Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • Arguing with The Left (feminine-Cognitive Process) Male

    October 27th, 2018 10:58 AM ARGUING WITH THE LEFT (FEMININE-COGNITIVE PROCESS) MALE

    —“I knew it, A veritable scream, I would play organ music and do bongs whilst you chanted in the corner, Ya crack stinks fella, Keep it snappy, 5-second attention span when looking at anything that doesn’t flash, squelch or explode.”— Damien Woodgate

    [A]gain. A statement of psychologism, the feminine substitute for argument, by use of “disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossiping, rallying, reputation destruction, and straw manning”, where the “straw manning” most commonly consists of mirroring the feminine emotional overwhelming of any semblance of agency or reason. Statement of fact. You have no intrinsic value. You have no value to me or mine. You cannot use the tactics of females because you do not have sex, affection, care, reproduction, or ally-negotiation to trade. You must produce some form of value to trade with me and mine, and demonstrate your fitness to trade with me and mine, BEFORE you have any value, and therefore BEFORE your attempted threat of non-cooperation, undermining, reputation destruction has any persuasive value. There is a reason for paternalism: sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, rule of law, and markets in everything – so that we domesticate the animals-that-speak, into the humans through training, education, and controlling their breeding. We domesticated the animal man. We have unfortunately left the job incomplete – as only some of us are currently human.

  • Forcing the Cathedral to Do Penance for The Crime of Yelling Wolf

    October 27th, 2018 9:49 AM CLIMATE: FORCING THE CATHEDRAL TO DO PENANCE FOR THE CRIME OF YELLING WOLF FOR FUN AND PROFIT(for newbs: Cathedral = Academy, Media, State Complex: the new ‘church’.) [I] was directly involved and know the political end of the AGW movement (and lost a lot of money), and I think (as usual) Harrari’s argument (his book) is typical pilpul (his usual articulate bullshit). The people (skeptics) are punishing the academy and state for their handling of the issue. That’s what’s going on. They are forcing the academy and state to do penance for suppressing the counter-research, doing shoddy research, pursuing grant money by fraud, and trying to move to the left in by seizing the opportunity. And my opinion is that it should be criminal to act as the academy and state did in this matter, and people should be in jail for it. That said, we are getting fairly close to an understanding of what is actually going on in the climate, and it’s not clear that other than converting to nuclear power, and cutting the population to 1/6th, that we can (or should) do anything about it. NONE of the predictions, either in the 1970’s with global cooling, or in the 2000’s with AGW, or in the 2010’s with “Climate Change” have played out. Every single period in history, usually created by volcanic activity, has created much higher heat retention, which is rapidly corrected. We are nowhere close to it. Current variations in the climate are within normal ‘noise’, and the statistical analysis of the temperature readings follows the same errors of the statistical analysis of the stock market (shown by mandelbrot) and that this is just noise not signal. All evidence is that very little is going to happen and that all we need to do, if anything, is move to nuclear power, electric vehicles, and cut the population back to 1-3B. Worse, we are entering another cooling period. We have to because of the various perturbations of the orbit and axis. And the recent warming period is nearly over. I think everyone is largely attention seeking, and that as usually, the scientific community is seeking research dollars, the press attention, the state power, and the people who pay for it the truth. The truth is we are affecting the heat retention of the planet. And we have no freaking clue what is going to happen because of it – and we have no freaking clue how the planet will respond to it. But one thing is sure given the history of human thought: what’s being said is hyperbole. Follow Judith Curry’s web site which is the most accurate (scientific) analysis of the movement and its current status. Harrari is just another (((populist))) author selling abrahamic fantasy literature to the weak. STATE OF CLIMATE DATA If y’all can’t understand this report and how ‘moderate’ any change in the climate will be, then y’all are too ignorant and possibly too stupid to open your collective mouths on the subject. https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/11/climate-uncertainty-monster-whats-the-worst-case/

  • Arguing with The Left (feminine-Cognitive Process) Male

    October 27th, 2018 10:58 AM ARGUING WITH THE LEFT (FEMININE-COGNITIVE PROCESS) MALE

    —“I knew it, A veritable scream, I would play organ music and do bongs whilst you chanted in the corner, Ya crack stinks fella, Keep it snappy, 5-second attention span when looking at anything that doesn’t flash, squelch or explode.”— Damien Woodgate

    [A]gain. A statement of psychologism, the feminine substitute for argument, by use of “disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossiping, rallying, reputation destruction, and straw manning”, where the “straw manning” most commonly consists of mirroring the feminine emotional overwhelming of any semblance of agency or reason. Statement of fact. You have no intrinsic value. You have no value to me or mine. You cannot use the tactics of females because you do not have sex, affection, care, reproduction, or ally-negotiation to trade. You must produce some form of value to trade with me and mine, and demonstrate your fitness to trade with me and mine, BEFORE you have any value, and therefore BEFORE your attempted threat of non-cooperation, undermining, reputation destruction has any persuasive value. There is a reason for paternalism: sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, rule of law, and markets in everything – so that we domesticate the animals-that-speak, into the humans through training, education, and controlling their breeding. We domesticated the animal man. We have unfortunately left the job incomplete – as only some of us are currently human.

  • Forcing the Cathedral to Do Penance for The Crime of Yelling Wolf

    October 27th, 2018 9:49 AM CLIMATE: FORCING THE CATHEDRAL TO DO PENANCE FOR THE CRIME OF YELLING WOLF FOR FUN AND PROFIT(for newbs: Cathedral = Academy, Media, State Complex: the new ‘church’.) [I] was directly involved and know the political end of the AGW movement (and lost a lot of money), and I think (as usual) Harrari’s argument (his book) is typical pilpul (his usual articulate bullshit). The people (skeptics) are punishing the academy and state for their handling of the issue. That’s what’s going on. They are forcing the academy and state to do penance for suppressing the counter-research, doing shoddy research, pursuing grant money by fraud, and trying to move to the left in by seizing the opportunity. And my opinion is that it should be criminal to act as the academy and state did in this matter, and people should be in jail for it. That said, we are getting fairly close to an understanding of what is actually going on in the climate, and it’s not clear that other than converting to nuclear power, and cutting the population to 1/6th, that we can (or should) do anything about it. NONE of the predictions, either in the 1970’s with global cooling, or in the 2000’s with AGW, or in the 2010’s with “Climate Change” have played out. Every single period in history, usually created by volcanic activity, has created much higher heat retention, which is rapidly corrected. We are nowhere close to it. Current variations in the climate are within normal ‘noise’, and the statistical analysis of the temperature readings follows the same errors of the statistical analysis of the stock market (shown by mandelbrot) and that this is just noise not signal. All evidence is that very little is going to happen and that all we need to do, if anything, is move to nuclear power, electric vehicles, and cut the population back to 1-3B. Worse, we are entering another cooling period. We have to because of the various perturbations of the orbit and axis. And the recent warming period is nearly over. I think everyone is largely attention seeking, and that as usually, the scientific community is seeking research dollars, the press attention, the state power, and the people who pay for it the truth. The truth is we are affecting the heat retention of the planet. And we have no freaking clue what is going to happen because of it – and we have no freaking clue how the planet will respond to it. But one thing is sure given the history of human thought: what’s being said is hyperbole. Follow Judith Curry’s web site which is the most accurate (scientific) analysis of the movement and its current status. Harrari is just another (((populist))) author selling abrahamic fantasy literature to the weak. STATE OF CLIMATE DATA If y’all can’t understand this report and how ‘moderate’ any change in the climate will be, then y’all are too ignorant and possibly too stupid to open your collective mouths on the subject. https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/11/climate-uncertainty-monster-whats-the-worst-case/

  • “…. and Take Your Stuff”

    October 27th, 2018 3:27 PM RESPONSE FROM 24 HRS PAST:  QUESTION To Rob Ellerman (cc: Jennifer Dean, Adam Voight, Danny Seis)

    —“Why is fraud undesirable? If the fundamental question is – “why don’t I kill you and take your stuff” … is there also not a question, “why don’t I trick you and take your stuff?”—

    [T]hose two are the same question, right? WHy don’t I NOT cooperate in and create incentive to continue to cooperate, vs why do I engage in non-cooperation by force, or by fraud?

    —“Doesn’t the very nature of a proposition presuppose standards of value?”—

    it’s hard to decompose “…standards of value…”. All value judgements presuppose SOMEONE’s value, or some normative habit that demonstrates value. Many statements consist of measurements (descriptions) not values (preferences, or goods). A measurement may be true or false but a preference or good is merely up to the individual. In matters of conflict reciprocity is always and everywhere a measurement not a preference. Because it is a measurement it is a good, regardless of the preference of the parties.

    —-“Codes of moralistic conduct?”—

    I think you mean positive morality like positive freedom and positive liberty and positive truth. None of which are in fact, moral, free, liberty or truth. Morality, freedom, liberty, and truth can only be known in the negative. What you are confusing with morality is DUTY. In other words, one has a POSITIVE DUTY to preserve NEGATIVE MORALITY. This confusion is common in germans and as I’ve written elsewhere one of my goals is to live in germany for a year or two so that I can put my arms around how that conflation is constructed in german culture. Now, one can INVEST in morality (invest for others) just as one can FORBEAR others agency (bear cost for others). This form of INVESTMENT is conflated with negative morality, into a positive morality, when it means doing GOOD, not doing the moral. So, just as we use ‘TRUE’ for all sorts of ‘agreement’ by conflation and inflation, we use ‘MORAL’ (which is a negative) for Not doing the immoral, doing our duty, and investing in the good. And this is an exceptional illustration of why my work is important, is that it makes analysis of what we do, what we speak, and what we intuit but not understand, possible to discuss in rational and scientific terms. Why? Because while I konw you are really intuiting “how do we teach people good” I think we know that already. Our problem isn’t that we can’t teach people good.our problem is that we have failed to prevent people from teaching people ‘the bad’. And we have failed to do so bcause our langauge is easy to usurp, and transform – which is how our people have been preyed upon by the marxists feminist and in particular, the postmodernists: by sophism, when we are extremely vulnerable to sophisms. So again, my job is not to improve the teaching of morality. it is to OUTLAW the teaching of IMMORALITY. And this gets to the heart of your question. It is one thing to say “here you must do this, out of all the possible things you can do, because it is the ultimate good”, and it is another thing to say “Um, you may not do that or do it in that way, because the consequences of doing so, no matter your intent, are always an ultimate bad”.

    —“Is operationalism visa vi the scientific method applied to the social sciences justifiable by appeal to truth and then reciprocity?”—

    I don’t understand ‘justifiable’. I think what you mean is something along the lines of, will operation and scientific discourse result in increasingly truthful speech? When I am saying, by teaching operational speech, and the table of the grammars, it will be much harder for people to be misled, and mislead others.

    —“Or is reciprocity the justification for truth? If we are agnostic toward violence are we also agnostic toward fraud and pseudoscience?”—

    Close enough, it is very hard to test reciprocity in the absence of truth. This is why we have free speech not free truthful speech: there was no test of it in the past. now we have it. And it is as solid as mathematics and logic.

    —“Until such a time we decide were being reciprocal? How could someone possibly run a proper fascist aristocracy if you’ve got to watch your back all the time? (Just curious)”—

    Speak the truth. It’s not difficult in the slightest. If you cannot speak the truth then why SHOULDN’T you watch your back? So now I want to investigate what you’re up to because just asking that question tells me something….

    —“Would it be a perversion of your worldview to state that rational calculation is morality?”—

    You use the word ‘is’ a lot and it means “i dunno what I’m talking about”. This is an example. Rational Calculation: the use of reason to transform inputs by operations into outputs: more loosely, an attempt to construct a plan or recipe or experiment”. Morality: forgoing an opportunity for gain by limiting one’s display word and deeds to the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interest (property-in-toto), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others (externality). So I don’t know how to answer that question.

    —“In addition, are the incentives only external and material – is there room for the soul in propertarian thought?”—

    You want a religion (supernatural), or a philosophy (ideal) or scientific (real). I do the latter. the latter is via negativa. What kind of religion or philosophy you produce that is MORAL by the definition above, is of no more interest to me than whether you write romance novels or mysteries. A soul in religion is a supernatural reality, a soul in philosophy is a platonic ideal, a soul in science is primitive anthropomorphism of one’s accounting of moral and immoral actions as predictors of risk of ostracization or increase in opportunity of cooperation. The brain is very simple. It has very simple plots. We make a lot of stories to ‘illustrate’ and ‘enhance’ those very simple plots. It makes our feelings seem under our logical control and understanding when they are anything but. My role is to write the law within which all literature, philosophy, and religion are limited, such that our people care never again victims of liars (false prophets), snake oil salesmen (pseudoscientists), propagandists (sophists), and can continue to drag ourselves and mankind out of our war with the dark forces of time, ignorance, enemies, and the vicissitudes of nature. My job is engineering the infrastructure for human transcendence. How you decorate the place, the parties you host, and the stories you tell at them and gifts you exchange at them, are up to other (simpler) men.

    —“Why don’t I trick you and take your stuff” … one reason would be the advantages of reciprocity – sure. However, wouldn’t another reason be because I know I can get away with it?”—

    Which is what people do, and why we develop norms, traditions, laws, institutions, education, and religion to try to limit our acts of fraud (trickery), and why those of us most successful have the most options. This is even more important with small numbers who can only defeat enemies with technology and discipline.

    —“If that is the case (I’ll call it ruthless pragmatism) — wouldn’t those within the politi lay in waiting … to kill you and take your stuff? Or simply slow burn you to death via parasitism and fraud? So long as via their calculation – it’s been determined to be a pragmatic endeavor?”—

    I am not sure I understand where you are getting that chain of reasoning from. Here is the simple logic at hand. 1) current discourse since the victorian era, which was reconstructed from the greco-roman era, is to presume the value of continuous cooperation. this form leaves us with the choices : || “boycott < refuse cooperation < compromise < cooperate.” 2) This is not common form, since in much of the world, cheating lying and deceiving, or stealing are still ‘familial obligations of males’. And “Face” is more important than truth. These civilizations are poor, and weak, and only exist today because we went to war with each other, exhausted each other, and left the world insufficiently colonized. 3) What I have done is change the frame from presumption of the value of cooperation between ingroup members, to either (a) international (non-group), and (b) hostile group, and (c) genghis khan rule, so that we start from the presumption that it is profitable to engage in violence, predation fraud, etc rather than compromise or cooperation. This form leaves us with the choices: || boycott < refuse cooperation < compromise < cooperate > cheat > prey/conquer > enslave/genocide” Thus removing the presumption of the neutrality of ‘boycott, and refusing cooperation.”

    —“I’m framing with your premises – that’s why it’s difficult … though I do so with sincere intentions”—

    Not really. Because you’re framing “justificationism, positivism, prescription as WHAT TO DO, and I’m framing falsification, negativism, prohibition, as what NOT TO DO. So really I don’t think you’ve learned how to work with via negativa (science, and law) instead of via positiva (religion and philosophy.). I hope this helps. Curt

  • “…. and Take Your Stuff”

    October 27th, 2018 3:27 PM RESPONSE FROM 24 HRS PAST:  QUESTION To Rob Ellerman (cc: Jennifer Dean, Adam Voight, Danny Seis)

    —“Why is fraud undesirable? If the fundamental question is – “why don’t I kill you and take your stuff” … is there also not a question, “why don’t I trick you and take your stuff?”—

    [T]hose two are the same question, right? WHy don’t I NOT cooperate in and create incentive to continue to cooperate, vs why do I engage in non-cooperation by force, or by fraud?

    —“Doesn’t the very nature of a proposition presuppose standards of value?”—

    it’s hard to decompose “…standards of value…”. All value judgements presuppose SOMEONE’s value, or some normative habit that demonstrates value. Many statements consist of measurements (descriptions) not values (preferences, or goods). A measurement may be true or false but a preference or good is merely up to the individual. In matters of conflict reciprocity is always and everywhere a measurement not a preference. Because it is a measurement it is a good, regardless of the preference of the parties.

    —-“Codes of moralistic conduct?”—

    I think you mean positive morality like positive freedom and positive liberty and positive truth. None of which are in fact, moral, free, liberty or truth. Morality, freedom, liberty, and truth can only be known in the negative. What you are confusing with morality is DUTY. In other words, one has a POSITIVE DUTY to preserve NEGATIVE MORALITY. This confusion is common in germans and as I’ve written elsewhere one of my goals is to live in germany for a year or two so that I can put my arms around how that conflation is constructed in german culture. Now, one can INVEST in morality (invest for others) just as one can FORBEAR others agency (bear cost for others). This form of INVESTMENT is conflated with negative morality, into a positive morality, when it means doing GOOD, not doing the moral. So, just as we use ‘TRUE’ for all sorts of ‘agreement’ by conflation and inflation, we use ‘MORAL’ (which is a negative) for Not doing the immoral, doing our duty, and investing in the good. And this is an exceptional illustration of why my work is important, is that it makes analysis of what we do, what we speak, and what we intuit but not understand, possible to discuss in rational and scientific terms. Why? Because while I konw you are really intuiting “how do we teach people good” I think we know that already. Our problem isn’t that we can’t teach people good.our problem is that we have failed to prevent people from teaching people ‘the bad’. And we have failed to do so bcause our langauge is easy to usurp, and transform – which is how our people have been preyed upon by the marxists feminist and in particular, the postmodernists: by sophism, when we are extremely vulnerable to sophisms. So again, my job is not to improve the teaching of morality. it is to OUTLAW the teaching of IMMORALITY. And this gets to the heart of your question. It is one thing to say “here you must do this, out of all the possible things you can do, because it is the ultimate good”, and it is another thing to say “Um, you may not do that or do it in that way, because the consequences of doing so, no matter your intent, are always an ultimate bad”.

    —“Is operationalism visa vi the scientific method applied to the social sciences justifiable by appeal to truth and then reciprocity?”—

    I don’t understand ‘justifiable’. I think what you mean is something along the lines of, will operation and scientific discourse result in increasingly truthful speech? When I am saying, by teaching operational speech, and the table of the grammars, it will be much harder for people to be misled, and mislead others.

    —“Or is reciprocity the justification for truth? If we are agnostic toward violence are we also agnostic toward fraud and pseudoscience?”—

    Close enough, it is very hard to test reciprocity in the absence of truth. This is why we have free speech not free truthful speech: there was no test of it in the past. now we have it. And it is as solid as mathematics and logic.

    —“Until such a time we decide were being reciprocal? How could someone possibly run a proper fascist aristocracy if you’ve got to watch your back all the time? (Just curious)”—

    Speak the truth. It’s not difficult in the slightest. If you cannot speak the truth then why SHOULDN’T you watch your back? So now I want to investigate what you’re up to because just asking that question tells me something….

    —“Would it be a perversion of your worldview to state that rational calculation is morality?”—

    You use the word ‘is’ a lot and it means “i dunno what I’m talking about”. This is an example. Rational Calculation: the use of reason to transform inputs by operations into outputs: more loosely, an attempt to construct a plan or recipe or experiment”. Morality: forgoing an opportunity for gain by limiting one’s display word and deeds to the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interest (property-in-toto), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others (externality). So I don’t know how to answer that question.

    —“In addition, are the incentives only external and material – is there room for the soul in propertarian thought?”—

    You want a religion (supernatural), or a philosophy (ideal) or scientific (real). I do the latter. the latter is via negativa. What kind of religion or philosophy you produce that is MORAL by the definition above, is of no more interest to me than whether you write romance novels or mysteries. A soul in religion is a supernatural reality, a soul in philosophy is a platonic ideal, a soul in science is primitive anthropomorphism of one’s accounting of moral and immoral actions as predictors of risk of ostracization or increase in opportunity of cooperation. The brain is very simple. It has very simple plots. We make a lot of stories to ‘illustrate’ and ‘enhance’ those very simple plots. It makes our feelings seem under our logical control and understanding when they are anything but. My role is to write the law within which all literature, philosophy, and religion are limited, such that our people care never again victims of liars (false prophets), snake oil salesmen (pseudoscientists), propagandists (sophists), and can continue to drag ourselves and mankind out of our war with the dark forces of time, ignorance, enemies, and the vicissitudes of nature. My job is engineering the infrastructure for human transcendence. How you decorate the place, the parties you host, and the stories you tell at them and gifts you exchange at them, are up to other (simpler) men.

    —“Why don’t I trick you and take your stuff” … one reason would be the advantages of reciprocity – sure. However, wouldn’t another reason be because I know I can get away with it?”—

    Which is what people do, and why we develop norms, traditions, laws, institutions, education, and religion to try to limit our acts of fraud (trickery), and why those of us most successful have the most options. This is even more important with small numbers who can only defeat enemies with technology and discipline.

    —“If that is the case (I’ll call it ruthless pragmatism) — wouldn’t those within the politi lay in waiting … to kill you and take your stuff? Or simply slow burn you to death via parasitism and fraud? So long as via their calculation – it’s been determined to be a pragmatic endeavor?”—

    I am not sure I understand where you are getting that chain of reasoning from. Here is the simple logic at hand. 1) current discourse since the victorian era, which was reconstructed from the greco-roman era, is to presume the value of continuous cooperation. this form leaves us with the choices : || “boycott < refuse cooperation < compromise < cooperate.” 2) This is not common form, since in much of the world, cheating lying and deceiving, or stealing are still ‘familial obligations of males’. And “Face” is more important than truth. These civilizations are poor, and weak, and only exist today because we went to war with each other, exhausted each other, and left the world insufficiently colonized. 3) What I have done is change the frame from presumption of the value of cooperation between ingroup members, to either (a) international (non-group), and (b) hostile group, and (c) genghis khan rule, so that we start from the presumption that it is profitable to engage in violence, predation fraud, etc rather than compromise or cooperation. This form leaves us with the choices: || boycott < refuse cooperation < compromise < cooperate > cheat > prey/conquer > enslave/genocide” Thus removing the presumption of the neutrality of ‘boycott, and refusing cooperation.”

    —“I’m framing with your premises – that’s why it’s difficult … though I do so with sincere intentions”—

    Not really. Because you’re framing “justificationism, positivism, prescription as WHAT TO DO, and I’m framing falsification, negativism, prohibition, as what NOT TO DO. So really I don’t think you’ve learned how to work with via negativa (science, and law) instead of via positiva (religion and philosophy.). I hope this helps. Curt

  • RESPONSE FROM 24 HRS PAST: “…. AND TAKE YOUR STUFF” QUESTION To Rob Ellerman (

    RESPONSE FROM 24 HRS PAST: “…. AND TAKE YOUR STUFF” QUESTION

    To Rob Ellerman (cc: Jennifer Dean, Adam Voight, Danny Seis)

    —“Why is fraud undesirable? If the fundamental question is – “why don’t I kill you and take your stuff” … is there also not a question, “why don’t I trick you and take your stuff?”—

    Those two are the same question, right? WHy don’t I NOT cooperate in and create incentive to continue to cooperate, vs why do I engage in non-cooperation by force, or by fraud?

    —“Doesn’t the very nature of a proposition presuppose standards of value?”—

    it’s hard to decompose “…standards of value…”. All value judgements presuppose SOMEONE’s value, or some normative habit that demonstrates value. Many statements consist of measurements (descriptions) not values (preferences, or goods). A measurement may be true or false but a preference or good is merely up to the individual. In matters of conflict reciprocity is always and everywhere a measurement not a preference. Because it is a measurement it is a good, regardless of the preference of the parties.

    —-“Codes of moralistic conduct?”—

    I think you mean positive morality like positive freedom and positive liberty and positive truth. None of which are in fact, moral, free, liberty or truth. Morality, freedom, liberty, and truth can only be known in the negative. What you are confusing with morality is DUTY. In other words, one has a POSITIVE DUTY to preserve NEGATIVE MORALITY. This confusion is common in germans and as I’ve written elsewhere one of my goals is to live in germany for a year or two so that I can put my arms around how that conflation is constructed in german culture.

    Now, one can INVEST in morality (invest for others) just as one can FORBEAR others agency (bear cost for others). This form of INVESTMENT is conflated with negative morality, into a positive morality, when it means doing GOOD, not doing the moral.

    So, just as we use ‘TRUE’ for all sorts of ‘agreement’ by conflation and inflation, we use ‘MORAL’ (which is a negative) for Not doing the immoral, doing our duty, and investing in the good.

    And this is an exceptional illustration of why my work is important, is that it makes analysis of what we do, what we speak, and what we intuit but not understand, possible to discuss in rational and scientific terms.

    Why? Because while I konw you are really intuiting “how do we teach people good” I think we know that already. Our problem isn’t that we can’t teach people good.our problem is that we have failed to prevent people from teaching people ‘the bad’. And we have failed to do so bcause our langauge is easy to usurp, and transform – which is how our people have been preyed upon by the marxists feminist and in particular, the postmodernists: by sophism, when we are extremely vulnerable to sophisms.

    So again, my job is not to improve the teaching of morality. it is to OUTLAW the teaching of IMMORALITY.

    And this gets to the heart of your question. It is one thing to say “here you must do this, out of all the possible things you can do, because it is the ultimate good”, and it is another thing to say “Um, you may not do that or do it in that way, because the consequences of doing so, no matter your intent, are always an ultimate bad”.

    —“Is operationalism visa vi the scientific method applied to the social sciences justifiable by appeal to truth and then reciprocity?”—

    I don’t understand ‘justifiable’. I think what you mean is something along the lines of, will operation and scientific discourse result in increasingly truthful speech? When I am saying, by teaching operational speech, and the table of the grammars, it will be much harder for people to be misled, and mislead others.

    —“Or is reciprocity the justification for truth? If we are agnostic toward violence are we also agnostic toward fraud and pseudoscience?”—

    Close enough, it is very hard to test reciprocity in the absence of truth. This is why we have free speech not free truthful speech: there was no test of it in the past. now we have it. And it is as solid as mathematics and logic.

    —“Until such a time we decide were being reciprocal? How could someone possibly run a proper fascist aristocracy if you’ve got to watch your back all the time? (Just curious)”—

    Speak the truth. It’s not difficult in the slightest. If you cannot speak the truth then why SHOULDN’T you watch your back?

    So now I want to investigate what you’re up to because just asking that question tells me something….

    —“Would it be a perversion of your worldview to state that rational calculation is morality?”—

    You use the word ‘is’ a lot and it means “i dunno what I’m talking about”. This is an example.

    Rational Calculation: the use of reason to transform inputs by operations into outputs: more loosely, an attempt to construct a plan or recipe or experiment”.

    Morality: forgoing an opportunity for gain by limiting one’s display word and deeds to the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interest (property-in-toto), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others (externality).

    So I don’t know how to answer that question.

    —“In addition, are the incentives only external and material – is there room for the soul in propertarian thought?”—

    You want a religion (supernatural), or a philosophy (ideal) or scientific (real). I do the latter. the latter is via negativa. What kind of religion or philosophy you produce that is MORAL by the definition above, is of no more interest to me than whether you write romance novels or mysteries.

    A soul in religion is a supernatural reality, a soul in philosophy is a platonic ideal, a soul in science is primitive anthropomorphism of one’s accounting of moral and immoral actions as predictors of risk of ostracization or increase in opportunity of cooperation. The brain is very simple. It has very simple plots. We make a lot of stories to ‘illustrate’ and ‘enhance’ those very simple plots. It makes our feelings seem under our logical control and understanding when they are anything but.

    My role is to write the law within which all literature, philosophy, and religion are limited, such that our people care never again victims of liars (false prophets), snake oil salesmen (pseudoscientists), propagandists (sophists), and can continue to drag ourselves and mankind out of our war with the dark forces of time, ignorance, enemies, and the vicissitudes of nature.

    My job is engineering the infrastructure for human transcendence. How you decorate the place, the parties you host, and the stories you tell at them and gifts you exchange at them, are up to other (simpler) men.

    —“Why don’t I trick you and take your stuff” … one reason would be the advantages of reciprocity – sure. However, wouldn’t another reason be because I know I can get away with it?”—

    Which is what people do, and why we develop norms, traditions, laws, institutions, education, and religion to try to limit our acts of fraud (trickery), and why those of us most successful have the most options. This is even more important with small numbers who can only defeat enemies with technology and discipline.

    —“If that is the case (I’ll call it ruthless pragmatism) — wouldn’t those within the politi lay in waiting … to kill you and take your stuff? Or simply slow burn you to death via parasitism and fraud? So long as via their calculation – it’s been determined to be a pragmatic endeavor?”—

    I am not sure I understand where you are getting that chain of reasoning from. Here is the simple logic at hand.

    1) current discourse since the victorian era, which was reconstructed from the greco-roman era, is to presume the value of continuous cooperation. this form leaves us with the choices :

    || “boycott < refuse cooperation < compromise < cooperate.”

    2) This is not common form, since in much of the world, cheating lying and deceiving, or stealing are still ‘familial obligations of males’. And “Face” is more important than truth. These civilizations are poor, and weak, and only exist today because we went to war with each other, exhausted each other, and left the world insufficiently colonized.

    3) What I have done is change the frame from presumption of the value of cooperation between ingroup members, to either (a) international (non-group), and (b) hostile group, and (c) genghis khan rule, so that we start from the presumption that it is profitable to engage in violence, predation fraud, etc rather than compromise or cooperation. This form leaves us with the choices:

    || boycott < refuse cooperation < compromise < cooperate > cheat > prey/conquer > enslave/genocide”

    Thus removing the presumption of the neutrality of ‘boycott, and refusing cooperation.”

    —“I’m framing with your premises – that’s why it’s difficult … though I do so with sincere intentions”—

    NOt really. Because you’re framing “justificationism, positivism, prescription as WHAT TO DO, and I’m framing falsification, negativism, prohibition, as what NOT TO DO.

    So really I don’t think you’ve learned how to work with via negativa (science, and law) instead of via positiva (religion and philosophy.).

    I hope this helps.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 15:27:00 UTC

  • SCHOOLING THE GHOST VAGINA SYNDROME ON ARGUMENT (to: Damien Woodgate ) I don’t p

    SCHOOLING THE GHOST VAGINA SYNDROME ON ARGUMENT

    (to: Damien Woodgate )

    I don’t pre-prepare responses. I don’t have to. I work on the study of argument full time. And I use the same definitions (series) every time. Because they are constants (universals). And even if I did copy and paste, that would not undermine the argument – it would only illustrate (as it has) that you merely do as I said: engage in the extremely common tactic of feminine shaming as a substitute for argument and in doing so demonstrate you don’t know what you’re talking about. So again, just as I’ve stated, you’re just attempting to shame rather than argue the central point.

    —“”we civilised the world using violence”< You said that mate”—- Damien Woodgate

    I’ve not only stated it once, I have stated the premise twice :

    1) >> “Violence is a precious resource. We civilised the

    whole world using violence. That’s the history of

    civilisation: the incremental suppression of parasitism

    through the organised application of violence.”

    2) >> “If you attempt to deny that the organized application fo violence in the systematic use of law, to incrementally suppress free riding, parasitism and predation ISN”T how we civilized mankind by forcing people into markets, that’s going to be very difficult. Because politics(legislation and regulation) and law(Findings of law of Tort) are merely proxies for violence. “

    And now a third time:

    3) we have used the law to create law (findings of parasitism and predation), legislation/command (prevention of free riding, parasitism, and predation), and regulation (prior constraint that enforces legislation and law), to incrementally suppress each evolutionary migration of free riding, parasitism, and predation

    And you have not answered it, and that is because you can’t, because it can’t be falsified. The fact that you presume understanding when you lack the knowledge to even vaguely understand the argument.

    And I have defended against your “GSRMS” (gossip, shaming, ridicule, moralism, and straw manning” in an attempt for reputation destruction as an alternative to answering the central argument.

    Now here is your ‘simpleton’ understanding:

    (a) “geez, the financial sector screws us. they’re parasites”

    To which I answer “yes” because we have not yet used the organized application of violence via legislation, regulation, and law, to incrementally suppress the 19th-20th century innovation in rent seeking (free riding, predation, and parasitism) made possible by the failure to change from legislation, regulation and law under physical money distribution constraints under physical currency (note money substitutes), to legislation, regulation and law under fiat credit money, where money consists only of shares in the economy (Share Money Substitutes) needing no physical distribution. (Especially since all credit issuance is (a) determined my accumulated actuarial data, (b) insured by the state as the insurer of last resort, using the same assets (shares in the economy) – meaning we are insuring ourselves.

    As I said, we have incrementally suppressed free riding(externality), parasitism(indirect) and predation(direct), upon one another by the incremental application of organized violence, (law/courts and legislation/command/state)across the spectrum from:

    |HARM| Murder, VIolence, Theft, Fraud (in all its forms), free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, conspiracy (in all its forms), Poisoning the Informational Well (propaganda and deceit), trade war, conversion, immigration, conquest, and genocide.

    Under the options of:

    |RELATIONS| Bocott < Avoidance < Risk <- RECIPROCITY -> Free Riding > Parasitism > Predation.

    You know, I have a reputation as extremely patient with overconfident (arrogant) ignorant young men, trying to maintain face (status) while navigating a world they rarely succeed in.

    And it’s because as a ‘teacher’ of young men I wish to turn that frustrated demand for dominance play into learning by playing king of the hill, where quite obviously, I play the king of the hill.

    If teaching were still done this way (competitively) boys would not have fallen behind girls, and young men would nether check out of society, or PRACTICE FEMININE ARGUMENT.

    Adolescent (undeveloped) males require a strong paternal competitor in order to learn.

    That’s my role.

    And that is why men follow me.

    To learn. And to learn to argue as men.

    Not ‘women’.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 14:17:00 UTC

  • CHOICE WORDS OF ARGUMENT —A man in rhetorical petticoats has nothing to trade.

    CHOICE WORDS OF ARGUMENT

    —A man in rhetorical petticoats has nothing to trade. You have no intrinsic value. None.—

    When a leftist male argues to ‘feels’ and ‘equality’ and ‘dysgenia’ producing decline, rather than Reals, Inequality, and Eugenia producing Transcendence.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 14:13:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1056187222846791681

  • ARGUING WITH THE LEFT (FEMININE-COGNITIVE PROCESS) MALE —“I knew it, A veritab

    ARGUING WITH THE LEFT (FEMININE-COGNITIVE PROCESS) MALE

    —“I knew it, A veritable scream, I would play organ music and do bongs whilst you chanted in the corner, Ya crack stinks fella, Keep it snappy, 5-second attention span when looking at anything that doesn’t flash, squelch or explode.”— Damien Woodgate

    ^ Again. A statement of psychologism, the feminine substitute for argument, by use of “disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossiping, rallying, reputation destruction, and straw manning”, where the “straw manning” most commonly consists of mirroring the feminine emotional overwhelming of any semblance of agency or reason.

    Statement of fact. You have no intrinsic value. You have no value to me or mine. You cannot use the tactics of females because you do not have sex, affection, care, reproduction, or ally-negotiation to trade. You must produce some form of value to trade with me and mine, and demonstrate your fitness to trade with me and mine, BEFORE you have any value, and therefore BEFORE your attempted threat of non-cooperation, undermining, reputation destruction has any persuasive value.

    There is a reason for paternalism: sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, rule of law, and markets in everything – so that we domesticate the animals-that-speak, into the humans through training, education, and controlling their breeding.

    We domesticated the animal man. We have unfortunately left the job incomplete – as only some of us are currently human.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 10:58:00 UTC