The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

How You Persuade Makes All the Difference

It’s not just what you say, but how you present your position. I believe that merit resides in adding to our Misrepresentation by Argument subset, in the Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation, a brief listing of persuasive tacks which can be abused to constitute crooked social reasoning, or ones which by their nature of construction, are innately crooked. When an entire social club aggregates together for the sole purpose of rhetorical persuasion by polemic, philippic and obdurate arguments, – it does not matter whether they are right or wrong. They are not even wrong.
Rhetoric: An opportunistic extreme commitment to an Answer. An Answer looking for a question. A question seeking a victim.

Poetry, The Only Valid Pathos

Three persuasion type domains - Copy (2) - CopyAristotle comments on the defining of the ethos of rhetoric,

“rhetoric is the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.”¹

As such, while rhetoric is not a means of persuasion in itself, rather residing outside such a concept; moreover neither does it fit into our domains of logic, emotions and ethics. Rhetoric seeking instead, the means by which to best persuade, the best domain through which to enforce an answer. Plato contended that the antithetical approach to such a calculating assessment as embodied in Aristotle’s rhetoric is the pathos of poetry.² In poetry one neither observes nor adopts means of persuasion, choosing instead to first express an integral honest passion and emotion unfiltered by the calculating mind. In this way he saw the two persuasion pathways, rhetoric and poetry, as constituting opposites.² The honest expression of the passion which drives the search for scientific development is ethical, sincere and persuasive in its very essence. But the remaining elements of persuasion which stem from the heart which seeks other forms of emotion or passion, are not so pure in essence.

My personal preference for discovery and persuasion is an ethical dialectic. Devil’s Advocacy is sometimes a pretense laden and academic exercise when practiced outside its disciplined application. Poetry on the other hand, stimulates an elegant nexus of ethos and logos inside a dialectic. Through easing the heart of the participants by means other than flattery, poetry (the broad discipline of the best of philosophy) reassures both parties that the best of human nature, the value of knowledge and the supreme nature of love, are the intended outcomes in any discussion. Therefore, no conclusion will be unjustifiably driven home, and the right questions can be asked. This is the trustworthiness of Ethical Skepticism.

Poetry unifies the best elements of passion and ethics; wherein, outside a context of rhetoric, it prepares the heart and mind to enter the realm of reason – outfitted with honesty and integrity.  Ethical Skepticism.  Hence the definition of skepticism: a means of preparing the mind and data sets to perform the method of science.

Rhetoric is an opportunist, desperate for an avenue of entry through any means of persuasion – a form of extreme commitment to a conclusion which bears not the ethics and honesty of poetry. An answer seeking a question through which to justify itself. A question seeking further a victim (topic or person).

In contrast, Social Skeptics (and Religions in the chart above – as in reality the persuasion means IS the chief distinguishing litmus of a religion) are trained to avoid dialect at all costs. They are taught disdain and final authority (God or Science), so as to not allow the potential for a threatening subject to even be objectively discussed. They only know intellectual violence. When an entire social club aggregates together for the sole purpose of media persuasion by polemic, philippic and obdurate arguments, – it does not matter whether they are right or wrong. They are not even wrong. They are operating inside the worst of human behaviors. Fear, control, disdain, arrogance and mock-mindedness.

The pathways to value and clarity – the two consequentialist goals of Ethical Skepticism take particular routes through the field of persuasion techniques. The pathway of the Ethical Skeptic tends to err away from the arrogant persuasion approach of the polemic, philippic or obdurate – realizing that everyone claims their argument to stem from reason. Instead the Ethical Skeptic opts for the elegant combination of ethos with logos; the positivist blending of logic, dispassionate clarity and the ability to put one’s self inside another person’s shoes. The Ethical Skeptic does not always have to win an argument. Many times, inside a topic of pluralistic debate, there is not enough known indeed to even converge on the possible outcome of a winner. Instead he or she focuses on the value and clarity derived in the benefit from dialectically stating the perspective. Several times I have ‘lost’ arguments because I refused to drive a conclusion home. I put my ego in check and listened to the opponent’s contention, then stated my caution around such abject certainty. Nonetheless, in many of these situations I permanently impacted the thoughts and long term contemplation of those who participated. My goal in discourse is not to ‘win,’ or tender final conclusions about a topic. That is child’s folly. Be warned about ‘skeptics’ who seek the greatest probability, conclusive rationality or simplest explanation. They are gaming the rules in order to win. Rather the goal of The Ethical Skeptic is to change the basis from which we habitually think. To de-persuade as it pertains to the ideas which harm and squelch our wellbeing. To appeal for more study, more science; accrued verity in lieu of more ‘truth.’ To shift emotion from the passion of protecting and winning, and begin to stir a new mindset; a passion for disciplined wonder from which to develop further thought. In this regard, for the Ethical Skeptic many times, the wrong pathos can be the enemy to sound consequentialism. He opts instead for the poetry of life, love, the universe and the discovering mind. This is his pathos.

pathos – passion/emotion

ethos – ethics/character

logos – logic/reason

When Pathos Pangs Hunger for Victory!!!

skepsoc IISuch stands in high contrast to the pathway chosen by the Social Skeptic. Debate is the withered olive branch of Social Skepticism; its symbolic foray into logos, furtively foisted at the full cost of ethos. Debate is about as good as it gets with Social Skeptics. Their pathos is often hidden, politically and control motivated. This is called the krymméno akrasia, or hidden pathos of the Social Skeptic. The Social Skeptic sees his goals as correctness and victory. Persuasion is obtained by force, any means necessary to achieve dominance of thinking. The passion driven in both correctness and victory indicative of a high commitment to, and genesis inside the pathos of belief. The Social Skeptic has something to protect. Ego, power, identity, control, image, reputation, funding, club status, track record, perception, publications, politcal and religious dogma. But most of all, pathos indicates a protection of one’s self from fear. When one wins in such a way, it is not uncommon to have found, that at the end of the pathway of a continuous series of victorious battles, that one has ironically lost the war.

In this same way, Social Skeptics are losing the battle for the media, our collective conscience, and the hearts and minds of the American People.

They do not exhibit the character traits which instill trust. The ethos and logos of those who have earned wisdom. The calm poetry in the heart of one who outlasts through gentleness. The statistics on how everyday Americans regard controversial subjects such as healthcare, food and disease, pesticides/hormones, autoimmunity, oligarchy, politics, atheism, supplements, cryptids, and alternative forms of life continue to shift each year to the disfavor of the Social Skeptic. And each year, Social Skeptics become more and more shrill in their desperation to win the argument at all costs.

Pathos, in essence can be summed up in the Ten Pillars: the foundational motivations of those who choose emotion and the rule of self over the alternatives, as their basis for reason.

Pathos to Victory: The Ten Pillars of Social Skepticism – when arguments must be won at all costs

I.             Social Category and Non-Club Hatred
II.           Narcissism and Personal Power
III.          Promotion of Personal Religious Agenda
IV.          Emotional Psychological Damage/Anger
V.           Overcompensation for a Secret Doubt
VI.          Fear of the Unknown
VII.        Effortless Argument Addiction
VIII.       Magician’s Deception Rush
IX.         Need to Belittle Others
X.          Need to Belong/Fear of Club Perception

Poetry and Rhetoric - CopyIn general, there are three domains of persuasive tactics according to Aristotle, pathos, ethos and logos

A more difficult question for informal logic is the relationship between argument and persuasion. In his discussion, Hitchcock cites Aristotle’s account of persuasion in the Rhetoric. It distinguishes three aspects of persuasion: character, emotion, and argument (ethos, pathos, and logos).³

Poetry is employed to stir the emotion to seek out character (ethos) first, and then approach the data and logic with a clean heart. Those persuading arguments which begin inside pathos from motivations besides the ethic of knowing and improving the lot of mankind, bear the greatest likelihood of being arguments which constitute invalid forms of persuasion/reason. This renders the potential of a dramatic mistake in scientific judgement much higher than persuasion/reason which originates inside either logos or ethos first.  The Social Skeptic therefore, in an effort to conceal such passion as is wound up inside of non-poetic pathology, seeks to legitimize and practice magician’s sleight-of-hand – to distract attention from their concealed pathos. They focus instead on the tactics of social persuasion, methodical cynicism and the art of being right at all costs. This is the insincere application of the opposite. The misapplied rhetoric of the fallow heart.

The Persuasion Types

Rhetoric – a critique which focuses on an arguer’s ability, technique or capability to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. An answer looking for a question, looking for a victim. Persuasion and Locution crafted in such a fashion as to be the reverse of science. A method of fooling the educated and scientifically trained, into adopting shaky positions of consensus.

Angel Questions – a form of rhetoric or propaganda wherein easy lob questions are only offered to a person or organization who otherwise should be held to account. Prefabricated FAQ’s which fall in line with a prescripted set of propaganda or politically correct thinking. Questions which appear to come from a curious third party, however are scripted to hijack a discussion down an easy path of justifying the message of the person being questioned.

Persuasion stemming from pathos – arguments which stir from passion, allegiance, opposition or hatred which may or may not interfere with the objectivity of the participant.

Polemic – negative attempt to an affirm a specific understanding via attacks on a contrary position.

Apologetic – neutral, often scripted defense or vindication of a favored viewpoint as a defense against all forms of attack.

Criticism – negative attack on a specific position, often implying personal competence and/or surreptitiously promoting an antithetical position.

Philippic (Tirade) – a negative, condemning or dismissively neutral attack on a position via appeals to common sense, stupidity, rationality or specific set of assumptions.

Coercion – an argument which is decided through the power or control held by one side over the other, often in a disputation.

Obdurate – an argument which favors an intellectual or unaffected party seeking ego or power over an injured, at risk or highly involved party, often in a disputation.

Poetry – an argument which seeks first to sway the heart of the listener and soften resistance to a point or position before its presentation.

Persuasion stemming from ethos – arguments which stir from what ought to be, from a moral, enlightening, advancing, risk averse or harm minimization standpoint.

Social Gadfly – an argument which is made through an appeal to practices, risk, impacts, standards or morals as underpinning the validity of the argument.

Sophistry – an argument which is contended though a side’s claim to virtuous features characterizing their substantiation, approach or position.

Rhetoric – a critique which focuses on an arguer’s ability, technique or capability to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.

Devil’s Advocate – neutral role play in which the favored position is probed for weakness and/or is refuted.

Permissive – an argument which is presented as neutral to falsely appearing to be in support of an idea, crafted in equivocal or ambiguous language, which can be also taken to support, permit, encourage or authorize antithetical conclusions.

Persuasion stemming from logos – arguments which employ the order of logic, reason or goal attainment in assembling a solution.

Dialectic – a positive and mutual reductive or deductive attempt to assemble a newly crafted common position.

Debate – neutral or negative bifurcated criticisms and defenses between two opposing viewpoints.

Disputation – a negative or neutral defense against an attack, in support of an attacked position or person.

Refutation – a negative or neutral criticism against an attack or position.

Rhetosophy – Rhetoric disguised as philosophy; wherein the arguer conceals his subject of contention and crafts the philosophy to appear as a stand alone ethic, independent of the point he is surreptitiously attempting to persuade.

Remember, it is not the number of people who hold something as true, which determines whether it is correct or incorrect. Rather it is the integrity through which the contention was vetted. In the end, the measure of pathos involved in a skeptic’s argument, is a measure of whether or not that person can be trusted to seek the truth with integrity. Are they passionately seeking in a wondrous universe; fascinated with each new discovery – the poetry? Or do they habitually seek to condemn new or challenging ideas or observations which should have not threatened them in the least – the obdurate. Do they seek the satisfaction of the new idea – the dialectic? Or do they feast only on the satisfaction of the win – the philippic.

Is their every pathos simply a bully displacement of the integral heart of poetry? Such are the telltale distinctions between those you can and cannot trust.


¹  “… rhetoric is a combination of the science of logic and of the ethical branch of politics …” Aristotle. Rhetoric. (trans. W. Rhys Roberts). I:4:1359.; Aristotle, Rhetoric 1.2.1,

²  Griswold, Charles L., “Plato on Rhetoric and Poetry”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/plato-rhetoric/>.

³  Groarke, Leo, “Informal Logic”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/logic-informal/>

September 5, 2015 Posted by | Deskeption | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Rationality is Not What False Skeptics Portray

It is a common SSkeptic saga, *dreamy reverie fade into a youthful past – they joined Mensa because they were so smart. They longed to be with their elite fellows. The top 2% of the population. Yet they ran into those who considered ESP, UFO’s, ghosts, astrology, angels, parapsychology, conspiracy theories, delusions that government should serve the people, similar seditious ideas, religious groups, etc.  Oh my god the irrationality.  So in their open minds they fled in a storm of revealed supreme knowledge.  Fled as hero directly into the arms of the truly elite, the truly rational, the truly humble – just like themselves. They found their home not in Mensa, but here – in the compliant and comfy high-walled domain of Social Skepticism. Someone hand me a tissue please.
Social Skeptics regularly sling around the terms intelligence and rationality, as if there existed some prescribed social index and measure of each trait implied in the offing; they possessing an unquestionable grasp of such descriptives. While the definitions of the two terms differ in many regards, there indeed exists a nexus inside of which both terms are defined accurately, and are truly achieved.  But it may reside in a dramatic departure from those definitions portrayed inside the pages of Social Skeptic media cherry picking propaganda. Propaganda which conflates highly indoctrinated and compliant persons with those being ‘rational.’
IQ tests show the ability to spot patterns and solve puzzles, and social rationality is the ability to make one’s self appear acceptable. But true rationality and intelligence are indeed a single thing – a character trait exhibited through “thinking dispositions” as well as cognitive ability and social compliance (not that these are completely invalid). It is honed over a life spent in earnest curiosity, altruism and factual integrity. Not a life spent seeking reinforcement by being ‘science,’ or as to how much more rational one is than the unwashed goofballs one hates.

intelligence and rationality - CopyIts rebarbative milieu fatigues me, thus there will be no burying the lede inside this missive. My gosh, we have had the examples foisted upon us and splashed repeatedly across the push media. Yawn. Yes, Paul Frampton, a tenured professor of physics at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, believed that Denise Milani had the hots for him, or at least provided that excuse as to why he attempted to carry ‘her’ cocaine lined bag on a flight out of Argentina.¹ According to the Social Skeptic dogma, in his ‘hubris, narcissism, high personal assessment of intelligence and lack of rationality’, he plotted to bring her the bag, get married, and enjoy life with beautiful Milani. His sin, according to Social Skepticism, was that he was intelligent but not rational. Oh boy, I can just feel the bolt of the high powered agenda rifle being slammed home now.

If you’re like me, about now you’re wondering just what diatribes over this example of human weakness and desire to be loved has to do with contrast between rationality and intelligence. I mean yes, this man lacked basic judgment skills any brick layer might possess. But that does not make people with common sense, also rational. This is not just cherry picking, it is crabapple picking. To the perceptive observer here, the apparent lesson is, if you make a social mistake, your destiny may turn out to simply serve as a warning of what missteps not to commit. A very visible and socially deplored warning example. If you succeed, no one is the wiser and you were rational quod erat demonstrandum. In the end, it is all about being found right. So, rationality in the view of those who are hyper-socially-sensitive is ‘demonstrably never making a misstep.’ Just watch the composition which comes from this camp of the uber-diligent, highly indoctrinated; such rational script cannot contain even one questionable or non-compliant feature. Not even one. Their logic? Eh, well high school level or even one of flawed basis is good enough. The sad reality is, that their cronies are only intelligent enough to spot the procedural or format mistakes, and will only examine as deep as a couple comforting one-liners, to vet the soundness of the material beneath. After all, they are not narcissists.

Narcissism in the mind of the Social Skeptic is the temerity to not conform. How dare they! They must possess an enormous ego to disagree with us like that.

Such exemplifies the psychosis among Social Skeptics – an inner conviction that they must always be right, and at all costs. Rationality is about always being correct; and not only that – making sure that such correctness is a virtual Potemkin Village of compliance, socially demonstrable and highly visible. All posed inside a facade of akratic aeunoia.

I only follow the facts - CopyMost people are not surprised to discover that former president George W. Bush is actually rather intelligent. Why are they not surprised? Because our former President is continuously exploited as a poster child for those who like to imply that lower academic marking is somehow equivalent to dunce-ism, lack of achievement ability and a whole slew of political decisions with which they disagree – because they represent the opinion of ‘science.’ Such purveyors of wisdom routinely like to cite that former President Bush is also ironically, ‘intelligent.’ Recitation of this irony pleases their funding and political sponsors enormously. Again the high powered agenda rifle bolt can be heard slamming home.

I have had these two weak anecdotes of intelligence versus rationality thrust in my face so often that it about makes me want to puke. It is the height of intellectual laziness, and is demonstrative of a lack of real world application and experience, to draw from canned tabloid and political party porn to try and develop examples eliciting a very complex cognitive human issue, such as aptitude, decision making skills and intelligence. Further examples of those who are irrational usually involve some kind of disparagement of their academic performance, lack of adherence to protocols, the fact that their grades did not match their aptitude scores, and the extraordinary contention sans evidence, that an intelligence bent inevitably leads to narcissism. Somehow the humility, subject depth and low key nature of the SSkeptic community should stand as an example of applied rationality and not-narcissism I guess (can my eyes roll any further around my skull?).

The Handiwork of Social Skepticism’s ‘Rationality’

we loseSo, Intelligent people joining in forces together does not solve the prodigiously perplexing ‘problems of the world.’ So regularly claim the Social Skeptics. That really makes the case for me. My job done here, let’s go home. Well OK to balance out this extraordinary claim which sneaks by on its viability as a one-liner, I have to admit that I am not sure I have met a self proclaimed set of ‘rational’ people who could accomplish this herculean task as well. Solving all the world’s problems, hmmmm.  A very objective and unbiased measure I might add. We are well aware that our most dastardly crimes and thefts of wealth all occurred recently at the hand of those who were the academically best and brightest in the room (see A Mediocracy in 4.0). Those holding the top marks, from top universities. Those who were the most rational. They did not make a mistake in judgment, as did wayward Mr. Frampton, this was the humble plan:

  • The theft of American worker wealth by means of 40:1 leveraged debt defaults buried in our pension funds, from 2004 – 2009, as orchestrated and encouraged by the entire derivative banking industry and our progressive politicians, then sold off as equity value into elite hands, went exactly according to its rational plan.
  • The shift of American consumer goods production offshore and into inaccessible channels of supply, killing off American businesses, weakening the West, empowering our enemies, skirting the Sherman Anti-Trust act, was all rational and dictated as ‘best practice’ by the retail oligarchy and the Harvard Business Review. (Please note Walmart’s reversal of this idea in its most recent market push to invest in US production side economics: Walmart: We’re Committed to American Renewal)
  • The single most damaging health event in American history was brought to its inception via fully rational compliance. Conducted in one-shot small labs, collusion and regulatory nepotism, and foisted on 95% of our food by means of wholly inadequate science. The rollout of glyphosate, to such a level that every American consumes 1 lb of its dry concentrate each year. All based upon three scant years of rat death pseudo-science by companies created solely to do this testing and then shut down; solely in purpose to create the ABCD cartel – the ensuing health decline is ignored because, to ignore the crime or its impact – is ‘rational.’∈
  • long working hours for the highly educated - CopyA shift in professional rational work habits towards appearances, rather than competence and outcomes. Oligarch employers will gladly accept longer work hours as an ‘objective’ measure of rational work performance. Employees no longer affect/effect outcomes, since oligarch business outcomes are pre-scripted in the rational plan. Therefore, alternative pretenses become the method by which employees distinguish themselves. Families and personal depth lose out to the need for rational ‘goal-enabling behavior.’

All were enacted through silo and tunnel-view rationality as to what was the “Stanovich-goal enabling’² acceptable thing to do; all sans true intelligence. All were executed through compliant 4.0 executives and PhD advisement, wherein no one – not one person possessed the ‘narcissism’ to stand up and say: “What we are constructing and planning is wrong.”

The deleterious impact of these four mistakes of rational arrogance alone, dwarfs in comparison the sum total of every single mistake of ‘credulity’ or ‘lack of critical thinking’ on the part of the ‘intelligent’ in total over the last 200 years.  The damage enacted by these instances of Social Skepticism ‘rationality’ was indeed immeasurable.

The Basis: Flawed Understandings of Intelligence and Rationality

you are a narcissist - CopyAnd just how do we enforce these completely flawed social understandings of rationality? By educating in error. In exhibition, I suppose that the definition of intelligence depends upon how lowly on the cognitive acumen layer model it is defined by a Social Skeptic. I bristle at the purposeful framing of intelligence in such a way so as to allow for the maximum footprint allotted to its ‘rationality’ complement, both in context and example. In that poor framing, pattern solving memory can be blamed for all bad outcomes, and rationality can take the credit for all the beneficial ones. Yet in this bad practice of definition, to the Social Skeptic, the definitions fall out thusly:²

Intelligence

/as defined by Social Skepticism/ in its most base and prejudiced framing, is expressed as the measured ability to spot patterns and solve puzzles in a small single controlled closed setting.²

Well of course this is useless pseudo-intellectual agenda fodder, serving to promote every success of mankind conversely into the domain of ‘rationality.’ Yay, our club is so smart. But, this is not intelligence. Puzzle solvers might never grasp that maybe their organization is doing something wrong. It is simply procedural skill along with some repetitive cognition ability, and as such it holds some usefulness as a measure of course. In college aptitude acceptance testing, we have to rely upon some kind of objective measure besides academic grades. If not to simply ward off the massive amount of grade and college entry fraud which exists now in the name of ‘rationality’.‡ If we care at all beyond our high powered agenda rifle that is. However, master chess players would be the last group of people from which I would seek talent to solve the problems of the world. They would fare just about as well as Rubics Cube aficionados I would imagine.  Neither is necessarily intelligent in reality.  But not to worry, intelligence’s assumed complement, rationality is here to rescue us all.  At least according to Social Skeptics.  And guess just who is rational? *drum roll …Why THEM of course! Just ask ’em, and they will tell you. And just what is rationality? Well,

Rationality

/as practiced by Social Skepticism/ in its applied essence, is the ability to spot socially deleterious behavior, and take appropriate self correcting action, before lack of compliance exposes the whole world to how narcissistic and stupid you really are. (Coupled with an obsessive drive to point out such behavior in others)²∋

“The modern hypocrite gives the designation ‘respect’ to what is nothing but fear of the powerful.” – NN Taleb

Rational Thinking - CopyBoth of these reality definitions of Intelligence and rationality however, underpin the reasons why this whole debate is a red herring. True rationality is exhibited by certain overlay traits on the part of an individual which have nothing to do with the above reality definitions employed by Social Skepticism.

IQ tests show the ability to spot patterns and solve puzzles, and social rationality is the ability to make one’s self appear acceptable. But true rationality and intelligence are indeed a single thing – a character trait exhibited through “thinking dispositions” as well as cognitive ability and social compliance (not that these are completely invalid). It is honed over a life spent in earnest curiosity and factual integrity. Not a life spent seeking reinforcement as to how smart we all are. Social Skeptics routinely sling the term rationality around without real definition – only recitation of well worn out anecdotes illuminating where intelligent people err, committing sins like considering bigfoot, or belonging to the wrong political party. Horrid practices of irrationality.

You see, there exists cathartic reward in becoming angry about having to hide one’s lack of intelligence through a veneer of uber-adherence to protocol. In this anger I can find revenge by cleaving to a club of ‘rationality.’ I will dance with my fellows in glorious mocking of those who think differently. Therein resides my victory.

And in my best moments I can blend a couple worn out anecdotes, along with a bit of sleight-of-hand into a gigantic Kriging Leap linking these tales across a great gulf of magic and finally into defining rationality as “belief structures and behaviors that optimize goal fulfillment.”  OK, while I don’t accept the worn out anecdotes of how people who disagree with me, or evil Republicans, are examples of irrationality – I do accept this idea of rationality being defined as belief structures that optimize goal fulfillment.  These are dispositions, and as such, dispositions can be cultivated to overcome these false perceptions of rationality and intelligence. These valid dispositions include:

The True Personal Nexus of Rationality and Intelligence

Yes, intelligence and rationality do bear a nexus. Personal dispositions which influence this nexus (belief structures and behaviors) – are, in increasing levels of sophistication, listed below (with a brief precis of its antithetical understanding).

Indoctrination Based Rationality – Belief structures foisted as not constituting belief structures – the ability to spot socially deleterious behavior, and take appropriate action before lack of compliance exposes to the whole world how narcissistic and stupid you really are. The self-delusion and pretense of being open-minded, humble and researching where the facts lead. Highly indoctrinated people are constantly perplexed as to why they are not successful, and live in a constant state of fear of being found out as being not really all that intelligent.  Typically blaming a lack of success on their humility, or choice of serving profession, or not being greedy or some lack of nefarious skill set thereby – or a whole other set of superior skill, chief of which is humility. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy agrees with Keith E. Stanovich, Professor of Human Development and Applied Psychology at the University of Toronto,² opining thusly about the basis and origin of scientific rationality:

For instance, in the case of instrumental rules which tell us the best way to achieve certain goals, philosophers of all stripes would say that looking at historical attempts to achieve those goals will help us evaluate our current proposals for achieving them.“³

cruel rationality - CopyEvaluations which are therefore best left to historians and applied psychologists …Right? Realizations which can only come through specific education repositories and their ‘consensus.’ …Indeed? (*my best rendition of a Vulcan Mr. Spock eyebrow raise). It is rationalizations just like this which lead to malicious pseudo-intellectual arrogance agendas, as exemplified by attempts to remove chaplaincy from hospitals. Not being a religious person myself, nonetheless my rationality forbids me to underpin with support, such a horrid imposition of my personal religion on the rest of humanity. Rationality, stemming from the actual real world human experience of holding people while they died, bids me to regard that stressful period of life in the compassionate and altruistic manner in which it should be handled – an not escalate my perception of personal brilliance into becoming a monster. The SSkeptic faithful will let this monstrous stance slip by and never mention a word to Skeptic Magazine. Let this stand as a hint. In the realms of Social Skepticism, rationality ≡ fear based compliance.

Rationality is never an excuse for becoming intellectual slime. Compliance is never a suitable excuse for cowardice.

In any exhaustive research into the definition of rationality, you will find that it’s root inevitably culminates in the delivery of power into the hands of Social Skeptic academia, and not inside any external objective reference. NO standard exists, save for the shift of power, the religious material monism and political domination entailed. Indeed. But for the rest of us who operate the real world, this is rationality:

Wisdom: Ethical Skepticism applied inside a Rationality/Intelligence Nexus Based Character ———————————– (from this point on)

nexus of int and rat - CopyA.  Efficient Prejudices – Certain foods can make me sick, and I don’t swim after eating. I don’t dive into unknown water. There are the little tidbits of knowledge which parsimony and the desire to survive, along with our parents and friends, impart deeply into our psyche. Note that these tenets are not skepticism – as skepticism is the mindset which allows all of the following (exclusive of Indoctrination) to develop as it should. Indeed, efficient prejudices can become the enemy of skepticism. Skepticism, contrary to Social Skeptic propaganda is not a body of knowledge or probable knowledge unto itself. It is a means of preparing the mind to responsibly develop this process, this nexus of intelligence and rationality.

B.  Body of Gnosis – Much of this may not have been arrived at through the full scientific method, but is science nonetheless.  A hot stove will burn your hand, driving too fast or while drinking can cause an auto accident, etc. Although each of these can, and ultimately many times were, backed by science, people ascertained this from their own ‘observational method’ and not from skepticism.

C.  Knowledge Principles – Learned logically framed constructs and linkages which guide our human, economic, and physical realm. Profit is determined when we take all expenses, depreciation, amortization and interest away from revenue. From this dividends may be issued.

D.  Knowledge Facts – The data bricks which can make a brick wall, or a fake brick wall depending upon how we employ them. PV = NRT.

E.  The Unquenchable Drive to Know – The integrity to want to improve the knowledge development process and body of knowledge coupled with the selfish desire to improve one’s insight into the wonder of our realm. I have to know, and no manner of accolade and personal boast to knowledge (or the lack of need to pursue it) on your part is going to arrest this desire.

F.  Education – Education is the ability to distinguish one’s indoctrination from one’s knowledge.

G.  Epoché – A neutral suspension of prejudicial belief.  Not just being open-minded (which is a self delusion); indeed rather, the adherence to the scientific method ethic of holding no prejudice until the preponderance of data dictates such as warranted. Even then the cautious parsimony of avoiding pluralistic stacking and explanatory complexity.

H.  Scientific Method – Observe, survey, ask, define, measure, consider and repeat. Wise is the one who understands how and why this works – not the one who talks noisily about it for appearances sake.

I.  Sincere Innate Humility (not the social pretense) – Humility is measured by the integrity and respect exhibited in one’s dealing with data and with other people.  It is not measured in how one regards themselves. This is one of those lessons you learn by living a real life of challenge, and not an academically compliant facade. It comprises a lack of desire to mock, deride and control. A lack of arrogance or anger over an inner knowledge that one does not have THE highest cognition skills in the land. Lack of the desire to strike back, mock and ridicule those who do not conclude the same things as do they…. Lack of the need to band together into a club, in order to derive significance and fill the void of nagging self perception.

J.  Creativity/Insight –  Not simply the ability to invent or conceptualize, rather the ability to look at asymmetric problem sets in fresh and new ways, not simply using pattern recognition, but also developing new ideas and possessing an insight which extends beyond the prima facia issues that cloud a problem.

K.  Adeptness with Risk – Life to those who have taken risks, in order to benefit others and those they love, is about balancing risk and benefit. About knowing when the risk/benefit analysis does not apply because one may be treading on the well being and rights of others. People who see themselves as ‘rational’ in a Dunninig-Kruger sense, often are dilettante at risk/benefit scenarios or in grasping or understanding the rights of others (unless it benefits their politics). This is how we snuck glyphosate into the market to such and extent, that now each American consumes over 1 pound of it, in dry concentrate form, each year.†

L.  Altruism/Love – The understanding that consciousness precedes at least part of our reality, coupled with the desire to direct one’s intention to make the plight of those on the planet better; and not simply serve a presumed course of the rationality dictated by those with an agenda rifle.  Here is the key = true intelligence is the only pathway to this realization. The procedurally rational among us never get here. They wallow in self justifications and activist anger over others’ success. They substitute revenge based activism in lieu of ethical work on behalf of humanity.

life good on the inside - CopyTo be rational, we must know when to override indoctrination and propaganda from academic activists masquerading as knowledge, and begin to walk the intelligent path of vision as to why/when to apply risk, altruism and love – above self. Whereupon, in that realization, that coming of age, one attains intelligence. One is rational, only then.  This is intelligence, not the ability to solve puzzles. This is rationality, not some elite display one puts on for the purpose of being included inside a club of elite fellows.

That requires more than critical thought, more than cognitive ability. It requires us to hold our biases in a state of epoché while we investigate and grow in knowledge in an altruistic fashion. Thinking dispositions which carry anger of presuppositions of what is and what is not intelligence and rationality, get in the way of that process.

It is a common SSkeptic saga, *dreamy reverie of youthful past – they joined Mensa because they were so smart. They longed to be with their elite fellows. The top 2% of the population (or often cited as an overly inclusive 1 in 25 because of measurement error, error which apparently produces an upwards bias 100% of the time, of course – in other words you are only considered smart because the test results were wrong). Yet they ran into those who considered ESP, UFO’s, ghosts, astrology, angels, parapsychology, conspiracy theories, delusions that government should serve the people and other similar seditious ideas, religious groups, including atheists…  Oh my god the irrationality.  So they fled.  Fled back into the arms of the truly elite, the truly rational.  The self proclaimed ‘skeptics.’ They found their home not in Mensa, but here – in the compliant and comfy domain of Social Skepticism.

“Hmmm, sigh.” …and all that bad Mensa stuff?  All of it is proved to be applied irrationality, things which a right thinking skeptic just knows are folly and incorrectness from the very start. I mean just look at the jokes we make about these camps. Meanwhile we will bask in the superior nature of our open-mindedness, need for cognition, lack of laziness, and very demonstrable humility, the self proclaimed pinnacle traits of rationality …right? …right? …right?


¹  Swann, Maxine, “The Professor, the Bikini Model and the Suitcase Full of Trouble,” The New York Times; March 8, 2013.

²  Keith E. Stanovich, Professor of Human Development and Applied Psychology at the University of Toronto (Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rationality-versus-intelligence#oIy7FtCMSFJUkhRj.99):

“To be rational means to adopt appropriate goals, take the appropriate action given one’s goals and beliefs, and hold beliefs that are commensurate with available evidence.”

“Yet assessments of such good (rational) thinking are nowhere to be found on IQ tests.”

³  Matheson, Carl and Dallmann, Justin, “Historicist Theories of Scientific Rationality”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/rationality-historicist/>

†  Glyphosate Use Growth Curve (annual, in millions of pounds, dry); https://theethicalskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/glyphosate-history-curve1.png?w=800&h=585.

‡  “Grade Inflation: The Current Fraud.” By M. Donald Thomas and William L. Bainbridge. Effective School Research. January 1997.

∈  The Rising Age of the Cartel http://theethicalskeptic.com/2015/07/07/the-rising-age-of-the-cartel-your-freedoms-were-simply-an-experiment/

∋  McDonald, Cheryl Ann, Psy.D, “Am I Normal, A Self Measure” Health Psychology Center, http://healthpsychology.org/am-i-normal-a-self-measure/

July 10, 2015 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Institutional Mandates, Social Disdain | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Rising Age of the Cartel: Your Freedoms Were Simply an Experiment

To the SSkepticism Cabal, the US Constitution was simply a grand experiment which failed, and now we as science should usher our common good back into the 600 year old failed royalty elite-Let them Eat Cake-socialism of the past. Socialism, under the moniker of ‘consensus,’ is moral and is based on scientifically proved principles; which by chance just happen to support specific socioeconomic goals. It is this purposeful emasculation of public rights as being ‘anti-science’ based on their dissent, concern, or unapproved ideas, which we as a nation feared most in our inception – because unlike in the Thomas Paine scenario, it does not just hurt the one who precludes and denies. Unfortunately the Cabal has adopted this take on our free expression, free enterprise and economic rights as a nation. Examine the industry verticals, corporate clusters, and rates of inflation inside of such, wherein they spend the preponderance of their time in advocacy, and you will begin to glean a bit about the goals entailed.

‘Anti-Science!’ – The modern version of being accused of Witchcraft.

I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.

~ Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

Professional Skeptics, The Cartel Big Boys, are Here to Peer Review Your Supposed “Rights” Experiment as a Nation

Hyena method government was experiment - CopyThomas Paine understates the underhanded nature of censorship, in that the one who precludes himself of the right to change his mind is the least harmed by censorship. Even today, against Americans’ knowledge, their speech, their emails, their websites, their ideas – if they run counter to the Cabal, are being censored and muted by those in the Cabal who are seeking to circumvent the US Constitution and enact their own Utopia of Morality and Truth. Further, this control of ideas lends to a greater reality in which Social Skepticism is seeking to promote the dominance of a specific set of socioeconomic goals, commensurate with the rise of the socialist cartel, all in the name of ‘science.’ No better example elicits this current cartel/trust activity than the issue of the current ABCD seed monopoly and the ensuing related GMO propaganda being foisted by skeptics employed to defend the cartel.

The Public is Anti-Science!

“What happens when your political or ideological views are contradicted by the consensus of scientific opinion regarding the evidence (TES note: referring to the “safety” red herring, as opposed to necessity based validity of genetic modifications targeting simply anti-competitive profits by means food technology)? It appears that a common reaction (depending on how strongly held the ideological views are) is to reject science. Not only do people reject the science specific to their issue, they reject science itself.”

     ~ Steven Novella, Neurologica: Politics vs Science, Nov 17 2014; http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/politics-vs-science/

“It appears…” a furtive, lazy and loaded claim to broadscale knowledge. One bearing no evidence and backing only by a echochamber effect from a couple of news articles from familiar crony organizations (see chart below), tendering this same manipulated and extraordinary claim.

Steven whips out his regular ergo sum scientia fallacy – then purposely misconstrues in the above context, vis-à-vis the ‘safety of GMO’s’ strawman and red herring, the principal arguments entailed so they falsely appear to focus on the relative trivia surrounding nucleotide substitutions – yawn – rather than the economic and human rights questions entailed (below). The genetic modification of organisms is a future reality – the public is not against this science. Steven purposely occludes this core argument in favor of his preferred red herring:  By raising objection at all people are therefore, inside the above logic, at war against science …and quod erat demonstrandum their rights should be removed. Only the big boys of self-proclaimed science are qualified to formulate public policy. They are skeptical that your input is necessary.

just a word to the wise - Copy - CopyWhat indeed however is being discussed with respect to GMO food under the constitution is the right of a single corporation and/or 90+% dominant cluster of companies to employ such technology in skirting US Anti-Trust laws; simply to create channel domination profits and promote a single proprietary pesticide, all in the process of construction of a Cartel. In this case the ABCD (Archer Daniels Midland, Bungee, Cargill, Louis-Dreyfus) seed-to-table/glyphosate Cartel being defended by indirectly compensated non-expert Social Skeptics (see graphic of how a cartel functions below). Such a practice is corporate tyranny, rising well above the definition of ‘monopoly.’ It in no way constitutes an argument of safety and science, as Steven (a non-expert ‘skeptic’ in this industry) falsely contends.

In a country where its citizens cannot even call for more in-depth science on the pesticides, genes, growth promoters, hormones, antibiotics and chemicals it is FORCED to consume multiple times every day – because such science and legislation is blocked by so called ‘skeptics’ and legal/electoral threats are issued to wayward representatives,

Is this a constituency which is ‘anti-science?’

Is this a constituency who has constitutional input to its legislative representatives?

In a country where endocrine and immune diseases have gone last-20-year pandemic and cause enormous suffering, and the constituency can do NOTHING about it because ignorant ‘skeptics’ say it is all in our heads, and instead obsess over ghosts, UFO’s, bigfoot, gods, psychics and regulating supplements,

Is this skepticism which is focused on real science or scientific issues of gravitas?

Is all this indicative of a nation which is free?

The answer is a resounding ‘No

Fake Skepticism’s Role in the Rise of the Socialist Cartel

The Structure and Nature of a Cartel - CopyOn March 22, 1966, General Motors President James Roche was forced by the United States Senate to appear before a subcommittee, and further at the end of session to apologize to Ralph Nader for the company’s campaign of harassment and intimidation over his book Unsafe at Any Speed. Nader later successfully sued GM for excessive invasion of privacy. It was the money from this case that allowed him to lobby for consumer rights, leading to the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air Act, among other things.‡

Nader was successful in his lawsuit because he and his lawyers were able to demonstrate a track record of GM response to his criticism of the Corvair, through trying to destroy Nader’s image and to silence him. General Motors more specifically retained corporate insiders and directly compensated third parties, wherein GM

  1. conducted a series of interviews with acquaintances of the plaintiff, ‘questioning them about, and casting aspersions upon [his] political, social, racial and religious views; his integrity; his sexual proclivities and inclinations; and his personal habits’
  2. kept him under surveillance in public places for an unreasonable length of time;
  3. caused him to be accosted by girls for the purpose of entrapping him into illicit relationships;
  4. made threatening, harassing and obnoxious telephone calls to him;
  5. tapped his telephone and eavesdropped, by means of mechanical and electronic equipment, on his private conversations with others; and
  6. conducted a ‘continuing’ and harassing investigation of him.”‡

The Ralph Nader/General Motors case, more than any single event with the exception of the Big Tobacco obfuscation-skepticism, precipitated the introduction of the modern era of Social Skepticism. The General Motors Corvair case elicited the importance of establishing a non-corporate, non-third party, credible but untouchable group of fanatic activists to act on behalf of corporate interests. A mafia sans the pinstripe suits. A non-liability bearing risk-mitigation group, committed to their social understanding of the science handed to them, who would be willing with or without full awareness, to pursue the enemies of the cartel with fervent and damaging passion. All in the name of science.

Activists so sure of their correctness, that any means of social shaming, career damage, or personal defamation could be justified in the destruction of enemies of truth (cartel enemies). Activists of sufficient academic intelligence to be able to understand some science, develop an argument and publish in journal or media channels, but not smart enough to observe a game of counter intelligence and their role therein.

This prostituting of smart-but-dumb players is a common tradecraft in intelligence circles. It is the essence of modern skepticism.

From the history of the American Medical Association versus the Chiropractic industry: “in 1975 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Goldfarb vs. The Virginia State Bar, that learned professions are not exempt form antitrust suites. In 1982 the Court ruled that the FTC can enforce antitrust laws against medical societies. These two suites paved the way in 1976 for five chiropractors to file an anti-trust suite against the AMA and several other heath care agencies and societies in Federal District Court (known as the Wilkes Case). Similar suites were filed in New York and Pennsylvania in 1979. The pressure of these law suites forced the AMA even before these suites went to court to propose a modification of their Medical Code of Ethics which prohibited M.D.s from associating with chiropractors. But, it was not until 1980 that the Ethics Code was changed to reflect that each individual doctor may decide for themselves whether to accept a patient from or refer a patient to a chiropractor or other limited practitioner.”∈

These two cases more than anything else, established the need for a separate-on-the-surface activism group which was immune to anti-trust, defamation, business tampering and tortious interference laws. Cartels needed a way around the law – and inside Skepticism they found this way.

All this is introduced in the mind of the Social Skeptic under the guise of ‘science.’ Science handed to them by their corporate sponsors. Science which cannot be questioned because Social Skeptics block threatening research before it can even be developed. If you don’t accept the wholesale imposition of their politics or corporate activism, and since they and their political cronies all joined a club self-entitled ‘science,’ you are now therefore anti-science if you disagree in the least with their politics, religion, agenda and professional constraints.. In the particular instance above, Steven is contending that science justifies sets of political action which serve solely to remove human rights. The imposition of privately manipulated food stocks, property which formerly fell inside the public domain, solely for oligarch anti-competitiveness – putting small farms out of business so large socialist cartels can displace formerly free economic mechanisms – and force all of us to consume 1000 times per year, only that which they and their cronies have personally approved. This constitutes simply one small example of the goal of a socioeconomic structure dominated by cartel; cartels which feature:¹

Features of a Cartel Based Industry Vertical

enslavement of nihilismContrary to the mis-definitions of the term cartel by non-professional media sources, cartels are not ‘price fixing rings’ or ‘drug dealing corporations.’  A cartel is simply a tacit agreement inside and outside an industry vertical (one with the remaining few oligarchs) to exclude competition and entry to that market. A cartel does not have to price fix (even though by default position, a cartel is already price fixing whether the players intend to or not), nor does a cartel actually even need be profitable. All that is needed for the formation of a cartel, is the illegal vertical control of a market – enabled by partnership with government regulators, banks suppliers and M1 Financiers, across international borders, such that only grey and black markets can exist aside from its dominion.

Investopedia defines a cartel as ‘An organization created from a formal agreement between a group of producers of a good or service, to regulate supply in an effort to regulate or manipulate prices. A cartel is a collection of businesses or countries that act together as a single producer and agree to influence prices for certain goods and services by controlling production and marketing.’²

This is incorrect. Under this permissive definition, even OPEC is not considered a cartel. First there need not be a formal agreement, rather simply an industry standard set of practices. To sell crude oil, one must hold an OPEC Standard Assay Report on the lot of oil and schedule a Lifting Slot at a pier, assigned to a specific ship with a specific authorized Sail Plan. Otherwise, any oil commerce outside this practice is considered “piracy.” Push article propaganda regularly circulates citing the rise in ‘piracy,’ hoping that the American public confuses this action on the part of an excluded market with ‘Captain Phillips’ – and therefore will support increased regulatory spending. These practices are not enforced by OPEC, rather American and European banks, who will not issue MT series documents to finance any transaction which runs afoul of participation in this cartel practice set. Can I cite a reference on this? No, of course not. These are unpublished corporate policies; sets of relative privation. No one is going to publish a document entitled “Here is How Our Cartel is Run.” One only learns this by actually assisting developing nations in attempting to set up exports for their oil.

Interestingly enough, grey market oil trades are allowed, it is just they are only allowed for certain politicians and highly powerful and influential individuals …ones who could never afford to be seen taking a pay-off. Ones who mysteriously make hundreds of millions of dollars prior to an important election, through ‘smart business practices.’

Second, there need not be any price gouging in a cartel. With the intervention of free money from outside sources, the objective is not price gouging and profitability – rather simply learning how to completely control entry into a given market vertical. There is plenty of money to go around and everything can be made to appear as if it were ‘non-profitable’ (wink wink, all skeptical tongues should be held at this moment). The US Healthcare system is a fine example, of a cartel wherein costs have risen by a very conservative Standard & Poor’s definition with an imbedded rate of inflation of 48% every 10 years. Yet still, no one seems to be making blockbuster profits from price gouging. Well, imagine that. There erxists an entire network of compensated ‘skeptics’ who are appointed to defend that industry from any unwanted competition.† They have not published a set of practices in this. They just do it. “Anti-Science!!” “Deadly, Toxic, Placebo!!” are the bully weapon words employed in that shill argument. All the while conflating the British and American definitions of Homeopathy, which are wholly different, because the British definition affords them more bandwagon one-liners. The result is the Cartel targeting of preventative health philosophies and supplements, which have absolutely nothing at all to do with homeopathy in the first place.

Skeptic tweets, blogs and articles inevitably come out during the work day (most on Monday and Tuesday from 10am to 3pm), over monitored corporate networks. Their claims to have spotted fraud, poorly researched opinion sets, unwarranted and non-supported attacks on people, businesses and institutions are never met with reprisal or word of caution by their employers.  An odd exception in an industry wherein corporate image and professional standards of conduct in communication are constantly touted to be of utmost importance?

Third, it is not simply the goods themselves which are constrained in terms of access to a cartel dominion, rather, the money, agencies, supply channels, remote cost effective labor, cost efficiencies themselves, political agreements, exclusivities, contracts, shippers, consolidators, capital, licenses to operate and import, regulatory agencies, wholesalers, raw materials, etc. It is the limitation of access to these enabling market features which defines a cartel. More specifically this includes the following features:

1.  A fictitious supply of money, exercised through exclusive access placement and paper trading mechanisms which enrich the hidden royal elite of socialism – affording them unique financial access to mineral rights, international trade, materials supply, capital funding, the most highly leveraged manufacturing, channels of supply and political influence.

2. Banks which limit the volume and access, based on overhead and risk, allowed in bond and capital flows; such that only those authorized to do so, can capitalize the large scale formation of international business. These bank policies are constructed outside political boundaries so as to elude anti-trust legal jurisdiction.

3.  Corporations which bear the sole and unilateral right to modify the supply of or monopolize/cartel-ize an industry vertical, without review by or consent from the public. Anti-competitive practices which skirt anti-trust laws by operating principally offshore and through the establishment of multi-national supply monopolies of the materials, manufacturing and shipping resources necessary to establish and operate business.

4.  Corporations which bear the sole and unilateral right to construct shill and small authorized cottage capital businesses, limited in scope and size, bound by non-compete compliance agreements, which serve as barriers to entry and displace legitimate competing free enterprise inside a cartel dominated industry vertical.

5.  Corporations which bear the sole and unilateral right to take public domain property, modify it slightly, and then force this new intellectual property to displace all old public domain assets, in order to create a monopoly/cartel which previously could not legally exist, without review by or consent from the public. (All we have to do is call it ‘science’).

6.  Corporations which bear the sole and unilateral right to power of intellectual property, no longer needing patents or to attain the 3 litmus tests of patent-ability (novel, not obvious, teachable) in order to leverage domination of an industry. Intellectual property can now be forced on the public in an unqualified and non-expiring tyranny of elite ownership. (All we have to do is call it ‘property’).

7.  Corporations which bear the unilateral right to sole access to commissions and governmental agencies by means of communications, legislation, lobbying, mutual employment/inter-breeding and oversight – abrogating their accountability to the public at large. (All we have to do is simply ignore this).

8.  Barriers to Entry which are iron clad and promote economic dependence and elimination of a powerful upper and middle class, free information and press mechanisms – the enemies of socialist cartels.

9.  The comprehensive and complete control of an industry set of transactions such that select sets of those transactions can be allotted as compensation for political favors, election influence, ministry corruption, and rewards to key/royalty participants; thereby avoiding detectable illegal pay-offs. The exercise of such transactions simply keeping the appearance of business as usual for the otherwise inaccessible industry vertical.

10.  Foundations and Activist organizations which are funded by elite fictitious money, seeking to promote the dominance of socialist cartels, undue government influence, elimination of a free press, filtering and control of the internet and information, in displacement of public rights – and themselves fund money to promote compromised educational, media and ‘skepticism’ social groups.

It Starts with the Social Skepticism’s Blocking of Public Access to Rights, Self Determination, Regulation and Information

consensus - Copy

And in the end, with respect to our curiously highly motivated ‘skeptics,’ who publish most of their skeptic work right in the middle of the compensated work-day; all this is justified, no mandated, by those claiming falsely that somehow ‘science’ trumps human rights. The Phil Plaitt’s, Steven Novella’s and Michael Shermer’s of the world spit in the face of the public at large, the Bill of Rights, and insult our collective intelligence by framing the strawman, that somehow – any exercise of rights on the part of the public is irrational, vile and socially deplorable. All deployed behind the smokescreen of accusing people of being “anti-science” for the simple act of defending their rights lost in the above points.

Phil Plaitt decries the exercise of human rights over the manipulation of those rights by figures making the claim to represent science – by equivocally framing this human rights suppression as “investigation, creative progress, science.” Moreover comparing its means of constitutional jurisdiction on the part of the American People to be equivalent to Soviet tyranny and Lysenkoism:

When a society’s government (in the United States: the public) starts dictating what can and cannot be investigated, scientific and creative progress stalls. Lysenko’s work, advocated by Stalin, led to the USSR falling almost irretrievably behind other, more progressive countries; ones like the United States.

~ Phil Plaitt, Bad Astronomy: Why is Our Government Attacking Science? May 1, 2013; http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/01/attacks_on_science_government_antiscience_on_the_rise.html

This is spin and a great example of Godwin’s Gaffe, practicing exactly what Social Skeptics decry as inevitable and invalid, Godwin’s Law: their being compared to Nazi’s and Communists. The public is not dictating what can and cannot be “investigated” (save for the necessity to manage federal funding deficits and putting a cap on what is considered to be entitled money) – they are objecting to the wholesale imposition of policy, the removal of human rights and right to free enterprise, through the simple act of declaring one’s self to represent ‘science’ or specious claims of ‘scientific consensus.’ Defending one’s rights inside a constitutional jurisdiction does not in any way resemble the actions of old Bolsheviks and Lysenkoists. The designation of the defense of human rights as Lysenkoism, is the attempt to remove the right to self determination by a people, at the hands of those who are not qualified, much less appointed, to make such unilateral decisions.

The USSR fell apart because precisely because they denied public human, governmental and economic rights, not because they squelched the ideas of those who called themselves ‘scientists.’ The alternative Godwin’s Gaffe foisted above is a clueless re-invention of history. Ironically, it was the Soviet Union who delved more deeply into subjects which were and still are, forbidden and disdained by Social Skeptics in the United States.

rise of oligarchy - CopyThe result of this is a dramatic shift of wealth back into the same socialist hands which served to precipitate World War I and II (see graphic from the Economist, to the right). We are well underway back to the establishment of this same form of socioeconomic practice, once again.

Our best and our brightest, too stupid, skeptical and compliant to spot when they have been manipulated into serving institutions which only promote royalty, and serve to enslave and create conflict.

To the SSkepticism Cabal, in their superior educated wisdom, the US Constitution was simply a grand experiment which failed, and now we should step back into the 600 year old failed royalty-Let them Eat Cake-socialism of the past. Because socialism is moral and based on scientifically proved principle, my principles, human rights are an unnecessary if they get in the way of cartel power and the intentions of those who declare themselves to be ‘science.’ It is this purposeful targeting of persons based on their ideas, which we as a nation feared most in our inception – because unlike in the Thomas Paine scenario, it does not just hurt the one who precludes and denies.

This principle, the concept that it is experimentally moral to change government solely for reasons of increased control, and begin to remove and filter ideas based on their ‘truth and reason’ content is no better expressed than by Michael Shermer himself; grand master of social morality and truth enforcement on the populace.  A product of religion himself, now spinning his new religion with a blood-thirst by which even Jerry Falwell would be awed.

If you want different results [government], change the variables. “The founders often spoke of the new nation as an ‘experiment,’” Ferris writes. “Procedurally, it involved deliberations about how to facilitate both liberty and order…” As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1804: “No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth.” ³

~ Michael Shermer, The Work of Michael Shermer, Scientific American, Sept 2010.

  • Your freedom of speech, was just an experiment
  • Your rights to assemble and communicate, were just an experiment
  • Your right to unfiltered information, was just an experiment
  • A free press, was just an experiment
  • A free capital economy, was just an experiment
  • Your right to bear arms, was just an experiment
  • Your right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness, was just an experiment
  • Your right to thrive, was just an experiment
  • Your right to freedom from totalitarian corporations acting in lieu of the public trust and right to self-determination, was just an experiment

And since We Are The Science, only We, the Cabal, are authorized to issue Peer Review on this experiment.

We will note with the Cabal that, the only thing which will not be an experiment, is their power. That is absolute and unquestionable. They have made this very clear.


¹  Appleyard, Field, Cobb, “In the Real World: The Effects of International Cartels,” International Economics (Seventh Edition), pp 139 – 150.

²  Investopeidia, “Cartel;”   http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cartel.asp

³  “Democracy’s Laboratory,” The Work of Michael Shermer, September 2010; Scientific American; http://www.michaelshermer.com/2010/09/democracys-laboratory/

†  Social Skeptic Organizations Directly Compensated by Pharmaceutical Companies:

‡  Unsafe at Any Speed: Industry Response, Wikipedia; extracted 21 Sep 2015:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed.

July 7, 2015 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: