Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • LYING AS A WAY OF LIFE —-“The decisive difference between Putinism and Nazism

    LYING AS A WAY OF LIFE

    —-“The decisive difference between Putinism and Nazism is that the fascists and national-socialists believed to a large extent in their lies. The Putinist only believes in one thing: lying as a way of life”–Francesco Principi

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-10 06:13:00 UTC

  • EXAMPLES OF CONTRADICTIONS IN RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA (Roman Skaskiw) 1) The lies tha

    http://www.examiner.com/list/russia-s-top-120-lies-about-ukraine?CID=examiner_alerts_articleI. EXAMPLES OF CONTRADICTIONS IN RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA

    (Roman Skaskiw)

    1) The lies that westerners encounter are nothing compared to the lies Russia’s domestic population is subjected to. They publish photos from their own massacres in Chechnya & Georgia and claim it is Ukraine / from Syria / from the Balkan war / even from movies.

    http://www.examiner.com/list/russia-s-top-120-lies-about-ukraine?CID=examiner_alerts_article

    2) Two different stories about Crimea.

    Within months, Putin went from denying Russia invaded Crimea to bragging that he ordered the “operation”. There was no outcry at all in Russia media. This is normal for them — they see pride and strength in being able to deceive others.

    3) Many various (and contradictory) stories about MH-17.

    – Claim that the plane was diverted into separatist airspace to make them look bad. Invented a fake story about a Spanish air traffic controller working in Ukraine who claimed on Twitter that he witnessed the plane being diverted.

    – Claim (by separatist leader Igor “Strelkov” Girkin) that MH-17 was filled with dead bodies and crashed on purpose to make them look bad.

    – Claim that a Ukrainian BUK shot down MH-17 because they thought Putin was on it.

    – Claim that a Ukrainian jet shot down MH-17.

    (Dutch, German, Malaysian, and independent British investigation all reach the same conclusion about MH-17, though they state it with different degrees of diplomatic nicety.)

    Big collection of MH-17 links: http://romaninukraine.com/ma17-stories-links/

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-10 04:54:00 UTC

  • RUSSIA’S PROPAGANDA STRATEGY (Roman Skaskiw) 1) Affect the first impression. Fir

    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jun/17/russia-words-to-destroy-meaning-writers-nobelII. RUSSIA’S PROPAGANDA STRATEGY

    (Roman Skaskiw)

    1) Affect the first impression. First impressions are known to be very sticky even after future, contradictory evidence. So with every story, they try to create a firestorm of competing narratives. (Ukraine’s protesters are CIA NAZI’s, Russia is NOT ivading, Boris Nemtsov was killed by Chechens – or by the CIA, MH-17)

    They have a rapid reaction force of liars and propagandists.

    2) Create confusion and hesitation. It doesn’t matter if they are proved wrong. There’s no shame in lying. They have a short sited strategy of getting enemies and other political forces to hesitate.

    3) Destroy the very idea of truth — by making it seem like the least interesting of many equally valid possibilities.

    This was first observed by Peruvian nobel-prize winning writer Mario Vargas Llosa. (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jun/17/russia-words-to-destroy-meaning-writers-nobel)

    4) Pollute the communication commons, especially the internet – because they fear their people.

    —” Also, by working every day to spread Kremlin propaganda, the paid trolls have made it impossible for the normal Internet user to separate truth from fiction.

    “The point is to spoil it, to create the atmosphere of hate, to make it so stinky that normal people won’t want to touch it,” Volkov said, when we met in the office of Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation. “You have to remember the Internet population of Russia is just over 50 percent. The rest are yet to join, and when they join it’s very important what is their first impression.” The Internet still remains the one medium where the opposition can reliably get its message out. But their message is now surrounded by so much garbage from trolls that readers can become resistant before the message even gets to them.”— (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-10 04:54:00 UTC

  • Because the south would have controlled the new territory politically, and not t

    Because the south would have controlled the new territory politically, and not the north.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-08 20:09:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/618874513783169024

    Reply addressees: @randiego2 @voxdotcom

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/618660498268012544

    IN REPLY TO:

    @randiego2

    @curtdoolittle @voxdotcom Wow, that’s some laughably twisted historical revisionism.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/618660498268012544

  • so they seceeded. But then, why did the northerner’s seek to constrain them?

    so they seceeded. But then, why did the northerner’s seek to constrain them?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-08 20:08:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/618874439275552768

    Reply addressees: @randiego2 @voxdotcom

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/618661312239833088

    IN REPLY TO:

    @randiego2

    @curtdoolittle @voxdotcom I think you mean their ability to continue and expand their organized theft of labor of black men was threatened.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/618661312239833088

  • Definition: Capitalism Refers to a Bias within Government, Not a System of Government.

    [A] couple of thoughts for you:
    GOVERNMENT Is an organization for the purpose of producing commons. In practice that may mean Commons for a few. In practice that may mean Commons for some. In practice that may mean Commons for all. 
    PRODUCTION
    Capitalism isn’t a form of government.
    It’s often inarticulately referred to as an economic system (god knows what that means).
    But operationally, it’s a means of voluntarily organizing production using private property, contract, money, prices, and interest.  
    ORGANIZATION
    We can organize production voluntarily(market capitalism),
    We can organize production semi-voluntarily(mixed economy),
    or We can organize production involuntarily(socialism/slavery).
    DIVIDENDS
    We can leave individuals with all of the proceeds (no commons).
    We can leave the individuals with most of the proceeds (some provision for commons).
    We can leave individuals the minimum proceeds necessary to preserve the incentives required to voluntarily organize production. We can never let the individuals see the proceeds of their production (socialism, slavery).
    In practice all economies are mixed. Out of necessity.  The current attempt at ‘maximizing taxation’ is an attempt to determine the maximum takings that can be appropriated by the government before the incentive to cooperate fails to allow for the rational formation of the voluntary organization of production.  (In other words, they are looking to reproduce slavery.)
    A BIAS
    When we say ‘capitalism’ we are referring to a bias in favor of either the voluntary means of organization, the voluntary means of distributing dividends, or both.AXIS (A Better Nolan Chart):   Organization: capitalism<—->mixed<—->slavery
    vs Distribution: meritocratic (liberty)<—->utilitarian<—>equalitarian(communism) vs Decision: authoritarian<——->republican<——->democratic

    Source: Frequently Asked Questions |

  • Definition: Capitalism Refers to a Bias within Government, Not a System of Government.

    [A] couple of thoughts for you:
    GOVERNMENT Is an organization for the purpose of producing commons. In practice that may mean Commons for a few. In practice that may mean Commons for some. In practice that may mean Commons for all. 
    PRODUCTION
    Capitalism isn’t a form of government.
    It’s often inarticulately referred to as an economic system (god knows what that means).
    But operationally, it’s a means of voluntarily organizing production using private property, contract, money, prices, and interest.  
    ORGANIZATION
    We can organize production voluntarily(market capitalism),
    We can organize production semi-voluntarily(mixed economy),
    or We can organize production involuntarily(socialism/slavery).
    DIVIDENDS
    We can leave individuals with all of the proceeds (no commons).
    We can leave the individuals with most of the proceeds (some provision for commons).
    We can leave individuals the minimum proceeds necessary to preserve the incentives required to voluntarily organize production. We can never let the individuals see the proceeds of their production (socialism, slavery).
    In practice all economies are mixed. Out of necessity.  The current attempt at ‘maximizing taxation’ is an attempt to determine the maximum takings that can be appropriated by the government before the incentive to cooperate fails to allow for the rational formation of the voluntary organization of production.  (In other words, they are looking to reproduce slavery.)
    A BIAS
    When we say ‘capitalism’ we are referring to a bias in favor of either the voluntary means of organization, the voluntary means of distributing dividends, or both.AXIS (A Better Nolan Chart):   Organization: capitalism<—->mixed<—->slavery
    vs Distribution: meritocratic (liberty)<—->utilitarian<—>equalitarian(communism) vs Decision: authoritarian<——->republican<——->democratic

    Source: Frequently Asked Questions |

  • Aristocratic Egalitarian Libertarianism vs Ghetto Separatist Libertinism

    Aristocratic Egalitarian Libertarianism vs Ghetto Separatist Libertinism – http://www.propertarianism.com/i43a2

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-07 16:06:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/618450947832971265

  • Aristocratic Libertarianism vs Ghetto Libertinism

    [Y]ou know, you can put a sign over your head and call yourself a libertarian: an advocate for a condition of liberty, but that doesn’t make you a libertarian. Any more than calling someone an Austrian Economist in the Cosmopolitan wing makes you an Austrian Economist in the German Wing. What makes you an Austrian economist is seeking to improve institutions of cooperation so that we reduce all possible friction (transaction costs). And what makes you a libertarian is to seek to improve cooperation by opposing all institutional means of free riding, so that we reduce all friction (transaction costs).

    So if you want a libertarian movement, you are kind of stuck with Aristocratic Libertarianism, because ONLY aristocratic libertarianism (and not ghetto libertinism) can produce sufficient elimination of transaction costs that it is rational to join an anarchic, and by anarchic I mean NOMOCRATIC, polity. I want to unite libertarians and conservatives. But to do that I have to demonstrate the propaganda of the Rothbardians as not only insufficient, but an obscurantist deception on the same scale as neo-conservatism, marxism, socialism, and monotheism. So we now know Rothbardianism is another cosmopolitan deception – just like socialism – by means of loading, framing, and overloading. And we also know that the conservatives have failed to produce a ratio-scientific and institutional solution to the problem of the destruction of western civilization through lying, pseudoscience, propaganda, using the academy and media. So knowing that classical liberal conservatism and rothbardian libertinism have failed, and why they have failed (which I have elaborated upon repeatedly elsewhere) we can abandon hope that either classical liberal conservatism or rothbardian libertinism will restore western civilization to a condition of liberty. And then we can look at the institutional solution provided by Propertarianism, and create a post-classical liberal political system that does not require majority rule, and allows groups to conduct political exchanges in a market for the construction of commons, rather than impose their will upon minorities. We do not need to approve such contracts. We need only demonstrate that they are objectively ethical and moral. And if all such contracts like all commons are open to criticism under universal standing, then we need no assent. Our proposals instead, need to survive criticism. And by that structural change we turn politics into a branch of science. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Aristocratic Libertarianism vs Ghetto Libertinism

    [Y]ou know, you can put a sign over your head and call yourself a libertarian: an advocate for a condition of liberty, but that doesn’t make you a libertarian. Any more than calling someone an Austrian Economist in the Cosmopolitan wing makes you an Austrian Economist in the German Wing. What makes you an Austrian economist is seeking to improve institutions of cooperation so that we reduce all possible friction (transaction costs). And what makes you a libertarian is to seek to improve cooperation by opposing all institutional means of free riding, so that we reduce all friction (transaction costs).

    So if you want a libertarian movement, you are kind of stuck with Aristocratic Libertarianism, because ONLY aristocratic libertarianism (and not ghetto libertinism) can produce sufficient elimination of transaction costs that it is rational to join an anarchic, and by anarchic I mean NOMOCRATIC, polity. I want to unite libertarians and conservatives. But to do that I have to demonstrate the propaganda of the Rothbardians as not only insufficient, but an obscurantist deception on the same scale as neo-conservatism, marxism, socialism, and monotheism. So we now know Rothbardianism is another cosmopolitan deception – just like socialism – by means of loading, framing, and overloading. And we also know that the conservatives have failed to produce a ratio-scientific and institutional solution to the problem of the destruction of western civilization through lying, pseudoscience, propaganda, using the academy and media. So knowing that classical liberal conservatism and rothbardian libertinism have failed, and why they have failed (which I have elaborated upon repeatedly elsewhere) we can abandon hope that either classical liberal conservatism or rothbardian libertinism will restore western civilization to a condition of liberty. And then we can look at the institutional solution provided by Propertarianism, and create a post-classical liberal political system that does not require majority rule, and allows groups to conduct political exchanges in a market for the construction of commons, rather than impose their will upon minorities. We do not need to approve such contracts. We need only demonstrate that they are objectively ethical and moral. And if all such contracts like all commons are open to criticism under universal standing, then we need no assent. Our proposals instead, need to survive criticism. And by that structural change we turn politics into a branch of science. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.