Yesterday I mentioned the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy - a joke which suggests that the TS fires his gun many times into a barn door, then draws a target over the bullet holes, with the bulls-eye over the closest cluster of bullet holes to make it look as if he had been aiming at the bulls-eye and had hit it, when in fact he drew the bulls-eye only after he took the shots.
But in fact the sharpshooter fallacy is unavoidable and everywhere, it characterizes secular modern society throughout, because secular modern society has no aim but instead idealizes process and retrofits aim to outcome.
Secular moderns - in public discourse - 'believe in' things like freedom, or democracy, or equality, or progress - but these are processes, not aims. Aims are retrospectively ascribed to whatever emerges from process.
It happens all the time: liberation of slavery emerged from the American Civil War therefore people retrospectively ascribe liberation as its purpose. Destruction of the Jewish concentration camps emerged from the second world war, so the liberation of the Jews is ascribed as its purpose.
Libertarians 'believe in' freedom not as a means to some end, but as a process which by definition leads to the best ends; so that they 'believe in' whatever comes out of the process. People are made free, stuff happens as a result, then that stuff is retrospectively defined as good - because it is the output of a free system. In other words, the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
In democracy, people believe in a system, there are elections and so on, someone is elected, stuff happens – much of which appears to be disastrous but good or bad it is retrospectively defined as the best outcome because it is the result of democracy (or it is a bad outcome because the system was not real democracy, or not full democracy, or democracy had been subverted or corrupted. If it is not a democracy then it is bad, because it lacks the process.). In other words, the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
The example I gave was science. The modern attitude is that the best thing is for science to be free and to do what science does, and whatever comes out of the process of science is retrospectively defined as 'truth'. In practice, science is defined as what scientists do, and what scientists do is defined as generating truth. In other words, the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
Or law. Law is a process, and justice is defined as that which results from the process of law. Lacking a transcendental concept of justice, nothing more can be said.
Or education. What is education? The answer is ‘what happens at school and college’. And whatever happens at school and college is what counts as education. Since what happens at school and college changes, then the meaning of education changes. But since education is not aiming at anything in particular, these changes cannot be evaluated. Whatever happens is retrospectively defined as what needed to happen.
Or economics. Economic ‘growth’ is pursued as the good, and whatever comes out of economics is defined as prosperity. What people 'want' is known only by what they get - their wants are retrospectively ascribed. If what is measured and counted grows, then this counts as growing prosperity. So the economy fifty years ago wanted more A, B and C but the modern economy instead provides X, Y and Z – however, economists retrospectively re-draw the target around X,Y and Z and proclaim the triumph of economics. TSF.
Certainly this was the kind of view I held and argued for in my atheist days, not very long ago. It seemed ‘paradoxical’ even then, but it is not just paradoxical - it is nonsense.
The primacy of process is simple nonsense - it is simply trying to do without aims because all aims point to the necessity for underpinning transcendental justifications for those aims. (Or else aims are arbitrary and subjective statements.)
Atheists cannot have real aims (if they are thoughtful and join up the dots in their thinking) - and so are always and inevitably pushed into trying to substitute processes for aims. I was always aware this was the case, but had to live with it since – being an atheist - there was no alternative.
Over several decades, I sought always, somehow, to generate purpose from process (trying one trick then another, adding layers of complexity, smuggling-in assumptions) but of course the thing is impossible.
One reason that atheists are usually intellectuals is that the incoherence of atheism as a basic underpinning for individual and social life is so simple and so obvious that the fact can only be ignored by those intelligent enough to deceive themselves indefinitely with layers of complex and changing obfuscation.
Secular modernity is fundamentally based on the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, and the fallacy is simple and obvious. However, since the fallacy is intrinsic and pervasive, it must be concealed, and it is concealed.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query texas sharpshooter. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query texas sharpshooter. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, 24 June 2010
Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Measuring human capability: Moonshot versus 'Texas Sharpshooter'
The reason that the Moonshot was a valid measure of human capability is that the problem was not chosen but imposed.
The objective of landing men on the moon (and bringing them safely back) was not chosen by scientists and engineers as being something already within their capability – but was a problem imposed on them by politicians.
The desirability of the Moonshot is irrelevant to this point. I used to be strongly in favour of space exploration, now I have probably turned against it – but my own views are not relevant to the use of the Moonshot as the ultimate evidence of human capability.
Other examples of imposed problems include the Manhattan project for devising an atomic bomb – although in this instance the project was embarked upon precisely because senior scientists judged that the problem could possibly, maybe probably, be solved; and therefore that the US ought to solve it first before Germany did so. But, either way, the problem of building an atomic bomb was also successfully solved.
Again, the desirability of atomic bombs is not the point here – the point is that it was a measure of human capability in solving imposed problems.
Since the Moonshot, there have been several major problems imposed by politicians on scientists that have *not* been solved: finding a ‘cure for cancer’ and ‘understanding the brain’ being two problems at which vastly more monetary and manpower resources (although vastly less talent and creativity) have been thrown than was the case for either the Moonshot or Manhattan Project.
The Gulf of Mexico oil leak is another imposed problem. And, so far, this has not been solved.
But modern technological advances are *not* imposed problems; they are instead examples of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
The joke of the Texas Sharpshooter is that he fires his gun many times into a barn door, then draws a target over the bullet holes, with the bulls-eye over the closest cluster of bullet holes.
In other words the Texas Sharpshooter makes it look as if he had been aiming at the bulls-eye and had hit it, when in fact he drew the bulls-eye only after he took the shots.
Modern science and engineering is like that. People do research and development, and then proclaim triumphantly that they have achieved whatever-happens-to-come-out-of-R&D, and then they spin, hype and market whatever-happens-to-come-out-of-R&D as if it were a major breakthrough.
In other words, modern R&D triumphantly solves a retrospectively designated problem, the problem being generated to validate whatever-happens-to-come-out-of-R&D.
The Human Genome Project was an example of Texas Sharpshooting masquerading as human capability. Sequencing the human genome was not solving an imposed problem, nor any other kind of real world problem, but was merely doing a bit faster what was already happening.
Personally, I am no fan of Big Science, indeed I regard the success of Manhattan Project as the beginning of the end for real science.
BUT those who are keen that humanity solve big problems and who boast about our ability to do so; need to acknowledge that humanity has apparently become much *worse*, not better, at solving big problems over the past 40 years – so long as we judge success only in terms of solving imposed problems which we do not already know how to solve, and so long as we ignore the trickery of the many Texas Sharpshooters among modern scientists and engineers.
The objective of landing men on the moon (and bringing them safely back) was not chosen by scientists and engineers as being something already within their capability – but was a problem imposed on them by politicians.
The desirability of the Moonshot is irrelevant to this point. I used to be strongly in favour of space exploration, now I have probably turned against it – but my own views are not relevant to the use of the Moonshot as the ultimate evidence of human capability.
Other examples of imposed problems include the Manhattan project for devising an atomic bomb – although in this instance the project was embarked upon precisely because senior scientists judged that the problem could possibly, maybe probably, be solved; and therefore that the US ought to solve it first before Germany did so. But, either way, the problem of building an atomic bomb was also successfully solved.
Again, the desirability of atomic bombs is not the point here – the point is that it was a measure of human capability in solving imposed problems.
Since the Moonshot, there have been several major problems imposed by politicians on scientists that have *not* been solved: finding a ‘cure for cancer’ and ‘understanding the brain’ being two problems at which vastly more monetary and manpower resources (although vastly less talent and creativity) have been thrown than was the case for either the Moonshot or Manhattan Project.
The Gulf of Mexico oil leak is another imposed problem. And, so far, this has not been solved.
But modern technological advances are *not* imposed problems; they are instead examples of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
The joke of the Texas Sharpshooter is that he fires his gun many times into a barn door, then draws a target over the bullet holes, with the bulls-eye over the closest cluster of bullet holes.
In other words the Texas Sharpshooter makes it look as if he had been aiming at the bulls-eye and had hit it, when in fact he drew the bulls-eye only after he took the shots.
Modern science and engineering is like that. People do research and development, and then proclaim triumphantly that they have achieved whatever-happens-to-come-out-of-R&D, and then they spin, hype and market whatever-happens-to-come-out-of-R&D as if it were a major breakthrough.
In other words, modern R&D triumphantly solves a retrospectively designated problem, the problem being generated to validate whatever-happens-to-come-out-of-R&D.
The Human Genome Project was an example of Texas Sharpshooting masquerading as human capability. Sequencing the human genome was not solving an imposed problem, nor any other kind of real world problem, but was merely doing a bit faster what was already happening.
Personally, I am no fan of Big Science, indeed I regard the success of Manhattan Project as the beginning of the end for real science.
BUT those who are keen that humanity solve big problems and who boast about our ability to do so; need to acknowledge that humanity has apparently become much *worse*, not better, at solving big problems over the past 40 years – so long as we judge success only in terms of solving imposed problems which we do not already know how to solve, and so long as we ignore the trickery of the many Texas Sharpshooters among modern scientists and engineers.
Sunday, 20 October 2024
The Texas Sharpshooter rides again...
I have used the Texas Sharpshooter idea to describe how modern pseudo-science does research that it gets paid for, then uses Public Relations and advertising to convince people that whatever-is-discovered is actually just whatever people most want and need.
This applies to public policy, in its pseudo-moralistic manifestation. Due to the massive coverage and influence of modern mass/social media; and that so many people are so powerfully addicted to it, such that the media shapes almost-all mainstream public discourse, including among private persons - this kind of this is used to control public discourse.
Some "issue" - which may be incredibly trivial - is launched as a matter of public concern; and then this is what great swathes of people talk-about, debate, moralize over - and expend ludicrous efforts and energies in wrangling over policy responses*.
The result is that people are completely diverted from any concern with the human condition, and the nature of the cosmos; and wrangle over made-up mutually-contradictory nonsense, that could not possible make any significant difference to anything significant.
Such is "serious" discourse - especially among the professional, managerial, "intellectual" classes... Any danger of anything fundamental getting onto the agenda of life, is dealt-with by the extreme urgency of todays triviality.
Examples abound - especially in "modern environmentalism" (i.e. nothing whatsoever to do with the world of nature) which is the subject (along with sex/sexuality) with which the chattering classes are most concerned.
Recycling is maybe the biggest. Millions of people in the UK spend several hours per week ritualistically fussing over recycling, sorting rubbish into multiple categories, washing and sterilizing rubbish, driving to and from recycling centres with little packets of this or that; and scrapping functional technology for inferior electricity-consuming substitutes.
All of which is entirely done for self-gratification and status within the community of like-minded.
All of which Very Obviously has net harmful effects on the natural world - obvious if only people were able and willing to think things through.
Piddling little environmental campaigns have been propagated across the nation, and taught in primary schools. Campaigns to make it illegal to provide grocery bags without extra charge. Campaigns to replace plastic drinking straws with paper. (An extreme emergency, apparently because polar bears got plastic straws stuck between their toes, or something.)
Nutrition has become linked with environmentalism and thus with the totalitarian agenda - so that factory-made vegan "food" is now supposed to be morally supreme - seemingly because it enables the world to abolish/ destroy farming, then mammals (insects are OK), and perhaps eventually plants. Which must be a good thing...
It does not matter how trivial or stupid an issue may be, "people" can be made very concerned about it; to the point that it becomes immoral to consider the consequences or the larger picture.
To "solve" a piddling pseudo-problem, enlarges the Real Big Problems. Just as every measure to "help" some victim group, always and systematically oppresses the whole of society.
From the perspective of the ruling class; this is a manifestation of the Texas Sharpshooter, because it entails picking-out what They want to do anyway; then drawing a line around it and framing the resultant micro-policy as exactly what most needs to be done - now!
The strategy is therefore to accumulate one after another such "imperative" micro-issue, towards the overall objective - whether that objective be the totalitarian system of surveillance, monitoring, control; or else the (more recent) destructive agenda working for societal collapse, escalation of war and lethal civil violence, famine, deadly disease, and toxic exposures...
The worst thing we can do is fight these idiocies, issue by issue - because that is exactly Their plan.
The only positive response is to step back and understand where this is going, and why, and the supernatural (demonic) origins - therefore that the proper response is not "an alternative answer" but a completely different framework of assumptions concerning our-selves, other people, the world, the cosmos...
*This applies to politics, as well.
Thursday, 22 September 2011
Peer-reviewed research - turtles all the way down...
*
Peer-Reviewed Research (PRR) is the lineal descendant of Real Science (RS) in the same way that liver flukes are the lineal descendants of free-living nematode worms: PRR represents the parasitic, pathological and degenerate form into which Real Science evolved in response to a changing environment.
*
In other words, despite some residual structural similarities, Peer-Reviewed Research is essentially a different entity than Real Science.
Just as when something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck; so when something looks like a bureaucracy and communicates like a bureaucracy, then it is a bureaucracy.
What is calling itself science looks and behaves nothing like Real Science, so we should stop calling it Science.
*
Whereas Real Science works by obvious, in-your-face and common sense criteria (the problem being merely to understand how it works), in contrast ‘modern science’ (PRR) does not work – or rather, the only evidence that PRR works is the propaganda and publicity of scientists and the agencies who fund them – and these need to expend vast resources on persuading the public (and themselves) that they are doing anything at all but consume and mislead.
Old science obviously worked – there were frequent breakthroughs in solving longstanding problems; Old medicine obviously worked with new cures for previously incurable diseases and traumas. But very little modern science and medicine gets validated in this way – instead there is a profession of evaluation which is variously psychological, marginal, probabilistic, statistical, economic… but not obvious, in-your-face common sense.
Indeed, the main strategy is that of the Texas Sharpshooter, who fires his pistol into the barn door then draws a target around the bullet holes: modern ‘science’ does what it does, looks at the result, then spins the outcome as a ‘breakthrough’.
*
Real science is primarily theoretical – by contrast with technology which is practical and mostly operates by trial and error within the theories of science.
The way it works is (roughly) that science makes breakthroughs in theory which are then linked (via chains of causation) to predicted real world consequences. The scientific theory is checked against observations of the real world, including prediction, experiments, and attempts to manipulate (and change) the real world.
This link between science and technology is loose, and there is no specific set of rules which govern it - i.e. there is no such thing as ‘scientific method’, nor legitimate inference (above and beyond that of normal human reason) and all attempts to define such have failed.
Nonetheless, this link between science and common sense observation – for all its informal and subjective qualities - is the basis for evaluating science. Without such a link science is not really science, but a detached, free-spinning intellectual activity: a ‘glass bead game’ played for the amusement (and/ or enrichment and status) of intellectuals.
*
In other words, when science is not validated by technology, and technology validated by common sense, then science is merely validated by scientists – by scientific opinion.
Nowadays, scientific opinion is formalized in peer review committees – so without the link between science, technology and common sense then science is merely committee voting, just like any bureaucracy.
*
(Committees are committees are committees – they may operate by formal procedures or by no procedures and it makes no difference – because procedure is arbitrary and conjectural in its effect; no procedure has any intrinsic validity.)
*
So PRR marks the takeover of Real Science by a wholly different evaluation system: the change from validation from theoretical science linked to technology linked to common sense, into whatever happens to be the outcome of a system of interlinked committee voting:
government committees, employment appointment committees, promotions committees, grant awarding committees, corporations run by committees, media and publicity committees, committees for investigating the ‘integrity’ of science, committees to decide what gets published where and in what form, committees to decide who gets to talk at conferences, Nobel Prize committees...
Like the mythic world which stands on a turtle standing on a turtle standing on a turtle, and so on: modern ‘science’ is committees all the way down…
***
Peer-Reviewed Research (PRR) is the lineal descendant of Real Science (RS) in the same way that liver flukes are the lineal descendants of free-living nematode worms: PRR represents the parasitic, pathological and degenerate form into which Real Science evolved in response to a changing environment.
*
In other words, despite some residual structural similarities, Peer-Reviewed Research is essentially a different entity than Real Science.
Just as when something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck; so when something looks like a bureaucracy and communicates like a bureaucracy, then it is a bureaucracy.
What is calling itself science looks and behaves nothing like Real Science, so we should stop calling it Science.
*
Whereas Real Science works by obvious, in-your-face and common sense criteria (the problem being merely to understand how it works), in contrast ‘modern science’ (PRR) does not work – or rather, the only evidence that PRR works is the propaganda and publicity of scientists and the agencies who fund them – and these need to expend vast resources on persuading the public (and themselves) that they are doing anything at all but consume and mislead.
Old science obviously worked – there were frequent breakthroughs in solving longstanding problems; Old medicine obviously worked with new cures for previously incurable diseases and traumas. But very little modern science and medicine gets validated in this way – instead there is a profession of evaluation which is variously psychological, marginal, probabilistic, statistical, economic… but not obvious, in-your-face common sense.
Indeed, the main strategy is that of the Texas Sharpshooter, who fires his pistol into the barn door then draws a target around the bullet holes: modern ‘science’ does what it does, looks at the result, then spins the outcome as a ‘breakthrough’.
*
Real science is primarily theoretical – by contrast with technology which is practical and mostly operates by trial and error within the theories of science.
The way it works is (roughly) that science makes breakthroughs in theory which are then linked (via chains of causation) to predicted real world consequences. The scientific theory is checked against observations of the real world, including prediction, experiments, and attempts to manipulate (and change) the real world.
This link between science and technology is loose, and there is no specific set of rules which govern it - i.e. there is no such thing as ‘scientific method’, nor legitimate inference (above and beyond that of normal human reason) and all attempts to define such have failed.
Nonetheless, this link between science and common sense observation – for all its informal and subjective qualities - is the basis for evaluating science. Without such a link science is not really science, but a detached, free-spinning intellectual activity: a ‘glass bead game’ played for the amusement (and/ or enrichment and status) of intellectuals.
*
In other words, when science is not validated by technology, and technology validated by common sense, then science is merely validated by scientists – by scientific opinion.
Nowadays, scientific opinion is formalized in peer review committees – so without the link between science, technology and common sense then science is merely committee voting, just like any bureaucracy.
*
(Committees are committees are committees – they may operate by formal procedures or by no procedures and it makes no difference – because procedure is arbitrary and conjectural in its effect; no procedure has any intrinsic validity.)
*
So PRR marks the takeover of Real Science by a wholly different evaluation system: the change from validation from theoretical science linked to technology linked to common sense, into whatever happens to be the outcome of a system of interlinked committee voting:
government committees, employment appointment committees, promotions committees, grant awarding committees, corporations run by committees, media and publicity committees, committees for investigating the ‘integrity’ of science, committees to decide what gets published where and in what form, committees to decide who gets to talk at conferences, Nobel Prize committees...
Like the mythic world which stands on a turtle standing on a turtle standing on a turtle, and so on: modern ‘science’ is committees all the way down…
***
Tuesday, 18 January 2011
Which was/ is worst? Nazism or Communism?
*
The correct answer is Communism. And this is a matter of fact.
But the chances are you may think that you disagree, or regard them as equally bad, or that it is too close to call.
However, if so, you are mistaken, and for one of two reasons:
1. Most likely, almost certainly, you do not know enough about Communism. Even I, who am no friend to Communism, continue to be surprised by what I did not know about the evils of the USSR. It has only been during the past year I have begun to appreciate this, and even in the past week some major new horrors have come to my attention. But don't take my word for it, find out for yourself.
2. The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy
I described the TSF here: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2010/06/measuring-human-capability-moonshot.html
The way it work in this instance is that Nazism is defined as the ultimate evil - then other evils are measured according to how closely they resemble Nazism. Naturally, when this is done to Communism, it seems less evil than Nazism.
*
The relationship between ideologies (over the past couple of thousand years in the West) is as follows:
1. First came Christianity: primary sin = pride; primary virtue = love (i.e. the type of love which is agape/ charity). These defined ultimately in terms of spirituality, transcendentals, other worldly factors.
2. With leftist/ progressive atheism (e.g. Communism) the primary sin became selfishness; the primary virtue = unselfishness (a.k.a. altruism). These being defined in this worldly and materialistic terms - as 'worldly goods' ('goods' including all valued materials factors such as money and also socially-defined factors such as status).
Unselfishness is operationalized as altruism on behalf of others - e.g. other classes, other races, other sex, animals, climate, the planet...
3. Rightist/ reactionary atheism (of which Nazism is a type) reacts against the self-hatred and suicidal effects of leftist altruism on behalf of others, by reversing the morality of unselfishness to regard this-worldly materialist selfishness (under some communitarian description) as a virtue rather than the primary sin.
(In this sense, Nietzsche was indeed the philosopher of Nazism.)
Selfishness is operationalized by right-wing atheism as distributing worldly goods to one's own class, nation, empire, race, sex or whatever.
To be paradoxical about it, Nazism is aggressive altruism on behalf of oneself!
*
Both Communism and Nazism are relativistic/ nihilistic - they do not aim at a specific state of affairs, but a permanent revolution in a particular direction - secular leftists aim at continually increasing altruism to others, secular rightists aim at continually increasing selfishness.
Hence atheist ideologies of both right and left are capable of unrestrained evil, so their regimes are the worst in human history - but atheist leftism is capable of attracting vastly more widespread and sustained support and idealistic zeal by its pseudo-morality of un-selfishness.
Hence Communism has spread almost everywhere and accomplished (and is accomplishing) vastly more evil than Nazism - which was a narrow and unsustainable product of unique circumstances.
*
So - Christianity promotes transcendental love, Communism promotes worldly unselfishness on behalf of others, Fascism promotes worldly selfishness.
Leftists and progressives therefore regard Communism as intrinsically superior to Nazism - in a way that takes no account of evidence, since they see Commuinism as having the highest possible human aspirations - albeit they are usually corrupted.
Leftists regard Nazism (and other forms of secular rightism) as intrinsically evil because its advocates openly promote their own interests: its primary morality is selfishness. Since this is the exact opposite of leftism - indeed, an exact inversion of leftist morality - it is the ultimate evil.
*
(Note: Leftists also regard supernaturalist Christianity as intrinsically evil because it promotes non-worldly goods, which do not exist; thereby ignoring or neglecting the moral centrality of enforcing the altruistic distribution of worldly goods.
But, for leftists, Christianity is not the ultimate evil, since it is not the exact opposite of leftism. Rather, orthodox Christianity is seen as a hypocritical mask for secular rightism - which is seen as primary. Christians are therefore seen as promoters of selfishness who cleverly disguise it under a cover of nonsensical transcendental aspirations.
Explicit, open, un-ashamed secular rightism is the primary enemy.
So, Communists fear Nazis - because they understand and respect them, but despise Christians - who are seen as fools and cowards.
Communists want to fight real Nazis (if they think they can win), but want to exterminate Christians (as mere vermin.)
*
So, for leftists, the difference between the mainstream secular right and Nazis is merely that Nazism is more honest and brave: the secular right with the gloves-off. Mainstream rightists are seens as nothing more-than - or other-than - feeble Nazis.)
*
The correct answer is Communism. And this is a matter of fact.
But the chances are you may think that you disagree, or regard them as equally bad, or that it is too close to call.
However, if so, you are mistaken, and for one of two reasons:
1. Most likely, almost certainly, you do not know enough about Communism. Even I, who am no friend to Communism, continue to be surprised by what I did not know about the evils of the USSR. It has only been during the past year I have begun to appreciate this, and even in the past week some major new horrors have come to my attention. But don't take my word for it, find out for yourself.
2. The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy
I described the TSF here: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2010/06/measuring-human-capability-moonshot.html
The way it work in this instance is that Nazism is defined as the ultimate evil - then other evils are measured according to how closely they resemble Nazism. Naturally, when this is done to Communism, it seems less evil than Nazism.
*
The relationship between ideologies (over the past couple of thousand years in the West) is as follows:
1. First came Christianity: primary sin = pride; primary virtue = love (i.e. the type of love which is agape/ charity). These defined ultimately in terms of spirituality, transcendentals, other worldly factors.
2. With leftist/ progressive atheism (e.g. Communism) the primary sin became selfishness; the primary virtue = unselfishness (a.k.a. altruism). These being defined in this worldly and materialistic terms - as 'worldly goods' ('goods' including all valued materials factors such as money and also socially-defined factors such as status).
Unselfishness is operationalized as altruism on behalf of others - e.g. other classes, other races, other sex, animals, climate, the planet...
3. Rightist/ reactionary atheism (of which Nazism is a type) reacts against the self-hatred and suicidal effects of leftist altruism on behalf of others, by reversing the morality of unselfishness to regard this-worldly materialist selfishness (under some communitarian description) as a virtue rather than the primary sin.
(In this sense, Nietzsche was indeed the philosopher of Nazism.)
Selfishness is operationalized by right-wing atheism as distributing worldly goods to one's own class, nation, empire, race, sex or whatever.
To be paradoxical about it, Nazism is aggressive altruism on behalf of oneself!
*
Both Communism and Nazism are relativistic/ nihilistic - they do not aim at a specific state of affairs, but a permanent revolution in a particular direction - secular leftists aim at continually increasing altruism to others, secular rightists aim at continually increasing selfishness.
Hence atheist ideologies of both right and left are capable of unrestrained evil, so their regimes are the worst in human history - but atheist leftism is capable of attracting vastly more widespread and sustained support and idealistic zeal by its pseudo-morality of un-selfishness.
Hence Communism has spread almost everywhere and accomplished (and is accomplishing) vastly more evil than Nazism - which was a narrow and unsustainable product of unique circumstances.
*
So - Christianity promotes transcendental love, Communism promotes worldly unselfishness on behalf of others, Fascism promotes worldly selfishness.
Leftists and progressives therefore regard Communism as intrinsically superior to Nazism - in a way that takes no account of evidence, since they see Commuinism as having the highest possible human aspirations - albeit they are usually corrupted.
Leftists regard Nazism (and other forms of secular rightism) as intrinsically evil because its advocates openly promote their own interests: its primary morality is selfishness. Since this is the exact opposite of leftism - indeed, an exact inversion of leftist morality - it is the ultimate evil.
*
(Note: Leftists also regard supernaturalist Christianity as intrinsically evil because it promotes non-worldly goods, which do not exist; thereby ignoring or neglecting the moral centrality of enforcing the altruistic distribution of worldly goods.
But, for leftists, Christianity is not the ultimate evil, since it is not the exact opposite of leftism. Rather, orthodox Christianity is seen as a hypocritical mask for secular rightism - which is seen as primary. Christians are therefore seen as promoters of selfishness who cleverly disguise it under a cover of nonsensical transcendental aspirations.
Explicit, open, un-ashamed secular rightism is the primary enemy.
So, Communists fear Nazis - because they understand and respect them, but despise Christians - who are seen as fools and cowards.
Communists want to fight real Nazis (if they think they can win), but want to exterminate Christians (as mere vermin.)
*
So, for leftists, the difference between the mainstream secular right and Nazis is merely that Nazism is more honest and brave: the secular right with the gloves-off. Mainstream rightists are seens as nothing more-than - or other-than - feeble Nazis.)
*
Thursday, 14 March 2019
Who is is worse - Communists or Nazis?
There is an answer, and the correct answer is Communists.
But the chances are you may think that you disagree, or regard them as equally bad, or that it is too close to call.
However, if so, you are mistaken, and for one of two reasons:
1. Most likely, almost certainly, you do not know enough about Communism. Even I, who am no friend to Communism, continue to be surprised by what I did not know about the evils of the USSR. It has only been during the past year* I have begun to appreciate this, and even in the past week some major new horrors have come to my attention. But don't take my word for it, find out for yourself.
2. The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy
I described the TSF here: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2010/06/measuring-human-capability-moonshot.html
The way it work in this instance is that Nazism is defined as the ultimate evil - then other evils are measured according to how closely they resemble Nazism. Naturally, when this is done to Communism, it seems less evil than Nazism.
The relationship between ideologies (over the past couple of thousand years in the West) is as follows:
1. First came Christianity: primary sin = pride; primary virtue = love (i.e. the type of love which is agape/ charity). These defined ultimately in terms of spirituality, transcendentals, other worldly factors.
2. With leftist/ progressive atheism (e.g. Communism) the primary sin became selfishness; the primary virtue = unselfishness (a.k.a. altruism). These being defined in this worldly and materialistic terms - as 'worldly goods' ('goods' including all valued materials factors such as money and also socially-defined factors such as status).
Unselfishness is operationalized as altruism on behalf of others - e.g. other classes, other races, other sex, animals, climate, the planet...
3. Rightist/ reactionary atheism (of which Nazism is a type) reacts against the self-hatred and suicidal effects of leftist altruism on behalf of others, by reversing the morality of unselfishness to regard this-worldly materialist selfishness (under some communitarian description) as a virtue rather than the primary sin.
(In this sense, Nietzsche was indeed the philosopher of Nazism.)
Selfishness is operationalized by right-wing atheism as distributing worldly goods to one's own class, nation, empire, race, sex or whatever.
To be paradoxical about it, Nazism is aggressive altruism on behalf of oneself!
Both Communism and Nazism are relativistic/ nihilistic - they do not aim at a specific state of affairs, but a permanent revolution in a particular direction - secular leftists aim at continually increasing altruism to others, secular rightists aim at continually increasing selfishness.
Hence atheist ideologies of both right and left are capable of unrestrained evil, so their regimes are the worst in human history - but atheist leftism is capable of attracting vastly more widespread and sustained support and idealistic zeal by its pseudo-morality of un-selfishness.
Hence Communism has spread almost everywhere and accomplished (and is accomplishing) vastly more evil than Nazism - which was a narrow and unsustainable product of unique circumstances.
So - Christianity promotes transcendental love, Communism promotes worldly unselfishness on behalf of others, Fascism promotes worldly selfishness.
Leftists and progressives therefore regard Communism as intrinsically superior to Nazism - in a way that takes no account of evidence, since they see Communism as having the highest possible human aspirations - albeit they are usually corrupted.
Leftists regard Nazism (and other forms of secular rightism) as intrinsically evil because its advocates openly promote their own interests: its primary morality is selfishness. Since this is the exact opposite of leftism - indeed, an exact inversion of leftist morality - it is the ultimate evil.
**
Leftists also regard supernaturalist Christianity as intrinsically evil because it promotes non-worldly goods, which do not exist; thereby ignoring or neglecting the moral centrality of enforcing the altruistic distribution of worldly goods.
But, for leftists, Christianity is not the ultimate evil, since it is not the exact opposite of leftism. Rather, orthodox Christianity is seen as a hypocritical mask for secular rightism - which is seen as primary. Christians are therefore seen as promoters of selfishness who cleverly disguise it under a cover of nonsensical transcendental aspirations.
Explicit, open, un-ashamed secular rightism is the primary enemy.
So, Communists fear Nazis - because they understand and respect them, but despise Christians - who are seen as fools and cowards.
Communists want to fight real Nazis (if they think they can win), but want to exterminate Christians (as mere vermin.)
So, for leftists, the difference between the mainstream secular right and Nazis is merely that Nazism is more honest and brave: the secular right with the gloves-off. Mainstream rightists are seen as nothing more-than - or other-than - feeble Nazis.
**
Note added: The inferiority of Soviet Communism to German National Socialism can be seen in their military.
Perhaps it is unfair to compare any other nation with Germany in terms of military prowess - but the German army (and most of the people) apparently loved their leaders and fought for them with absolutely remarkable tenacity and effectiveness until utterly defeated. (The way in which the Allied invasion was held-up in Italy for a year and a half from autumn 1943 was evidence of the Germans' man-for-man supremacy.)
By contrast, from the beginning of the Bolshevik revolution, the government waged permanent war upon its own nation. In WWII the Soviet officers *drove* their cowed troops into battle from behind - guns aimed at their own men. On the Eastern Front I have read that the Russians lost ten men for every German killed.
*The above is reposted from this blog in 2011. I stumbled across it today, and thought it still interesting, and increasingly topical - as (superficially repackaged) communism is making a mainstream comeback.
But the chances are you may think that you disagree, or regard them as equally bad, or that it is too close to call.
However, if so, you are mistaken, and for one of two reasons:
1. Most likely, almost certainly, you do not know enough about Communism. Even I, who am no friend to Communism, continue to be surprised by what I did not know about the evils of the USSR. It has only been during the past year* I have begun to appreciate this, and even in the past week some major new horrors have come to my attention. But don't take my word for it, find out for yourself.
2. The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy
I described the TSF here: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2010/06/measuring-human-capability-moonshot.html
The way it work in this instance is that Nazism is defined as the ultimate evil - then other evils are measured according to how closely they resemble Nazism. Naturally, when this is done to Communism, it seems less evil than Nazism.
The relationship between ideologies (over the past couple of thousand years in the West) is as follows:
1. First came Christianity: primary sin = pride; primary virtue = love (i.e. the type of love which is agape/ charity). These defined ultimately in terms of spirituality, transcendentals, other worldly factors.
2. With leftist/ progressive atheism (e.g. Communism) the primary sin became selfishness; the primary virtue = unselfishness (a.k.a. altruism). These being defined in this worldly and materialistic terms - as 'worldly goods' ('goods' including all valued materials factors such as money and also socially-defined factors such as status).
Unselfishness is operationalized as altruism on behalf of others - e.g. other classes, other races, other sex, animals, climate, the planet...
3. Rightist/ reactionary atheism (of which Nazism is a type) reacts against the self-hatred and suicidal effects of leftist altruism on behalf of others, by reversing the morality of unselfishness to regard this-worldly materialist selfishness (under some communitarian description) as a virtue rather than the primary sin.
(In this sense, Nietzsche was indeed the philosopher of Nazism.)
Selfishness is operationalized by right-wing atheism as distributing worldly goods to one's own class, nation, empire, race, sex or whatever.
To be paradoxical about it, Nazism is aggressive altruism on behalf of oneself!
Both Communism and Nazism are relativistic/ nihilistic - they do not aim at a specific state of affairs, but a permanent revolution in a particular direction - secular leftists aim at continually increasing altruism to others, secular rightists aim at continually increasing selfishness.
Hence atheist ideologies of both right and left are capable of unrestrained evil, so their regimes are the worst in human history - but atheist leftism is capable of attracting vastly more widespread and sustained support and idealistic zeal by its pseudo-morality of un-selfishness.
Hence Communism has spread almost everywhere and accomplished (and is accomplishing) vastly more evil than Nazism - which was a narrow and unsustainable product of unique circumstances.
So - Christianity promotes transcendental love, Communism promotes worldly unselfishness on behalf of others, Fascism promotes worldly selfishness.
Leftists and progressives therefore regard Communism as intrinsically superior to Nazism - in a way that takes no account of evidence, since they see Communism as having the highest possible human aspirations - albeit they are usually corrupted.
Leftists regard Nazism (and other forms of secular rightism) as intrinsically evil because its advocates openly promote their own interests: its primary morality is selfishness. Since this is the exact opposite of leftism - indeed, an exact inversion of leftist morality - it is the ultimate evil.
**
Leftists also regard supernaturalist Christianity as intrinsically evil because it promotes non-worldly goods, which do not exist; thereby ignoring or neglecting the moral centrality of enforcing the altruistic distribution of worldly goods.
But, for leftists, Christianity is not the ultimate evil, since it is not the exact opposite of leftism. Rather, orthodox Christianity is seen as a hypocritical mask for secular rightism - which is seen as primary. Christians are therefore seen as promoters of selfishness who cleverly disguise it under a cover of nonsensical transcendental aspirations.
Explicit, open, un-ashamed secular rightism is the primary enemy.
So, Communists fear Nazis - because they understand and respect them, but despise Christians - who are seen as fools and cowards.
Communists want to fight real Nazis (if they think they can win), but want to exterminate Christians (as mere vermin.)
So, for leftists, the difference between the mainstream secular right and Nazis is merely that Nazism is more honest and brave: the secular right with the gloves-off. Mainstream rightists are seen as nothing more-than - or other-than - feeble Nazis.
**
Note added: The inferiority of Soviet Communism to German National Socialism can be seen in their military.
Perhaps it is unfair to compare any other nation with Germany in terms of military prowess - but the German army (and most of the people) apparently loved their leaders and fought for them with absolutely remarkable tenacity and effectiveness until utterly defeated. (The way in which the Allied invasion was held-up in Italy for a year and a half from autumn 1943 was evidence of the Germans' man-for-man supremacy.)
By contrast, from the beginning of the Bolshevik revolution, the government waged permanent war upon its own nation. In WWII the Soviet officers *drove* their cowed troops into battle from behind - guns aimed at their own men. On the Eastern Front I have read that the Russians lost ten men for every German killed.
*The above is reposted from this blog in 2011. I stumbled across it today, and thought it still interesting, and increasingly topical - as (superficially repackaged) communism is making a mainstream comeback.
Saturday, 1 January 2022
Accelerating chaos and evil Not-plans: wishing you a Happy (demonic fake) New Year!...
Old readers will know of my aversion to the official New Year defined as 1st January; which is defined in terms of what it is not (not astronomical, not seasonal and not Christian) rather than what it is - which is to say arbitrarily numerical...
This means the Year is not truly new, but only demonic-fake-'New'.
So, the New Year and its 'celebration' is almost-certainly Satan-spawned - as what else could it be? When we are induced to celebrate the arbitrary, it is only one step away from celebrating the actively-evil.
Thus your cheerful and social Happy New Year! greetings with neighbours are approximately spiritually-equivalent to a Nazi salute or the clenched fist of Communism...
(...You're welcome...)
But this is the day one of the calendar-year; and my understanding is that the demons are very keen on arbitrary numerology - on the special significance of certain arbitrary numbers (i.e. fakely-significant numbers); being super-especially fond of decimals, decades, centuries - and the metric system generally, including SI units ("Systeme International" - French, wouldn't you know).
The lower-ranked (bureaucratic, 'Ahrimanic') demons love these systems because they are made-up by officials; and because of their abstract efficiency, and easily calculational inter-convertibility.
SI units model the world as-if it was already the single totalitarian System that the Ahriminic demons day-dream about implementing and operating...
The metric-SI system artificially-'unifies' the world - and achieves this abstract coherence by its indifference to the human.
By contrast the Imperial System (feet and inches, furlongs and leagues etc) was originally based-on the human body and mind; and the usage of measures that are functionally appropriate to the actual task in hand. This was especially the case in its earlier, 'medieval' forms - e.g. when 'an acre' was the amount of land that could be ploughed in a day, locally.
There are also sacred, 'magical' number and geometrical 'systems', apparently derived from Pythagorean-Platonic philosophy - and these are universal; but abstract, not human, not functionally-derived.
(See How the world is made: the story of creation according to sacred geometry, by John Michell, 2012.)
But naturally, none of these genuine, good-aiming spiritualities are of interest to the demonic powers - except when they can be subverted and then inverted; because inversion is the basis of anti-Christian symbolism and ritual - just as inversion of values is the most advanced form of evil.
It was, presumably, the middle-managers among the demons (as among humans) who chose to make 2020 the year for the global totalitarian coup.
2020 is just the kind of meaningless but superficially-significant 'decimal' number which they like best, and which they believe brings them the best results.
So - what about 2022? Anything special?
I think not - not for the kind of Being that is engaged in the Ahrimanic programme. They are keen planners and 'strategists', and are explicitly aiming at 2030, the next decade - for the 'completion' of their current strategy of worldwide surveillance and control.
But as of the approach to 2022; these mid-level demons have apparently lost control, and their plans are not happening to schedule.
Why? Partly because the plans were based on falsehoods and could never have-worked.
Partly because of unexpected resistance.
But mostly because the 'Sorathic' demons of chaos, of sheer destruction and negation, are increasingly in control; and are using The System to inject chaos, destruction and negation into itself.
The Ahrimanic demons intended to use The System to rule the world post 2020...
But the Sorathic demons want to use The System to destroy The System.
There is no doubt that order is collapsing and chaos is increasing - locally and worldwide.
Therefore: the most likely prediction for 2022 is... Accelerating chaos
(...Which is actually a bit of a non-prediction - since the nature and location of chaos cannot - by definition - be predicted!)
But this tsunami of dysfunction is not apparent to the Ahrimanic middle-managers, because they are incompetent and dishonest; self-blinded fools who live by self-serving lies - and they believe that their interests are best served by pretending to omniscience and omnipotence.
When real knowledge and power are lacking, the adopt the Texas Sharpshooter tactic of claiming that whatever has-happened was exactly what they wanted to happen...
In the face of actual accelerating chaos; demonic middle-managers will continue 'confidently' to assert that everything is getting better...
...All is on-track and on-schedule; tractor production continues to increase by hundreds of percent per year; and the bureaucratic utopia of own-nothing/ be-happy will be oven-ready for 2030 - all in accordance with plans...
And this will be asserted, louder and louder, officially and by the mass media - until the world is engulfed by war and famine, disease and death, flame and flood...
At which point they will simply claim that they always meant to do that.
Romantic Christians should not be misled by the collapse of the Ahrimanic-bureaucratic plans into assuming that this means the powers of Good are necessarily ascendant.
The birdemic-peck narrative would indeed collapse because of Christian resistance - if such existed. But does it exist?
Good can only come of good (not from evil-motivations) - and unless there really is a Christian resurgence, then failures of evil planning will not imply a better overall outcome - not if those failure are due to ascendant chaos.
All complex strategies and functionalities (both Good-motivated, and of evil-intent) that depend on organization, coordination and obedience will - sooner and sooner - be sabotaged by the waxing of Sorathic evil.
Thus, the failure of evil-plans is not good news when they are being thwarted by evil-not-plans...
But only when evil-plans are thwarted by intentions on the side of Good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)