The author forgot that they were also (a) the developers of the pseudosciences ( Frankfurt/aesthetics and history, freud/psychology, boaz/anthropology, marx/sociology/economics, mises/economics, cantor/mathematical-platonism, (b) the conquest of the university by pseudoscience (all of the above), (c) as well as the organized attack on our constitution (Natural Law) by the selective prosecution of cases designed to incrementally break it, (d) as well as the current method of financial parasitism which we incorrectly call capitalism, but should call Rothchildian Monetary Fraud. There is nothing immoral about capitalism. But everything immoral about financialism. And they are the principle activists in propagandizing in the Entertainment, Media, and Advertising industries. “The People Who Lie and Defraud.” Yeah, we aren’t exactly saints and the british certainly take the cake during colonialism, but the consequences of their administration by rule of law turn out to be profoundly beneficial. Americans basically are great sherrifs but the worst possible judges of anything. And between the british and americans we pretty much do everything WRONG except the law. Thankfully THE LAW AND TRUTH ARE ENOUGH despite our multitude of utopian idealistic and entirely false fantasies about the nature of man. The evil of (((their))) intuitions like the evil of women’s intuitions is not so much from intent but from parasitic impulse and lack of agency. We must either conquer and rule, and rule by natural law, or be ruled and conquered. Yes (((they))) and their islamic cousins are evil as hell. But that does not mean they cannot be domesticated like all other wild animals we have domesticated in the past.
Theme: Deception
-
Ending Cultural Marxism and the Industrialization of Lying is Easy.
We end copyright, we require truthful speech, we extend liability to sponsors of speech, and we end cultural marxism and the industrialization of lying. In just one generation.
-
Ending Cultural Marxism and the Industrialization of Lying is Easy.
We end copyright, we require truthful speech, we extend liability to sponsors of speech, and we end cultural marxism and the industrialization of lying. In just one generation.
-
Our Era in the Context of the Enlightenments: the Restoration of Europa From Semitic and Iranian Influence (deceits).
The enlightenment succeeded in the physical sciences, but not in the social sciences, and we can see the german, french, russian, jewish, chinese reactions as social counter-enlightenments. What seems to have been under development in the 1800’s in Germany was the second scientific enlightenment (which benefitted the USA mostly), and the second attempt at social scientific revolution. Poincare, Maxwell, Darwin, Weber/Pareto/Durkheim, Menger, Spencer, Nietzche, Popper(science), Hayek (law) all came very close, and Weber, Mises, Popper, Brouwer, and Bridgman actually independently came to about the same conclusion, but they could not succeed against the pseudoscientific marxists and keynesians, just as the enlightenment philosophers could not succeed against the church and state. We can succeed. Because we have cognitive science, the record of the failure of keynesian economics, the record of the failure of communism, socialism, social democracy and the record of failure of rousseauian and lockeian man. The world merely needs the answer that the first scientific enlightenment, the second failed enlightenment (german) and the american post-german attempt failed to produce. Social science = natural law = reciprocity and the unit of measure = property.
-
Our Era in the Context of the Enlightenments: the Restoration of Europa From Semitic and Iranian Influence (deceits).
The enlightenment succeeded in the physical sciences, but not in the social sciences, and we can see the german, french, russian, jewish, chinese reactions as social counter-enlightenments. What seems to have been under development in the 1800’s in Germany was the second scientific enlightenment (which benefitted the USA mostly), and the second attempt at social scientific revolution. Poincare, Maxwell, Darwin, Weber/Pareto/Durkheim, Menger, Spencer, Nietzche, Popper(science), Hayek (law) all came very close, and Weber, Mises, Popper, Brouwer, and Bridgman actually independently came to about the same conclusion, but they could not succeed against the pseudoscientific marxists and keynesians, just as the enlightenment philosophers could not succeed against the church and state. We can succeed. Because we have cognitive science, the record of the failure of keynesian economics, the record of the failure of communism, socialism, social democracy and the record of failure of rousseauian and lockeian man. The world merely needs the answer that the first scientific enlightenment, the second failed enlightenment (german) and the american post-german attempt failed to produce. Social science = natural law = reciprocity and the unit of measure = property.
-
The Good of Gods and Mythology in Decidability
If truth is the language of the gods, as it must be, then why is not bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit blasphemy? —“There might be a god archetype, in some pantheon, for almost every significant human behavioral pattern. I think that’s a helpful learning utility.”—Adam Houseman Exactly. But that is Myth and literature, for purpose of teaching by analogy. And it is not only important but necessary. Why? Because the western man uses HYPERBOLE to exaggerate, in order to show the consequence of ‘if everyone did this then..’. Kant restates this as the categorical imperative. But it is just the western method of using exaggeration of traits of individuals in order to force every living soul to ask “what if everyone did this” or “what are the consequences of this behavior over time”. Gods help us create general rules of decidability within a context by means of hyperbole (isolation of causal properties.) This is why we need myths, stated hyperbolically, and literature stated analogically: to create general rules, easily employed in a wide variety of circumstances, so that we may, through the thousands of little decisions every day, guide our civilization into that which we seek: parity with the gods.
-
The Good of Gods and Mythology in Decidability
If truth is the language of the gods, as it must be, then why is not bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit blasphemy? —“There might be a god archetype, in some pantheon, for almost every significant human behavioral pattern. I think that’s a helpful learning utility.”—Adam Houseman Exactly. But that is Myth and literature, for purpose of teaching by analogy. And it is not only important but necessary. Why? Because the western man uses HYPERBOLE to exaggerate, in order to show the consequence of ‘if everyone did this then..’. Kant restates this as the categorical imperative. But it is just the western method of using exaggeration of traits of individuals in order to force every living soul to ask “what if everyone did this” or “what are the consequences of this behavior over time”. Gods help us create general rules of decidability within a context by means of hyperbole (isolation of causal properties.) This is why we need myths, stated hyperbolically, and literature stated analogically: to create general rules, easily employed in a wide variety of circumstances, so that we may, through the thousands of little decisions every day, guide our civilization into that which we seek: parity with the gods.
-
On Requiring Truth in All Publication
by Alex Sea We require truth from all things claiming to present it. If a fictional novel must include the stipulation that “all persons, places, and events herein are fictional and any likeness to real people, places, and events are coincidental or accidental” why can this not be expounded to political, academic, or media endeavors? Imagine CNN running a notice along the scrolling marque stating “all commentary contained in this program is the opinion of newscasters and is not intended to be a concrete representation of factual information, unless otherwise stated”. Imagine the current versions of “social science” course materials being marked as “social commentary”. Imagine current “history” textbooks being instead sold as what they really are – propaganda tools. In this way, truth would be required of ALL – either you only present truthful statements, or you must clearly declare that you are not. Fiction is fine so long as it as known to BE fiction.
-
On Requiring Truth in All Publication
by Alex Sea We require truth from all things claiming to present it. If a fictional novel must include the stipulation that “all persons, places, and events herein are fictional and any likeness to real people, places, and events are coincidental or accidental” why can this not be expounded to political, academic, or media endeavors? Imagine CNN running a notice along the scrolling marque stating “all commentary contained in this program is the opinion of newscasters and is not intended to be a concrete representation of factual information, unless otherwise stated”. Imagine the current versions of “social science” course materials being marked as “social commentary”. Imagine current “history” textbooks being instead sold as what they really are – propaganda tools. In this way, truth would be required of ALL – either you only present truthful statements, or you must clearly declare that you are not. Fiction is fine so long as it as known to BE fiction.
-
Trump’s Strategy on Economic Data
Mar 21, 2017 7:22pm The President Undermining Economic Data Is No Laughing Matter forbes.com Adam. THREE POINTS TO HELP: 1) He uses this strategy all the time, He did it through the campaign. He did it prior to taking office. And he has continued to do it since taking office: “Say what the base thinks, and cause the media to justify its possition thereby educating the people.” In this way he talks to his base, who understands exactly what he is doing, and avoids putting the press in control of the discourse. I’m not the only person who has been putting this forward, dozens of others have. 2) One of the other techniques he makes use of is that conservatives speak in hyperbole in order to accentuate the conservative intuition to treat all moral statements under the Kantian Categorical Imperative: what if everyone did that, or what would be the consequences of a lot of this happening? (The intuition of the conservative time preference). 3) As someone who has spent a few decades now working on performative truth (and what we refer to as the scientific method), I think many of us in the population are desirous of putting the shoe on the other public intellectuals foot so to speak, and changing to where we actively interrogate the state, academy, and media. If for no other reason than the misuse of statistics, and the misrepresentation of nearly all ‘reserach’ in the social sciences and psychology. Even within that discipline of economics, I find it trivially easy to demonstrate that almost every measure we can find constitutes cherrypicking and does not fully account for the changes in various forms of capital, and the cost of doing so. Isn’t economics of growth de-facto cherrypicking? Anyway. On behalf of the public I prefer that politicians prosecute the academy state and media. Because those of us out here in the fields (little think tanks included) are clearly not able to do so in sufficient numbers. Cheers