The necessity of authority

A bit of compare and contrast.

I’ve been saying for a while now that lying to an enemy is perfectly acceptable, and in a metaphysical sense I expect that violence, deception, and rebellion are aspects of a single thing (ref: Satan’s various titles). Let’s just say the reception to this idea was lukewarm at the best of times. People on the Right are pretty fixated on the Soldiers of Cleansing Light aesthetic and it’s hard to argue with fetishism. You can see in their rationalizations of disingenuous behavior that they have no real qualms about it, e.g. in a moment that would make any Talmudic scholar proud, Koanic rationalizes Jehu’s act of intentionally speaking the opposite of the truth to willfully deceive the priests of Baal in order to betray and murder them as “grim sarcasm”. When you see abnegation of this sort then you can predict a person or group’s unspoken, inward beliefs with great precision: observing this sort of behavior is what drives my descriptions of amoral egoistic Christianity.

What I’m getting at is that people on the right are disingenuous, but they reframe it so they can still feel righteous (in keeping with the Manichean Soldiers of Cleansing Light fetishism). So the consistent effect of this rationalization is to enable more of the disingenuous behavior. This is derived from Jung’s admonition to observe the consistent effect of a behavior and infer that if the behavior were not motivated to achieve the consistent effect then, absent confounds, the behavior would eventually have been modified. The purpose of disingenuousness, and also the problem with it, is that it insulates you from negative feedback—so if you’re lying to occupying enemy soldiers it’s to insulate you from the negative feedback of them learning you’ve been hiding stores of rice, and if you lie to yourself you’re insulating yourself from the pain of reality. The right cannot win unless it admits it has a serious problem with self-delusion. Hell, it took a leftist civic nationalist God Emperor apex Chad to pull us out of our armchairs, punch us in the gut until we vomited out all the black pills, and say “Fuck your self-delusion, we’re going to WIN.”

So that’s all very philosophical and was not palatable to the modren Vox Popoli commenter. You can imagine how it went over. What happens if, instead, you assume the premise, spread the rumor you’re Q for a couple days to get your follower count over 9000, and publish a recipe book for wartime dishonesty?

1. Resident Moron™ September 11, 2018 1:49 AM

Looking forward to this.

2. Sherwood family September 11, 2018 3:06 AM

This one looks like a very interesting read. Excited about reading it.

3. Helldoge Desotryer September 11, 2018 7:00 AM

Buying asap.

4. Mr.MantraMan September 11, 2018 7:36 AM

Bought it last night, I’ll bet it is a book I have to take in small chunks.

5. Silent Draco September 11, 2018 8:05 AM

Already making some updates to efforts for social media and public affairs. Timing is more important than anticipated.

Comments on EXCERPT: 4D Warfare

I’m not criticizing Posobiec for polishing up his credentials before going on primetime, quite the contrary. He is clearly doing it right, hence the title of this blog post. The reception I got was my own damn fault for lacking the force and accoutrements of authority to push it through the heads of my intended audience. (The golden rule of communication is that the burden of understanding is always 100% on the person who wants to be understood, and never on the audience.) However, I will continue to criticize Vox Day for constantly shooting right in the name of Truth Truth Truth. That kind of stupidity is forgivable in a lackey and a normie but not in a public intellectual, in a disruptive cultural institution, nor especially in a leader. To quote the man himself:

Be the kind of player you would want on your team. Be the kind of man you would want beside you in battle.

And here I thought doing a video on “how not to be disagreeable” was a new low in self-awareness. Here’s the thing: even if your ally is a solipsistic Nazi-LARPing flat earther degenerate, you almost always have to back their play. And if you want to have opinions you’d better have your shit together and your priors in order because that’s the definition of officer class.

tl;dr- Frustration means I need to be better.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to The necessity of authority

  1. Aeoli Pera says:

    I’ve named a new informal fallacy in your honor. Ex hominem: “the error of having opinions while not already being a cyborg, get on my level meatbags, QED”.

  2. SirHamster says:

    I will continue to criticize Vox Day for constantly shooting right

    None of his targets are right, whether in the sense of politics, or in veracity.

    You need to attack Vox Day from truth if you want your criticism to have effect.

    Koanic rationalizes Jehu’s act of intentionally speaking the opposite of the truth to willfully deceive the priests of Baal in order to betray and murder them as “grim sarcasm”

    Deceptive is not the same thing as untrue. Identify the untrue statement in Jehu’s words:

    “Ahab’s worship of Baal was nothing compared to the way I will worship him! Therefore, summon all the prophets and worshipers of Baal, and call together all his priests. See to it that every one of them comes, for I am going to offer a great sacrifice to Baal. Anyone who fails to come will be put to death.”

  3. Aeoli Pera says:

    >Identify the untrue statement in Jehu’s words

    “I will worship Baal.” Depending on the translation we have the choices of “serve”, “worship”, or “be faithful to”.

  4. Mycroft Jones says:

    Aeoli, I think the lie was that “anyone who fails to come will be put to death”. Instead, it was those who DID come who were put to death, and none that skipped it were put to death.

    Now, this statement, “Ahab’s worship of Baal is nothing like how I will worship him!” does indeed come across as grim sarcasm. It is deceptive, but not a direct lie.

    I’ve been thinking about the difference between lying and deception. A lie is outright wrong. It imposes a cognitive load on listener and speaker. Deception, on the other hand, imposes cognitive load on the listener, but since the speaker is technically telling truth, he doesn’t have the cognitive load of internally compensating for an untruth. To the listener, a lie and a deception are equivalent. For the speaker, one is easier than the other.

    So, for most cases, I don’t see a point in distinguishing a lie from a deception. They are both attempts to mislead.

  5. Mycroft Jones says:

    However, the King James version says Jehu gathered all the people together, and said unto them, Ahab served Baal a little; but Jehu shall serve him much.

    That isn’t grim sarcasm. That is a lie.

  6. SirHamster says:

    > “I will worship Baal.” Depending on the translation we have the choices of “serve”, “worship”, or “be faithful to”.
    baal: owner, lord

    Which lord is Jehu referring to? Per Nassim Taleb, ME Christians do call God, “Baal” (Lord). For a similar confusion, Arabian Christians call God, Allah. It’s the word for it.

    A simple reading based on a particular translation makes it a direct lie. But Jehu may have been cheeky and seeking to deceive with truth.

    1.) Serving Baal (the idol) his own worshippers – True!
    2.) Serving/worshiping Baal (Lord God) by slaughtering idolaters – True!

    Depending on the tenents of the Baal religion, slaughtering the Baal priests/worshippers may even be considered an act of worship.

    This is not to say that truthful deception is good, or that Jehu is a Christian example, and so on.
    But when you want to prove someone is a liar … part of the process is eliminating all truthful possibilities.

    Deceptive? Fully agreed. The priests and worshippers would not have shown up if they knew they would be killed. Lying? Maybe.

    Should Christians lie or deceive? God Himself withholds information, and one does not offer pearls to swine. Some deception is unavoidable and allowable. Justifying methods beyond that with Biblical examples requires more thought.

  7. Aeoli Pera says:

    >Should Christians lie or deceive?

    I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again, it’s the same as asking whether Christians should use violence. The answer is generally no, but occasionally yes.

  8. Aeoli Pera says:

    >So, for most cases, I don’t see a point in distinguishing a lie from a deception. They are both attempts to mislead.

    The useful distinction is mainly legal: it’s easier to prove misrepresentation than intent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s