Theme: Deception

Let us try this again:

—“So in the distribution between intent, failure of due diligence, carrier of lies, and a cognitive tradition of lying by sophism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience, and the biological drive of the female-biased mind to use gossip and undermining to undermine the hierarchy, … what is the distribution of rothbard’s guilt? With him, his culture, or his genome?”—

What is difficult about this question?

Spectrum of Lying:

1. Intent to lie.

2. Intent to deceive.

3. Failure of due diligence against lying

4. Carrier of lies.

5. Carrier of tradition and culture of lies.

6. A genetic predisposition to lie.

Where truthful speech consists of:

1. categorically consistent (identity)

2. internally consistent (logic)

3. externally correspondent (empirical)

4. operationally consistent (existentially possible)

5. rationally consistent (rational choice)

6. reciprocally consistent (reciprocal rational choice)

7. consistent within scope, limits, and fully accounting (complete)

8. consistent across all those seven dimensions (coherent)

And where:

9. limited to actions for which restitution(restoration) is possible.

10. warrantied by sufficient resources to perform restitution.

That is the list of conceivable dimensions available to man, the means of due diligence by which we test them, and constitutes a ‘complete, deflated, dimensional’ definition of truthful speech – a speech that will survive in a court of law.

Rothbard’s ethic uses the first premise of volition – the ethics of the ghetto, the pale, and the low trust middle east. This ethic is consistent across afro-asiatic peoples: can I get away with it? Just as face ethic is consistent across asiatic peoples, and just as truth over face is consistent over northern european peoples (not russian).

Western ethics uses the first premise of reciprocity – the ethics of the high trust homogeneous europeans (exclusively). It says ‘will their be repercussions over time?’ The west competes by its commons, the middle east by predation upon them.

So, what are Mises and Rothbard NOT accounting for (Cherrypicking) in their arguments?

Mises didn’t practice ‘austrian’ economics. He was from L’viv (near where I live). He practiced the economics of the ghetto, pale, and middle east, and restated it with Menger’s subjectivity. He found another application of pilpul with which to justify his priors. Hence why there is ‘austrian economics’ of menger and hayek fully incorporated into the mainstream, and ‘ukrainian ghetto economics’ of mises and rothbard (and eastern ashkenazim in general) that have not been incorporated into the mainstream.

All peoples (states, civilizations) so far have attempted to take the british scientific revolution and exit the medieval world of supernatural sophisms while retaining (a) their traditional method of argument, and (b) the traditional underlying ethics, in order to (c) persist their group competitive strategy. No people has done otherwise: the french, germans, italians, russians and ashkenazi, the chinese, and now the muslims.

We have just about ended the jewish century of resistance to truth and science (marx, boas, freud, cantor, mises, rand/rothbard, strauss) and are entering into the muslim century of resistance to truth and science. It is the last civilization we have yet to drag out of ignorance, and the most primitive, most resistant, with the worst demographics. Our ancestral attempt in the roman era resulted in a dark age.

I understand this subject better than anyone else living. Mostly because I have spent the better part of a decade understanding the differences between anglo, continental, jewish/arab(Semitic), Hindu, and asian methods of law, argument, philosophy, religion, economics, and family structure, and produced a value independent, fully commensurable, logic of law, ethics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy for these purposes.

Of the existing grammars we call math, logic, science, algorithms, law-testimony, descriptive speech, ordinary speech, narrative speech, fiction, fictionalisms(sophisms-idealism/philosophy, supernaturalisms-theology, and pseudoscience/magic), and deceit, I practice *Law*. Why?

Because of those grammars, it is the only one that is both both complete, complete, and free of fictions, and the means of suggestion by which to circumvent our reason.

So the question is, why would anyone not write about social science in law – the language of reciprocity – unless to circumvent that law of reciprocity?

…..Which answers a question of the ages.

Cheers.