The New Logic

They’re pushing the “new logic” these days. At heart, it’s the same old tyranny, “do what you are told,” “might makes right,” and so on. Some people call it “liberal logic.” Such “logic” also entails never admitting when you were wrong, extreme dogmatism and aggression in support of that dogma, inflexibility and ignorance.

Table of Contents

Not that it’s ineffectual. Never admitting to error or wrongdoing, then doubling down when caught out is very effective.

Obfuscation and distraction is another constant. For example, unleashing a flurry of events so each provides cover for the other. Plague over there, war over there, massacre over there, invaders over there, politicians accused and on trial over there...

“Elliott Eldrich" pinpoints a nice example of one aspect and tactic of the new logic. (ZeroHedge)

Credit where credit is due: One very useful and very potent technique I have learned from the Black community is the power of SHOUTING and SCREAMING and YELLING and CARRYING ON HYSTERICALLY and NOT STOPPING until whatever is wanted is obtained. Being "rational" and "logical" are stupid, useless tools that are used by evil "White supremacists" and is something to be avoided at all times. Far, far better to YELL and SCREAM and have endless TANTRUMS until appeased, then continue with MORE yelling and screaming just to see if anything more can be milked out of the suckers.

I heartily encourage anyone who disagrees with the assertion that reading and writing are "white supremacy" to express their displeasure and concerns with all of the passion and conviction Black people give their objections to a career criminal being squished like a cockroach by police. Try calling this school district and YELLING and SCREAMING and CARRYING ON like a crazy person, then call again, and do it again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and get your friends to do so as well.

Sciences and engineering are lost in the backwash of social justice, climate justice, and other made-up hustles. Unbelievably, but not unbelievably, cryptocurrency is even being pushed in public schools now, which is all you need to know, to know it's a scam.

A few starter shots:

• Many people are opportunists, and do not have a philosophy beyond immediate self-interest, and that confuses the more sincere people. Which explains why so many are on the bandwagon with tyranny. They’re not all stupid and fooled by complete nonsense. They’re just siding with the dominant power, or “going with the flow.”
• People seem to easily forget everything about human nature, and that other people, particularly public figures, are pursuing their own self-interests, and they aren’t all philanthropists and humanitarians, if those beings even exist.
• People are readily confused by problems, real or manufactured, and if they aren’t, all you need to do to control them is increase the apparent complexity of the problem.

Regarding that last point, when a problem is solved, it’s over with. When a pet problem in Cuckoo-Land is solved, (we’re in Cuckoo-Land, for those asleep the last 50+ years), that’s just the beginning of it.

Your allies are mostly not your allies in Cuckoo-Land. As an example, there’s a so-called “rational, scientific” site that is nominally against the “Climate Change” kooks. But the authors continually and ineffectually run around and around, in a pathetic circle-jerk, writing nonsense articles, that they think “proves their point,” or their intelligence, assuming that pretentious rhetoric is going to win some little game in their heads. No one there has decoded the simple fact that it’s over. And when it’s over, it’s over. There has been no rise in sea level, as is demonstrable. (This is notable in Venice, where, as cited earlier, markings on piers placed hundreds of years ago show no rise in water levels!) Once it’s over, it’s over. To repeat, once it’s over, it’s over.

For those not paying attention, once it’s over, it’s over.

So what do you face, once it’s over, and it’s over? That should be the end of it, but the climatards just ignore it, and squawk endlessly, “Rising sea levels are threatening cities...”

The sham sites, authors, pundits, the “valiant opposition,” are actually the enemy. No need to name names, since it looks like all of the main ones are shams. What they must do, is stop their clowning around, and say, “Once it’s over, it’s over.” Anything more is playing to the opposition.

That enemy intends to win, against all reason. Which is to say, they’re not playing. It’s an attack, not a game.

Yes, the supposed “good guys,” are the enemy. Even if they were sincere, that would still be so, because they are aiding the greater enemy. Their wishy-washy, anemic presence acts to provide an outlet for saps to vent, and nothing more. In the worse cases (almost all of them), they’re also begging money, so draining a gullible audience that way.

The strategy is so effective, it’s a given, but it’s nothing new, and is simply called a “fifth column.”

Strategy

Strategy is something that needs to be discussed in depth, like novel approaches in warfare. Visualize a situation where some group wants to take over a nation. The usurpers would want people disarmed. As such, these bad players can always, easily, set up a situation to vilify weapons. If people can’t understand things like that, they will have trouble continuing to exist. (There has been some recent talk about “Game Theory” that is related to this subject.)

People have been tested, and found to consistently overrate their own abilities, and underrate most others. Naturally, that’s a very vulnerable position to be in, since those people are going to be easily fooled all the time, and yet still be strutting blithely down the street like John Travolta with a Bee-Gees tune whistling through his head.

Scam-O-Rama

How do you know you’re dealing with a scam?

1. Tunnel vision: Take the peculiar fact that no one ever addresses that CO₂ perhaps should be higher, leading to more plant growth (and more oxygen). Neither are the great benefits of a warmer planet, which isn’t really that warm right now anyway, ever considered. In fact, winters are miserable in Canada, the northern U.S., northern Europe, northern Russia... It’s ridiculous not to make that a consideration to be included in any debate. (Well, of course there are no sincere debates, just lip service, in Cuckoo-Land.)
2. Frenzied demands: “We must act now!” are one of the hallmarks of tyranny. (And do we need to remind anyone, we were hearing that we’d be all done for by now if we didn’t “act,” 40 years ago?)
3. Willful ignorance: All the solutions you’d ever need, already exist. We’ve covered some of them here, and no one is recognizing or utilizing them. So the ignorance is malicious and with aforethought. For example, tell a climatard about solutions, and how you’re willing to explain them, and they will remain completely uninterested, with perhaps a few of the smarter ones feigning interest, which you’ll know is phony because they won’t follow up.
4. Domineering: When goons with a bad idea get in a group, it fills their head with power. We are constantly told what the problem is and what the solutions — their solutions — will be, without a modicum of inquiry or interest in other suggestions.

Yes, indeedy. In response to the nasty illogical, “new logic,” we need a new, new logic. Old reliable logic, just doesn’t seem to cut it.

We need a new, new logic because the way we present logic now, comes too late, and seems too hard for people. This site has referenced how a “professor of logic” for 30+ years forgot all about “Straw Man”, one of the fallacies that should be among the easiest things to grasp and remember (and something he would have lectured on hundreds of times). As an example, take a pro- versus anti-gun debate, where the anti-gun participant might set up a straw man (easily mocked argument), by saying, “My opponent would have shootouts daily in the streets.”

Part of the new, new logic can be expressed as “laws,” or consistent, infallible rules that will always help keep things on track. There are also a few other tips and tools that we’ll gather along the way.

Law of Reciprocity

Yes, this one again. But it’s an important one to emphasize.

It means, “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.” So if you’re at the supermarket, and they tell you they’re out of goose sauce, say, “Oh, just give me the gander sauce, then!” If they’re out of that, too, you may have to make do with regular duck sauce.

Also called the Mirror Principle, if that helps.

Following are some examples of how this principle is not applied, illustrating the obvious injustices.

Drug Tests

This new nonsense (and new normal) with, workplace “drug tests” is insulting.

Drug tests at jobs are really submissiveness tests.

Anyone asked to take such a test should say, “Okay, but the president, CEO and chairman are all going to take one together with me.” As we’ve discussed before, the executives at your work have as much or more effect on you as you have on them, so if it’s important that you’re sober, it’s important that they’re straight, too. There does have to be a middle ground found for employees and employers and management, where all are treated with fairness and respect.

The drug tests violate another principle as well, that of “assumed innocent.” If someone does come in stoned, well, then, of course, there's evidence for suggesting a test, but otherwise, there are no grounds for their temerity.

To “Stand for Something”

If government can freeze your account, why can’t you freeze its?

If some enforcement bureau can send out drones, why can’t you send out drones on it?

The FBI itself is a group of child pornographers, and yet they justify it by saying they’re using their lawless methods to “trap the perps.” By the principle of reciprocity, it shouldn’t be allowed to continue, and its members should be arrested and jailed.

This leads us to a terrific guideline. The rule is, if you are restricted from something, so, too, must be the government operatives.

Insurance Companies

Here’s a fine example of reciprocity being ignored, and the corresponding, obvious injustice.

Cheating an insurance company is considered, “insurance fraud,” and a felony (i.e.: a criminal offense with potential jail time). If that company cheats you, it is “insurance bad faith,” a civil issue (no jail time for the actors in the insurance company), and you have to pursue the issue in court to, maybe, get your money back.

That is partly a result of “lobbyists,” exerting their influence with so-called government. They are, of course, bribers and perhaps extortionists, but called “lobbyists.”

It is only fair that insured and insurer have the same penalties and protections. Such a stark example shows how useful it would be to consistently apply reciprocity in our lives. It is a guideline not just for this one case, but for many situations.

Now “just sayin’ it won’t make it so,” but it should be a touchstone in our quest for logical, sensible systems and ways of doing business.

Consulting Companies

The consulting business is an interesting case. The employers who hire on a contract basis want the right to fire you without notice. “Clear out your desk.” Yet they go into a big liturgy about how you should give two weeks notice if you want to quit. “After all,” they say, “you want to be careful of the impression you give to another employer. Don’t want to get a bad ‛rep,’ now.”

Or, “It’s only courtesy...” “If you want to work again...”

One should be careful to examine their contracts to ensure that they are compliant to the principle of reciprocity.

Reminds me of another scum organization. It demanded full references, yet said it was, “Policy,” to not give references.

This type of “policy” is at least showing you places to avoid working at or doing business with.

As long as there are fools, they will accept, “I’m paying the money, I can do whatever I want!” from employers. Of course, it isn’t money, but materials, talent and labor that is the real value.

Counterfeit Money

There’s was a big panic going on for a while: A big deal over $100 bills being counterfeited. And they’d talk about people getting arrested, “for passing phonies.” You know how you go into a business and pay cash, and they’ll often make a big deal, hold the bill up to the light, put it in a bill tester...? So I asked at the bank if I can arrest them, at the bank, if I get a bad bill from them, either over the counter or through the ATM, and whom should I arrest? I mean, the only place I ever get hundreds is from the bank, so it must be the bank that’s passing them.

Oddly, they don’t seem to like my question or have an answer. There is a lot of confusion and stupid looks though.

The point here, is that they’re the suppliers of the currency, but it’s you that gets caught up in any backlash if they’re the ones slipping you a phony, whether by accident or otherwise. Yet you never hear of the police rushing into the bank to arrest officials there.

Law of Consistency

Consistency is seen in examples like the following:

• If something is right or wrong today then it’s the same tomorrow.
• Hypocrisy negates anyone’s argument.
• Rules are rules for everyone.
• You don’t apply justice differently depending on the person (the real meaning of, “all men are created equal,” in the U.S. Declaration of Independence).

Law of Transparency

Transparency applies most strongly to government. All governments must be structured so they are open. That means no “official secrets.” We need to be able to see what they’re doing, or how will we know if we have honesty, reciprocity or consistency?

The first objection you might hear is, “How can you run a government that can’t keep secrets? Our enemies will invade us!”

Ridiculous, because a government that keeps secrets is already the enemy!

What fact, ostensibly in the public interest, is better kept secret than exposed to the light? It’s baffling to think of anything. And it’s a farce when they try. Here’s a good one. “Oh, we have a lot of nukes as a deterrent to war!” “Oh, yeah? How many and what kind?” “How dare you! That’s a big state secret!”

The solution to the problem is trivial. To repeat, government must be structured so that it doesn’t need to have secrets. This is to say, there can be no secrets of government from its own people. You can hear further howls from the statist idiots already, so let us use an analogy.

You are an employer, a business owner. But your employees are withholding crucial information regarding your business from you. They tell you it’s necessary or they won’t be able to help run the business. So you have no idea about your finances or budget, but you have to trust them. There’s no need to carry this thought any further, it is an obviously absurd situation.

Now, government is supposed to be servant of the people, so, clearly, it can’t have any secrets. If it seems to need such, simply restructure so those secrets are not needed. There is your rule of thumb for how to organize and sustain government.

If there are times when privacy is appropriate, that area of operation will need to be excised from government, to be handled by private companies, in a competitive environment (so they keep each other honest).

Look here: Open source computer code is the most secure, because there are no secrets. Anyone can check the code and see if there’s some shady workings in those internals.

We must be able to see everything government is doing, because it is too risky if some “fifth column” sets up in government to try to take over. We can’t risk that. We can’t afford government that is opaque, and has “classified” and “top secret” documents and programs.

Law of Logic

Logic is unwavering. If a = b and b = c then a = c, forever, and that is not subject to whim.

They like to use a “law of illogic” type of attack now. Those that want to have better control over the world are now attacking the law of cause and effect (the natural law that a cause creates an effect, and an effect has a cause; that is, every action is consequent to something).

Some boob made up a bogus equation in the field of Quantum Mechanics, then turned around and said that it would work better if cause and effect didn’t apply. Or, at a deeper level, the rules of logic don’t apply.

This is the exact equivalent of you failing your math exam and telling the teacher that your answers were really correct, because the laws of arithmetic don’t apply, and 1 + 1 was really 3, not 2.

They try to turn everything on its head. And they actually do have this kind of "new math" at elementary school, where you take a guess, and no one’s answer is wrong, because you did your best and everything’s just relative and based on your feelings.

Sinister games like that seek to give the illusion of a topsy-turvy world.

The principles come first, not last; that is, they are what have to be obeyed, not fantasies.

Something interesting here: The dangerous tendency for people to wait until their pet theory is proven, stubbornly clinging to blind faith.

Also, sometimes life itself is a trickster. Something that looks wrong on the surface is sometimes later proven as fact, so why not our lame-ass ideas?

Well, here’s how to tame that time waster: You can only hold on to your fantasies when you’ve met all the other logical rules. And, before you make your claims, you need to provide a concrete example that supports your theory. The ninny that said cause-and-effect doesn’t apply because his phony formula works better without it didn’t do that. Hate to tell him, cause-and-effect is the basis for everything. If it didn’t apply, consciousness wouldn’t apply.

I’d like to see his employers apply his new theory to him. Then when he doesn’t get his paycheck and complains that he didn’t get paid for his work, his boss could tell him that cause-and-effect didn’t apply to him.

The ancient priests used to manipulate the saps by claiming that thunder was God’s wrath and all that sort of thing.

Now it’s the same game in a different wrapper. “A butterfly may flap his wings in China and cause a tornado in Alabama,” “A black hole is flying to destroy our planet!”

That ‘Chaos Theory’ idiocy is a rip-off of an old Sci-Fi story that I read as a kid, where some nitwit went on a time-travel safari in prehistoric times, stomped some pretty prehistoric insect and then came back home, but everyone was a cave-man because of his rash action which upset the environmental balance, and because of that no one could progress, and they cook him up for dinner.

Those old writers (mostly hacks, really, exploiting naïve kids), would always throw in a touch of wicked irony, where Og would burp up the shiny, pretty wing from the bug, which was still stuck to the bottom of the time-traveler’s shoe.

Even the biggest simpleton should see that the tendency of systems is to self-regulate. That’s why they are systems in the first place. No, butterfly flaps don’t cause tornadoes and earthquakes.

Laws of Reality

1. One verifiable contrary observation negates any theory.
2. One logical inconsistency completely invalidates any theory.

It only takes one. This is readily forgotten in the rush to judgment to try to make our pet idea fit the facts.

Acid Test

You must always reply the acid test to any theory or concept. “Does it make sense in the real world, empirically?”

Teachers complain about students not applying this test to the results of calculations done with an electronic calculator, a “sanity test.”

We’ve explained previously how the proponents of the Climate Change boondoggle don’t apply this test, just make arbitrary pronouncements, then conveniently forget about them when they don’t come to pass. Or, they simply lie and say they have occurred.

Law of Balance

The concept of laying out and reviewing all possibilities of an argument or concept – especially the ones you don’t like – is a skill and “life tool.” No matter one’s bias, someone should know and defend both (or all) sides of an argument, themselves, before drawing any conclusions, “looking at it from both sides,” whether you like the other side or not. That is to say, know all sides to a story.

In fact, why should anyone commit to one viewpoint when they don’t know both sides? There’s just the plain practical aspect, since there’s little worse than getting blindsided by a good argument from the other side where you don’t have a defense.

Yes, it is absolutely important to have a good grasp on all the pros and cons for any theory or argument.

Here’s the problem: We mirror the enemy, and try to “win at all costs,” ourselves. When we do that, we leave ourselves open to ready exploitation, since we don’t play the game as well as hysterical, evil aggressors. We leave all the good tools on the table. But, since those bastiches are lazy, too, if we explore both sides of the argument, we immediately have an advantage, and might be able to sneak in a win through superior knowledge.

Not a Law: “Occam’s Razor”

“Occam’s Razor” says the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. No. Because it’s usually impossible to say what is “simplest.” So it’s dangerous to use this principle. Anyway, why bother with it, when we have other, better rules to use?

So instead, we’ll formulate a real law: The Law of Best Fit.

When we don’t know the whole truth, the explanation to accept is one that best fits the facts, given the other rules.

This is reminiscent, almost a corollary, of the Sherlock Holmes adage that once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, is the truth.

You’ve probably heard of at least one saying that is also a, “law of best fit,” before: “follow the money.”

That means, in a crime, by tracing who benefits, you can find out who the perpetrators are. Look for the ones who ended up with the money or other loot, (or achieved some other benefit). It would best fit the facts of the case to assume that those are your perps.

Law of Lies

Lies and untruths tend to be easily revealed since they don’t comport to logic.

Here’s a self-contradiction they used to pull all the time, for example, “The Africans are suffering from overpopulation and food shortages.” Now, women cannot have babies if they are severely malnourished. Below a certain threshold body fat level, a woman becomes infertile. There’s no possibility of a malnourished population ever growing so vast, a physical impossibility.

Here’s where the lie wiggles out like a roach from beneath the garbage heap. They can pull all their BS and try to weasel their way out of that lie, but it’s too late at this point. Because you’d anticipate this contradiction, beforehand, if the crisis were real. Certainly it would be of interest to someone in the scientific community, how this apparent paradox could have arisen. And you’d mention it in your pitch, beforehand, because you know that anyone with half a brain would spot it, too. “Lookie here, this is fascinating — they’re starving, but you can’t have babies if you’re starving, but they’re somehow doin’ it anyways!” Is this a localized phenomenon? Does it only occur when there’s a full moon? Wow, what a chance for a lucrative research grant!

They want to have it both ways: starving because of having too many babies, but they’re all having too many babies because they're starving. They explain that each baby is a potential new worker for the family, but many of the babies they’re having will die, so they have to have a lot because of all the mortality. So they’re all dying, but they’re overpopulated anyway! The scum really run up the overtime to salvage their line of BS.

The truth is too unsavory for most. Where there is starvation, and there is some, a lot of it is artificially created by the powers-that-be to displace the native population to garner their resources. The tricks they use include arming surrounding tribes, cutting off water, killing off the tribes’ food supply by poaching the wildlife, and whatever other nefarious tricks they can devise.

Apparently the World Wildlife Fund is one of the biggest villains in this scenario. Yes, the WWF. But we shouldn’t be surprised. Most of the things we believe in our life are based on a lie. How could these scams work otherwise?

Law of Directed Self-Interest

In general, we can rely on others – groups and individuals – to pursue their own selfish self-interest.

This seems obvious, not really anything new, but it is not always understood in terms of its scale.

This is the reason why we have, or had, anti-trust (anti-monopoly) laws.

Discovery vs. Search

Not a law, but a tool for the toolbox, this one to instantly spot when someone is using faulty logic, so you know to avoid getting caught up in their smelly wake.

As an example, you’ve heard of people going out to “seek confirmation of Bible geographical sites.” Same thing for scientists, looking for “confirmation” of “black holes in space.” Those are the type of people you can never trust. If someone “seeks” something; well, of course he’s going to find it, or he’ll just rationalize, “Well, it wasn’t there, must be somewhere else!” Confirmation bias.

Even in ourselves, our own thoughts, we can never be sure if we’re indulging in wishful thinking. Just the fact of “seeking” something is enough. The correct approach is never to seek confirmation, but rather, research evidence that may lead one way or the other.

Now if someone discovers something, which occurs in the process of unbiased research, that’s a whole different ball game, but the only “seeking” anyone should be doing, is for the truth.

Are You Serious?

What does the following headline tell you? (And your first guesses will probably be wrong.)

ChatGPT Had A Public Meltdown But OpenAI Says It's Fine Now

ChatGPT, is the A.I. chatbot that’s getting a lot of press right now. The headline is a serious diddling in anthropomorphism. It’s a covert ad for OpenAI’s ChatGPT program, embedding the idea that it behaves just like humans (“having a meltdown”). Immensely stupid headline, but it works — and what happens? You might still hold that misconception in mind, even after being told about it!

In the new, new logic, we’re wise to tricks like this. To decode, one simply works from the conviction that everything they feed you in media is a lie or deception of some kind, then does a little digging to uncover exactly what line of BS they’re working from this time.

←Prev Article Navigation Next Article→