Theme: Deception

  • Keynesianism fails 1-moral, 2-operational. It’s the study of disinformation effe

    Keynesianism fails 1-moral, 2-operational. It’s the study of disinformation effects at the expense of longer-term capital.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-23 01:15:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/767892888881684480

    Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/767808474558279680


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/767808474558279680

  • WESTERN TRUTH VS THE LIE OF SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION (important piece) (synthesizing)

    WESTERN TRUTH VS THE LIE OF SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION

    (important piece) (synthesizing) (readable)

    —“Constructionism involves the creation of a product to show learning. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender, as well as tables, chairs and atoms are socially constructed. Kant, Garns, and Marx were among the first to suggest such an ambitious expansion of the power of ideas to inform the material realities of people’s lives.”—

    1) To act successfully one must act correspondingly (truth).

    2) We discover correspondence: Personally, Socially, Contractually, Legally, Scientifically, Aesthetically.

    3) We can VALUE those discoveries more, or less, as they assist or impede our group evolutionary strategy.

    4) We can construct norms (including myths, and falsehoods) to convey those values(truth or falsehood) we attach to our discoveries.

    5) But we will pay the cost of any values that we attach to discoveries,

    Race, sexuality, gender, chairs, tables, and atoms may or may not be socially discovered. They are absolutely socially valued.

    But they correspond to reality.

    Because reality does not care about our values.

    And those that value falsely pay the cost, and those that value truthfully, reap the reward.

    Truth determines velocity of everything in a culture. Not only the economy, and therefore our wealth, but the velocity of our evolution, and even our ability to survive in competition with other societies.

    The best way to harm a people is to teach them to value a falsehood. You poison the mind, which poisons other minds. You leave the body alive, but kill the civilization.

    The only reason social construction is available is because a new technology for information distribution has become available, and the discovery of a means of correcting the falsehood faster than it spreads is impossible.

    Whether it be the oral tradition and travel in prehistory, writing and pulpit and roads in the ancient world, or printing and shipping in the modern, or media and propaganda in the present, the cost of deception is always higher than the cost of falsehood.

    Ergo we must develop institutions that correct falsehoods over time, and bear the intertemporal cost of the damage done by those falsehoods.

    Thankfully the west has the most responsive technology for defeating lies and deceits and propaganda: natural, judge-discovered, common law, with universal standing and universal application. The first successful suit creates the prohibition against falsehoods (frauds).

    We merely must defend the informational commons by requiring a warranty of due diligence against informational harm, as we do with every other kind of harm.

    What prevented us from institutionalizing the requirement for truthful speech in the commons was a failure to understand how to test for truthfulness.

    Now that we have this test, we can enforce an involuntary warranty of due diligence against any speech placed into the commons.

    And while it may take some skill to test, just as grammar and meaning take some skill to test, and while it may take some greater explanation to employ these tests, they are not altogether that difficult if we restore grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and merely add operational language (e-prime) to that list.

    If we can teach mathematics which is not intuitive, we can teach grammar, logic, rhetoric, and operational language, which is. These are the two languages with which we describe the world: the mathematical for the inanimate non-sentient and physical, and the operational for the animate, sentient, and intellectual.

    The tests of due diligence for the warranty of truthfulness are:

    1 – categorical consistency (identity and non-conflation)

    2 – internal consistency (logical and non-contradictory)

    3 – external consistency (external correspondence)

    4 – operational consistency ( existential possibility)

    5 – moral consistency ( voluntary possibility )

    6 – scope consistency (limits, full accounting, and parsimony)

    If we test any utterance against these six criteria, then it is almost impossible to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit, without intentionally engaging in deceit.

    And just as reason in the ancient world’s greek civilization raised man out of ignorance, and British science in the modern world rescued us from mysticism, poverty and disease, truthfulness in the present world will have as great an effect on mankind – both disruptively, and beneficially.

    We are the men of the west. Truth is both our most powerful weapon in defeat of the dark forces of time, ignorance, and deceit, and our most powerful technology of Transcendence.

    With truth we shall become the gods we seek.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-22 02:36:00 UTC

  • @Mises The wyrm has turned. We have our success. Why cling to falsehoods out of

    @Mises The wyrm has turned. We have our success. Why cling to falsehoods out of personal allegiance to mentors? We must surpass them.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-20 14:14:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/767001915959848960

  • @mises We should be teaching that we finally solved the 2500 year-old problem,no

    @mises We should be teaching that we finally solved the 2500 year-old problem,not trying to use Jewish Critique to prop up our past failures


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-20 14:12:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/767001420889329665

  • It’s just self-deception if (a)your lover, and (b)everyone else, doesn’t recipro

    It’s just self-deception if (a)your lover, and (b)everyone else, doesn’t reciprocate. Why do we seek self-deception? Avoid Costs.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-20 12:31:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/766975935648112640

    Reply addressees: @PAKallman

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/666997342952923137


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/666997342952923137

  • INDUSTRIALIZED ZIKA DEVELOPMENT? —“By 1960, the Chemical Corps was producing 5

    INDUSTRIALIZED ZIKA DEVELOPMENT?

    —“By 1960, the Chemical Corps was producing 500,000 A. aegypti every month, rearing them on sugar water and blood and letting them lay their eggs on paper towels. Scientists had found they could infect a new generation of mosquitoes with yellow fever by mixing the virus in the solution in which the mosquito eggs grew. Hundreds of thousands of mosquitoes were not enough to start a real epidemic, though. The corps proposed constructing a facility in Arkansas that could produce 100 million A. aegypti mosquitoes each week.”—


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-19 11:41:00 UTC

  • Dunning Kruger Never Stops To the idiot, the world conspires or lies. To the ave

    Dunning Kruger Never Stops

    To the idiot, the world conspires or lies.

    To the average, the more powerful conspires or lies.

    To the intelligent, the more intelligent conspires or lies.

    Differences in knowledge and understanding that are to you unimaginable are to those with far more just normal risk assessments they would make.

    I published this graphic many years ago in an attempt to explain the problem of false positive ethics and false negative ethics.

    The problem is, that when you FAIL, you look unethical, whereas if you succeed your look brilliant or heroic.

    I’m a more than ruthless guy. I don’t do symbolism. So I take the risk whether it will result in a false negative or not.

    Why? Skin in the game.

    You cannot cooperate on equal terms with unequals.

    Some men must be led if greatness is to be achieved.

    Sometimes we die in our attempt at greatness.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-19 02:09:00 UTC

  • HOW TO PROSECUTE A PROGRESSIVE (LEFTIST) In the western tradition, as a high tru

    HOW TO PROSECUTE A PROGRESSIVE (LEFTIST)

    In the western tradition, as a high trust people, we search for, and start from the assumption that the other party errs. These assumptions were originally necessary for military and juridical debate between peers specializing in violence, but evolved to traditional, then institutional, and now normative assumptions on how one should proceed in argument and discourse.

    But what I have tried to do, is revisit that assumption, and start from the premise that the other person is trying, because of the biases of his genetics, to commit fraud. And that error is often a trivial contributor to differences in assessment and that the various forms of fraud constitute the vast majority of argument.

    This is quite different from the rather tame victorian or jewish debate between peers, and the traditional western demand that the aristocracy JUDGE. As such my approach is prosecutorial rather than deliberative, since any deliberative stance in which we assume error rather than deception, merely gives the fraud permission to engage in propagandism, and prevents resolution of differences, since in discourse the liar does not admit his lies.

    So why am I saying this? Because if I prosecute your statement it will be rapidly obvious to the jury, regardless of whether you consent to the outcome or not, that you’re likewise engaged in an act of fraud.

    However, I’ll construct my argument briefly. First reductively, then causally.

    Reductively: *Foucault is to Frankfurt as Keynes is to Marx, but it was Marx and Frankfurt that developed the technique of critique by applying Jewish hermeneutic criticism of static scripture and its dysgenic consequences instead of European scientific extension of dynamic, common, natural law and its eugenic consequences.*

    Now lacking knowledge of my arguments, you assumed too much. Which is normal since it is always a question of the worth of investigating some set of ideas.

    But that argument is:

    1) groups make use of the argumentative technique used by their civilization, and in most if not all cases this is reducible to the argumentative structure of our ancestral laws.

    2) our ancestral laws in whatever form incorporated our group evolutionary strategies.

    3) we all justify our individual and group evolutionary strategies in no small part because as metaphysical assumptions we are rarely aware of them, and contrary propositions are intuitively immoral (or just wrong).

    4) during the enlightenment each culture attempted to express its method of argument, and it’s group evolutionary strategy, as a universal, rather than a particular.

    5) every society was wrong in that while the British scientific method was correct its aspirational view of man was false; the french method of moral literary equality was a justificationary method of preserving authority and the moral view of man was false; the german rationalism model was false but the german understanding of man was true, and its prescription (truth telling and defense of it) was true. And the Jewish pseudoscientific pseudorational pseudolegal was designed from its origins as false, polylogical, poly ethical, and parasitic. And the nature of man irrelevant if it can be exploited.

    Each culture then made use of the technologies other cultures have used, and it is only since the late 1990’s with the combination of computers, cognitive science, medical imaging, and genetic research that we have started to become successful at overthrowing the last, and worst, enlightenment thinkers: the pseudoscientists and deceivers: the cosmopolitans: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School, Rand, Rothbard, Strauss, and the legion of others that have conducted a century-long campaign against common, natural, empirical, judge discovered, eugenic law.

    Once we falsify the pseudoscience in each then those who arose consequentially from the original will fall as well.

    Yes, Foucault(literary) like Keynes(probabilism) improved upon Frankfurt(pseudoscience, pseudorationalism), and Marx(pseudoscience, pseudoratioalism), but preserved the central theory: creating a straw man and criticizing it, rather than creating a positive argument and justifying it.

    We criticize science because we do not know its first principles, we justify morality because we do. we must. or sympathetic cooperation would be impossible for us as it is between most apes.

    Cheers.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-19 01:30:00 UTC

  • We can demonize others, but it is usually to cover our own failures. We all do i

    We can demonize others, but it is usually to cover our own failures.

    We all do it. I find women stop me from it. It’s good.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-18 14:55:00 UTC

  • that I want to get on board with divisionism but (((Joel Stein))) pushes this pr

    http://time.com/4457110/internet-trolls/Not that I want to get on board with divisionism but (((Joel Stein))) pushes this propaganda in time:

    ITS BECAUSE THEY ARE SILENCED ELSEWHERE


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-18 09:21:00 UTC