (3) that the crowd or stakeholders actually believe his argument based on the publicly stated reasons.

    I find it entirely likely, if not 100% certainly the case that (1) The arguments are just publicly digestible justifications. (2) The fellow has actual motives and reasons that differ from the arguments given, and (3) the crowd believes in the position due to the hidden reasons, regardless of the stated reasons.

    To accept your methodology, in my opinion, is to admit that Public Choice Theory is not valid.”–

    OMG. STEALING THIS.

    Curt Doolittle

    Note: one of the problems those of us at the lofty reaches fall prey to is ‘smart people disease’. (Projection Bias) Because we are both better able to identify deception and error, and because we associate with people better able to identify deception and error, and because we and those we associate with encounter less deception and error, we discount the near universal presence of deception even if we do not discount the near universal presence of error. The biggest threat to rational discourse is not error, or fallacy, it is deception, obscurantism, and postmodernism. Against which, Victorian ethics are a handicap.

    CLOSING

    I try to draw blood.

    Because your opponent is less likely to walk away when wounded.

    And you can defeat him thoroughly.

    I’m not a gentlemen. I’m a warrior.

    And I understand the moral difference between the two.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 17:25:00 UTC

  • SO WAIT: IF I DON’T KNOW *HOW* TO SPEAK TRUTHFULLY, I CAN SPEAK HONESTLY BUT ERR

    SO WAIT: IF I DON’T KNOW *HOW* TO SPEAK TRUTHFULLY, I CAN SPEAK HONESTLY BUT ERR?

    (floundering on the obvious)

    Yet, if I *DO* know how to speak truthfully, and I do not, even if I repeat my prior statement, I am speaking dishonestly.

    So, then if a constitution defines honesty non-obscuranatly (operationally) then one cannot claim to NOT know it, yet at the same time argue within the constraints of the constitution? Right?

    Too simple.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 03:40:00 UTC

  • “So where is it that I actually go to check my privilege? I want to be a good se

    –“So where is it that I actually go to check my privilege? I want to be a good self-hating white American male.”–

    Justin Ptak

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 02:47:00 UTC

  • QUESTIONING MYSELF, BUT IT SEEMS THAT I MUST SOLVE HONESTY IF NOT TRUTH. (Still

    QUESTIONING MYSELF, BUT IT SEEMS THAT I MUST SOLVE HONESTY IF NOT TRUTH.

    (Still having serious cold and or allergy problems. And having trouble getting in the zone.)

    But I’ve been wrestling with the idea of whether or not I need to solve this problem of “Truth” or not in order to finish my work. And, unfortunately, the problem is that I do have to solve it.

    MORALITY: I can solve the problem of articulating the objective source of moral instincts.

    ETHICS: I can solve the problem of the ethics of cooperation (free riding) – by extending the definition of property rights and adding truth, warranty, symmetry.

    POLITICS: I can solve the problem of politics by adding calculability (in all its complexity)

    POLITICAL SPEECH: But I think I must solve the problem of public speech as well since it is more influential in the formation of agreements than the rules by which agreements are constructed.

    ====

    MORAL VIOLATIONS

    Those discounts, in economic terms are:

    1. Violence (asymmetry of force)

    2. Theft (asymmetry of control)

    3. Fraud (false information)

    4. Omission (Omitting information)

    5. Obscurantism (Obscuring information)

    6. Obstruction (Inhibiting someone else’s transaction)

    7. Externalization (externalizing costs of any transaction)

    8. Free Riding (using externalities for self benefit)

    9. Socializing Losses (externalization to commons)

    10. Privatizing Gains (appropriation of commons)

    11. Rent Seeking (organizational free riding)

    12. Corruption ( organized rent seeking)

    13. Conspiracy (organized indirect theft)

    14. Extortion (Organized direct theft)

    15. War (organized violence, theft and destruction)

    16. Immigration (conquest via displacement)

    17. Conversion (conquest via mysticism)

    PERSONAL ETHICS

    The Ethical code that prevents those discounts (involuntary transfers, free riding) consists in:

    1. Requirement that all demonstrated property be categorized as Private Property

    2. Requirement for Voluntary Exchange

    3. Requirement for Speaking the Truth

    4. Requirement for Accountability for Symmetry of knowledge (the whole truth)

    5. Requirement for Warranty as proof of symmetry

    6. Requirement for Prohibition on negative externalities.

    POLITICAL ETHICS

    The Political Ethical Code consists in

    1. Requirement for the One Law of Property

    2. The Common (Organic) Law

    3. The Professional Independent Judiciary

    4. Contracts not law

    – perishability

    – universality

    5. Requirement of “Calculability”

    (note: technically speaking the requirement of calculability implies the requirement for operational language, and the requiremnet for strict constructionism. However, since that deduction apparently isn’t obvious I feel I should call out operational language in the construction of law also.)

    6. Right of rejection, exclusion, secession (boycott, and ostracization)

    POLITICAL SPEECH

    The Public Intellectual’s, Politician’s, Public Speech’s Ethical Code consists in:

    1. Requirement for operational language in e-prime as a defense against deception as a means of advocating involuntary transfers.

    2. Prohibition on advocacy of involuntary transfer and the universal requirement voluntary ethical exchange.

    PROBLEMS

    1. (Prohibition on Inbreeding?)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-01 15:30:00 UTC

  • WHY WOULD YOU CHOOSE ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS OVER ARISTOCRATIC ETHICS? I mean, what k

    WHY WOULD YOU CHOOSE ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS OVER ARISTOCRATIC ETHICS?

    I mean, what kind of person wants it to be legal to lie, cheat, deceive, but not use violence against those who lie, cheat and deceive?

    It’s not complicated.

    Rothbard was wrong.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-01 10:24:00 UTC

  • It's Up To Rothbardians To Demonstrate That They Are Not Morally Blind…

    … advocates of a parasitic, immoral, unethical ideology, rejected by all but a dysfunctional minority; and by their profligate advocacy of an unethical, immoral, parasitic, regressive, and therefore politically impossible criteria for a voluntary social order, have impeded and harmed the preservation and expansion of our liberty. [W]e cannot look to the ghetto – a state within a state – for institutional, legal, and moral insight. We must look to Aristocracy, the militia, the common law, the absolute nuclear family, and the total suppression of free riding, in all its forms, for our moral, legal and institutional insight. Because only Aristocratic Egalitarians of european history have produced liberty in any form. The vast majority of humans do not want liberty. But all wish to enjoy the prosperity that results from the aristocracy’s suppression of free riding, and the increased velocity of production and trade that results from that undesired suppression of free riding. [T]he use of organized violence to eliminate free riding by a willing and committed minority, the admission into enfranchisement of those who demonstrate such a commitment, and the desire of, and incentive for, the unenfranchised to participate in the wealth of the market produced by the violent suppression of free riding, is the only means of obtaining liberty. Everything else is merely the pretense of liberty by permission of others, and the free riding upon those who fight to preserve liberty against the pervasive human preference to free ride whenever possible. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine.

  • It’s Up To Rothbardians To Demonstrate That They Are Not Morally Blind…

    … advocates of a parasitic, immoral, unethical ideology, rejected by all but a dysfunctional minority; and by their profligate advocacy of an unethical, immoral, parasitic, regressive, and therefore politically impossible criteria for a voluntary social order, have impeded and harmed the preservation and expansion of our liberty. [W]e cannot look to the ghetto – a state within a state – for institutional, legal, and moral insight. We must look to Aristocracy, the militia, the common law, the absolute nuclear family, and the total suppression of free riding, in all its forms, for our moral, legal and institutional insight. Because only Aristocratic Egalitarians of european history have produced liberty in any form. The vast majority of humans do not want liberty. But all wish to enjoy the prosperity that results from the aristocracy’s suppression of free riding, and the increased velocity of production and trade that results from that undesired suppression of free riding. [T]he use of organized violence to eliminate free riding by a willing and committed minority, the admission into enfranchisement of those who demonstrate such a commitment, and the desire of, and incentive for, the unenfranchised to participate in the wealth of the market produced by the violent suppression of free riding, is the only means of obtaining liberty. Everything else is merely the pretense of liberty by permission of others, and the free riding upon those who fight to preserve liberty against the pervasive human preference to free ride whenever possible. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine.

  • It's Up To Rothbardians To Demonstrate That They Are Not Morally Blind…

    … advocates of a parasitic, immoral, unethical ideology, rejected by all but a dysfunctional minority; and by their profligate advocacy of an unethical, immoral, parasitic, regressive, and therefore politically impossible criteria for a voluntary social order, have impeded and harmed the preservation and expansion of our liberty. [W]e cannot look to the ghetto – a state within a state – for institutional, legal, and moral insight. We must look to Aristocracy, the militia, the common law, the absolute nuclear family, and the total suppression of free riding, in all its forms, for our moral, legal and institutional insight. Because only Aristocratic Egalitarians of european history have produced liberty in any form. The vast majority of humans do not want liberty. But all wish to enjoy the prosperity that results from the aristocracy’s suppression of free riding, and the increased velocity of production and trade that results from that undesired suppression of free riding. [T]he use of organized violence to eliminate free riding by a willing and committed minority, the admission into enfranchisement of those who demonstrate such a commitment, and the desire of, and incentive for, the unenfranchised to participate in the wealth of the market produced by the violent suppression of free riding, is the only means of obtaining liberty. Everything else is merely the pretense of liberty by permission of others, and the free riding upon those who fight to preserve liberty against the pervasive human preference to free ride whenever possible. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine.