Theme: Deception
-
Religion spread with farming and literacy. Law with money and trade. Rationalism
Religion spread with farming and literacy.
Law with money and trade.
Rationalism with print and industry.
Pseudoscience with academy and fiat money.
Propaganda with media and student loans
So why not spread Truth-telling and science with education?
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-25 12:53:00 UTC
-
Philosophical Crimes:
0 – Ignorance 1 – Error 2 – Bias 3 – Wishful Thinking 4 – Suggestion, Loading and Framing 5 – Obscurantism, Pseudorationalism, Pseudoscience 6 – Overloading, Saturation, and Propaganda 7 – Deceit
-
Philosophical Crimes:
0 – Ignorance 1 – Error 2 – Bias 3 – Wishful Thinking 4 – Suggestion, Loading and Framing 5 – Obscurantism, Pseudorationalism, Pseudoscience 6 – Overloading, Saturation, and Propaganda 7 – Deceit
-
The Problem Of The Need For Taking Action And The Comforting Lies Some Of Us Need To Help Us Act
Every man must act in a way that produces the consequences he desires. There is no need for god in that question other than to give one excuses for having taken actions that others disagree with.
What you mean is that a man must provide his own moral authority. In other words, one needs justification only because one is either weak, or because one is demonstrably wrong because it causes retaliation from others. If one is strong and one is right in that he does not cause retaliation from others, then he needs no external authority. So in general, what we see is that those who do not obtain status from others, or do not obtain the status that they think they warrant, seek to obtain self-image through creating niche narratives in which they envision themselves heroic or of high status. Since many of us need these lies, because the admission of our status as much lower than we envision, and our abilities much lower than we envision, we must morally tolerate these comforting lies in the private sphere just as we tolerate the comforting lies of religion in the private sphere. The question arises as to whether we can tolerate these nonsense ideas in the public sphere. And this is where we get into the problem. Wherein the lies people like you ritualize, using pseudo-scientific pseudo-secular language, can be so real to you – through the social construction of reality – that you can apply these PERSONAL needs to arguments in the political sphere. SO whenever your comforting lies produce harmful externalities, then it becomes a matter of dispute resolution between different sets of comforting lies. And to resolve a dispute between sets of comforting lies, we need a means of decidability. That means of decidability is what we call ‘truth’. Meaning in the social context: are your statements free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception, and are you trying to use those words to impose costs on others or escape costs you yourself should bear. Because truth and objective morality are identical propositions. Anyway. This is probably too much for you; but you put in honest effort and you haven’t (knowingly) engaged in trickery during this discussion, so I have to take you as an honest man that is merely trying to fight above his weight class. I don’t really care because an honest man, even one who believes silly things, is better than a dishonest man. And that is enough. -
The Problem Of The Need For Taking Action And The Comforting Lies Some Of Us Need To Help Us Act
Every man must act in a way that produces the consequences he desires. There is no need for god in that question other than to give one excuses for having taken actions that others disagree with.
What you mean is that a man must provide his own moral authority. In other words, one needs justification only because one is either weak, or because one is demonstrably wrong because it causes retaliation from others. If one is strong and one is right in that he does not cause retaliation from others, then he needs no external authority. So in general, what we see is that those who do not obtain status from others, or do not obtain the status that they think they warrant, seek to obtain self-image through creating niche narratives in which they envision themselves heroic or of high status. Since many of us need these lies, because the admission of our status as much lower than we envision, and our abilities much lower than we envision, we must morally tolerate these comforting lies in the private sphere just as we tolerate the comforting lies of religion in the private sphere. The question arises as to whether we can tolerate these nonsense ideas in the public sphere. And this is where we get into the problem. Wherein the lies people like you ritualize, using pseudo-scientific pseudo-secular language, can be so real to you – through the social construction of reality – that you can apply these PERSONAL needs to arguments in the political sphere. SO whenever your comforting lies produce harmful externalities, then it becomes a matter of dispute resolution between different sets of comforting lies. And to resolve a dispute between sets of comforting lies, we need a means of decidability. That means of decidability is what we call ‘truth’. Meaning in the social context: are your statements free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception, and are you trying to use those words to impose costs on others or escape costs you yourself should bear. Because truth and objective morality are identical propositions. Anyway. This is probably too much for you; but you put in honest effort and you haven’t (knowingly) engaged in trickery during this discussion, so I have to take you as an honest man that is merely trying to fight above his weight class. I don’t really care because an honest man, even one who believes silly things, is better than a dishonest man. And that is enough. -
CORRECT HISTORY A BIT (I will get hate mail over this rather grand deflowering)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/LETS CORRECT HISTORY A BIT
(I will get hate mail over this rather grand deflowering)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/
Some of us have to clean up history a bit:
(1) There is nothing strange about a popular political movement generating crackpots, and the state not shutting down the crackpots. I mean, world academia is full of them. We don’t even have to get to bloggers, and newsletters and their progenitors.
(2) Naziism was an aesthetic movement in the same way that socialism was a pseudoscientific movement, or the movements of religiosity of prior eras. All movements create nonsense mythos. Nazis were not unique.
(3) Hitler’s mistake was purely military. And had nothing to do with his attempt to ‘cleanse’ the population of cosmopolitan, bolshvik, and socialist activism. Germany’s enlightenment, thanks ot the failures of Kant and his followers, was incomplete and just reaching maturity under Wagner, Nietzsche and their contemporaries. The Ashkenazi enlightenment (Jewish enlightenment) arrived just as the German was peaking, but beause it was commercial where the german was cultural and aesthetic, was able to take advantage of new technologies and far lower cost of distribution of propaganda. The cosmopolitan (socialist) vision was not compatible with the german (hierarchical duty), and to some degree, this “Clash of Civilizations” turned out to be a war over the soul (Germany) of Europe. The two battling cultures (german heartland agrarian, and borderland diasporic Jewish) fought with their historical methods: germans with war and jews with propaganda. The bolshevik-cum-Stalinist Russians took advantage of this weakness, in hopes of not only seizing the borderlands, as they had the land east of the Urals, but possibly the german heartland as well. Had not the Americans intervened and de facto conquered and colonized Europe, that clash between agrarian hierarchy and cosmopolitan socialism would have been settled with that war. Hitler’s war was a civil war between the Jewish/Slavic borderlands previously held by Russia/Poland/Lithuania and their borderland enlightenment, and the ancient germanic martial civilization, and their heartland enlightenment and the bolshevik-stalinist fantasies of russia to escape third tier status among the great powers. The rest of us were just players until Hitler moved west – easily baited by the Russians into entrapping himself with Poland. His error was that he did not understand the stakes, any more than the Americans did. And in both world wars, Americans most likely fought ont he wrong side. It was germany that was trying to protect the west, as she had for millennia against invasion from the east.
(4) Had Hitler attacked Bolshevism, and had he not exhausted his resources so that the ‘ex-patriation’ camps did not become slave-labor and finally death camps, he would have accomplished the same ends by militarily, politically, and morally defensible means that we today would still find substantive. The British invented the idea of using camps as processing centers, the Nazi’s adopted it, and the Russians industrialized it. And the Chinese merely circumvented it by direct, outright killing opponents wherever they could find them – setting china back into destitution from which western influence by example, finally extracted them.
(5) The postwar propaganda campaign was probably appropriate, if not necessary, for the era in which so much cost was born by citizens, but has been overplayed since the early sixties – so much so that we are at risk at present (I monitor the scholarship) of reversing the historical narrative.
History will look at these events very differently in a century than we do now and the above narrative is more likely to be the one that survives and endures.
It’s my job to tell people unpleasant truths about their moral fantasies. I don’t particularly like the fact that my people have largely been wrong about everything they have done since the grand accident of the Louisianna Purchase.
But truth is merciless to all of us.
There is just as much pseudoscience if not more among Jewish intellectuals than there was ever imagined by the Nazis. And the difference is that no one took nazi propaganda seriously other than the semi literate, but the entire western intellectual and political system embraced jewish pseudoscience enthisiastically simply becuase it was better written ‘crackpot’ pseudoscience.
Boazian antropology = anti-Darwinian pseuoscience.
Freudian psychology = anti-Nietzschean pseudoscience.
Marxism / Socialism = anti-Economic pseudoscience.
Leninism = Justification of totalitarianism and murder.
Trotskyism = Justification of totalitarianism and murder
The Frankfurt School = anti-Spencerian sociological pseudoscience
Postmodernism = resorting to lying and repetition by propaganda having failed with pseudoscience.
Neo-Conservatism = Leo Strauss and his followers, attempting to use the german kantian technique of pseudo-rationalism to load, frame, and overload, and thereby decieve.
Let us assess the damage done by:
The Anglo struggle for its enlightenment: worldwide expansion. (an empirical one)
The French struggle for its enlightenment (the massacres of the French revolution, and the tyranny of napoleon), ( a romantic one) and its replacement of the existing nobility with a new bureaucratic one.
The Russian struggle for its enlightenment (a literary one)and its truncation by Bolsheviks.
The German struggle for its enlightenment (a philosophical one) and failure to transition to the empirical.
The second german struggle for its enlightenment (an aesthetic one)
The Jewish struggle for its enlightenment (a pseudoscientific one)
How many of these enlightenments were stopped dead by the Jewish pseudoscientific enlightenment?
How many more murders and how much more suffering was caused by the success of the Jewish pseudoscientific enlightenment, it’s conquest of Russia, it’s failed conquest of Germany, it’s failed conquest of China, it’s existing hinderance of Indian political development, and the saturation of the formerly great academies of the west with pseudoscience?
So let us not revel in self-compliment and congratulate ourselves on our moral standing when we are greater fools than those few who found purchase in such nonsense. You cannot compare the ineffectual propaganda of the Nazi fringe in support of anti-bolshevism and anti-cosmopolitanism in a fight over control of the borderlands with the extremely effective propaganda of the Jewish pseudosciences, and the 100m dead, and billiions idoctrinated into falsehoods because of them.
Look at the crisis the resistance to the enlightenment is causing in the Islamic world. They’ve been fighting it since they started suppressing knowledge and expanding Islam to the masses in the thirteenth century.
Civil wars, and border wars, and clashes of civilizations are bloody things. The fact that some of us fight more with armies(germans), some of us fight more with economics (anglos), some of us fight more with fabricated religions and pseudoscience (jews), some of us fight with reproduction and raiding (Islam), some of us fight with parasitism (gypsies), is just a matter of the resources and populations at our disposal.
Nothing more. We are all in competition. Cooperation is merely useful or it is not. Thankfully it is usually more useful than not.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-22 16:25:00 UTC
-
THE PROBLEM OF THE NEED FOR TAKING ACTION AND THE COMFORTING LIES SOME OF US NEE
THE PROBLEM OF THE NEED FOR TAKING ACTION AND THE COMFORTING LIES SOME OF US NEED TO HELP US ACT
Every man must act in a way that produces the consequences he desires.
There is no need for god in that question other than to give one excuses for having taken actions that others disagree with.
What you mean is that a man must provide his own moral authority.
In other words, one needs justification only because one is either weak, or because one is demonstrably wrong because it causes retaliation from others.
If one is strong and one is right in that he does not cause retaliation from others, then he needs no external authority.
So in general, what we see is that those who do not obtain status from others, or do not obtain the status that they think they warrant, seek to obtain self-image through creating niche narratives in which they envision themselves heroic or of high status.
Since many of us need these lies, because the admission of our status as much lower than we envision, and our abilities much lower than we envision, we must morally tolerate these comforting lies in the private sphere just as we tolerate the comforting lies of religion in the private sphere.
The question arises as to whether we can tolerate these nonsense ideas in the public sphere.
And this is where we get into the problem. Wherein the lies people like you ritualize, using pseudo-scientific pseudo-secular language, can be so real to you – through the social construction of reality – that you can apply these PERSONAL needs to arguments in the political sphere.
SO whenever your comforting lies produce harmful externalities, then it becomes a matter of dispute resolution between different sets of comforting lies.
And to resolve a dispute between sets of comforting lies, we need a means of decidability. That means of decidability is what we call ‘truth’. Meaning in the social context: are your statements free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception, and are you trying to use those words to impose costs on others or escape costs you yourself should bear.
Because truth and objective morality are identical propositions.
Anyway. This is probably too much for you; but you put in honest effort and you haven’t (knowingly) engaged in trickery during this discussion, so I have to take you as an honest man that is merely trying to fight above his weight class.
I don’t really care because an honest man, even one who believes silly things, is better than a dishonest man. And that is enough.
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-22 03:03:00 UTC
-
Converting From Accusations of Falsehood To Accusations of Fraud.
You see, I only have to testify to what I can know, and I only CAN testify to what I can know. So if I can’t know something I can’t testify to it. I can only say “I don’t know’. And in the tradeoff between “i don’t know ‘but’, and ‘I just don’t know so I can’t say’, we only need to look for perverse incentives.
You might not realize it but I’m calling people who do what leftists do (and religious people as well) mere liars. Sophisticated lying. Lying to the self as well as others. But in the end, mere liars. We lie for many reasons. We lie to ourselves. We need the mystical part of religion to lie to ourselves. Becuase the curse of reason is that we know things we wish not to. And apparently the price of reason is that we must invent un-reason in order to compensate for the horror of reason. Yet some of us, have the courage to look fate in the face and de-conflate the moral and the true. We provide ourselves few psychological comforts other than the joy of life. We know that we must not harm, must not steal, must not tell black lies. But we do not know what is right or true. We know only what is wrong and what is error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception. The rest of knowledge and action and experience is up to us to choose from. But why do some of us have this courage and others not? It’s because for some of us, almost all our intuitions and ideas fail, so we need recipes to follow in order to succeed, simply by not failing. It is because, for some of us, we need assistance deciding between our ideas so that we choose the ones least likely to fail. It is because, for some of us, we must decide conflicts between others who have different perceptions of events – and to resolve those disputes without favoritism and fear of retaliation. In other words, because some of us are better at deciding than others. -
Converting From Accusations of Falsehood To Accusations of Fraud.
You see, I only have to testify to what I can know, and I only CAN testify to what I can know. So if I can’t know something I can’t testify to it. I can only say “I don’t know’. And in the tradeoff between “i don’t know ‘but’, and ‘I just don’t know so I can’t say’, we only need to look for perverse incentives.
You might not realize it but I’m calling people who do what leftists do (and religious people as well) mere liars. Sophisticated lying. Lying to the self as well as others. But in the end, mere liars. We lie for many reasons. We lie to ourselves. We need the mystical part of religion to lie to ourselves. Becuase the curse of reason is that we know things we wish not to. And apparently the price of reason is that we must invent un-reason in order to compensate for the horror of reason. Yet some of us, have the courage to look fate in the face and de-conflate the moral and the true. We provide ourselves few psychological comforts other than the joy of life. We know that we must not harm, must not steal, must not tell black lies. But we do not know what is right or true. We know only what is wrong and what is error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception. The rest of knowledge and action and experience is up to us to choose from. But why do some of us have this courage and others not? It’s because for some of us, almost all our intuitions and ideas fail, so we need recipes to follow in order to succeed, simply by not failing. It is because, for some of us, we need assistance deciding between our ideas so that we choose the ones least likely to fail. It is because, for some of us, we must decide conflicts between others who have different perceptions of events – and to resolve those disputes without favoritism and fear of retaliation. In other words, because some of us are better at deciding than others.