Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

FROM:  Kind Woman What an interesting analysis. I appreciate that you took the time to sieve through a Daniel Schmachtenberg talk to tease out rhetorical trickery… I didn’t see that your writing … modeled the sort of high ground argument that you find lacking in your list of deceivers. What do you do, for example, that is productive; what skin do you have in the game; and what proof do you have that your implied prescription could possibly resolve any of our looming crises? Is not your article a description of a false dichotomy between Abrahamic and European rhetoric and social strategies?Are these the metrics you propose as a formula to recognize such deception? I have trouble with what appears to be your premise, that empathy is useless, maybe even dangerous. Have you ever experienced the practice of empathy solving problems? I’ve seen mercy unravel hatred and allow full restitution, even in the face of others whose skepticism is who until the moment of accountability held dearly to a different “Truth”. Thank you in advance for your concise, logical response. I look forward to your thoughts.

    Good Questions. 1) This piece was directed to my followers who are skilled in the formal logic of European Natural Law, Testimonial Speech, The Grammars (methods of speech, including methods of deceit), and The Abrahamic method of deceit – the most complete system of lying upon which the ancient Abrahamic religions and the pseudoscientific modern version by Freud, Boaz, Marx, Adorno/Fromm, Gramsci/Derrida, Rand/Rothbard, Freidan/Steinem, and Lenin/Strauss, the pc/woke movements – are constructed. The technique David is using is called ‘delay and deceive’. Just as women lie in general, and mothers constantly lie to their children and about their children for a variety of reasons, it’s not clear how much of the Abrahamic method of deceit (or the european method of testimony) are genetic expressions or learned behaviors, but the difference in the gene pools seems to remain constant regardless of background. In other words we have evolved genetic differences in predictive valuation because of the rather extensive difference between male and female reproductive strategies and the resulting division of labor between the sexes. During the past 60k years, we have self-domesticated by reducing aggression, and this has caused an overlap in male and female cognitive bias, so that stereotypes are true, but each of us varies within those steretypes. My work creates a formal, universal, value-neutral language of the sciences, including the behavioral (formal, physical, behavioral, evolutionary). And it converts moral speech to financial and economic prose, such that we can determine whether claims are not only undecidable, possibly true, or definitely false, but whether they are in furtherance of a crime. This separates the difference between mere philosophy and law. 2) The high ground argument is that the constitution was the most modern written constitution to date, but it did not define the common law because the need to do so was at the time inconceivable. So my work updates the constitution, with specific emphasis on the criminalization of lying to the public in public, in matters public, by the extension of warranty of goods services and information to public speech, and restoring defamation regardless of material harm, and the legal requirement for limiting our competition to court or market, prohibiting propaganda, deceit, and fraud. Our goal is to end lying in the ‘cathedral complex’ of the state, financial, commercial, academy, media, entertainment sectors. So the resolution of political differences is limited to truthful reciprocal exchange in the production of commons within the political system rather than false promises propaganda and deceit outside of government. Furthermore, the policies we recommend will reverse the crimes of the 20th, that have brought us to the bring of civil war. The primary challenge is that christianity, islam, and judaism as well as the marxist-pomo-pc/woke movements are constructed by the same framework of lying. The question is how did the middle east learn to specialize in the female means of warfare? Why is it successful against the west (really the indo europeans) but not the east? We think we know but we need a little more data which I assume will fall out over the next two to five years, since it’s rather obvious already. 3) As for the utility of empathy vs systematizing, you cannot judge an individual by the properties of his class, and you cannot judge a class by the properties of its outlier individuals. In other words female intuition doesn’t scale up and male intuition doesn’t scale down – and this is evolutionarily useful for rather obvious reasons. FWIW: Now, you don’t know this but the structure of your email demonstrates a female cognitive bias. We are all familiar with the fact that written words, particularly narratives, by women and men are rather easily categorized by sex. And while there are many manifestations, the general rule of empathizing and exceptions vs systematizing, and generalizations remains constant. Our slogan is simple: “NO MORE LIES”