(FB 1543511143 Timestamp) For Gods, Truth provides spirituality: potential. It’s those who are weak, dishonest, or but animals that need falsehoods.
Theme: Deception
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543425047 Timestamp) MORE ON DE-PROPAGANDIZING “CAPITALISM” (required reading)
- Trade has always existed (generating exchange)
Markets have almost always existed (generating prices).
Capitalists have existed as long as there have been markets (generating means of production).
Northern Europeans (Venetians less so. Saxons largely, the Hansa in particular, the English systematically, the Dutch first at political scale), developed rule of law – which is why they escaped the church with the reformation.)
Capitalism consists of rule of law consisting nearly entirely of markets, and socialism of rule of men eliminating or vastly reducing markets – but all polities have some mixed economy and must do so. The problem is that the state is superior at investing in some commons, but the private sector is far better at allocating and maximizing the returns on capital.
So capitalism and socialism only evolved once the industrial revolution came into play – and the socialists demanded control over production. Capitalism then was the name they used for ‘market bias under rule of law’ , and socialism ‘state bias under rule of men’.
So any statement about when was capitalism invented, is rater ‘stupid’ really. The answer is very simple: capitalism was the ‘jewish’ view of markets, and socialism the ‘jewish’ view of the state. And suckers bought into this false dichotomy. The question is and always will be the utilities of the state monopoly vs the private sector market. And as it stands, the lesson is quite clear: when it is simple and you know how to do it, but it’s risky and expensive, the state can provide startup capital and market protections. Once that investment is running, it can be ‘sold’ to the private sector who can then maximize its potential. The USA has mastered the art of moving this high risk investment into the private sector, but this has had the effect of hollowing out predictable sectors of the economy. So it appears that once again, there are those things it is better for the state to produce (labor-consuming and strategic companies, that are less speculative and produce slower longer returns), and things that it is better for the private sector to produce (IQ consuming and highly speculative things with shorter higher returns.) CONVERSELY The flood river and irrigation valleys of the fertile, crescent, pakistan-india, and china, could produce state-capital easily, just as the west could produce private-capital easily. The west and east homogenous peoples higher trust. The center tribal heterogenous people lower trust. It’s not complicated. You do what you can with the people and geography you have.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1543511026 Timestamp) ALL CRITIQUE IS “LYING” – AND HERE IS WHY ( worth repeating ) ( very important piece ) ( propertarianism core ) 1 – Either we are engaged in productive, fully informed(truthful), warrantied (skin in the game), voluntary transfers (exchanges), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated investments of others (externalities), or we are not. 2 – Every forced transfer is a lost opportunity for exchange – even if an exchange of good, for norm (behavior). 3 – In other words, all demands for goods independent of exchange are simply use of threats of disassociation (boycott) as a means of extraction (rent seeking). IGNORANCE IS NOT EXCUSE FOR FAILURES OF DUE DILIGENCE The fact that one has habituated a means of deception (continental conflationary philosophy and literature) rather than habituated a means of transparency (anglo analytic deflation – ie: science and law) and therefore argues for the profoundly dishonest and immoral out of cultural habit, has nothing to do with whether one INTENDS to argue immorally – it just means one’s CULTURE is endemically immoral. Which is just an argument to ignorance. It doesn’t absolve you from the failure of due diligence for the consequences of your display, speech, or action. Reciprocity (morality) requires one do nothing (by display, word, or deed) that one cannot perform restitution for – else one is externalizing risk upon others (conducting a theft). And some costs are impossible to perform restitution for. For example, what has been the cost of the pseudosciences and pseudo-rationalisms and pseudo-histories, of the French (Derrida, Rorty, et all) and Ashkenazi (Marx, Boas, Freud, Cantor, Adorno (et all), Mises, Rothbard, Leo Strauss) – all failures of due diligence against the immorality of their habits (cultural assumptions and argumentative grammar)? If you cannot make an operational argument in economics and politics ( that means a procedural model) that tests your theory then you do not know of what you speak. These people made Rousseauian (false) assumptions of human nature, and economic possibility – most notably because Rousseau was a profoundly immoral (irreciprocal) man, and the entirety of the french and ashkenazi, and some of the german intelligentsia, produce a reactionary movement misrepresented as ‘the enlightenment’, as always do people of armies, or of diaspora, seeking ‘liberty’ and thereby lacking the ‘sovereignty’ of the scandinavian sea-farers. They attempted to return the church’s demands upon others (appeals to the common good) counter to the british (anglo empirical) intellectual revolution (markets in everything.) In law, (conflict resolution by tests of reciprocity), and in war (conflcit prevention by tests of reciprocity), we do not make excuses for ignorance – ignorance and indiscipline (failure of due diligence) are just means of reducing costs and externalizing risk upon others. That is what these people did. They were liberated (no thanks to them) by the atlantic transport, agrarian, and industrial revolutions and made arguments that they were ‘kept down’, and politically liberated, rather than that they sexual, social, and political market value, and that with increased productivity they could not consume vastly more of everything, and create a little market value despite their lower previous market value. GRAMMARS OF TRUTH AND DECEIT Argument in the broadest sense (colloquial persuasion) is a technology like any other, consisting of a hierarchy of grammars (rules of continuous disambiguation covering the spectrum from sounds through sentences), from the intuitionistic logics through mathematics, physics, contract, testimony, fiction, and the fictionalisms (‘mythologies) through the deceits. Those grammars are either deflationary, commensurable, and testable, or they are not – and instead, like all fictions, operate by suggestion using selection, obscurantism, loading, framing, overloading. And they all make use of the trust (free association) we place in one another when listening (opening ourselves to suggestion for the purpose of communication). So one can create or criticize a model in deflationary prose, or one can create or criticize a fictionalism in conflationary (selected, obscurant, loaded, framed, overloaded) prose. That technique we call ‘critique’ is simply the modern version of ‘pilpul’ (Religious interpretation, numerology, astrology) which seeks to criticize (straw man) some solution without creating a testable model open to transparent comprehension, and thereby taking advantage of the fact that in that overloaded state you will (the human mind must) appeal to intuition by free association. In other words, you will substitute whatever you think and feel, thereby creating a sense of agreement on critique without agreement on MODEL (actions, reciprocity, and consequences.) That is a very techichical means of saying that ALL CRITIQUE IS LYING BY SUGGESTION. Either you can propose a complete alternative model or you can’t. (Think on that one a bit and be justifiably horrified.) ALL CRITIQUE IS LYING Critique is simply the technology invented in the Levant for the purpose of ‘selling’ the monotheisms to the underclasses as a revolt against the great civilizations of the ancient world – but this time in pseudo-scientific (ashkenazi marxist) and pseudo-rational (french post modern ) prose. We are all gene machines. Hence why the language of science(due diligence), and natural law (reciprocity) are so important to speech, and why literature and literary argument are always and everywhere – like most of intellectual history – attempts at some form of fraud. Cheers Curt Doolittle
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543510579 Timestamp) —“A poisoned glass of water is still 99.9% pure. Truth is the God above all gods and it is 100% intolerant of false prophets.”—Noah J Revoy
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543425047 Timestamp) MORE ON DE-PROPAGANDIZING “CAPITALISM” (required reading)
- Trade has always existed (generating exchange)
Markets have almost always existed (generating prices).
Capitalists have existed as long as there have been markets (generating means of production).
Northern Europeans (Venetians less so. Saxons largely, the Hansa in particular, the English systematically, the Dutch first at political scale), developed rule of law – which is why they escaped the church with the reformation.)
Capitalism consists of rule of law consisting nearly entirely of markets, and socialism of rule of men eliminating or vastly reducing markets – but all polities have some mixed economy and must do so. The problem is that the state is superior at investing in some commons, but the private sector is far better at allocating and maximizing the returns on capital.
So capitalism and socialism only evolved once the industrial revolution came into play – and the socialists demanded control over production. Capitalism then was the name they used for ‘market bias under rule of law’ , and socialism ‘state bias under rule of men’.
So any statement about when was capitalism invented, is rater ‘stupid’ really. The answer is very simple: capitalism was the ‘jewish’ view of markets, and socialism the ‘jewish’ view of the state. And suckers bought into this false dichotomy. The question is and always will be the utilities of the state monopoly vs the private sector market. And as it stands, the lesson is quite clear: when it is simple and you know how to do it, but it’s risky and expensive, the state can provide startup capital and market protections. Once that investment is running, it can be ‘sold’ to the private sector who can then maximize its potential. The USA has mastered the art of moving this high risk investment into the private sector, but this has had the effect of hollowing out predictable sectors of the economy. So it appears that once again, there are those things it is better for the state to produce (labor-consuming and strategic companies, that are less speculative and produce slower longer returns), and things that it is better for the private sector to produce (IQ consuming and highly speculative things with shorter higher returns.) CONVERSELY The flood river and irrigation valleys of the fertile, crescent, pakistan-india, and china, could produce state-capital easily, just as the west could produce private-capital easily. The west and east homogenous peoples higher trust. The center tribal heterogenous people lower trust. It’s not complicated. You do what you can with the people and geography you have.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543527253 Timestamp) SORRY, NO ONE WILL EVER “DESTROY” ME IN HONEST ARGUMENT. WON’T HAPPEN. —“E Michael Jones [would destroy] Curt’s sandcastle he spent all day building”— Dream on buddy. 😉 Never, ever, happen. Why? Which was the greater influence on the uniqueness of, and success of, the west? The Military, The Engineers and Metalsmiths, the Entrepreneurs(risk takers), The Law, The Philosophers, or the Church? We SURVIVED Christianity. We were not made by it. You see, choosing one grammar (model) allows cherry picking and justification. But choosing ALL models doesn’t. Victor Davis Hanson is right. “The Other Greeks”. The only criticism is, that evidence shows, the greek aristocracy were western Aryans practicing ancient aryan sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, contractualism, and law. It all begins with the militia. And the militia begins with the Yamna and Cattle Raiding. Our militia order survived christianity. The farther north the more it survived. The farther south the more it was defeated by the church’s corruption. That which one perceives as good (survivor bias) may not in fact be good. I this case, while religions (myths, feasts, festivals) are in general a good thing. Abrahamic religions bring forth dark ages, ignorance, death, and decline. No matter how many men in those times try to desperately preserve our ancestral knowledge. No matter how many needles you find in christian, jewish, and muslim haystacks, they will never ever reach anything close to the achievements of western man in the ancient and modern worlds. EVER. The Christians were destroyers – we just managed to conquer the Church when it’s corruption was not longer tolerable. The Jews were destroyers and still are – by undermining every (109) host country they have been evicted from. The muslims were and are destroyers and still are – by raiding, invasion, and population replacement. Abrahamic religions are the greatest evil ever to befall mankind other than the great plagues and natural disasters. Not even the mongols come close – because they were only greedy – not hateful. Truth is enough. The Law is enough. Imposition of the Law by organized violence is enough. The organized violence of the militia of men who would be sovereign is enough. That is the lesson of history.
See The Following Walk Through History:
David Reich’s “Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past” JP Mallory’s “In Search of the Indo-Europeans” David Anthony’s “The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World” Eric Cline’s “1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed” Karen Armstrong’s “The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions”, “Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence” Victor Davis Hanson’s “The Other Greeks”, “The Western Way of War”, “The Soul of Battle”, “Carnage and Culture”, “The Father of Us All”, John Keegan’s “The History of Warfare”, Martin Van Crevld’s “The Culture of War” William Lind’s “4th Generation Warfare Handbook” -Cheers
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543515426 Timestamp) —“We are men, we do not live in the world of lies.â— Anonymous SAS Officer Conversely, those who live in a world of lies, are not men.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543527253 Timestamp) SORRY, NO ONE WILL EVER “DESTROY” ME IN HONEST ARGUMENT. WON’T HAPPEN. —“E Michael Jones [would destroy] Curt’s sandcastle he spent all day building”— Dream on buddy. 😉 Never, ever, happen. Why? Which was the greater influence on the uniqueness of, and success of, the west? The Military, The Engineers and Metalsmiths, the Entrepreneurs(risk takers), The Law, The Philosophers, or the Church? We SURVIVED Christianity. We were not made by it. You see, choosing one grammar (model) allows cherry picking and justification. But choosing ALL models doesn’t. Victor Davis Hanson is right. “The Other Greeks”. The only criticism is, that evidence shows, the greek aristocracy were western Aryans practicing ancient aryan sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, contractualism, and law. It all begins with the militia. And the militia begins with the Yamna and Cattle Raiding. Our militia order survived christianity. The farther north the more it survived. The farther south the more it was defeated by the church’s corruption. That which one perceives as good (survivor bias) may not in fact be good. I this case, while religions (myths, feasts, festivals) are in general a good thing. Abrahamic religions bring forth dark ages, ignorance, death, and decline. No matter how many men in those times try to desperately preserve our ancestral knowledge. No matter how many needles you find in christian, jewish, and muslim haystacks, they will never ever reach anything close to the achievements of western man in the ancient and modern worlds. EVER. The Christians were destroyers – we just managed to conquer the Church when it’s corruption was not longer tolerable. The Jews were destroyers and still are – by undermining every (109) host country they have been evicted from. The muslims were and are destroyers and still are – by raiding, invasion, and population replacement. Abrahamic religions are the greatest evil ever to befall mankind other than the great plagues and natural disasters. Not even the mongols come close – because they were only greedy – not hateful. Truth is enough. The Law is enough. Imposition of the Law by organized violence is enough. The organized violence of the militia of men who would be sovereign is enough. That is the lesson of history.
See The Following Walk Through History:
David Reich’s “Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past” JP Mallory’s “In Search of the Indo-Europeans” David Anthony’s “The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World” Eric Cline’s “1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed” Karen Armstrong’s “The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions”, “Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence” Victor Davis Hanson’s “The Other Greeks”, “The Western Way of War”, “The Soul of Battle”, “Carnage and Culture”, “The Father of Us All”, John Keegan’s “The History of Warfare”, Martin Van Crevld’s “The Culture of War” William Lind’s “4th Generation Warfare Handbook” -Cheers
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543515426 Timestamp) —“We are men, we do not live in the world of lies.â— Anonymous SAS Officer Conversely, those who live in a world of lies, are not men.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543511773 Timestamp) IMPERIALISM VS COLONIALISM (from elsewhere) I don’t make mistakes. It’s my job. It’s a dirty job policing sophists. But someone’s gotta do it. im·pe·ri·al·ism
[imËpirÄÉËlizÉm]
NOUN a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force. co·lo·ni·al·ism
[kÉËlÅnÄÉËlizÉm]
NOUN the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.