Tag Archives: lies

Information Always Carries Intent (Whether Intended or Not)

Posted on by

As regards several critical matters, there is no such thing as a state of innocent misinformation. Those matters pertain to the exploit stakes to be captured in terms of money, power, and the control of what is known. The notion that misinformation is defined as a state of being ‘mistaken, absent of intent’, ironically itself constitutes intentional misinforming. All information carries intent. The disposition of the messenger is therefore irrelevant.

Mistakes not intended. Thus, I can never pass ‘disinformation’ (God claim). Only those who dissent can do that.

In a previous article, we cited that the erroneous pop-notion that misinformation involves the informing party’s being ‘mistaken, absent of intent to deceive’ (Reader’s Digest: Misinformation vs. Disinformation: How to Tell the Difference: “Misinformation contains content that is false, misleading, or taken out of context but without any intent to deceive.”)1 suffers from philosophical (Wittgenstein) Descriptive Error. Especially as it pertains to a party seeking gain through power, profit, or conformance, such misdefinition itself ironically constitutes intentional misinformation.

We recently learned a hard lesson about such poor philosophy through the malicious activities of the White House and FBI, enacting unconstitutional ‘joint action’ with media entities YouTube, Google, LinkedIn, and Twitter.2 Such entities have lost critical human rights court decisions concerning their malicious activities during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.3

This philosophical weakness centers around the following principle, a variant of a principle called the exoentropy of normatives (The effort to enforce order inside a controlled subsystem, inevitably and ironically serves to increase the level of disorder or entropy surrounding it.).

Exoentropy of Medium (Intent Laundering)

All a gain-seeking entity need do in order to officially deceive, is to pass errant information, stripped of any basis of soundness, to an objective (‘intent free’) third party (the official media), staffed by clueless redistributors or recent journalism school graduates, who could not possibly be any the wiser. This methodology allows for such information to be laundered of its intent, and therefore at worst, if detected as false, be regarded as merely ‘mistaken’.

The gain-seeking party therefore can never disinform (lie with facts), because they bear no intent. Q.E.D. their facts are true and comprehensive.

The most entropy-introducing ‘informing’ which the gain-seeking party enacts, is their mandate to have their innocent media parties remain silent or ignorant regarding a specific critical issue. When a dissenting party is silent, that this their prerogative under skepticism. When a gain-seeking party mandates silence, this is not an act of skepticism.

All dissenting opinion or information therefore, regardless of its validity, probative potential, or soundness, inherits the resulting exoentropy. By default, such dissent can only originate from an ‘intent to oppose objectivity’, and therefore can never constitute misinformation (because it carries intent), but rather can only exist as disinformation (hearsay, anti-virtue, or conspiracy theory), whether correct or not.

As a default disposition, this Wittgenstein Descriptive Error renders the official media as an entity which is perpetually innocent and perpetually at worst, misinforming. This ‘Oh, I was simply mistaken’ ad hoc apologetic is a ruse and exit strategy for their appeal to authority. Ethics in reality, does not allow for authority to escape accountability by means of such casuistry.

By means of such philosophical sleight-of-hand, the media can never be therefore held to account for its agency or biases. You however, are always a conspiracy theorist for the audacity to consider even the slightest dissenting notion.

Therefore, when a celebrated or media entity appeals to the authority of science or official narrative, especially inside the context of human rights, dishonesty and incompetence are indistinguishable.

One can easily spot the narrative numpties and ninnies who fall for this. They reside in a chronic state of ‘knowledge-laden ignorance’ – full of facts, filled with lies. In order to demonstrate why comprehension of this Jedi Mind Trick is important, let’s conduct a thought experiment.

A gain or power-seeking stakeholder should never be afforded the a priori permissive argument nor posteriori ad hoc rescue of ‘Oh, I was simply mistaken’. If a gain-seeker suggests inference or fact which has not been fully validated as true, they are still lying – regardless of their messenger’s ‘intent’.

In 24 hours I will be sitting on a beach, earning twenty percent.

You own a successful small business. I am your newly hired Controller. As new accountant for your business, I just obtained signature-access to its operating cash account yesterday. Today I transferred all $700,000 in operating cash funds into my own personal account in the Cayman Islands. There is now a $0 cash position in the business account, as of close of bank hours today.

I plan on secretly flying out of the country tonight. You, as business owner, are aware of my access to the business account, but not the transfer of funds. Not being web savvy yourself, that evening you inquire of me as to the business’ cash position.

My deceptive response options (all of which involve ‘intent’):

   Misinformation – Lying with Falsehoods (deception by means of straw man or false information)

“The cash position is sound and fluid, at 45 days reserve.”
“You have $700,000 in the cash account.”

   Disinformation – Lying with Facts (ingens vanitatum/ignoratio elenchi/red herring – deception by means of true, partly true, or irrelevantly true information)

“Your average closing daily cash balance over the last week was $600,000.”
“Overhead costs have risen 18% and we took a heavy overhead hit this month. But our cash position was $700,000 today.”

   Nelsonian Information – Scientific Lying (deception through appeal to ignorance)

“I have found no evidence that your cash position is unsound.”
“The account balances have yet to be audited (peer-reviewed).”
“Accountants, until the bank completes their current system upgrade, please remain silent on account balance issues. As well, please fact-check all account balance contentions with this morning’s accurate balance only.”

   Malinformation – Malicious Lying (deception through appeal to malice)

“You had a $2,100 charge at ‘Tiffany’s’ last month, is that a strip joint, or do you have a special friend?”
“Your spouse was logging into and out of the bank account today.”

   All Four Combined – Exoentropy of Medium (deception through laundered appeal to authority/neutrality)

I inform the accounting department to remain quiet (silence) on the cash account issue, until the “bank can complete its systems upgrade”. At the same time, I forward the day’s opening statement of funds to the business owner’s trusted personal assistant who has regularly monitored his accounts in the past, suggesting ‘FYI, just in case this is needed’ – and calculating that the ambitious personal assistant will not relate the provenance of their up-to-date information (which is ‘better’ than the information that accounting holds). The admin assistant thus has become my innocent narrative numpty/ninny, representing me as the gain-seeking entity. In this elaborate deception, I will have gained enough time for the SWIFT transfer of funds to clear, before anyone is the wiser.

A gain-seeking party will exploit plentiful-entropic sets of information.

Note that in this final example set of actions, through introducing innocent third parties into the value chain of information, I have enacted the most clever of misinformation schemes. I have exploited all four modes of errant information (misinformation, disinformation, Nelsonian, and malinformation). I have created a ‘knowledge-laden ignorance’. I have exploited the exoentropy of medium. I have stripped the information of my intent to deceive – and passed it to a ‘neutral’ third party which bears no intent.

For a critical period of time (all lies bear a necessary shelf life), anyone who dissents with any form of reason, will appear as a babbling and irrational conspiracy theorist. By the time they collectively figure it all out, the matter will be moot. I will be on a beach, earning twenty percent.

Intent, or lack thereof, is a deliberation regarding the person, not the information they are passing. Information always carries intent.

This is why exonerating a gain or power-seeker’s information which is passed through an objective third party as ‘absent of intent’ – is a grave philosophical mistake. At best, it is Pollyanna. At worst, itself a deception.

The critical absence of a capture in exploit stakes, is why I do not charge for, nor seek personal celebrity or gain through this website. Sure, I get an ego boost every now and then, and appreciate kind words just as would anyone. But my intent is transparent – oppose oppression from those who fake representation as science and skepticism, by arming their victims with critical (and unfortunately, often novel) philosophy.

I desire neither to launder my intent nor allow my intent to be biased by exploit stakes. Skeptics or media entities who imply that they are basically operating from neutrality, and possess no intent, should not be trusted. The only way they can possess no intent, is to remain utterly disinterested in the topic – which is rarely the case. This is why the deceptive arguer often feigns disinterest in critical subjects they wish to misrepresent.

We’ve all heard the familiar expressions ‘bad money is always bad’ and ‘there are no mistakes when it comes to money’. Even so, all information carries intent, whether it has been laundered of that intent or not.

The Ethical Skeptic, “Information Always Carries Intent (Whether Intended or Not)”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 13 Feb 2023; Web, https://theethicalskeptic.com/?p=71072

Margold’s Law and The Ethics of Skeptics

Posted on by

Faithful in Small, Faithful in All

or why Social Skeptics eventually destroy their own credibility and must defensively agglomerate into an inerrant club in order to provide each other mutual validation and protection

I had a Social Skeptic recently explain to me in no uncertain terms, why famine and disease conditions exist in the world, along with his agenda laden entailed solution. I sat quietly and listened to him pass the familiar Cabal doctrine, he fully unaware that I have directed several dozen national strategies worldwide in this subject, most delivered to ministries, executive offices or heads of state; and possess 23 years of deep, expert, daily and on-ground experience.  Unfortunately there are only a small subset of disciplines in which I am considered an expert. A fake skeptic does not let this natural reality which we all face, stop them. Social Skeptics habitually profess the extraordinary claim to ‘evidence based’ expertise (see Corber’s Burden) in a large array of specific subjects – most inside of which they bear no actual expertise; and Margold’s Law explains why. Margold’s Law is a time tested and reliable principle via which the discriminating researcher can gauge the level of trustworthiness exhibited by a real researching skeptic or noisy faking Social Skeptic. I find this tactic very useful in discerning whom and whom not to trust. Now not everything a faking skeptic contends is incorrect of course.  In fact the majority of what a Social Skeptic might contend is indeed scientifically correct. But what the discriminating Ethical Skeptic observer must keep in mind, is that many times the ‘correct’ aspects of a Social Skeptic’s behavior are simply portrayed in an effort to gain credibility, so that the lack of integrity they apply below the threshold of normal perception can further be wielded more importantly and surreptitiously inside higher priority targeted subjects.

Margolds Law pic

Many Social Skeptics are not really that concerned about homeopathy, CAM medicine, Anthropogenic Global Warming or promoting science (see Stooge Posing). All which stand as valid issues of science and medicine. To a Social Skeptic, these issues stand as Lies of Allegiance, a platform point to which they must adhere, along with all the other doctrines of Social Skepticism, in order to gain the protection of the Cabal (see Margold Multiplier Counters 5a 1 & 2, b and c, below). You will notice this in blogs, wherein one prominent celebrity Social Skeptic will publish a defamatory article, then the next day a flurry of 20 or more similar sycophant SSkeptic blogs will essentially say the exact same thing as the celebrity did the day before. Really? All that research and skepticism executed in one whole day? Impressive. So in reality, one can rely upon Margold’s Law because, the incentive structure inside the Counter to the Margold Multiplier forces the Social Skeptic to accept compromises in integrity, in order to gain the protection and backing of the Cabal. In other words, the Social Skepticism movement is no different than a street gang.

Most of the time, Margold’s Law will become manifest when a SSkeptic makes rash proclamations inside subjects where no real data is possessed and no real research has been conducted on the part of the challenging claimant SSkeptic. This constitutes an action set which is readily apparent to real experts inside those subjects in which a SSkeptic pretends to be competent; wherein I have observed these fakers in my subset of professional disciplines frequently. Social Skeptics will attempt to portray a key principle inside my discipline, and purposely malign it in order to support a broader platform of ideas and control.  Most people will not catch this sleight-of–hand, but experts do. The Margold Multiplier essentially cites that this expert observer effect will be replicated over and over, eventually resulting in the destruction of the credibility of the faking SSkeptic. The faking skeptic knows this, and therefore must seek protection and provide a counter.

Hence the Genesis of Social Skepticism

who amongThis reality then further compels the faking skeptic to join the Social Skepticism movement in a defensive effort to salvage and maintain their credibility (see 5. The Margold Multiplier, below). All this stems in essence from, simultaneously an intellectually lazy boast as well as a compliance reaction from their fear of attack by their own Social Skepticism Cabal. The final state of this type of Gollum-Skeptic styled character involves the habitual circumvention of the conventions of evidence, blocking of the methods of science and attempts to establish immediate unjustified credibility on the part of an arguer who must now, because of Margold’s Law, win at all costs and at all times (see Guild Accretion Counter 5a 2 ii). My precious!

Margold’s Law

The observed level of integrity which a fake skeptic applies regarding one subject in which an external observer is an expert, will extrapolate reliably to constitute the level of integrity the fake skeptic applies in all subjects the fake skeptic debunks.

Corollaries

1.  The Margold Multiplier Guild Accretion Counter 5a 2. ensures that Margold’s Law is correct.

2.  A skeptic who claims that their comprehensive expertise on all subjects comes from an aggregation of knowledge from multiple experts in a variety of fields, is lying.

3.  If a skeptic is convicted in a felony, then lies about it to excuse it or explain it away as a big misunderstanding, then this behavior is reliably indicative of the level of integrity applied to all subjects they debunk.

4.  A faking skeptic who is caught in, or catches their own self in a Margold’s Law deception, will make visible displays of aggressive fealty to cabal doctrines of correctness, as a means of compensation for their resulting inner doubt.

The Margold Multiplier

5.  Eventually a fake skeptic will demonstrate their integrity to a sufficient number of true experts across all the fields they debunk, which will serve as an amplifying effect in terms of destruction of credibility; forcing the faking skeptic to retreat into social skeptic clubs and circles and rely upon their status as a ‘skeptic’ in order to re-establish a credible reputation.

The Margold Multiplier Counters

Guild Accretion Counter

5a 1.  The first counter to the Margold Multiplier is for the faking skeptic to bolster his position by demonstrative backing with other fake skeptics, and through much noise and media intimidation regarding the unquestionable nature of skepticism, and implying their position therein.

5a 2 i.  In order to gain the protection of the Cabal of Social Skepticism, a faking skeptic must visibly and aggressively support all 200+ of the doctrinal points claimed by the Agenda of Social Skepticism, despite personally not researching the subjects themselves and/or not originally agreeing with the entailed conclusions. Any room left for doubt might risk removal or exclusion from the club cloak of protection.

5a 2 ii  Fealty to the Agenda of Social Skepticism is demonstrated by the ability to be victorious in all arguments the fake skeptics enters.

5a 3.  Corollary 4 ensures that the Guild Accretion Counter 5a 2 i. is correct.

Truzzi Counter

5b.   The second counter to the Margold Multiplier is the Truzzi Counter:  The presumption that a position of skepticism or plausible conformance on a specific issue affords the skeptical apologist tacit exemption from having to provide authoritative outsider recitation, ethical conduct or evidence to support a contended claim or counter-claim.

Truzzi Apology Counter

5c.  The third and conditional counter to the Margold Multiplier is the Truzzi Apology:  The presumption that a position of skepticism, the word ‘science’ included in an organizational title or a plausible conformance on a specific issue affords the skeptical apologist tacit permission to conduct highly visible defamation, employer or business tampering, derision, or tortuous interference, along with other dark and/or illegal conduct.

“Pseudo-Skeptics: Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves ‘skeptics,’ often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all. A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence.”  – Marcello Truzzi (Founding Co-chairman of CSICOP)