Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • IS THE BIG LIE ULTIMATELY JUST SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM? Pretty much. Social constr

    IS THE BIG LIE ULTIMATELY JUST SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM?

    Pretty much. Social construction is how the big lies are created. But let’s go a little deeper and understand why.

    —-“Among the most intriguing ideas for improving fairness in our economy–and creating capitalism that earns popular support–is “universal basic capital.” Spread the equity, give all a stake. “—Jonathan Haidt @JonHaidt

    https://berggruen.org/the-worldpost/articles/sharing-the-wealth-as-we-recover-health/

    Consensus, getting heads together, leadership, these are all village-thinking. The female intuition doesn’t scale. We have institutions and rule of law of tort for a reason – it scales, at the cost of suppressing the reproduction of the underclasses, keeping natural selection.

    It wasn’t europeans that developed global religion, global marxism, global socialism, global cosmopolitanism, global postmodernism, global hbd-denialism, or europeans that undermined rule of law.

    It was feminine intuition, and people of it, that cannot scale.

    —” is the big lie ultimately just social constructivism?

    So they try to do social engineering that achieves nothing except psychologically abusing people.”—

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

    Female social construction > ((())) > The Left.

    Female Social Construction to Manage behavioral growth of children, using her seduction > The ((())) group strategy (undermining host peoples, while riding on their commons) > The Anti Evolutionary (domestication) Canon: Freud, Boas, Marx, Adorno-Fromm, Derrida, Trotsky-Kristol.

    So if ((())) 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.

    We don’t need to increase ‘fairness’ or ‘social justice’ neither of which are either definable or measureable, but we need to return to suppression of the reproduction of those that cannot compete in the suite of market tests at whatever level of development that we’re in.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-21 08:08:00 UTC

  • “Marxism is the tooth fairy of political beliefs. You can’t make a credible clai

    —“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?

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 14:54:00 UTC

  • I DON”T SPEND TIME REFUTING MARXISM. BUT IT”S TRIVIALLY EASY —“Is there an art

    I DON”T SPEND TIME REFUTING MARXISM. BUT IT”S TRIVIALLY EASY

    —“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.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 13:37:00 UTC

  • QUESTION– Curt; in the paragraph: —Marxism, neo-marxism (cultural marxism), p

    –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

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 12:34:00 UTC

  • The truth is the truth. Denying it is to lie

    The truth is the truth. Denying it is to lie.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 08:41:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1251430698948452357

    Reply addressees: @Mariasinapi1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1251417802172502022

  • Some marketer at the Bush Center virtue signaling for donors

    Some marketer at the Bush Center virtue signaling for donors.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-15 20:55:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250528299887071232

    Reply addressees: @IngrahamAngle

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250527062408015872

  • If you had an argument you would make it. You don’t. Which is why I love letting

    If you had an argument you would make it. You don’t.
    Which is why I love letting you morons from clown world search for adhoms ’cause you’re too stupid to do anything else. 😉

    You just illustrate my point, over and over and over again.

    Why? You can’t help it -the monkey inside.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-15 18:00:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250484124600676355

    Reply addressees: @heraclitean11 @jim_rutt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250483309408325632

  • Countering Chinese Propaganda

    Countering Chinese Propaganda https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/15/countering-chinese-propaganda/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-15 15:16:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250442798362320897

  • Countering Chinese Propaganda

    [I] posed a map of the nine individual countries within the chinese empire, as a comparison to the nine nations of north american empire, and the twenty odd nations of europe in the EU’s attempt at the long standing French project of a european empire. This is a copy of the thread. It’s a back and forth between someone in china and me. My point was to test whether they would ban my account rather than tolerate the truth. it worked. But it’s evidence of how russia and china both use trolls to protect the internal narrative.

    —“This is why westerners shouldn’t have opinions”—☭ЛунаRainbow flag루나 @sunkiisss

    This is why chinese shouldn’t have western technology. 😉

    —“You mean gunpowder, paper and CRISPR? Fucken dumbarse, no wonder America is in decline”—Henry Yin @healingbyhenry

    I mean truth-before-face, rule of law, jury and testimony, independent judiciary, science, medicine, industry, and technology you beg, borrow and steal from us. … We did more in 400 years in the ancient world and 400 years in the modern than you did in 3000 – and we had a dark age in between.

    —“Information belongs to everyone, not just the west.”—

    That is communist chinese propaganda. Does that mean your ancestors who kept the secret recipe for porcelain should not have? A thing belongs to those who use strength to maintain their ownership. We don’t use strength – Because we wanted to end your primitive barbarism. We didn’t conquer you because we were Christian. We ended your poverty by letting you steal our technology because we are Christian. We had Christian faith that once you failed at Communism you would no longer be barbarians. We were wrong. You remain barbarians. This means we must eventually war and end your barbarism. You are animals. You are filthy. You make disease and plague. You lie like thieves about everything. You steal everything. You allow children kidnapped, women raped,and people run over by trucks in daylight and do nothing.

  • Countering Chinese Propaganda

    [I] posed a map of the nine individual countries within the chinese empire, as a comparison to the nine nations of north american empire, and the twenty odd nations of europe in the EU’s attempt at the long standing French project of a european empire. This is a copy of the thread. It’s a back and forth between someone in china and me. My point was to test whether they would ban my account rather than tolerate the truth. it worked. But it’s evidence of how russia and china both use trolls to protect the internal narrative.

    —“This is why westerners shouldn’t have opinions”—☭ЛунаRainbow flag루나 @sunkiisss

    This is why chinese shouldn’t have western technology. 😉

    —“You mean gunpowder, paper and CRISPR? Fucken dumbarse, no wonder America is in decline”—Henry Yin @healingbyhenry

    I mean truth-before-face, rule of law, jury and testimony, independent judiciary, science, medicine, industry, and technology you beg, borrow and steal from us. … We did more in 400 years in the ancient world and 400 years in the modern than you did in 3000 – and we had a dark age in between.

    —“Information belongs to everyone, not just the west.”—

    That is communist chinese propaganda. Does that mean your ancestors who kept the secret recipe for porcelain should not have? A thing belongs to those who use strength to maintain their ownership. We don’t use strength – Because we wanted to end your primitive barbarism. We didn’t conquer you because we were Christian. We ended your poverty by letting you steal our technology because we are Christian. We had Christian faith that once you failed at Communism you would no longer be barbarians. We were wrong. You remain barbarians. This means we must eventually war and end your barbarism. You are animals. You are filthy. You make disease and plague. You lie like thieves about everything. You steal everything. You allow children kidnapped, women raped,and people run over by trucks in daylight and do nothing.