Theme: Truth

A VERY HUMAN PROBLEM
My work is terribly rigorous, complex, and requires you to think first and feel last = which is totally alien to human beings.
In the more than twenty years I’ve worked on epistemology and its application, it’s rather obvious that a tiny fraction of people participate in my work, our project, and our rather small intellectual movement, because they have the personality, intelligence, motive, and life experience to do so.
Instead the majority of people we find, identify some one of my/our explanations or arguments as satisfying a cognitive or moral bias, and then affiliate or support us without understanding the work, or integrating it sufficiently to benefit from it.
This behavior isn’t particular to us. It’s the same for all movements with political potential. Religion, Philosophy, and the hierarchy of marxist pseudosciences are all plagued by the same attraction by self-sortition.
Even in the sciences, how many people in physics can’t distinguish between a statement about mathematics and a statement about the physical world? How are they not acting as platonists do with their ‘ideal forms’ or other such nonsense? They aren’t.
Worse, how many mathematicians can perform advanced mathematics (measurement by deduction), without grasping the foundations of mathematics, or why it ‘works’ (and why it fails)?
Much Much worse, how many philosophers of law are no better, an dperhaps worse, than theologians discussing how many angels fit on the head of a pin? Well, frankly, none of them Even when we name the best (our dear departed Saint Judge Antonin Scalia), do they really understand what they’re stating – in the same sense a chemist understands what he’s stating? Of course not.
Much, Much, Much worse, how many legislators bureaucrats, professors are other than parroting recieved knoweldge almost aall of which is at best half true, and more likely largely false – at least outside of the applied sciences?
Our system worked because the natural law program of the USA’s founding was a scientific revolution in human organization. And because the english had restored classical reason and empiricism. And americans classical roman pragmatism. And they might have succeeded if the french hadn’t restored authoritarianism, the russians copied them, and the jews undermined all of them with marxism-feminism-woke.
We are at that point where we take nothing for granted any longer – and this is where athens and rome and england made their great reforms and advancements: at the precipice of failure.
But there is only one way to reform an imperial government that has been overcome by credentialists, and ideological religion, and like the chinese abandoned empirial rule for philosophical moralizing, disconnected from reality necessary for continued prosperity. Or when the muslims returned to fundamentalism leaving behind the wisdom accumulated by the plunder of the great civilizations of the ancient world. Or when the bright light of the Hindustani’s failed to solve the problem of politics and returned to mysticism. Or when the roman world was so crushed by invaders that they could be forced into chrsitan subission to the east, rather than restore their aristocratic martial empiricism.
The way is a scientific advancement in the means of organizing human beings that does not deviate from the laws of nature.
America was closest pre-war.
The credentialist and managerial revolutions destroyed our institutions.
The credentialist religions of marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, feminism, pc-woke, and antiwestern-antiwhite-antimale have repeated with chrsitand destruction of the ancient world did to the aristocracy of the past, in the present.
We can and have produced that scienfic revolution.
The problem is implementing it.
But you cannot morally persuade a criminal to give up crime.
And so you can only threaten them with punishment if they don’t.
That’s the only answer.