The Liar’s Mantra

-Guest Post By James Santagata

“How dare you attempt to _HIDE_ your ‘Hate’ behind Science!”
– The Liar’s Mantra I

“How dare you attempt to _EXPLAIN_ your ‘Hate’ with Science!”
– The Liar’s Mantra II

“How dare you attempt to _JUSTIFY_ your ‘Hate’ with Science!”
– The Liar’s Mantra III

“How dare you attempt to _CONDONE_ your ‘Hate’ with Science!”
– The Liar’s Mantra IV

“Truth is never, ever an excuse such _FEELINGS_ or _CONCLUSIONS_ on this issue!”
– The Liar’s Mantra V

“This issue is just too important & critical to allow the involvement of Truth and Science!”
– The Liar’s Mantra VI

The Liars will always proclaim that they love & embrace Truth & Science.

In reality they don’t.

Liars only love and embrace truth and science when it is convenient and seems to support or can be twisted to support their claims and religious dogma (e.g., secular humanism, tribalism or ethno-chauvinistic supremacist views, etc.).

Outside of that narrow exception delineated above which utilizes the simple binary litmus test of: (a) Is it good for my views? and/or (b) Is it good for my people/group?, Truth and Science becomes not just bothersome but extremely dangerous due to its destructive capabilities.

At this very moment then, Truth and Science threatens to slaughter the Liar’s own Sacred Cows, therefore, Truth and Science must and will be completely disregarded while the Truth Speaker or Scientist will be tortured and slowly murdered in front of the fellow villagers in the public square.

Call all Liars to the carpet. Hold their faces to the fire. Don’t let go until they have been fully asphyxiated or immolated in the flame.

And then repeat for several more minutes for safety before removing head(s) and placing on a pike(s) in the public square with an interpretative sign explaining (a) why this occurred, (b) how they caused it and (c) they deserved it.


Existential Numbers for Existential Creatures

—“The primary concern of mathematics is numbers, and this means the positive integers. . . . In the words of Kronecker, the positive integers were created by God. Kronecker would have expressed it even better if he had said that the positive integers were created by God for the benefit of man (and other finite beings). Mathematics belongs to man, not to God. We are not interested in properties of the positive integers that have no descriptive meaning for finite man. When a man proves a positive integer to exist, he should show how to find it. If God has mathematics of his own that needs to be done, let him do it himself.”— (Bishop 1967, Chapter 1, A Constructivist Manifesto, page 2)

—“If God has mathematics of his own that needs to be done, let him do it himself. “—

Yes, and equally so:

 god has morality of his own that he needs to be done, then let him do that himself as well.**  

Man’s only possible morality consists in fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality.


The Mises Institute’s Cult Of Language

The way the Jewish people held sway over their members, is the same way that all religious cults hold sway: there are mandatory beliefs, mandatory language, and mandatory rituals that one must follow or be ostracized. And as long as the benefits of the group are sufficient that threat of ostracization provides incentive to hold to those norms, then people do so out of purely utilitarian choice.

Rallying and Shaming of the Feminists and Socialists works by the same means: neo-puritan and postmodern language demands verbal, belief, and ritualistic conformity or they will rally, shame, and attempt to ostracize you.
Ludwig von Mises attempts to create an equally mandatory pseudoscience of praxeology in order to demand compliance of members. Rothbard expanded Mises’ approach and this approach was a failure until Rockwell and Tucker use the new medium of the web to compete with the old media. And for a short while, it worked.

However, science and truth telling have won the day and the world now speaks in science – leaving mises verbal cult adrift and associated with the lunatic fringe.

And even worse, the world has been systematically abandoning philosophy as a cult language for more than half a century. And its important that the world does so, because philosophy was the ruse under which these systems of lies were constructed and propagated.

That is simply because science corresponds more accurately with reality than does any other form of language – because scientists have the least perverse incentives than anyone other than mathematicians. And even mathematicians still engage in fanciful platonism – moreso than do scientists.

So what use is philosophy? Prior to propertarianism, cognitive science and experimental psychology, I think it was necessary for debating moral discourse. But at present, as far as I can see, it is merely a primitive system of measurement limited to human scale. Perhaps, better stated, it is the means by which we attempt to construct theories such that we may test them, refine them, and state them operationally.

In that sense, philosophy, is merely a looser member of the logics, and a subset of science, which in turn is a subset of truth telling.


The Search For Precision and Parsimony

Popper would have been better off saying that he was advising us on the search for precision and parsimony, by making truthful statements along the way, rather than coopting the word ‘truth’ from his spiritual background. We are not investigating the mind of god. Nothing is obscured from us. Nature doesn’t try to lie to us, nor is nature mistaken.

The question is not ‘is that true’ but ‘can I testify to and warranty this?”

Linguistic blame avoidance caused a lot of ripple effects in philosophy.

But popper’s culture was not one of truth telling (as his own rhetorical attacks on competitors evidences.) Cosmopolitans are pragmatists not truth tellers. They do not warranty their speech as do westerners.

Meaning in cosmopolitanism is utilitarian and escapable, not truthful and warrantied.

Popper relies upon cosmopolitan truth (the unknowable mind of god), and cosmopolitan truthfulness (non-warrantied speech).

This is why he could advance science but that was the limit of his solution.


Video: The Western Struggle To Speak The Truth

Progress in 2014
(new video!)


A Different Unification: A Bold Challenge

—“Very possibly classical mathematics will cease to exist as an independent discipline”— (Bishop, 1970, p. 54)

I can translate this into something scary:

“Very possibly, classical philosophy and science will cease to exist as independent disciplines.”

That is precisely what I am up to – although I didn’t know it when I started. :)


Why Do We Justify Our Arguments?

(a) To convey meaning – to provide a path by which we incrementally transfer properties by analogy to achieve conclusions.
(b) To convey honesty – to demonstrate that we are telling the truth to the best of our understanding.
(c) To demonstrate the we adhere to NORMS in our reasoning – that we have not violated the social contract. (This is how we get into all sorts of interesting problems. Because truth is only truth in the sense that we mean it, in the west.)


(d) To lie – to lead others to false conclusions by design.
(e) To vector a lie for pragmatic purposes – to lead others to conclusions we prefer using the arguments of others as a matter of practical action.


(f) separate the route by which we establish meaning, from the route by which we demonstrate truth. It is possible to construct a theory by any means, but it is only possible to testify to the truth of it by operational means – existentially possible means, and in matters of human action, SUBJECTIVELY TESTABLE means. (rationality of incentives).


In mathematics, at least, for the most part, the means of conducting operations to solve a problem is nearly identical to the means of demonstrating the construction of a solution using existentially possible operations.

We sought to copy mathematics – starting with the Greeks.  But we lacked the understanding of why math was so effective at the ascertaining truth of relations: because there is very little difference between the process of theorizing and the process of construction.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute


Liberarian Requirements for Legal Decidability

We can construct libertarianism as a (a) sentimental, (b) ratio-moral, or (c) ratio-legal, or (d) legal-empirical framework – a body of interdependent arguments.

But if we rely upon sentimental, and ratio-moral construction, then statements are not decidable, and opinion still influences the decision – we leave open not only the possibility of, but the preference for the addition of subjective preference into any decision. That is why we cannot construct rule of law upon ratio-moral arguments – revisionism and evolutionary corruption. 

This is why libertarianism in the anglo tradition has been constructed as a legal framework rather than moral framework of the cosmopolitan and continental traditions – by using strict construction and original intent. 

However, while this construction – as a system of calculation, which prohibits, unlike rationalism, the introduction of information not present in the original construction – still leaves open the question as to what determines the scope and limits to property upon which a ratio-legal law is calculated. 

Empirical-legal evidence tells us that if we wish to construct a libertarian society, that we must define property as that which people treat as property by defense of it, and retaliation for violations of it. 

Without this knowledge we cannot eliminate demand for the state as an imposer of arbitrary norms, and suppressor of retaliation for violations of property that humans demonstrate they intuit as their property. 

There is only one way to eliminate the state, and that is to eliminate demand for it, by providing a sufficient body of property rights law, that all disputes are rationally decidable without the addition of subjective information.


Propertarianism: Intellectual Disinfectant

Hurry! Today, you can cleanse yourself of Anglo enlightenment universalism, German Rationalism, Jewish Pseudoscience, Christian Superstition, and whatever other other intellectual disease the ails you. (Members of the Cathedral, Islamism and Buddhism may require higher doses and longer treatment periods.) Save humanity from all variants of the Levantine Plague.

Sorry. No discounts. It’s against our principles.

-The Management


Violent Reform of the Academy


—When asked what form of instruction was most in vogue in Sparta, he said, “Knowledge of how to rule and to be ruled.”—

Reform the academy with violence, not words: Testimonial Truth, Ethics, Law, Politics, Economics, Engineering and War.

One does not rule those who are immoral with their permission – but expressly without it.

Otherwise they would not need to be ruled.