Theme: Deception

  • Let me correct this a bit. If you can’t make it good, make it big. If you can’t

    Let me correct this a bit.

    If you can’t make it good, make it big.

    If you can’t make it big, make it red.

    If big and red fail, then make it look like a sex organ.

    Then repeat the process.

    Seems to work flawlessly.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-20 05:22:00 UTC

  • PAUL KRUGMAN : High priest of The Church Of Political Kleptocracy It’s worth doi

    PAUL KRUGMAN : High priest of The Church Of Political Kleptocracy

    It’s worth doing a book on Krugman as an example of Kevin MacDonald’s criticism. I mean, this guy may realize he is a hack, but he may or may not realize that his INTUITIONS are immoral.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-17 12:44:00 UTC

  • “But when to mischief mortals bend their will, how soon they find fit, instrumen

    “But when to mischief

    mortals bend their will,

    how soon they find fit,

    instruments of ill.”

    – Alexander Pope


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-10 12:32:00 UTC

  • A couple of years ago I was in a lawsuit with a particularly screwed up individu

    A couple of years ago I was in a lawsuit with a particularly screwed up individual named Muti (who some of us know) who lied to me and everyone else in a venture, about the source of money he committed to contribute. When he fell thru, and he was exposed. And got a note from him. He signed it. A friend witnessed it. I shut down the venture, and paid everyone myself out of my pocket. At the time I was in the middle of divorce and had just finished my second round of cancer and therapy. So this particular douche bag tries every scumbag maneuver in the book, and because judges are stupid, pulled up an arcane bit of logic and misapplied it. It was so bizarre that I was stunned a judge could be that stupid. The fact is, he was just fucking lazy and wanted to get on to the next piece of paper. So we went to arbitration and what they didn’t get, was that I was willing to lose it all on the chance that I would win in court. Immoral people just don’t get it. They think you’re greedy. But it’s not the money. I’d already planned to give it to my ex-wife. But if I won, Id force the guy out of his house cause he was out of cash. Now, I really don’t want to do that either. But if he didn’t settle for a reasonable amount, then I’ll just go to court and roll the dice. Since I don’t get the money either way, it’s just a function of whether it’s moral or not.

    Americans have removed the legal system from most of their lives (which is one of the reasons that we are overpopulated with lawyers) and the courts have built up a pretty good body of law to encourage that. But it’s the very opposite of the common law. It’s a mess. And it’s incomprehensible to ordinary people. And it’s just plain immoral.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-08 17:18:00 UTC

  • 1950 THE LEFT’S OBJECTIVES WERE ACHIEVED. SO THEY RESORTED TO LYING. “My own fav

    http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-did-british-left-reject.htmlBY 1950 THE LEFT’S OBJECTIVES WERE ACHIEVED. SO THEY RESORTED TO LYING.

    “My own favoured explanation is that the Left realized that its traditional appeal – focused on the abolition of serious material poverty (starvation, homelessness, exposure to life-threatening cold etc.) and equal opportunity according to merit rather than birth.

    “By the 1950s it was apparent that these had already happened – so the Left needed a new agenda, and started systematically lying about reality.

    “This was the ‘turn’ from Old Left to New Left – old Left being about prosperity and opportunity – New Left (which became Political Correctness) about favourable outcomes for designated victim groups, and about ‘oppression’ of these groups conceptualized as psychological suffering rather than life-threatening deprivation. “


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-06 10:51:00 UTC

  • CONSERVATIVE ATTACK ON THE “ASPERGERY”: (More in my series on SOLIPSISM VS AUTIS

    CONSERVATIVE ATTACK ON THE “ASPERGERY”:

    (More in my series on SOLIPSISM VS AUTISM: Political correctness vs unloaded contrarian facts.)

    Solipsistic – Autistic Spectrum

    SOLIPSISTIC-SENSITIVE-SOCIAL-BALANCED-NERDY-ASPIE-AUTISTIC

    “In general, we’re seeing an ongoing convergence between the bad intellectual habits of two groups that are powerfully represented in Internet discussions: the politically correct and the Aspergery. The former dislike pattern recognition and the latter love mechanistic computer-programming style reasoning. And they increasingly come together to try to shut down probabilistic thinking about human behavior.” – iSteve

    Now, this is a really interesting topic: The Economics of Subjective Experience vs Objective Truth.

    NOTES:

    1) Notice how the commenters confuse relying upon intuition as ‘reason’.

    2) There is a definite anti-intellectual trend in conservatism that is not present in libertarianism. This is probably another artifact of IQ distributions, as well as Solipsistic-Autistic distributions.

    3) The aspie learning model is to observe, take a position, argue and learn from it. This is different from an emotionally laden dialog between individuals which would be ‘muddy’ to aspies. The autistic model is to adhere to a particular idea regardless. As is the Solipsistic (Politically correct) model.

    4) Yes, the Dark Enlightenment is the product of Aspies. As are a lot of innovations. Normal people don’t obsess over details like we do. It is extermely expensive and difficult to obsess on causal relations.

    5) There are plenty of Aspies that place infinite discount on emotional constructs just as there are plenty of Sensitives that place infinite premiums on experiences (emotions). There are plenty of normals who are oblivious. 🙂

    6) Yes, Autists are often mechanistic, just as solipsists are politically correct. After all, to be politically correct is to place a premium on experience and a discount on truth. To be mechanistic is to place a premium on truth and a discount on experience.

    7) Aspies are leery of emotional motivation and express incentives and require incentives be expressed as rational actions. This troubles conservatives who rely on emotional activation resulting from intuition.

    SELECTED COMMENTS (Fascinating Thread)

    ——————————

    For me, the most interesting part of this post is the last paragraph. I’ve been looking for a way to describe this for a while but without luck. Steve, I think you nailed it with the “convergence between the bad intellectual habits of…the politically correct and the Aspergery.”

    In many instances, no convergence was necessary–they were already one in the same.

    ——-

    …The Aspergery are subject to computer-thinking; in the digital world, everything is a 1 or a 0, it is on or it is off. As for the politically correct, John Derbyshire got it right when he called them “Totalists”. There is no room, for example, to not like homosexuals (or blacks, or immigrants) very much, but to neither wish them any harm – one must either gush endlessly about them, or one clearly wishes to destroy them. No room for subtlety in either worldview.



    Understanding this point – that something that is generally true has some circumstances in which it is not – is something that PCs and Aspys have trouble with for three reasons. First, it is not Totalist. Second, it is not binary. Third, it takes genuine intelligence to understand, and PCs and Aspys tend to substitute snark and smarm for genuine intelligence, in their own version of “fake it till you make it”.

    ——-

    We live in an age in which the darling of the world economy is the tech business. This is a business in which success comes from having a certain kind of smartness that is different from intelligence in general – that borderline autistic, unsubtle, binary-oriented, goal-obsessive, kind of smart that’s most often seen in high-performance geeks. This seems to go hand-in-hand not only with bad social skills, but with some mild level of genuine sociopathy – ask anyone who ever knew Steve Jobs personally about how he treated people close to him for an example of that.

    In truth, Jobs, and Zuckerberg, and a lot of other tech-industry titans, are almost certainly high-functioning autistics who are too successful for anyone to dare call them dysfunctional.

    And -this is key – because the tech sector is so important, these people are the ones who have become heroes and role models, with people brought up to believe that their kind of smart was the best – maybe the only genuine – kind of smart. People love to copy a winner, and when a certain skill set or kind of smartness of way of thinking seems to be successful, people aspire to it and try to emulate it (or at least put on an affectation of it).

    This is one major reason why the internet – and life – is infested with tinhorn Aspys and dime-store Dawkinses.

    ——–

    CURT: Actually, it’s because aspies are infovores. They require high amounts of stimulation via information that they cannot obtain by interaction.

    What I find interesting is that this person isn’t terribly bright and he’s just railing against others with envy. When his real objection is that he can’t use moralistic argument to convince shame or guilt people into agreeing with him. How do I know that? Praxeology. The economy of persuasion.

    ——–

    this is silly….. i dont expect this sort of intellectual sloppiness from someone of your calibre. Half the commenters here are probably aspergery, I am more than certain most of the “Dark Englightenment” is a product of Aspergery thinking. PC and Asperger’s are poles apart on any spectrum of intellectual functioning. One refuses to see patterns, one sees patterns all the time. One is feminine thinking to the extreme, one is masculine thinking to the extreme.

    ——–

    “In addition to not being solid on probabilistic reasoning, software types are not trained to reason about causation.”

    Not so, just the opposite. Software types live in a world where one debugs complex systems by probabilistic reasoning. Debugging programming logic, in programs of any size, is all about reasoning about causation.

    Though some variation of what you say might be true if you modify it to be probabilistic reasoning or causation about human “systems” (society), in particular if the reasoning needs to take into account current, historical, and political social conditions at all scales. Many programming types, particularly those locked in “deathmarch” race-to-deadlines, simply don’t have time to keep up with these things. Something has to give, the task becomes all-consuming, stress and pressure wonderfully concentrates the mind. A hard problem that takes months to solve does warp the human personality trying to solve it. Don’t overlook the simple lack of time in producing aspy-type behavior.

    ——–

    Anonymous said…

    “…the politically correct and the Aspergery. In many instances, no convergence was necessary–they were already one in the same.”

    I disagree… the PCs aren’t smart enough to be Aspies.

    ——–

    Anonymous said…

    Some people with Aspergers are aware that neurotypicals exist and that they think is some really weird ways.

    Those people come around to the Dark Enlightenment once they become sufficiently disillusioned.

    Other people with Aspergers seem to be unable to grasp the simple fact that neurotypicals exist, even when it is explained to them over and over.

    When those people become economists, watch out.

    ———

    Anonymous NOTA said…

    Reasoning about probabilities and statistics is really unnatural and hard for most people to do. Reasoning toward an unwanted conclusion is also unnatural and hard for people to do well. The combination is presumably still harder, and I suspect this is one reason why statistical reasoning dealing with some unwanted conclusion is super hard for even most smart people to think through.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-06 08:30:00 UTC

  • CONSERVATIVES ARE BETTER PERSUADERS THAN LIBERTARIANS “Neutrality, Tolerance, an

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006N75LFI/ref=tsm_1_fb_lkWHY CONSERVATIVES ARE BETTER PERSUADERS THAN LIBERTARIANS

    “Neutrality, Tolerance, and Equality are not neutral whatsoever–They’re a conspiracy.”

    Morality is universally comprehensible, intuitive, and emotionally activating. Libertarian economics, politics and reasoning is the best there is. But it doesn’t persuade. Now, the reason it doesn’t persuade I blame on Rothbard. But it’s really an artifact of our moral and religious heritage. We didn’t know how to articulate it until recently, in rational terms.

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006N75LFI?SubscriptionId=AKIAJBFRWAXYFVDX3VKQ&tag=cmpthgh-20&linkCode=sp1&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B006N75LFI


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-06 08:16:00 UTC

  • THE MIRROR ALWAYS LIES The mirror always lies. The danger of american cultural n

    THE MIRROR ALWAYS LIES

    The mirror always lies.

    The danger of american cultural narcissism, an its spiritual mother, cultural marxism, and its intellectual father, postmodernism, is that it is a profoundly self centered doctrine reliant on recursive introspection rather than the empirical extroversion of science, reason, property, and contract.

    The mirror lies.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-01 08:07:00 UTC

  • “IMPERFECTION COMES FROM TRYING TO BE RIGHT” (Evan Sayet) So we abandon all reas

    “IMPERFECTION COMES FROM TRYING TO BE RIGHT”

    (Evan Sayet)

    So we abandon all reason. Prove that right isn’t right and wrong isn’t wrong. Hate, detest and decry any judgement. There is no criteria for truth, beauty, justice.

    “The moral imperative of Indiscriminateness.”

    “Rational thought is a hate crime. They cannot judge the merits of the positions that they hold. They have been indoctrinated into the liberal thought process.”


    Source date (UTC): 2013-09-28 11:13:00 UTC

  • WHY WE NEED THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT: UNIVERSALIST ANTI-RATIONALITY IN SCIENCE “I

    WHY WE NEED THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT: UNIVERSALIST ANTI-RATIONALITY IN SCIENCE

    “I am continually amazed at the extent to which evolutionists have been indoctrinated—mainly by Richard Dawkins—against supposing that groups have any important role to play in human evolution.”

    –Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone:


    Source date (UTC): 2013-09-28 08:12:00 UTC