Theme: Governance

—“The purpose of policy is to destroy the family?”— A Twitter Critic

I think you, like most victims of 20th C pseudoscience attribute greater agency to our intentions, and stated intent over external consequence. Conspiracies of common cognitive bias, common interest are endemic even if common intent isn’t – outside of those with such agency. Learn the technique of false promise, baiting into moral hazard, pilpul (via positiva), critique (via negativa), and its common thread in the three monotheistic religions, marxism, pomo, feminism, and political correctness – but insightfully, the female strategy of undermining. To say its a conspiracy of intent would require intentionality of female anti-social expression (psychosis, promiscuity, undermining, reputation destruction). Instead, social super-predation (undermining) is instinctual for most; a political strategy some & deliberate for others. Useful idiots constitute the vast majority of the population (I know, I have iffy followers too.) For whom the portfolio of sentiments need be satisfied, not the central object of stated policy. Humans account for calories(consumption), and status(opportunity) almost exclusively. Just as economic policy consists of pulling a small number of levers to produce externalities by design, social and political policy consists of many more levers which produce direct objective and external objectives. Rarely if ever is the stated policy the central objective. This is why the declaration, constitution, and bill of rights are an adequate attempt to restate norman,anglo-saxon, germanic traditional law as natural law, expressed in specific rights. But lacking strict construction from the foundations of that law, the constitution was weak. The anglo constitutions from which our prosperity originates were written for people of shared moral and ethical intuition, with a shared history of means of dispute resolution,with limited power distance,and limited difference in means of production of family, goods, & services. The industrialization of lying by sophism and pseudoscience, denialism, and deceit using new media in the 19th 20th, and the capture of ‘preaching’ in school, academy, and media by profiting from use of this technique has left the 20th a repeat of the first-second century. Hayek and Poincare were right: the 20th will be remembered as a repeat of christianization and islamization of the ancient world – this time with sophism, pseudoscience and denial,instead of sophism, supernaturalism and denial:false promise of reversing the consequences of genes. I don’t err. It’s my job not to. -Cheers.

—“The purpose of policy is to destroy the family?”— A Twitter Critic

I think you, like most victims of 20th C pseudoscience attribute greater agency to our intentions, and stated intent over external consequence. Conspiracies of common cognitive bias, common interest are endemic even if common intent isn’t – outside of those with such agency. Learn the technique of false promise, baiting into moral hazard, pilpul (via positiva), critique (via negativa), and its common thread in the three monotheistic religions, marxism, pomo, feminism, and political correctness – but insightfully, the female strategy of undermining. To say its a conspiracy of intent would require intentionality of female anti-social expression (psychosis, promiscuity, undermining, reputation destruction). Instead, social super-predation (undermining) is instinctual for most; a political strategy some & deliberate for others. Useful idiots constitute the vast majority of the population (I know, I have iffy followers too.) For whom the portfolio of sentiments need be satisfied, not the central object of stated policy. Humans account for calories(consumption), and status(opportunity) almost exclusively. Just as economic policy consists of pulling a small number of levers to produce externalities by design, social and political policy consists of many more levers which produce direct objective and external objectives. Rarely if ever is the stated policy the central objective. This is why the declaration, constitution, and bill of rights are an adequate attempt to restate norman,anglo-saxon, germanic traditional law as natural law, expressed in specific rights. But lacking strict construction from the foundations of that law, the constitution was weak. The anglo constitutions from which our prosperity originates were written for people of shared moral and ethical intuition, with a shared history of means of dispute resolution,with limited power distance,and limited difference in means of production of family, goods, & services. The industrialization of lying by sophism and pseudoscience, denialism, and deceit using new media in the 19th 20th, and the capture of ‘preaching’ in school, academy, and media by profiting from use of this technique has left the 20th a repeat of the first-second century. Hayek and Poincare were right: the 20th will be remembered as a repeat of christianization and islamization of the ancient world – this time with sophism, pseudoscience and denial,instead of sophism, supernaturalism and denial:false promise of reversing the consequences of genes. I don’t err. It’s my job not to. -Cheers.