Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • Chomsky is a mixed bag intellectually, but I like this quotation forwarded to me

    http://www.stephenhicks.org/”Noam Chomsky is a mixed bag intellectually, but I like this quotation forwarded to me by Edward Fox:

    CHOMSKY ON POSTMODERNISM

    “There are lots of things I don’t understand — say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that Fermat’s last theorem was (apparently) proven recently. But from 50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty; (2) if I’m interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I will come to understand it. Now Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. — even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the rest — write things that I also don’t understand, but (1) and (2) don’t hold: no one who says they do understand can explain it to me and I haven’t a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures. That leaves one of two possibilities: (a) some new advance in intellectual life has been made, perhaps some sudden genetic mutation, which has created a form of ‘theory’ that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth and profundity; or (b) … I won’t spell it out.”

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-28 01:19:00 UTC

  • ENOUGH LYING OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE. This is just, getting, well, … frankly it

    http://freebeacon.com/iran-white-house-lying-about-details-of-nuke-deal/C’MON. ENOUGH LYING OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.

    This is just, getting, well, … frankly it’s gone all the way down to absurdly comical.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-27 01:06:00 UTC

  • The Source And Purpose Of Paul Krugman's Intellectual Corruption

    (explanatory power)(important) “The Conscience Of An Immoral Man” In a series of recent articles, Krugman suggests that there is only one answer for Europe and the world, and that is, for the Germans to redistribute to the periphery. But that’s false. The opposite answer is that the periphery borrow to REFORM themselves. And when I say something is ‘moral’ I mean that it forces an involuntary transfer – a theft. One cannot dismiss morality unless one dismisses theft. That’s what it means to be immoral: to steal indirectly, and anonymously. Once we include opportunity costs and the subset of social capital we now call ‘moral capital’, we see that material trade and consumption is just a minority of the human economy. And that the economy that makes material trade and consumption possible is the social and moral economy. And that theft of opportunity, or the various forms of free riding, or theft by immorality, are all equivalent forms of theft. So, Krugman’s solution is immoral. The conservative solution is of course. moral. Because conservatism in the west is a defense of moral capital. Incentives are incentives. Actions have cumulative consequences. Money is only a unit of measure. Human beings keep account of not only money but opportunity costs. And what Krugman is saying is that Germans pay opportunity costs and should involuntarily transfer them to the periphery. The trade is only IMBALANCED because of BEHAVIOR then it is not a trade imbalance, it is an incentive. ANALYSIS There is a very great difference between the imbalances in trade, education, technology, resources, and infrastructure and the imbalances in trust, discipline, time preference, and hard work. And it is IMMORAL and COUNTER PRODUCTIVE if we do NOT use trade imbalances to transform those who have less trust, less discipline, work less. The ongoing evolution of social capital requires that we punish free riders. And Free Riding IS THE PROBLEM that all societies must suppress. It is necessary for cooperation. SOURCE OF HIS IMMORALITY Paul studied trade between different STATES – plus he has deeply internalized both jewish ghetto ethics, and the need to justify the failure of his people to hold land through adoption of land-holder moral codes. (Albeit as a survival strategy.) Furthermore, for cultural reasons, he is an anti-aristocratic activist. Like many people with specialized knowledge he uses overwhelming bis in all his arguments to mask the very simple, but catastrophic errors he makes on a daily basis: that it is necessary to conform to germanic high trust behavior and institutions if one desires a high trust society, and the economic productivity of the anglo-german sphere. Conversely, and much more importantly, it is IMPOSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE HIGH TRUST SOCIETY by policy and will rather than culture and incentive. Free riding is the primary problem of economic and social development and why the nuclear family is so important (if fragile.) If people see free-riding, then they will punish it. If free riding is pervasive, people will STOP over-contributing. I cannot really tell if Krugman understands the importance of the high trust ethic, or if his ghetto ethics, hatred of white europeans, and his fascination with states and trade simply serve blind him to it. But given his obvious joy at expressing ridicule, and his facility with intentionally OBSCURING the moral and necessary constraint of free riding, with the status signals obtained from using charity as a means of conspicuous consumption, I would say that Krugman is nothing more than one more exceptionally verbally talented man, using loaded and obscurant language, as a means of conducting MacDonald’s insight into the damaging nature of Each expression of Krugman’s rhetorical glee, is a status perk he obtains, demonstrating both his conspicuous consumption, and therefore his status, while at the same time destroying the western high trust society by encouraging, in every way possible, free riding, rent seeking. THE BROADER CONTEXT If Noam Chomsky is the high priest, then Paul Krugman is the parliamentary head of the “Culture Of Critique” that, by use of obscurant language, is a systemic means of conducting intentional fraud: it is ‘the prestige’ in the verbal sleight of hand; the gesture that hides the true action: **Obtaining status by demonstrating conspicuous consumption using other people’s money, to increase free riding and rent seeking, in order to destroy the high trust society – which is the FIRST CAUSE OF ECONOMIC EXCELLENCE.** Once the speaker is possessed of status, then the ‘virtuously destructive’ cycle is complete. He has free reign to use that status, obtained by fraud and theft, to continue and expand his theft. Understood in this light, we see both the legitimacy of Paul Krugman’s insight into interstate trade, and the moral criminality of his rhetoric as an expression of the ongoing damage of the Cultural of Critique to western civilization and the high trust society. One can use verbal intelligence to articulate the truth. Or one can use verbal intelligence to construct obscurant language that by ‘the prestige’ – the award of status – under the rubric of care-taking, by encouraging people and policy makers to do just the opposite of what they intend: to destroy their high trust society by facilitating in every way possible the rent seeking and free riding that make the high trust society possible. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine ——– Note: I’ll improve this argument a bit. This is my first draft. But I’ve pretty much got the idea down. And I think I’ve united finally, Popper and Praxeology through operational language, fixing both of them. I am not sure how successful that I will be with the argument that obscurant (unscientific, non-operational) language is required for moral speech, because operational language places a high barrier for knowledge on any speaker. But if one makes public speech, about public matters, he is offering a product to the market, and is bound by warrantee.

  • The Source And Purpose Of Paul Krugman’s Intellectual Corruption

    (explanatory power)(important) “The Conscience Of An Immoral Man” In a series of recent articles, Krugman suggests that there is only one answer for Europe and the world, and that is, for the Germans to redistribute to the periphery. But that’s false. The opposite answer is that the periphery borrow to REFORM themselves. And when I say something is ‘moral’ I mean that it forces an involuntary transfer – a theft. One cannot dismiss morality unless one dismisses theft. That’s what it means to be immoral: to steal indirectly, and anonymously. Once we include opportunity costs and the subset of social capital we now call ‘moral capital’, we see that material trade and consumption is just a minority of the human economy. And that the economy that makes material trade and consumption possible is the social and moral economy. And that theft of opportunity, or the various forms of free riding, or theft by immorality, are all equivalent forms of theft. So, Krugman’s solution is immoral. The conservative solution is of course. moral. Because conservatism in the west is a defense of moral capital. Incentives are incentives. Actions have cumulative consequences. Money is only a unit of measure. Human beings keep account of not only money but opportunity costs. And what Krugman is saying is that Germans pay opportunity costs and should involuntarily transfer them to the periphery. The trade is only IMBALANCED because of BEHAVIOR then it is not a trade imbalance, it is an incentive. ANALYSIS There is a very great difference between the imbalances in trade, education, technology, resources, and infrastructure and the imbalances in trust, discipline, time preference, and hard work. And it is IMMORAL and COUNTER PRODUCTIVE if we do NOT use trade imbalances to transform those who have less trust, less discipline, work less. The ongoing evolution of social capital requires that we punish free riders. And Free Riding IS THE PROBLEM that all societies must suppress. It is necessary for cooperation. SOURCE OF HIS IMMORALITY Paul studied trade between different STATES – plus he has deeply internalized both jewish ghetto ethics, and the need to justify the failure of his people to hold land through adoption of land-holder moral codes. (Albeit as a survival strategy.) Furthermore, for cultural reasons, he is an anti-aristocratic activist. Like many people with specialized knowledge he uses overwhelming bis in all his arguments to mask the very simple, but catastrophic errors he makes on a daily basis: that it is necessary to conform to germanic high trust behavior and institutions if one desires a high trust society, and the economic productivity of the anglo-german sphere. Conversely, and much more importantly, it is IMPOSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE HIGH TRUST SOCIETY by policy and will rather than culture and incentive. Free riding is the primary problem of economic and social development and why the nuclear family is so important (if fragile.) If people see free-riding, then they will punish it. If free riding is pervasive, people will STOP over-contributing. I cannot really tell if Krugman understands the importance of the high trust ethic, or if his ghetto ethics, hatred of white europeans, and his fascination with states and trade simply serve blind him to it. But given his obvious joy at expressing ridicule, and his facility with intentionally OBSCURING the moral and necessary constraint of free riding, with the status signals obtained from using charity as a means of conspicuous consumption, I would say that Krugman is nothing more than one more exceptionally verbally talented man, using loaded and obscurant language, as a means of conducting MacDonald’s insight into the damaging nature of Each expression of Krugman’s rhetorical glee, is a status perk he obtains, demonstrating both his conspicuous consumption, and therefore his status, while at the same time destroying the western high trust society by encouraging, in every way possible, free riding, rent seeking. THE BROADER CONTEXT If Noam Chomsky is the high priest, then Paul Krugman is the parliamentary head of the “Culture Of Critique” that, by use of obscurant language, is a systemic means of conducting intentional fraud: it is ‘the prestige’ in the verbal sleight of hand; the gesture that hides the true action: **Obtaining status by demonstrating conspicuous consumption using other people’s money, to increase free riding and rent seeking, in order to destroy the high trust society – which is the FIRST CAUSE OF ECONOMIC EXCELLENCE.** Once the speaker is possessed of status, then the ‘virtuously destructive’ cycle is complete. He has free reign to use that status, obtained by fraud and theft, to continue and expand his theft. Understood in this light, we see both the legitimacy of Paul Krugman’s insight into interstate trade, and the moral criminality of his rhetoric as an expression of the ongoing damage of the Cultural of Critique to western civilization and the high trust society. One can use verbal intelligence to articulate the truth. Or one can use verbal intelligence to construct obscurant language that by ‘the prestige’ – the award of status – under the rubric of care-taking, by encouraging people and policy makers to do just the opposite of what they intend: to destroy their high trust society by facilitating in every way possible the rent seeking and free riding that make the high trust society possible. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine ——– Note: I’ll improve this argument a bit. This is my first draft. But I’ve pretty much got the idea down. And I think I’ve united finally, Popper and Praxeology through operational language, fixing both of them. I am not sure how successful that I will be with the argument that obscurant (unscientific, non-operational) language is required for moral speech, because operational language places a high barrier for knowledge on any speaker. But if one makes public speech, about public matters, he is offering a product to the market, and is bound by warrantee.

  • The Source And Purpose Of Paul Krugman's Intellectual Corruption

    (explanatory power)(important) “The Conscience Of An Immoral Man” In a series of recent articles, Krugman suggests that there is only one answer for Europe and the world, and that is, for the Germans to redistribute to the periphery. But that’s false. The opposite answer is that the periphery borrow to REFORM themselves. And when I say something is ‘moral’ I mean that it forces an involuntary transfer – a theft. One cannot dismiss morality unless one dismisses theft. That’s what it means to be immoral: to steal indirectly, and anonymously. Once we include opportunity costs and the subset of social capital we now call ‘moral capital’, we see that material trade and consumption is just a minority of the human economy. And that the economy that makes material trade and consumption possible is the social and moral economy. And that theft of opportunity, or the various forms of free riding, or theft by immorality, are all equivalent forms of theft. So, Krugman’s solution is immoral. The conservative solution is of course. moral. Because conservatism in the west is a defense of moral capital. Incentives are incentives. Actions have cumulative consequences. Money is only a unit of measure. Human beings keep account of not only money but opportunity costs. And what Krugman is saying is that Germans pay opportunity costs and should involuntarily transfer them to the periphery. The trade is only IMBALANCED because of BEHAVIOR then it is not a trade imbalance, it is an incentive. ANALYSIS There is a very great difference between the imbalances in trade, education, technology, resources, and infrastructure and the imbalances in trust, discipline, time preference, and hard work. And it is IMMORAL and COUNTER PRODUCTIVE if we do NOT use trade imbalances to transform those who have less trust, less discipline, work less. The ongoing evolution of social capital requires that we punish free riders. And Free Riding IS THE PROBLEM that all societies must suppress. It is necessary for cooperation. SOURCE OF HIS IMMORALITY Paul studied trade between different STATES – plus he has deeply internalized both jewish ghetto ethics, and the need to justify the failure of his people to hold land through adoption of land-holder moral codes. (Albeit as a survival strategy.) Furthermore, for cultural reasons, he is an anti-aristocratic activist. Like many people with specialized knowledge he uses overwhelming bis in all his arguments to mask the very simple, but catastrophic errors he makes on a daily basis: that it is necessary to conform to germanic high trust behavior and institutions if one desires a high trust society, and the economic productivity of the anglo-german sphere. Conversely, and much more importantly, it is IMPOSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE HIGH TRUST SOCIETY by policy and will rather than culture and incentive. Free riding is the primary problem of economic and social development and why the nuclear family is so important (if fragile.) If people see free-riding, then they will punish it. If free riding is pervasive, people will STOP over-contributing. I cannot really tell if Krugman understands the importance of the high trust ethic, or if his ghetto ethics, hatred of white europeans, and his fascination with states and trade simply serve blind him to it. But given his obvious joy at expressing ridicule, and his facility with intentionally OBSCURING the moral and necessary constraint of free riding, with the status signals obtained from using charity as a means of conspicuous consumption, I would say that Krugman is nothing more than one more exceptionally verbally talented man, using loaded and obscurant language, as a means of conducting MacDonald’s insight into the damaging nature of Each expression of Krugman’s rhetorical glee, is a status perk he obtains, demonstrating both his conspicuous consumption, and therefore his status, while at the same time destroying the western high trust society by encouraging, in every way possible, free riding, rent seeking. THE BROADER CONTEXT If Noam Chomsky is the high priest, then Paul Krugman is the parliamentary head of the “Culture Of Critique” that, by use of obscurant language, is a systemic means of conducting intentional fraud: it is ‘the prestige’ in the verbal sleight of hand; the gesture that hides the true action: **Obtaining status by demonstrating conspicuous consumption using other people’s money, to increase free riding and rent seeking, in order to destroy the high trust society – which is the FIRST CAUSE OF ECONOMIC EXCELLENCE.** Once the speaker is possessed of status, then the ‘virtuously destructive’ cycle is complete. He has free reign to use that status, obtained by fraud and theft, to continue and expand his theft. Understood in this light, we see both the legitimacy of Paul Krugman’s insight into interstate trade, and the moral criminality of his rhetoric as an expression of the ongoing damage of the Cultural of Critique to western civilization and the high trust society. One can use verbal intelligence to articulate the truth. Or one can use verbal intelligence to construct obscurant language that by ‘the prestige’ – the award of status – under the rubric of care-taking, by encouraging people and policy makers to do just the opposite of what they intend: to destroy their high trust society by facilitating in every way possible the rent seeking and free riding that make the high trust society possible. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine ——– Note: I’ll improve this argument a bit. This is my first draft. But I’ve pretty much got the idea down. And I think I’ve united finally, Popper and Praxeology through operational language, fixing both of them. I am not sure how successful that I will be with the argument that obscurant (unscientific, non-operational) language is required for moral speech, because operational language places a high barrier for knowledge on any speaker. But if one makes public speech, about public matters, he is offering a product to the market, and is bound by warrantee.

  • The Source And Purpose Of Paul Krugman’s Intellectual Corruption

    (explanatory power)(important) “The Conscience Of An Immoral Man” In a series of recent articles, Krugman suggests that there is only one answer for Europe and the world, and that is, for the Germans to redistribute to the periphery. But that’s false. The opposite answer is that the periphery borrow to REFORM themselves. And when I say something is ‘moral’ I mean that it forces an involuntary transfer – a theft. One cannot dismiss morality unless one dismisses theft. That’s what it means to be immoral: to steal indirectly, and anonymously. Once we include opportunity costs and the subset of social capital we now call ‘moral capital’, we see that material trade and consumption is just a minority of the human economy. And that the economy that makes material trade and consumption possible is the social and moral economy. And that theft of opportunity, or the various forms of free riding, or theft by immorality, are all equivalent forms of theft. So, Krugman’s solution is immoral. The conservative solution is of course. moral. Because conservatism in the west is a defense of moral capital. Incentives are incentives. Actions have cumulative consequences. Money is only a unit of measure. Human beings keep account of not only money but opportunity costs. And what Krugman is saying is that Germans pay opportunity costs and should involuntarily transfer them to the periphery. The trade is only IMBALANCED because of BEHAVIOR then it is not a trade imbalance, it is an incentive. ANALYSIS There is a very great difference between the imbalances in trade, education, technology, resources, and infrastructure and the imbalances in trust, discipline, time preference, and hard work. And it is IMMORAL and COUNTER PRODUCTIVE if we do NOT use trade imbalances to transform those who have less trust, less discipline, work less. The ongoing evolution of social capital requires that we punish free riders. And Free Riding IS THE PROBLEM that all societies must suppress. It is necessary for cooperation. SOURCE OF HIS IMMORALITY Paul studied trade between different STATES – plus he has deeply internalized both jewish ghetto ethics, and the need to justify the failure of his people to hold land through adoption of land-holder moral codes. (Albeit as a survival strategy.) Furthermore, for cultural reasons, he is an anti-aristocratic activist. Like many people with specialized knowledge he uses overwhelming bis in all his arguments to mask the very simple, but catastrophic errors he makes on a daily basis: that it is necessary to conform to germanic high trust behavior and institutions if one desires a high trust society, and the economic productivity of the anglo-german sphere. Conversely, and much more importantly, it is IMPOSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE HIGH TRUST SOCIETY by policy and will rather than culture and incentive. Free riding is the primary problem of economic and social development and why the nuclear family is so important (if fragile.) If people see free-riding, then they will punish it. If free riding is pervasive, people will STOP over-contributing. I cannot really tell if Krugman understands the importance of the high trust ethic, or if his ghetto ethics, hatred of white europeans, and his fascination with states and trade simply serve blind him to it. But given his obvious joy at expressing ridicule, and his facility with intentionally OBSCURING the moral and necessary constraint of free riding, with the status signals obtained from using charity as a means of conspicuous consumption, I would say that Krugman is nothing more than one more exceptionally verbally talented man, using loaded and obscurant language, as a means of conducting MacDonald’s insight into the damaging nature of Each expression of Krugman’s rhetorical glee, is a status perk he obtains, demonstrating both his conspicuous consumption, and therefore his status, while at the same time destroying the western high trust society by encouraging, in every way possible, free riding, rent seeking. THE BROADER CONTEXT If Noam Chomsky is the high priest, then Paul Krugman is the parliamentary head of the “Culture Of Critique” that, by use of obscurant language, is a systemic means of conducting intentional fraud: it is ‘the prestige’ in the verbal sleight of hand; the gesture that hides the true action: **Obtaining status by demonstrating conspicuous consumption using other people’s money, to increase free riding and rent seeking, in order to destroy the high trust society – which is the FIRST CAUSE OF ECONOMIC EXCELLENCE.** Once the speaker is possessed of status, then the ‘virtuously destructive’ cycle is complete. He has free reign to use that status, obtained by fraud and theft, to continue and expand his theft. Understood in this light, we see both the legitimacy of Paul Krugman’s insight into interstate trade, and the moral criminality of his rhetoric as an expression of the ongoing damage of the Cultural of Critique to western civilization and the high trust society. One can use verbal intelligence to articulate the truth. Or one can use verbal intelligence to construct obscurant language that by ‘the prestige’ – the award of status – under the rubric of care-taking, by encouraging people and policy makers to do just the opposite of what they intend: to destroy their high trust society by facilitating in every way possible the rent seeking and free riding that make the high trust society possible. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine ——– Note: I’ll improve this argument a bit. This is my first draft. But I’ve pretty much got the idea down. And I think I’ve united finally, Popper and Praxeology through operational language, fixing both of them. I am not sure how successful that I will be with the argument that obscurant (unscientific, non-operational) language is required for moral speech, because operational language places a high barrier for knowledge on any speaker. But if one makes public speech, about public matters, he is offering a product to the market, and is bound by warrantee.

  • Deceptions

    TRUE --------------------------- FALSE------
Operational Language............ Moral language
Compensation.....................Shame, Moral Duty or Claim
Voluntary Exchange...............Involuntary Transfer

  • Deceptions

    TRUE --------------------------- FALSE------
Operational Language............ Moral language
Compensation.....................Shame, Moral Duty or Claim
Voluntary Exchange...............Involuntary Transfer

  • “I didn’t succeed in convincing you. You just lost your mind for a bit and I too

    “I didn’t succeed in convincing you. You just lost your mind for a bit and I took advantage of it.”

    How I am I supposed to take that?

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-26 13:17:00 UTC

  • whole narrative hasn’t made sense to me. I could have told you this. It doesn’t

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-failsThis whole narrative hasn’t made sense to me.

    I could have told you this. It doesn’t make sense. I mean, as far as I can tell, it’s just an easy way to make a lot more money than they can by other means. Sex for drugs is one thing. But at least around here, you can’t tell the prostitutes (we don’t have ‘hookers’ here) from the average girls. (Veronika can. I can’t.) I mean in a country where you make about $800 a month if you’re lucky, and 1000 if you’re very lucky, $200-$300 for an hour’s worth of work on friday and saturday night can double your monthly income.

    I mean, at this fairly upscale restaurant the other night some girl went through five guys in the course of six hours. Looked like she walked out of a Elle advertisement. Weird. I mean, I only saw the first two but my friend was who works there was texting me during the entire event. (I hope she showered in between. ick… I mean. Seriously.)

    But that’s two months salary around here in one evening of sport sex.

    Very strange world. Surreal.

    I really would like to write a paper on this economics and incentives in Ukrainian prostitution but people already think all sorts of insane nonsense about me, and I dont need to pour gasoline on those ideas.

    I have a friend to tends a bar in one of the strip clubs here and through him I wheedled my way into going drinking with management and owners, and sort of spent a couple of evenings going through the business models of all the different shops in town. Is a hysterical business. It’s really not much different from any other kind of retail.

    The most interesting thing, is that they CAN’T hire prostitutes exclusively. There wouldn’t be anyone to do the dancing on busy nights. In any given club some percentage of girls work ‘without sex’. And there are older women who teach them how to do it. (how to be interesting and get they guys to spend money on drinks and food and other girls). It’s like a commission sales job. The prostitutes make the house a lot more money. But they are more in demand and have more control over their schedules and work. The ‘dancers’ are basically salespeople.

    Every club has to pay off some politician or other and most clubs are partly owned by someone in the bureaucracy who is a silent partner. They pay the cops to stay away. But that doesn’t necessarily stop them if you create a problem.

    Anyway. My two cents.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-25 17:08:00 UTC