Theme: Deception

—“FWIW I still think about you and what you’ve sunken into. It’s deeply disappointing to see that someone I used to think of as a good and intelligent person has sunk to a level of such desperation for validation that they have to enjoy it from neo-nazis – even those who don’t accept the label.”—

I set out to do a very simple thing: produce a rational scientific language for the discussion of manners, ethics, morality, law, politics and economics. The fact that I ended up in the New Right movement rather than the previous Libertarian Movement is the product of many years of work, and simply following the evidence. I do not know if I am a good person. Most of the time I think not. My ‘mission’ has become so consuming that like many innovators I give it more priority in my life than being a ‘good person’ permits. But having said that, the problem I would face would be that as a scientist, and in particular a scientist of truthfulness, I know very well how to test my own ideas and those of others with such thoroughness that I CANNOT hold a belief that I suspect to be false – at least for long.

Everyone who follows me knows that I have a very clear agenda of creating a pool of people who can practice this deconflation, and prosecute the many false arguments, ideas, and opinions that people rely on to rally and shame and deceive. But most people know that I’m also ‘respectful’ of those men who will fight. And I understand the language of those men who will fight. They speak hyperbolically. But they speak hyperbolically because they have no concrete plan to follow. They have no leader that can lead them to success. So my belief is that if I am respectful of their hyperbole, that when I supply concrete methods of action – and as long as I do so tactically so that they don’t self-fantasize away their rage – then I will be able to make use of both the intellectual as well as the rebellious personalities.

( BTW: the neo-nazis hate me because I don’t play the racism game. All groups can transcend the animal man. )

I demonstrate EVERY DAY that I can deflate arguments, opinions and ideas into causal properties and so far the world is unable to raise me an opponent that can survive my ability to do so.

So the question is, since (a) you have offered only an attempt to morally shame me – the ‘tell’ of a lie, (b) you have offered only the criticism that IQ (an aggregate but correspondent measure of rates and degrees of demonstrated intelligence) is somehow ‘false’, (c) you pull out Godwin’s Law, (e) and offer no substantive arguments whatsoever against anything I say. (which I can only suggest that you don’t understand it.

—“Your reference to “data” and “facts” – I hope you understand that given my previous respect for you, that I have a hard time believing that the horse shit you spew is something that you actually take as data and facts.”—

Do you have some examples, because you know, I’m pretty thorough about what I do….. and so far, you’re just throwing spaghetti at the wall.

—-“Someone with a deeper sense of objectivity would be able to see through and discount these fallacies fairly quickly. It’s something that should be very embarrassing for you. It’s hard for me to believe that you don’t “—–

Well you know, you are not really sure of the meaning of what you just said. Because you just said someone with subjective opinions that you agree with speak the truth, not arguments that show due diligence of consistency across all dimensions. I don’t do that. I just “do the accounting”: are statements true or false, and do they seek to change state of capital, and for whom?

—-“I made a documentary about a UFO cult once. From that I learned that people who want to believe nonsense will believe it. It’s up to them to yank their heads out of their asses.”—-

Yes the question is whether it’s me that’s more scientific and therefore truthful and objective or you. And so far I keep winning all the hands for the simple purpose you don’t bring any cards to the table.

My argument is pretty simple: we can live in harmony and relative equality if we live in small european style states under which each group can express its evolutionary strategy without dominating the evolutionary strategy of others. And that we can – through trade – compensate for our biological differences as groups. conversely to ask other groups to pay for the ‘domestication’ (or civilization, or enlightenment) of your group rather than pay for it yourself, is to place an immoral burden on others.

Let a thousand nations bloom.