Theme: Deception

  • The Ten Commandments vs European Traditional Law Demonstrate the Abrahamic Metho

    The Ten Commandments vs European Traditional Law Demonstrate the Abrahamic Method of Deceit. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/the-ten-commandments-vs-european-traditional-law-demonstrate-the-abrahamic-method-of-deceit/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 21:39:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265034787745681419

  • The Ten Commandments vs European Traditional Law Demonstrate the Abrahamic Method of Deceit.

    Jan 17, 2020, 10:25 AM Notice that the ten commandments say one may not steal. It does not say one may not free-ride, externalize costs, or steal. But european traditional law is complete not ‘convenient’: it says one may not free ride, externalize, or steal. Notice that the ten commandments say one may not bear false witness. They do not say one may not lie. But European traditional law is complete, not ‘convenient’: it says one may not lie – period. Notice that the ten commandments say nothing about withholding or obscuring information, about “cheating”, about “baiting into hazard”. But european traditional law is complete, not ‘convenient’: it says one must warranty one’s words and deeds against withholding or obscuring information, “cheating”, and “baiting into hazard”. Notice that the ten commandments say nothing about preventing others from free riding, externalizing, fraud, lying, thieving, harm. But european traditional law is complete, not ‘convenient’. It requires we insure by defense, of both the private and common, or we are equally to blame. Notice that Jewish law says one must treat jews reciprocally but may treat non-jews ir-reciprocally. Notice that islamic law says one may only treat muslims reciprocally but may treat non-jews ir-reciprocally. But european traditional law is complete – it grants everyone the same sovereignty. It grants local control to locals. And It prevents externalizing of costs. Non-itegration is a cost. Evangelism and conversion is a crime. Practice that externalizes no costs is no one’s business. So, this is how the Abrahamic method of deceit operates on high trust european minds, by stating very clear half truths that prohibit the obvious and trivial, but by doing so license the subtle, and egregious – it’s moral hand-waving to distract you. The Abrahamic technique of false promise, hiding behind moral pretense, under cover of plausible deniability, defended by sophistry is as ADVANCED a method of DECEPTION against high trust european people, as REASON, EMPIRICISM, and SCIENCE are a method of falsification of the ignorance, error, bias, and deceits of low trust non-european people Once you see it you can’t unsee it. You see it everywhere. In ever sentence. Everything the enemy says is that sounds anything like truth is always and everywhere a half truth obscuring a lie – or it wouldn’t be said. The only problem we face is our own religion is still infected with pilpul and dogma when imitating Jesus’ love and presuming god’s love is all that is necessary. There is nothing else to be said. Christianity asks us to create a universal family by extending familial love to all that we can possibly do so in good conscience. In doing so, we create the optimum extended high trust, and trustworthy family. This is the common person’s version of Hellenic, Italic, Germanic civilization’s political strategy in the language of the weak, women and children.

  • The Ten Commandments vs European Traditional Law Demonstrate the Abrahamic Method of Deceit.

    Jan 17, 2020, 10:25 AM Notice that the ten commandments say one may not steal. It does not say one may not free-ride, externalize costs, or steal. But european traditional law is complete not ‘convenient’: it says one may not free ride, externalize, or steal. Notice that the ten commandments say one may not bear false witness. They do not say one may not lie. But European traditional law is complete, not ‘convenient’: it says one may not lie – period. Notice that the ten commandments say nothing about withholding or obscuring information, about “cheating”, about “baiting into hazard”. But european traditional law is complete, not ‘convenient’: it says one must warranty one’s words and deeds against withholding or obscuring information, “cheating”, and “baiting into hazard”. Notice that the ten commandments say nothing about preventing others from free riding, externalizing, fraud, lying, thieving, harm. But european traditional law is complete, not ‘convenient’. It requires we insure by defense, of both the private and common, or we are equally to blame. Notice that Jewish law says one must treat jews reciprocally but may treat non-jews ir-reciprocally. Notice that islamic law says one may only treat muslims reciprocally but may treat non-jews ir-reciprocally. But european traditional law is complete – it grants everyone the same sovereignty. It grants local control to locals. And It prevents externalizing of costs. Non-itegration is a cost. Evangelism and conversion is a crime. Practice that externalizes no costs is no one’s business. So, this is how the Abrahamic method of deceit operates on high trust european minds, by stating very clear half truths that prohibit the obvious and trivial, but by doing so license the subtle, and egregious – it’s moral hand-waving to distract you. The Abrahamic technique of false promise, hiding behind moral pretense, under cover of plausible deniability, defended by sophistry is as ADVANCED a method of DECEPTION against high trust european people, as REASON, EMPIRICISM, and SCIENCE are a method of falsification of the ignorance, error, bias, and deceits of low trust non-european people Once you see it you can’t unsee it. You see it everywhere. In ever sentence. Everything the enemy says is that sounds anything like truth is always and everywhere a half truth obscuring a lie – or it wouldn’t be said. The only problem we face is our own religion is still infected with pilpul and dogma when imitating Jesus’ love and presuming god’s love is all that is necessary. There is nothing else to be said. Christianity asks us to create a universal family by extending familial love to all that we can possibly do so in good conscience. In doing so, we create the optimum extended high trust, and trustworthy family. This is the common person’s version of Hellenic, Italic, Germanic civilization’s political strategy in the language of the weak, women and children.

  • “Fed” like “Supremacist” and “Racist” is a Compliment

    “Fed” like “Supremacist” and “Racist” is a Compliment. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/fed-like-supremacist-and-racist-is-a-compliment/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 21:31:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265032833162231808

  • “Fed” like “Supremacist” and “Racist” is a Compliment.

    Jan 18, 2020, 3:30 PM

    –“Hey Curt Doolittle funny thing, now I hear John Mark is a Fed. Are y’all going to get matching Gray jumpers and cats?”–A Friend

    I dunno, the whole James bond villain thing fits me just fine, because I love the chaos, but I think john would be more like something between Sir Thomas Moore and Cardinal Richelieu. Humor: “Fed” like “Supremacist” and “Racist” is a compliment. The first says you aren’t a coward, and the second says you know your history, and the third says you’re not a liar – and it says the opposite about the person calling you names.

  • “Fed” like “Supremacist” and “Racist” is a Compliment.

    Jan 18, 2020, 3:30 PM

    –“Hey Curt Doolittle funny thing, now I hear John Mark is a Fed. Are y’all going to get matching Gray jumpers and cats?”–A Friend

    I dunno, the whole James bond villain thing fits me just fine, because I love the chaos, but I think john would be more like something between Sir Thomas Moore and Cardinal Richelieu. Humor: “Fed” like “Supremacist” and “Racist” is a compliment. The first says you aren’t a coward, and the second says you know your history, and the third says you’re not a liar – and it says the opposite about the person calling you names.

  • Mathiness

    Mathiness https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/mathiness/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 21:14:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265028478237396992

  • Mathiness

    Jan 19, 2020, 7:56 AM Sorry all. Mathiness, and mathematical fiction in physics is definitely a problem, and attention whoring among mathematical physicists by selling those fictions is ridiculous. But this is because they have no classical model (geometric) to explain their probabilism at the subatomic level. Even the most mathy idea – string theory – is likely very close to the explanation of how change moves through the underlying geometry – whatever it is. Electric universe theory is simply a material theory and therefore easier to grasp without the mathiness. That said, it’s absolutely positively pseudoscientific nonsense. Same for plasma. The reason all of these problems exist, whether mainstream mathy or fringe material, is that we simply haven’t figured out the underlying (and in my expectation, classical, structure of the universe at the sub-particle (wave) level.) There is an elegance to P because it operationalizes the psychological, social, political world of thought. But human action is at human scale. That elegance isn’t available to use in physics at the sub-particle level because we can’t yet operationalize it. So please don’t associate woo woo with my work because you RIGHTLY PREFER and TRUST a classical, geometric, material, operational description of reality instead of a mathy-probabalistic one. Realize this about YOURSELF and YOUR thought. Just because P solves a problem and mathy-physics doesn’t, doesn’t mean mathy physics is wrong. It means it’s incomplete – but yes, when it is complete, I don’t doubt it will be expressible in operational and material terms. Woo woo pseudoscience is what I say it is: nonsense.

  • Mathiness

    Jan 19, 2020, 7:56 AM Sorry all. Mathiness, and mathematical fiction in physics is definitely a problem, and attention whoring among mathematical physicists by selling those fictions is ridiculous. But this is because they have no classical model (geometric) to explain their probabilism at the subatomic level. Even the most mathy idea – string theory – is likely very close to the explanation of how change moves through the underlying geometry – whatever it is. Electric universe theory is simply a material theory and therefore easier to grasp without the mathiness. That said, it’s absolutely positively pseudoscientific nonsense. Same for plasma. The reason all of these problems exist, whether mainstream mathy or fringe material, is that we simply haven’t figured out the underlying (and in my expectation, classical, structure of the universe at the sub-particle (wave) level.) There is an elegance to P because it operationalizes the psychological, social, political world of thought. But human action is at human scale. That elegance isn’t available to use in physics at the sub-particle level because we can’t yet operationalize it. So please don’t associate woo woo with my work because you RIGHTLY PREFER and TRUST a classical, geometric, material, operational description of reality instead of a mathy-probabalistic one. Realize this about YOURSELF and YOUR thought. Just because P solves a problem and mathy-physics doesn’t, doesn’t mean mathy physics is wrong. It means it’s incomplete – but yes, when it is complete, I don’t doubt it will be expressible in operational and material terms. Woo woo pseudoscience is what I say it is: nonsense.

  • Nitwits from The Critique Gallery

    Jan 19, 2020, 8:30 AM

    —“Yet, you believe the pseudoscientific cherry picking by “experts” like Judith curry, Tim ball, Richard lindzen etc on the topic of climate change, so much for argument from authority. Just because you dont comprehend the math behind probablistic models used in quantum models, doesn’t mean they are invalid”—Rash Ak

    (a) Curry is the best most neutral skeptic (I don’t recognize ball or linden) and I was directly involved with the movement deeply enough to criticize the people, their malincentives and the failure of its predictions. It’s this behavior and the failure of the predictions I criticize. My position has been, and remains: overpopulation by the underclass is the problem not energy use or consumption. I don’t know yet how much affect we’re having or if that effect is meaningful, and if it’s meaningful the I’m not confident it’s bad. And I”m not confident it’s bad, because this warm interglacial is preferable to the norm: glacial. And even if we determine it’s meaningful and bad then I don’t see any solution to the problem other than vast reduction in human population. (b) I comprehend the math just fine, which is why I clearly articulate the cause and consequence of ‘mathiness’ as use of probabilism because the underlying causal relations are still unknown. And the reason I do so is the parallel between the problems of physics, economics, and mathematics, because of the late 19th and early 20th reversion to pre-descartian math just as hilbert complained. (c) the quantum and the relativistic models are in conflict for the reasons I’ve described – we have no geometric (classical model) that explains the distribution of probability across the wave form. (d) Nit: validity is an unscientific term left over from justificationary philosophy., and imported from mathematics (test of internal consistency). Instead: Repeatable, demonstrable, explanatory, consistent, coherent. You will be very hard pressed to find other than one of the best professors of physics or mathematics who can or will debate me on this subject. You aren’t capable of this conversation or you would have made a different criticism. And you are clearly pulling sh-t out of your a– from a troll (fake) account to engage in female-jewish critique because you can’t construct an argument on equally articulate terms.