Theme: Deception

  • THE PROBLEM OF ANCHORING AND KNOWLEDGE NEVER ENDS —“”A little knowledge is a d

    THE PROBLEM OF ANCHORING AND KNOWLEDGE NEVER ENDS

    —“”A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”? I don’t know about that. I have found many “experts” today are elitist. I run into the “how dare you question my position? What is your scholarship/training/etc.” more often than not. “Who are you to impugn my scholarship?” Then again, maybe I represent the quote with my own hubris?”— John Stephens

    Well you know, you aren’t wrong – that’s just saying: “there are limits of knowledge anchoring and insufficiency at the bottom, and limits of knowledge anchoring and insufficiency at the top” – which is empirically true the more variation in general rules. We are anchored by our knowledge and its limits. For example, the set of general rules in physics, and chemistry are not heavily debated, in some part because they are contextually invariant. The set of general rules in biology and economics are heavily debated because niches demonstrate adaptivity : extraordinary variation. Such that while some general rules are discovered, the combinatorial consequences of those general rules are extremely difficult to pin down. Economics in particular. I assume when we get to sentience (artificial intelligence)that the limits to cognition will be measurable, and we will learn about the human mind through those measurements.

    I think that what I do, and what others do, is to save time and effort by throwing nonsense back in your face, simply so that you don’t have to deal with helping someone through a long journey from their assumptions to sufficient knowledge to question them. I mean. We’re all human.

    I think moreover, that – at least, since having converted full time to philosophy – my observation is that many men know their craft but not *why* their craft yields truthful propositions *relative to other crafts*. In other words, *they just don’t know.* And they don’t want to be ‘outed’.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 14:07:00 UTC

  • by Bill Joslin —“Curt equates a lack of due diligence to vet ones ideas agains

    by Bill Joslin

    —“Curt equates a lack of due diligence to vet ones ideas against error, bias, self deception, overloading etc as lying. Any primacy of consciousness or theism stands as arguing for a preference opposed to arguing a point in the commons.

    Theism and primacy of-conciousness are not verifiable in the commons – to proceed with them you must accept these premises.

    ***When we verify via our best empirical methods, our arguments gain credibility from reality. When we assert based on a priorisms which can not be found in reality we use logic to “steal credibility from reality” – we assert it as reality without consulting reality- a transfer of credibility from existence in reality, to the interpretive framework.***

    If an argument holds arbitrary assertions we can dismiss it off-hand. (If asserted without evidence it can be dismissed without evidence)”—


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 13:51:00 UTC

  • THE INQUISITION: AND WE ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT OUR WORK Um. you don’t understand.

    THE INQUISITION: AND WE ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT OUR WORK

    Um. you don’t understand. When we say we’re creating the

    answer to the Frankfurt School, that means we’re creating it’s opposite. We’re creating the Inquisition. In archaic language this would translate to The Prosecutors and Knights of the Natural Law of Sovereign Men. Although we won’t wear funny hats. Except this time it’s against all Abrahamism both modern and ancient: judaism, christianity, islam, marxism, postmodernism, islamism. So If your words are incompatible with natural law, you will be prosecuted. And we are passionate about our work.

    Agency and Sovereignty > Truth and Natural Law > Markets in Everything: association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, production of polities, production of group evolutionary strategy, production of agency.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 13:48:00 UTC

  • THE PROSECUTOR BAITS THE PURVEYORS OF FRAUD The difference is that I do what I d

    THE PROSECUTOR BAITS THE PURVEYORS OF FRAUD

    The difference is that I do what I do to bait idiots, so that I can defraud them, just like scientists debunk supernaturalists. And Dyer is one of those frauds who has found a market for fulfilling demand for denial of reality. But once a person has descended into conflating reason and intuition in order to circumvent reason and existence (science) then the strategy of denialism (postmodernism, kantian rationalism, and abraham) has been played. The purpose of denialism, pseudo-rationalism, and experientialism, in all its forms is merely rejection of reason and reality so that the inferior need not negotiate a compromise with the superior. That’s all it is. Nothing more. An elaborate verbal deception for the purpose of leaving no option for compromise, and therefore no options but separatism and violence. You cannot enter into an exchange with a dishonest man. And all debate and discourse is either honest or not. If not honest then the only options are boycott and violence.

    I’m building an inquisition against Abrahamism in all its forms.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 12:59:00 UTC

  • Language isn’t magic. People are too trusting and too suggestible. That’s why re

    Language isn’t magic. People are too trusting and too suggestible. That’s why religion works. That’s why postmodernism works.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-05 19:50:00 UTC

  • POSTMODERNISM is a mid-to-late 20th century reactionary movement developed to re

    POSTMODERNISM is a mid-to-late 20th century reactionary movement developed to retaliate against and undermine scientific and political modernity by the use of skepticism, irony, ridicule, shaming, or denial, including truth denial, reason denial, science denial, objective reality denial, human nature denial (race, civilization, culture, class, gender, ability, and intelligence denial), objective morality denial, the notion of social progress denial, the notion of evolutionary progress denial, and denial of gender, economic, social, and political compromise through cooperative exchange.

    Instead, postmodernists assert – to varying degrees – that claims to knowledge and truth are products of social, historical or political discourses or interpretations, and are therefore contextual or socially constructed.

    As such, postmodern thought is characterized by uses of denial, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, irreverence(ridicule,shaming, and rallying and self-referentiality(circular reasoning).

    In other words postmodernism attempts to destroy all ‘discrimination and difference in value’ in political discourse through the ritualization of lying by pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, and fictionalization of history, and fictionalization of communication in the modern world.

    The technique functions in modernity just as Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) fictionalized, reason, truth, and history in the ancient world – through ritualized repetition of falsehood: deception by chanting.

    Origins: The prior generations of marxism had failed in their pseudoscientific iterations, from marx, through lenin, stalin, trotsky, and through the french schools. But by the mid 20th century it was intellectually impossible to advocate marxism because of its universal failure and the catastrophes he had created. The french school switched from economic and pseudoscientific marxism of competition between the classes for economic power, to pseudo rational (fictional) competition between identities for pursue of ‘privilege’ and pure political power.

    In both cases the scientific, rational, and philosophical refutation of marxism and postmodernism lagged the success of the marxists and postmodernists at the production of propaganda – thereby illustrating that the production of lies is faster and cheaper and more effective in the short term than the production of truth.

    The strategy of postmodernists has been to immigrate third world parties, end integration into western civilization (the nuclear family, meritocracy, truth telling, rule of law, and civic responsibility), undermine rule of law via the courts through selective pursuit of marginal cases, accomplish legislation via the courts what cannot be accomplished through the established channels of government, and destroy the virtue of the family and norms, and replace it with the virtue of individualism and identitarianism (abnormal behavior).


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-05 18:46:00 UTC

  • The Pomo-right is worse than the Pomo-left. At least lefties know they’re lying

    The Pomo-right is worse than the Pomo-left. At least lefties know they’re lying.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-05 17:31:00 UTC

  • THE OCCULT, CONSPIRACY, FINANCIALIST, FICTIONALISTS The occult(propaganda), cons

    THE OCCULT, CONSPIRACY, FINANCIALIST, FICTIONALISTS

    The occult(propaganda), conspiracy (of common interest), and financialist(parasitism) arguments are all ‘true’ in the sense that these groups follow all these methods of self interest.

    The problem is that the occultists, the conspiracy theorists, the “kill them all” financialists, and fictionalists are either mal-educated, or mentally deficient, or both. And they are heavily indebted to their frame, and addicted to the emotional response of their frames. So they are participants in, and promoters of, the very problem they are complaining about.

    Ayelam is right. The alt right is full of postmodernists. And I sometimes I feel that a handful of us are the lone modernists out here.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-05 11:17:00 UTC

  • Left pointy hats are dunce caps. Alt Right pointy hats are tinfoil hats

    Left pointy hats are dunce caps. Alt Right pointy hats are tinfoil hats.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 21:37:00 UTC

  • OK, What podcasters, and ‘radio sites’, websites, youtuber’s, tweeters, ‘persona

    OK, What podcasters, and ‘radio sites’, websites, youtuber’s, tweeters, ‘personalities’ and authors are discussing the pseudo intellectual, the supernatural, pseudoscience, and who are tinfoil-hatter’s, borderline schizophrenic conspiracy theorists, and losers?


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 21:04:00 UTC