Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • “It has not been the devil’s policy to keep the masses of mankind in ignorance;

    —“It has not been the devil’s policy to keep the masses of mankind in ignorance; but finding that they will read, he is doing all in his power to poison their books.”— John Kenneth Galbraith

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-16 21:22:00 UTC

  • And the principle fraud insidious: pretension of knowledge and decidability one

    And the principle fraud insidious: pretension of knowledge and decidability one does not possess.

    In practice, Legal requires both costs and reciprocity; Aristotelian requires the material; ideal and supernatural none. Why? To Testify with responsibility or to Lie without it.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-16 20:52:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184572810007588864

    Reply addressees: @MattPirkowski

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184571621970980868

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @MattPirkowski The presumption of ignorance and error is a polite manifestation of western ethics of discourse, but it is not however evidenced in history. We err far less than we deceive, and the vast majority of thought is but elaborate deception to perpetuate one fraud, another, or many.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184571621970980868

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @MattPirkowski The presumption of ignorance and error is a polite manifestation of western ethics of discourse, but it is not however evidenced in history. We err far less than we deceive, and the vast majority of thought is but elaborate deception to perpetuate one fraud, another, or many.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184571621970980868

  • The presumption of ignorance and error is a polite manifestation of western ethi

    The presumption of ignorance and error is a polite manifestation of western ethics of discourse, but it is not however evidenced in history. We err far less than we deceive, and the vast majority of thought is but elaborate deception to perpetuate one fraud, another, or many.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-16 20:47:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184571621970980868

    Reply addressees: @MattPirkowski

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184571257846747137

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @MattPirkowski Hmm… I had to work on the eradication of deceit, and came to the opposite conclusion: that conceptual development is discernibly either reciprocal or irreciprocal(fraud), and thus the judgement is possible and necessary: one dark age of ignorance and deceit is enough.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184571257846747137

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @MattPirkowski Hmm… I had to work on the eradication of deceit, and came to the opposite conclusion: that conceptual development is discernibly either reciprocal or irreciprocal(fraud), and thus the judgement is possible and necessary: one dark age of ignorance and deceit is enough.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184571257846747137

  • Hmm… I had to work on the eradication of deceit, and came to the opposite conc

    Hmm… I had to work on the eradication of deceit, and came to the opposite conclusion: that conceptual development is discernibly either reciprocal or irreciprocal(fraud), and thus the judgement is possible and necessary: one dark age of ignorance and deceit is enough.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-16 20:46:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184571257846747137

    Reply addressees: @MattPirkowski

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184566418475405312

    IN REPLY TO:

    @MattPirkowski

    @curtdoolittle This scope appears quite limited, as I do not presume to place conceptual evolution itself on trial, and side with those pragmatists who take the side of that which appears necessary in service of adaptive continuity.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184566418475405312

  • (or incredible liars. Jury is in on the aristotelians(scientific). Jury is delib

    (or incredible liars. Jury is in on the aristotelians(scientific). Jury is deliberating on the platonists (literary), and a conviction is likely. Why? pretty good evidence more harm than good.)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-16 20:24:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184565768350064640

    Reply addressees: @MattPirkowski

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181985737320697857

    IN REPLY TO:

    @MattPirkowski

    Philosophers are perhaps most accurately conceptualized as linguistic terraformers.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181985737320697857

  • If you can’t make a moral argument in economic terms either you lack the intelle

    If you can’t make a moral argument in economic terms either you lack the intellectual ability or you are engaging in some for of fraud by deceit. This is yet another book doing the latter. And then feminists wonder why men are losing patience with the experiment of the franchise.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 22:00:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184227518133555201

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184227517340762113

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    So in other words, this book demonstrates the second Abrahamic (sophomoric) attempt to undermine western civlization: Monotheism in the old world, then Marxism, Feminism, Postmodernism, and ‘Denialism’ now – more embarrassing by far than pretense of religious dogma.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184227517340762113

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    So in other words, this book demonstrates the second Abrahamic (sophomoric) attempt to undermine western civlization: Monotheism in the old world, then Marxism, Feminism, Postmodernism, and ‘Denialism’ now – more embarrassing by far than pretense of religious dogma.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184227517340762113

  • I mean, this is another use of Female Gossiping, Shaming, Ridiculing, Moralizing

    I mean, this is another use of Female Gossiping, Shaming, Ridiculing, Moralizing, Psychologizing, Suggestion, Obscurantism, Sophism and Critique (straw manning) completely ignoring both truth vs falsehood and the necessity of cooperative exchange vs gender specific ideals.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 22:00:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184227516552302593

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184227515734417408

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    —“It also emerges that the failure to recognize women as human”– No, just that women are unequal to men in the foundations of european successes: truth, reciprocity, duty, markets, and meritocracy, and so far have demanded concessions in every aspect of life to accommodate.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184227515734417408

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    —“It also emerges that the failure to recognize women as human”– No, just that women are unequal to men in the foundations of european successes: truth, reciprocity, duty, markets, and meritocracy, and so far have demanded concessions in every aspect of life to accommodate.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184227515734417408

  • EXCERPTS FOR EMPHASIS BY LUCAS CORT by @[100008389721909:2048:Lucas Cort] Import

    EXCERPTS FOR EMPHASIS BY LUCAS CORT

    by @[100008389721909:2048:Lucas Cort]

    Important parts I’d like to emphasize:

    “We just were suckered yet again by the marxists into the false dichotomy of unfettered capitalism – monopoly of the middle class, or unfettered socialism – the monopoly of the underclass, rather than the successful european invention of rule of law, an unfettered monopoly of the upper, aristocratic, or martial class that derives its income from suppression of parasitism resulting in commission we call taxation.”

    “So in the twentieth century we destroyed (a) rule of law of tort, destroyed (b) the limits on reproduction of the underclasses, (c) destroyed the monetary and accounting system, (d) destroyed homogeneity of the population, and (e eliminated the monarchy and created a conflict for access to power to circumvent the market and obtain privileges and rents by the state, and (f) ended the prohibition on libel, slander, duel, hanging, fighting, civic defense and policing – all in order to accommodate those peoples not majority middle class (g) ended the family as a system of measurement by which resource consumption was measured.”

    “At the highest level we can disambiguate government into Rule (decisions), Government (production and administration of commons), Treasury (revenue and expenses), and insurer of last resort (both negative like military and positive like care taking).”

    “So there is no one static form of government producing the commons necessary for the current conditions, but one rule of law under which the production of commons varies according to the demand for commons.

    With P-law. we can produce any system of rule, production of commons, treasurer, and insurer of last resort.”

    “So I proposed a strictly constructed rule of law, with a monarchy as judge of last resort, a cabinet of professionals, subcontracted bureaucracies, houses for the classes and genders randomly selected like juries, requiring property and service, that have right of veto over taxes, fees. In this system no one is insulated from the law, and we create a market for the suppression of parasitism.

    There is more to it but that’s most of it. “This system scales up and down from authoritarian to redistributive as circumstances permit. “Updated Oct 14, 2019, 8:47 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-14 20:47:00 UTC

  • “Sophism is the common form of discourse now. It’s incredible to watch the stimu

    —“Sophism is the common form of discourse now. It’s incredible to watch the stimulus (P) create the response (dissonance). It’s entirely appropriate.”—Benny Burke

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-12 20:57:00 UTC

  • THE SUBVERSIVNESS OF THE LIE OF EQUALITY by Bill Joslin (See what happens when w

    THE SUBVERSIVNESS OF THE LIE OF EQUALITY

    by Bill Joslin

    (See what happens when we get bill in the game too???)

    Equivocation of equality as categorical membership with qualitative assessment ( that being the notion that all are equally valuable), results in an obscurity of ingroup distinction i.e. leads to the notion of open borders and franchise for all.

    We are equally members of the ingroup (categorical membership) or equally not (not a member of the ingroup)… conflation of “all men are created equally before god” with categorical membership obscures ingroup criteria and disarms any categorical assessment (that dude over in Nigeria was “created equal before god” and thus must be part of our group).

    this obscures calculation of membership benefit. specifically this stands as an example of creating AMBIGUITY. What is it that our group does? DISAMBIGUATE.

    Isonomy and categorical membership as the foundation for the notion of equally DISAMBIGUATES allowing for calculation of membership benefit and policing.

    Qualitative assessment as the foundation for the notion of equality affords obscurity in deciding membership benefit and policing…. which is why, after 100 years of the romantic notions (romantic r@pe of enlightenment ideas) we now have outgroups being extended ingroup benefit while skirting ingroup accountability.

    Truth is, notions such as equality and tolerance, in their initial application, remain critical to creating the world we would like see manifest.

    However, romantic age manipulations of these terms paved the way for the left to use our innovations against us, and the further regions of the right to rejects core mechanisms of what made the west great.

    Gotta admit – our enemies (broadly speaking – platonists) are fucking brilliant, which is why we must be more vigilant.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-12 20:09:00 UTC