Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • Conspiracy

    Conspiracy of Common Interests vs Of Intent —“Maybe I’m unclear on what you mean by intent. It seems to me incentives and intent are interlinked.”—Scott Strong CONSPIRACY OF COMMON INTERESTS: Passively follow incentives to seize existing opportunity – and fail to not seize opportunity that is immoral. CONSPIRACY OF INTENT: Actively work to create opportunities to seize because they are immoral. CONSPIRACY OF IDIOCY: Actively work to crate opportunities to seize that are immoral because you falsely believe that they are moral (you justify them) CONSPIRACY TO BAIT INTO HAZARD: Actively work to create opportunities for others to seize that produce immoral consequences.

  • Reconstitution of Sentences

    Apr 18, 2020, 12:34 PM –QUESTION– Curt; in the paragraph:

    —Marxism, neo-marxism (cultural marxism), postmodernism, feminism, and hbd-denialism, are all attempts at deception by: (a) claiming european self determination (sovereignty, reciprocity), tripartism (military, legal-commercial), and religious(family-faithful), mediated by law, and limiting us to markets, so that we preserve natural selection by demonstrated behavior, and devoting the proceeds to the production of commons, thereby maintaining the health,prosperity, and wealth of the people, and their competitive advantage is oppression, when all other peoples that did not do so were mired in poverty and suffering.’—

    Here, under (a), it says that Marxism is an attempt at deception by claiming European self-determination, tripartism and religious… (etc)Should that not read ‘undermining’, rather than claiming. They don’t claim those things, they undermine them.I don’t know if I’m missing something, here?It also says their competitive advantage is oppression? Technically aren’t the competitive advantages of the left AND right oppression? The left oppress the objectively strong, the right suppress (oppress) the objectively weak.I just want a little clarification here, that’s all. Thanks. –RESPONSE– Well you know, i) i write long complex sentences, including parentheticals and series, ii) I leave out what I consider extra words. And, that’s sometimes a burden. This comes from writing programming code, and it’s the combination of law, economics, programming, and the foundations of mathematics that let me develop P-law. So there is a high correlation between my sentence structure and programming code. In the four paragraphs below I’ve broken up the single paragraph into its constituent phrases and added back what I consider unnecessary terms in brackets [ ], resulting in

    “…Claiming that (all this stuff) is oppression (by these people).”

    “{(a) claiming [that] } … {european self determination (sovereignty, reciprocity), tripartism (military, legal-commercial), and religious(family-faithful), mediated by law, [that limits] us to markets, so that we preserve natural selection [ in markets that existed before them,] by individually demonstrated behavior, } … {and devoting the proceeds [of surpluses] to the production of commons, [instead of funding reproduction of additional non-contributors] thereby maintaining the health,prosperity, and wealth of the people [who are contributors], and their competitive advantage [against competing peoples]} … {is oppression [by the middle and ruling classes], when all other peoples that did not do so [preserve natural selection using markets] were mired in poverty and suffering.}’” in other words, productivity must stay ahead of reproduction. What I could have said is that: “Marxism, neo-marxism (cultural marxism), postmodernism, feminism, and hbd-denialism, are all attempts at deception by: (a) claiming they’re oppressed by ….” Or some variation thereof. -Cheers

    —“Right wing – ensure productivity outpaces reproductivity, ensuring prosperity. Left wing – ensure reproductivity outpaces productivity, ensuring poverty (demand for redistribution).”—Scott De Warren

  • Reconstitution of Sentences

    Apr 18, 2020, 12:34 PM –QUESTION– Curt; in the paragraph:

    —Marxism, neo-marxism (cultural marxism), postmodernism, feminism, and hbd-denialism, are all attempts at deception by: (a) claiming european self determination (sovereignty, reciprocity), tripartism (military, legal-commercial), and religious(family-faithful), mediated by law, and limiting us to markets, so that we preserve natural selection by demonstrated behavior, and devoting the proceeds to the production of commons, thereby maintaining the health,prosperity, and wealth of the people, and their competitive advantage is oppression, when all other peoples that did not do so were mired in poverty and suffering.’—

    Here, under (a), it says that Marxism is an attempt at deception by claiming European self-determination, tripartism and religious… (etc)Should that not read ‘undermining’, rather than claiming. They don’t claim those things, they undermine them.I don’t know if I’m missing something, here?It also says their competitive advantage is oppression? Technically aren’t the competitive advantages of the left AND right oppression? The left oppress the objectively strong, the right suppress (oppress) the objectively weak.I just want a little clarification here, that’s all. Thanks. –RESPONSE– Well you know, i) i write long complex sentences, including parentheticals and series, ii) I leave out what I consider extra words. And, that’s sometimes a burden. This comes from writing programming code, and it’s the combination of law, economics, programming, and the foundations of mathematics that let me develop P-law. So there is a high correlation between my sentence structure and programming code. In the four paragraphs below I’ve broken up the single paragraph into its constituent phrases and added back what I consider unnecessary terms in brackets [ ], resulting in

    “…Claiming that (all this stuff) is oppression (by these people).”

    “{(a) claiming [that] } … {european self determination (sovereignty, reciprocity), tripartism (military, legal-commercial), and religious(family-faithful), mediated by law, [that limits] us to markets, so that we preserve natural selection [ in markets that existed before them,] by individually demonstrated behavior, } … {and devoting the proceeds [of surpluses] to the production of commons, [instead of funding reproduction of additional non-contributors] thereby maintaining the health,prosperity, and wealth of the people [who are contributors], and their competitive advantage [against competing peoples]} … {is oppression [by the middle and ruling classes], when all other peoples that did not do so [preserve natural selection using markets] were mired in poverty and suffering.}’” in other words, productivity must stay ahead of reproduction. What I could have said is that: “Marxism, neo-marxism (cultural marxism), postmodernism, feminism, and hbd-denialism, are all attempts at deception by: (a) claiming they’re oppressed by ….” Or some variation thereof. -Cheers

    —“Right wing – ensure productivity outpaces reproductivity, ensuring prosperity. Left wing – ensure reproductivity outpaces productivity, ensuring poverty (demand for redistribution).”—Scott De Warren

  • I Don’t Spend Time Refuting Marxism. But It’s Trivially Easy

    Apr 18, 2020, 1:37 PM

    —“Is there an article in which you relate these claims to the specific Marxist tenets, like surplus value, the labor theory of value, historical materialism, alienated labour, and so on? … I noticed you didn’t mention any of these in your comment here, so I’m not sure we’re really talking about the same thing.​”—Morus Alba

    It is not necessary to refute marx since it’s been done for decades. Just the fallacy of the labor theory of value eradicates most of the work; the claim on profits without claim on risk and loss; the claim that the primary beneficiary of industrialization is not the working classes and the poor; the claim of equality and oppression rather than natural sortition by genetic ability individual and family; the claim of society as corporal over family and polity for family; the claim of oppression rather than continuation of natural selection; The means of argument and it’s monopoly proposition to undermine trifuncationalism, markets, and rule of law. I mean, I don’t think I need to do anything other than state correctly that it’s a pseudoscientific authoritarian religion that repeats the false promise of the supernatural authoritarian religion of judaism, christianity, and islam and sold to the poor in the modern world as freedom from physical law, just as freedom from physical law was sold to the underclases in the ancient world – and that gave us the dark ages of ignorance by judaism, christianity, and islam. That’s why we don’t teach marx in economics, only non-science. So if you want me to refute a given marxist proposition I will because it’s trivially easy. If you want me to refute ashkenazi capitalism I’ll refute that just as easily. If you want me to refute neoconservatism I’ll do that easily. If you want me to refute postmodernism or feminism I’ll do those just as easily. My goal of course is to expand the law so that false promise of freedom from physical, natural and evolutionary law, by baiting people into hazard is as illegal in political fraud as the same strategy is in commercial fraud. So most of my work is in exposing the strategy of abrahamic deception – which is as sophisticated a means of deceit as aristotelianism is a means of truth production – and writing laws that not only reverse it’s harms, but which prevent its future use … thereby restoring us to trifuncationalism, sovereignty, reciprocity, the natural law and jury, and markets in all aspects of life, including the suppression of the reproduction of the unproductive classes so that they do not return man to middle eastern ignorance and poverty as did christianity and islam, nor tolerate survival by parasitism as we have seen with judaism’s profiting from baiting host peoples into hazard with tax collection, usury, gambling, prostitution, drug and alcohol sales on credit, organized crime. propaganda, and rent seeking. BY ANALOGY We humans are just monkeys running software with more memory and cpu power. I’m removing ‘memory leak’ from the human software. And law ist he means by which we program humans via negativa, without needing to program them via-positiva, and therefore leaving them open to competition in adversarial markets continuing our rapid evolution during this brief geological respite between crisis that threaten mankind.

  • I Don’t Spend Time Refuting Marxism. But It’s Trivially Easy

    Apr 18, 2020, 1:37 PM

    —“Is there an article in which you relate these claims to the specific Marxist tenets, like surplus value, the labor theory of value, historical materialism, alienated labour, and so on? … I noticed you didn’t mention any of these in your comment here, so I’m not sure we’re really talking about the same thing.​”—Morus Alba

    It is not necessary to refute marx since it’s been done for decades. Just the fallacy of the labor theory of value eradicates most of the work; the claim on profits without claim on risk and loss; the claim that the primary beneficiary of industrialization is not the working classes and the poor; the claim of equality and oppression rather than natural sortition by genetic ability individual and family; the claim of society as corporal over family and polity for family; the claim of oppression rather than continuation of natural selection; The means of argument and it’s monopoly proposition to undermine trifuncationalism, markets, and rule of law. I mean, I don’t think I need to do anything other than state correctly that it’s a pseudoscientific authoritarian religion that repeats the false promise of the supernatural authoritarian religion of judaism, christianity, and islam and sold to the poor in the modern world as freedom from physical law, just as freedom from physical law was sold to the underclases in the ancient world – and that gave us the dark ages of ignorance by judaism, christianity, and islam. That’s why we don’t teach marx in economics, only non-science. So if you want me to refute a given marxist proposition I will because it’s trivially easy. If you want me to refute ashkenazi capitalism I’ll refute that just as easily. If you want me to refute neoconservatism I’ll do that easily. If you want me to refute postmodernism or feminism I’ll do those just as easily. My goal of course is to expand the law so that false promise of freedom from physical, natural and evolutionary law, by baiting people into hazard is as illegal in political fraud as the same strategy is in commercial fraud. So most of my work is in exposing the strategy of abrahamic deception – which is as sophisticated a means of deceit as aristotelianism is a means of truth production – and writing laws that not only reverse it’s harms, but which prevent its future use … thereby restoring us to trifuncationalism, sovereignty, reciprocity, the natural law and jury, and markets in all aspects of life, including the suppression of the reproduction of the unproductive classes so that they do not return man to middle eastern ignorance and poverty as did christianity and islam, nor tolerate survival by parasitism as we have seen with judaism’s profiting from baiting host peoples into hazard with tax collection, usury, gambling, prostitution, drug and alcohol sales on credit, organized crime. propaganda, and rent seeking. BY ANALOGY We humans are just monkeys running software with more memory and cpu power. I’m removing ‘memory leak’ from the human software. And law ist he means by which we program humans via negativa, without needing to program them via-positiva, and therefore leaving them open to competition in adversarial markets continuing our rapid evolution during this brief geological respite between crisis that threaten mankind.

  • The False Promise

    Apr 18, 2020, 3:43 PM

    —“That’s what it always comes down to, freedom from consequences. The false promise of freedom from consequences is baiting into hazard as ignoring consequences must necessarily result in destruction.”—Andrew M Gilmour

    —“Marxism is the tooth fairy of political beliefs. You can’t make a credible claim to being an adult and still believe in that nonsense.”–Noah J Revoy

    —“Surplus value cannot exist. It’s the greatest lie to ever ensnare humans.”—Andrew M Gilmour

    —“Even if something like surplus value hypothetically could exist, I think the more important point is that there is no way of verifying or falsifying such a claim. He just insists that it does exist and that it can be calculated in terms of socially necessary labor time per hour. He’s just describing the attributes of a mythical tooth fairy without providing any way of verifying it.”—Predmetsky Rosenborg

    The question is this, why should I, having collected the savings fo dozens of families, invest in more than one companies, when only one will turn a profit, without expecting a return from the one company, that will profit enough to invest in any company, despite all but one losing money?

    Or more differently, given that all industrial capitalization, organization, marketing, sales, production, and receipt of payment is speculative, would the common laborers equally risk their income by investing labor and then waiting to see if the income would be returned?

  • The False Promise

    Apr 18, 2020, 3:43 PM

    —“That’s what it always comes down to, freedom from consequences. The false promise of freedom from consequences is baiting into hazard as ignoring consequences must necessarily result in destruction.”—Andrew M Gilmour

    —“Marxism is the tooth fairy of political beliefs. You can’t make a credible claim to being an adult and still believe in that nonsense.”–Noah J Revoy

    —“Surplus value cannot exist. It’s the greatest lie to ever ensnare humans.”—Andrew M Gilmour

    —“Even if something like surplus value hypothetically could exist, I think the more important point is that there is no way of verifying or falsifying such a claim. He just insists that it does exist and that it can be calculated in terms of socially necessary labor time per hour. He’s just describing the attributes of a mythical tooth fairy without providing any way of verifying it.”—Predmetsky Rosenborg

    The question is this, why should I, having collected the savings fo dozens of families, invest in more than one companies, when only one will turn a profit, without expecting a return from the one company, that will profit enough to invest in any company, despite all but one losing money?

    Or more differently, given that all industrial capitalization, organization, marketing, sales, production, and receipt of payment is speculative, would the common laborers equally risk their income by investing labor and then waiting to see if the income would be returned?

  • The Incentive for Social Construction

    Apr 21, 2020, 9:02 AM

    —Social construction requires a false promise. The only viable false promises that scale for social construction are those that violate physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. Violating those laws baits the victims into hazard by violating those laws.—

    (worth repeating) (important)

  • The Incentive for Social Construction

    Apr 21, 2020, 9:02 AM

    —Social construction requires a false promise. The only viable false promises that scale for social construction are those that violate physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. Violating those laws baits the victims into hazard by violating those laws.—

    (worth repeating) (important)

  • Either Way We Have to Outlaw Social Construction by False Promise

    Apr 21, 2020, 12:28 PM (worth repeating) So if (((the))) war on western-sensemaking: our realism, naturalism, operationalism, sovereignty, reciprocity, testimony, commons, and eugenics, is a continuation of their ancient world rebellion against the masculine empires, and an involuntary rebellion against evolution-eugenics. This means if it’s genetic, as it is in our women,it’s irreparable, and separation is the only possibility. If it’s purely cultural (doesn’t appear to be) then it’s a matter of separating from their culture. Either way we have to outlaw it by requiring truthful reciprocal speech. Which is the purpose of my work on the law: to end the repeatedly successful use of abrahamic technique at destroying civilizations from within by false promise, baiting into hazard, selling to vulnerable women and the underclasses, and reversing east and west eugenics.