I UNDERSTAND HOW THEY HAVE DONE IT – OVERLOADING
(important sketch)
A puzzle that doesn’t fit together, but consists of many moral statements. Like any puzzle we heuristically fill in the gaps because we want to justify the moral statements – rather than object to the gaps because of illogical or immoral statements.
It’s freaking genius. It’s brilliant. You just need to be a little better at verbal storytelling and it’s performing ‘suggestion’ on a grand scale. You need to be able to lie in greater numbers, and more frequently, then we can correct for the lies.
They start with a metaphysical intuition to lie, and just use many, many, micro-narratives to overload us. Like a massive organized form of psychopathy.
We are the most *objectively* moral people who most aggressively defend teh commons, and so we are vulnerable to overloading the same way we are programmable by religious narratives and myths. If we were not programmable by myths and religious narratives we would not be programmable by norms.
Likewise, conservatives win elections using overloading, and so do progressives. Rathe than reason. Because reason is frail, but intuition is extremely powerful. They overload our reason while over-saturating our intuition.
It’s not that he who is right wins. It’s he who talks most.
Medial, like the church, is a vehicle for programming.
And they programmed us with every pseudoscience possible.
They created religion – the first lie. Then they created Pseudoscience – the second great system of lies.
They used the same technique both times.
LAW AND DEFENSE ARE DIFFERENT FROM LYING AND ADVOCACY
Our system is purely defensive. We prevent against lies, leaving only truth. We prevent against free riding, leaving only production. The common law is not a form of advocacy, it is a form of defense. Liberty is not a commandment it’s a defense against creating tyrants, and it leaves freedom to innovate behind. Science is not a form of advocacy, it’s a form of correcting our interpretations of the world, and it leaves techniques and technology behind. Conservatism is not a means of advocacy, it’s scientific: if it works we will adopt it, but do not forcibly adopt that which hasn’t been demonstrated to work. We don’t tell people what to do, we tell people what not to do:
It’s the job of the church (public intellectuals) to advocate for private action, but advocacy for public action is theft, and destroys the civic society.
Political advocacy is lying. In fact, isn’t all political speech an attempted theft?
The Nazarene was wrong, and Aethelred was right: you don’t do unto others as you would have done unto you. You do not unto others as they would not have done unto them.
We had it right: church/academy/intelligentsia for advocacy, state for resolution of disputes, militia for prevention of power accumulation, and the civic society for action. There are no unemployed in the civic society. There is always civic work to be done.
All so that we could steal the state from the aristocracy and use it to improve our economic standing, by using the state and the military to improve it. We opened Pandora’s box. And the new world funded it.
ADVOCACY IS AGGRESSION, BECAUSE POSITIVE ACTION BY THE STATE CAN ONLY BE VIA AGGRESSION.
We were the people who told the truth. We were conquered by the people who lied. For the N’th time.
F__k.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-30 01:17:00 UTC