Theme: Deception

  • DRAFT OF “THE TECHNIQUE OF CRITIQUE” (understanding dishonest debate tactics and

    DRAFT OF “THE TECHNIQUE OF CRITIQUE”

    (understanding dishonest debate tactics and propaganda)

    The complex deceptive argument structure called Critique, it consists of these tactics,

    (a) Straw men points of advocacy as mere vehicles for criticism and attack,

    (b) Avoiding support of their argument, and using empty verbalisms defend it, confirming it with criticisms by returning to the attack rather than the demonstration of the strength of their ideas.

    (c) Using the “reasonable man” argument including moral appeals, appeals to reasonableness, to making individual exceptions to cases on an individual rather than facts and the problem of the consequences of exceptions at scale.

    (d) “Psychologizing” an ad hominem attacking the motivations of the opponent rather than the facts and structure of the argument.

    (e) Attempting to invoke guilt however possible.

    (f) Use of Ridicule, Shaming and Rallying as Moral Authoritarianism;

    (g) Overloading (saturation), Loading and Framing. (Use of suggestion)

    (h) Use of Verbalisms (analogies, moral reasoning, and pseudoscience);

    (i) Use of terminology as a logically authoritarian truth, rather than convention and claiming ignorance or incomprehension of alternatives.

    (j) Retreat into Dogma, and moral offense, and return to critique

    (k) Appeal to heroic figures with unworthy praise;

    (l) Flooding a market with confirmatory propaganda.

    (m) Use of dogma and verbalism to create a sectarian language with sectarian meaning and thereby constructing in-group/out-group conditions (a cult).

    (n) Offering in-group membership for compliance, and threatening out-group membership for non-compliance.

    In other words, they don’t defend their ideas (because they aren’t defensible) they merely use any weak idea, and the weaker the better, because it is easier to defend verbally and harder to attack logically, as a means of attacking your idea. (See Lew Rockwell’s most recent book as an example of a promised solution but delivering nothing but chapters of criticism without any solution provided.)

    The strategy of Critique is to use western altruism (exaggerated universal morality) to create a sense of guilt against in-group members, and to invoke western altruistic punishment against in-group members, and therefore create an environment where out-group members can use deception, trickery and verbalism to employ systemic parasitism, rather than engaging in mutually beneficial production – while arguing that the approach is for the good of all.

    In effect it is an elaborate set of deceptions and lies in order to overload the conversation such that we must rely on moral intuition rather than reason.

    It is another assault on truth telling, and the aristocratic society. An attempt to cast immoral as moral.

    Understand that the Misesian/Rothardian “Austrian” split is not Austrian at all, but yet another avenue for Critique. The only Austrians are the classical liberals at GMU etc.

    COUNTERING CRITIQUE

    1) As in any argument counter with the truth by calling out their tactic, refuse guilt for what is in your group interest, then return to the central argument.

    DONE

    So, it’s done. They’re done. It’s just a matter of putting in enough hands, and filling it all in.

    Put a fork in it.

    Ready to serve.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-30 13:31:00 UTC

  • THE LUNATIC FRINGE BRINGS IN THE HEAVY GUNS. (defenders of pseudoscience and imm

    THE LUNATIC FRINGE BRINGS IN THE HEAVY GUNS.

    (defenders of pseudoscience and immorality unite)

    Well, at least they have brought Walter to the table. And maybe he can put up a fight. But then, I know his argumentative structure cold. 😉 And while he is able to understand this level of argument, whether he will resort to critique like Kinsella, (who by comparison is a lightweight) is something I’m kind of curious about.

    Aristocratic Egalitarianism: the only liberty that ever existed, will exist, or can.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-30 13:11:00 UTC

  • WISHFUL THINKING IN ARGUMENT IS MORAL DECEPTION? yep. it’s lying. Its a form of

    WISHFUL THINKING IN ARGUMENT IS MORAL DECEPTION?

    yep. it’s lying. Its a form of shaming.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-30 10:45:00 UTC

  • I UNDERSTAND HOW THEY HAVE DONE IT – OVERLOADING (important sketch) A puzzle tha

    I UNDERSTAND HOW THEY HAVE DONE IT – OVERLOADING

    (important sketch)

    A puzzle that doesn’t fit together, but consists of many moral statements. Like any puzzle we heuristically fill in the gaps because we want to justify the moral statements – rather than object to the gaps because of illogical or immoral statements.

    It’s freaking genius. It’s brilliant. You just need to be a little better at verbal storytelling and it’s performing ‘suggestion’ on a grand scale. You need to be able to lie in greater numbers, and more frequently, then we can correct for the lies.

    They start with a metaphysical intuition to lie, and just use many, many, micro-narratives to overload us. Like a massive organized form of psychopathy.

    We are the most *objectively* moral people who most aggressively defend teh commons, and so we are vulnerable to overloading the same way we are programmable by religious narratives and myths. If we were not programmable by myths and religious narratives we would not be programmable by norms.

    Likewise, conservatives win elections using overloading, and so do progressives. Rathe than reason. Because reason is frail, but intuition is extremely powerful. They overload our reason while over-saturating our intuition.

    It’s not that he who is right wins. It’s he who talks most.

    Medial, like the church, is a vehicle for programming.

    And they programmed us with every pseudoscience possible.

    They created religion – the first lie. Then they created Pseudoscience – the second great system of lies.

    They used the same technique both times.

    LAW AND DEFENSE ARE DIFFERENT FROM LYING AND ADVOCACY

    Our system is purely defensive. We prevent against lies, leaving only truth. We prevent against free riding, leaving only production. The common law is not a form of advocacy, it is a form of defense. Liberty is not a commandment it’s a defense against creating tyrants, and it leaves freedom to innovate behind. Science is not a form of advocacy, it’s a form of correcting our interpretations of the world, and it leaves techniques and technology behind. Conservatism is not a means of advocacy, it’s scientific: if it works we will adopt it, but do not forcibly adopt that which hasn’t been demonstrated to work. We don’t tell people what to do, we tell people what not to do:

    It’s the job of the church (public intellectuals) to advocate for private action, but advocacy for public action is theft, and destroys the civic society.

    Political advocacy is lying. In fact, isn’t all political speech an attempted theft?

    The Nazarene was wrong, and Aethelred was right: you don’t do unto others as you would have done unto you. You do not unto others as they would not have done unto them.

    We had it right: church/academy/intelligentsia for advocacy, state for resolution of disputes, militia for prevention of power accumulation, and the civic society for action. There are no unemployed in the civic society. There is always civic work to be done.

    All so that we could steal the state from the aristocracy and use it to improve our economic standing, by using the state and the military to improve it. We opened Pandora’s box. And the new world funded it.

    ADVOCACY IS AGGRESSION, BECAUSE POSITIVE ACTION BY THE STATE CAN ONLY BE VIA AGGRESSION.

    We were the people who told the truth. We were conquered by the people who lied. For the N’th time.

    F__k.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-30 01:17:00 UTC

  • WHY ATTACK THE MISESIAN/ROTHBARDIANS? (aside from that it’s fun?)(aside from tha

    WHY ATTACK THE MISESIAN/ROTHBARDIANS?

    (aside from that it’s fun?)(aside from that they’re immoral?) (aside from pseudoscience?)

    Restore liberty, libertarianism, classical liberalism, to its aristocratic origins: the brotherhood of property rights, the militia, and insurance of each other’s property by the promise of violence if it is abridged.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-29 02:18:00 UTC

  • THEY USED OUR TRUST AGAINST US They appeal to our generosity, tolerance, and kin

    THEY USED OUR TRUST AGAINST US

    They appeal to our generosity, tolerance, and kindness – we are the least clannish people after all.

    They tell us to celebrate diversity of ‘goods and bads’ rather than diversity of physical form.

    The tell us to be gracious of error, and difference of opinion.

    Then the use our tolerance to lie.

    To spread lies.

    And to destroy that trust we built over millennia.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-29 01:52:00 UTC

  • Cosmopolitan Libertinism (Rothbardian Libertarianism) : "Yet Another God That Failed"

    [M]isesian / Rothbardian / Hoppeian attempt to capture the credibility of classical liberal Austrianism by means of Cosmopolitan critique. Instead, it was just another pseudoscientific attack on western civilization. Just like Marx, Freud, Frankfurt, and Postmoderns: a sustained attack on the ethic of the west: aristocratic egalitarianism. And we were fooled into thinking that it was from just the socialist direction. It wasn’t. It was from the socialists, the libertarians, and the neocons. From every angle of the political spectrum We have been fighting the wrong battle. There are no answers there. Time to fight for civilization. For a return to truth, merit, honor. Aristocracy. Curt Doolittle (Not to discredit hoppe’s solution to institutions, and his criticism of democracy. )

  • Cosmopolitan Libertinism (Rothbardian Libertarianism) : “Yet Another God That Failed”

    [M]isesian / Rothbardian / Hoppeian attempt to capture the credibility of classical liberal Austrianism by means of Cosmopolitan critique. Instead, it was just another pseudoscientific attack on western civilization. Just like Marx, Freud, Frankfurt, and Postmoderns: a sustained attack on the ethic of the west: aristocratic egalitarianism. And we were fooled into thinking that it was from just the socialist direction. It wasn’t. It was from the socialists, the libertarians, and the neocons. From every angle of the political spectrum We have been fighting the wrong battle. There are no answers there. Time to fight for civilization. For a return to truth, merit, honor. Aristocracy. Curt Doolittle (Not to discredit hoppe’s solution to institutions, and his criticism of democracy. )

  • Cosmopolitan Libertinism (Rothbardian Libertarianism) : "Yet Another God That Failed"

    [M]isesian / Rothbardian / Hoppeian attempt to capture the credibility of classical liberal Austrianism by means of Cosmopolitan critique. Instead, it was just another pseudoscientific attack on western civilization. Just like Marx, Freud, Frankfurt, and Postmoderns: a sustained attack on the ethic of the west: aristocratic egalitarianism. And we were fooled into thinking that it was from just the socialist direction. It wasn’t. It was from the socialists, the libertarians, and the neocons. From every angle of the political spectrum We have been fighting the wrong battle. There are no answers there. Time to fight for civilization. For a return to truth, merit, honor. Aristocracy. Curt Doolittle (Not to discredit hoppe’s solution to institutions, and his criticism of democracy. )

  • Cosmopolitan Libertinism (Rothbardian Libertarianism) : “Yet Another God That Failed”

    [M]isesian / Rothbardian / Hoppeian attempt to capture the credibility of classical liberal Austrianism by means of Cosmopolitan critique. Instead, it was just another pseudoscientific attack on western civilization. Just like Marx, Freud, Frankfurt, and Postmoderns: a sustained attack on the ethic of the west: aristocratic egalitarianism. And we were fooled into thinking that it was from just the socialist direction. It wasn’t. It was from the socialists, the libertarians, and the neocons. From every angle of the political spectrum We have been fighting the wrong battle. There are no answers there. Time to fight for civilization. For a return to truth, merit, honor. Aristocracy. Curt Doolittle (Not to discredit hoppe’s solution to institutions, and his criticism of democracy. )