The Conspiracy Wiki
Advertisement

The theory of corporate media control by false flag groups and controlled oppositions is the theory that corporations use groups that imitate different claims that are not actually related to trick the statistical methodology into falsely assuming them to be related. According to the theory, this is used as a way to use the ethics of supposedly "independent" media as means of corporate control over them. Big Gun is the biggest corporate complex, and statisticians are stupid as shown here.

To keep capitalism's strings outside one's mind and avoid being a puppet of capitalism requires categorical rejection of the association fallacy. To claim that "I generally do not assume that claims are linked merely because the same people express them, but there are some exceptions" cannot absolve you from being a capitalist puppet. One "exception" is enough for Big Business to create a false flag group that express that "exception" and also imitate important criticisms of capitalism. Corporations can send shills that claim to have one view to movements and people who say something unrelated, so anyone who buys the claim that an idea must not be expressed because "it attracts people with another, bad idea" is a lackey of capitalism's hushing of unprofitable ideas.

The allegation that employees would "blow the whistle" if the corporations used such techniques misses the point that corporations can order employees with financial problems who cannot afford losing their jobs to do the trolling or else getting fired. Then those used as trolls can no longer blow the whistle, since if they were exposed as having written the trolling they would be labelled as racist/sexist/<insert -ist or -phobe of the week here>. Because of the stupid assumptions of "individual human agency" held by those alleging that employees would blow the whistle, those threats of -ism/-phobia allegations would keep the employees from blowing the whistle even if and when their economic vulnerability ceased. The reason why theories of capitalist lobbyism are not "hypocrisy" when rejecting association fallacies, as well as how corporations can virtue-signallingly fire and replace the physical persons directly giving the trolling orders without stopping the trolling activity, is explained here.

Ways of manipulating statistics[]

The ethics of official media organizations that are claimed by the organizations to keep them "independent" can instead make them easier for corporations to effectively control. This applies especially to ethics that demand that views that "statistically correlate" with views that are considered unethical by media or are absurd should be avoided by statistical association, since it is easy for large corporations with large lobby sectors to create false flag groups that imitate logical criticisms of the corporations or of organizations backed by the corporations while also spewing absurd and/or unnecessarily violent nonsense.

If the media organizations ignore the fact that the nonsense does not follow logically from the logical criticisms, but merely claim things such as "they are obviously linked because they statistically correlate" or "do not use those arguments if you do not want to be associated with the other things the same groups say", it makes said media organizations especially easy for big corporations to tie strings on through false flag group trolling without even formally owning lobbyists in the media organizations that they effectively control. And of course, the claim that "your arguments could have been taken more seriously if people like you had not expressed them together with those bad ideas" is a fallacy that misses the point that corporations can create the groups that say both and that their classification as "people like you" is an association fallacy.

The claim that the statistical methodology "filters out errors" misses the point that since the statistical methodology deals in quantity and ignores the quality, it is easy for Big Business to manufacture statistics. In the case of views, statistics practice quantity over quality by counting how many people claims to have that-or that view and crunches quantitative "correlates" while ignoring the quality which is the content of the arguments. With the vastness of Big Business lobbyism, corporate shills dominate statistics with claims of having views that the corporations profit from tricking institutions into treating as if they were "linked" for suppressive purposes. That makes statistics filter out what is real and only listen to what the corporations profit from it to listen to. Thus, statistics is not a "necessary filter against nonsense", but a corporate shilling system that blocks out everything that is not nonsense and only listens to corporate nonsense. This includes the corporate claim of its shilling being "society" somehow magically outside corporate control, as shown in corporate control over psychiatry.

Falsifiability without statistics but with specific predictions[]

The claim that "statistical evidence is the best evidence" is wrong and essentially retarded. Hypotheses and theories that make clear predictions that can be falsified by a single observation are truly scientific. To claim that "if you say that big corporations can control statistics through lobbyism, you imply that they could fake any data point" misses the point that hypotheses and theories can make predictions about data points outside capitalist control. Observations recorded in physical books written before crony capitalist control can be used as empirical evidence to test falsifiable hypotheses and theories without involving corporately controlled contemporary statistics. So yes, theories that involve capitalist control over all contemporary statistics can still be falsifiable.

Not all data recorded after capitalist control corrupted society need to be useless either. If a hypothesis or theory makes sufficiently specific predictions, methods as blunt as statistics cannot fake the data points at the specified resolution. The principle is the same as the fact that a counterfeiter without a microscope can forge letters a few millimeters high, but not letters a few micrometers high. So testing hypotheses and theories with really specific data in the raw observations made before statistical processing allows the scientific method to use even data collected during the crony capitalist era. Such specific data tends to be lost to "standardization" in the final publications, especially if the publications are peer reviewed, but can be found among the raw data prior to publication.

Historical data escaping shoehorning into bell curves[]

Data about specific historical events can also be found in recently published books, provided that one reads the empirical accounts of the events and not assumptions about "psychological mechanisms" that have been added. This is possible since the information about specific historical events is not shoehorned into normal distributions. Such data can be useful for testing hypotheses and theories that make specific predictions. For example, there is a theory of the inborn understanding that information retains its meaning regardless of who utters it as a necessary condition for the capacity for culture, as such retention of meaning is necessary for those who have learned the information to pass it further on after the creator of the information is dead so that information can accumulate into culture.

This theory predicts that culture can only survive as long as those who view the same utterances as equal no matter who utters them are in charge, and therefore that rulers who find the same words acceptable or offensive depending on who uses them should cause societal collapse. This theory not only predicts current identity politics to portend collapse within a few decades of the rise of such identity politics, but also for historical antecedents. As Ramses III cursed the Sea Peoples to burn if they mentioned Egypt's name in their countries (while accepting that Egyptians uttered Egypt's name), the fact that Late Bronze Age civilization in Egypt and the entire East Mediterranean region collapsed under his rule is a falsification test that the theory survived. If civilization had not collapsed under such a ruler, the theory would be falsified, so it is falsifiable. It predicts collapse in the near future, but since its prediction runs on decades it does not predict that modern civilization should already have collapsed.

The reason why the theory predicts a lag from "word privilege" takeovers to societal collapse spanning a few decades is because the mechanism is about information transfer between generations. It therefore only applies to the loss of information on new generations, not deletion of the memories of those who have already learned information. Rulers would impose their ability (or lack thereof) on the institutions that maintain the transfer of information by firing those with fundamentally different views of information from the ruler, explaining why one ruler generation can collapse society provided that the ruler lives long enough to live through a generation turnover in the information-carrying institutions. For a species with longer or shorter generation times than humans, the theory predicts different lag spans, but still a link between "word privilege" and societal collapse. And, in the case of populations where everyone views words differently depending on who utters them, no culture at all.

Measurements of political views omit what is upstream of parties[]

The studies that claim to show that search algorithms do not influence political views are framed to ask the question as one of "party sympathies", e.g. Democrat or Republican in the case of United States elections. That causes the questionnaires to miss controls upstream of parties such as corporate lobbyism. The corporations are hostile to reason, and as such have incentives to keep logical reason out of all political organizations. By their huge budgets and heavy investment in creating questionnaires, the market analysis departements of big corporations can spew out questionnaires that control all sorts of debates, including political ones, upstream of battles between "groups" within the misframed debates that corporations mislead idiots to fight over.

In the case of political debate control, it is not about "choosing sides" between parties that have already somehow determined their views outside corporate control. It is about controlling both parties or political blocs in every polarized debate to split logical chains of reason into segments where some of the logical steps are labelled as "leftist" while other logical steps are labelled as "rightist", so that weorthemtards in both parties label the fullness of the logical reason as "propaganda from the other party". Internet search algorithms do not need to "choose sides" between "right" and "left" to suppress reason. They only need to classify "right" and "left" as separate "interests", uprating them both in their "statistically purer" forms while downrating "mixed" websites (which all logical reason websites without partisan quibble get labelled as) for being alleged "link farms".

Why "neo-Nazi" trolls started denying the Holocaust in the 1970s, not earlier[]

In European countries where Holocaust denial is illegal, it was criminalized in the 1970s or later, not just after WWII despite the fact that the Holocaust was known well outside Germany even when it was ongoing. The official reason for the delay says that it was in the 1970s that neo-Nazi groups started denying the Holocaust and became a problem. But that contradicts the claim that neo-Nazis denying the Holocaust is about people denying crimes committed by their own group because of "human nature", as there were neo-Nazis between 1946 and 1969 too. Why, if it was about "groupthink in human nature", did those early neo-Nazis not deny the Holocaust? Explaining it away by saying that "neo-Nazism became worse over time" contradicts the "progressive" claim of racism decreasing over time.

One thing that can explain the delay is the increase of lobbyism explained below, since corporate offices capable of lobbyism grew explosively during the deindustrialisation after 1970. Corporatocracy attempts to lump anything it labels as so-called "white supremacism", including criticism of bureaucracy in the name of "equality" in which the criticism of bureaucracy has nothing to do with skin color, with Holocaust denial since history books about the Holocaust are a gold mine of counter-examples to the allegations of "privilege" under which corporatocratic "affirmative action" operates.

Many smart scientists were Holocaust survivors, in agreement with the fact that thinking must function during danger to one's life to evolve given the nutrient cost and contrary to the claim that "experiences of racial persecution" depresses intelligene. The fact that Jews and Slavs were victims of Nazi genocide is a counter-example to corporatocracy's so-called "progressive" allegation of Jews and Slavs being "privileged whites". That is part of the reason why corporatocracy created troll groups claiming to be both neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers in the 1970s, not earlier when corporations did not have the lobby muscles to troll all political groups with quantity over quality.

Another part is that corporations want to divert people who have noticed that there is something really wrong with society into attacking other things than capitalism, and neo-Nazi groups are controlled oppositions that tries to fool people into attacking jews instead of capitalism. Laws against Holocaust denial are created not to curb Holocaust denial, but as an attempt to trick people who question everything into joining the Nazi controlled opposition. Capitalism can stage selective bans to give a false appearance of an "agenda". For example, banning Holocaust denial but not moon landing denial may simply be an attempt to trick people who suspect that there is something suspicious about laws against claims into a controlled opposition such as Nazism, to prevent such people from criticizing capitalism itself. Pointing out that suspicion against legislated worldviews is not "an agenda" is not to deny that the Holocaust happened. And the claim that criticism of antisemitism "legitimizes" antisemitism is capitalist bullshit to silence criticisms of antisemitism that may inform critical thinkers that Nazism is bunk and that capitalism is the real problem.

To fight corporatocracy, do not "choose sides" in its false dichotomy. So-called "sceptics" claiming that Holocaust denial requires a belief in a "Jewish conspiracy" contradict themselves because the "sceptics" believe in "cognitive biases". If you can believe in that, you can believe that all humans have a "cognitive bias" to think the Holocaust happened. A Holocaust denier dismissing all evidence of the Holocaust as "results of universal human cognitive biases" would not be more absurd than the "sceptics" claiming that humans are "universally biased" to believe in any number of things that the "sceptics" themselves do not believe in. The absurdity of the chronology, that the Holocaust happened much later than "sceptics" claim that human "cognitive biases" evolved, is not different in principle from other absurd chronologies that the "sceptics" believe in. For instance, "sceptics" claim that "dyslexia" is a domain-specific problem with written language at the same time as they claim that "human nature" is much older than written language.

Why lobbyism have increased and not decreased[]

Since a larger service sector allows more lobbyism, big corporations actually have more power in postindustrial service sector capitalism than they ever had in industrial capitalism. A HR consultant, marketeer or market analyst can shill during his or her working hours, which an industrial worker that actually makes something cannot. This clearly debunks the claim that "society have improved in the direction that people in general want in recent decades since that is where people pull society", as the growth of the service sector have increased, not decreased, corporate potential for lobbying and false-flagging in all sorts of organizations. Pharmaceutical corporations today can afford many times more lobbyists and paid trolls than tobacco corporations possibly could in the 1940s or 1950s.

This makes today's corporations more similar to preindustrial trade houses, and today's situation more similar to the corrupting trade house lobbyism that caused many ancient civilizations to collapse than to the industry-based interwar era. This shows how retarded it is to claim that "people who think it is meaningless to vote today would have allowed the Nazis to gain power by not voting if they had lived in the interwar era", since someone who concludes that all political parties are puppets of corporations today based on the huge service sector's potential for lobbyism would have reached a different conclusion in an era when corporations were busy actually making things. Jobs with deadlines and fixed working hours existed in administrative jobs in the Roman Empire, especially the late stages of it, and did not begin with industrialization without antecedent. The fact that fixed working hours have not disappeared during the transition to service sector is evidence enough that industrialism is not responsible for fixed working hours and deadlines.

Psychiatry that claims to "follow what society decides" is easily controlled by corporations through their HR capitalism as a method of engineering false "social groups" to pass capitalist persecution of sapience off as "what society wants". Everything beyond the corporations that imitates the corporations under the pretense that "private corporations are efficient" acts as lackeys and lackey organizations that help corporations create a false appearance of corporate bullshit being "culturally universal" by copypasting it outside the corporations. This includes, but is not restricted to, new public management. With such lackeys around, the corporations can introduce any persecution of intelligent life they find profitable in their service sector such as HR, and lots of organizations that stupidly worship corporations will imitate that persecution of intelligence. The methodology that assumes that "it is not a corporate construct because it is also applied outside the corporations" that misses the point that said organizations copy the corporations will then idiotically mistake corporate constructs for "human nature".

With multi-layered lobbyism schemes such as controlled oppositions expanding with a growing service sector, a simple measure of the number of direct lobbyists in political organizations do not give the full picture of lobbyism growing. For example, the claim that "academia can obviously resist Big Oil because academic consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is real" misses the point that this have not stopped the increase of greenhouse gas emissions and that "global warming denial" may be a false flag used by Big Oil as an enemy picture to promote profitable travel to climate conferences, including private jets. So the whole climate politics thing is profitable for Big Oil, meaning that academia's alleged "resistance to Big Oil" is no resistance at all.

The temporary decrease in greenhouse gas emissions during the Kyoto accord years was actually caused by a crash of Russia's economy that decreased Russian CO2 emissions. That was more than a temporary financial crisis, it did away with most of the remaining industries from the Soviet era that post-Soviet capitalism had retained on the Russian side of the border and reduced Russia's economy to the essentially third world economy it is today though those across the Ukrainian border lasted until the 2022 invasion, but only by being outside Russian control. All the countries that remained rich kept increasing their total greenhouse gas footprints if emissions from production in other countries of consumer goods that one's own country imports is included. This means that the claim that "Western climate politics reduced global warming" is bullshit.

Big Tech can use puppets that claim to be pedophiles to market their surveillance by the name of "fighting child sexual abuse on the Internet". The claim that pedophiles possess thousands of hours of child pornography and still keep trading it for more child porn instead of money is not plausible, since nobody needs that much porn for personal use. The European Union claims that its recently proposed law of passing all digital communication through a digitalized child abuse detector would only aim surveillance at child sexual abuse, but that claim is obvious nonsense since AIs cannot even distinguish a human from a gorilla. Capitalist crony media attempted to make the AI's inability to distinguish humans from gorillas a question of "structural racism" by primarily reporting about the AI mistaking black people for gorillas, but the fact that an old white woman was mistaken for a gorilla too shows that the AI's inability to distinguish humans from gorillas is general.

Since humans and gorillas are two completely different species, AIs miss even obvious biological differences. So it is not merely about the fact that nobody can distinguish a 17 year old from a 18 year old, it is an AI miss of differences that are obvious to humans which probably means that an AI cannot even distinguish a 10 year old from a 30 year old. The fact that gorillas have fur also implies that AIs that cannot tell humans apart from gorillas are useless nudity detectors, along with the fact that clothed children can be sexually abused too and that there are non-sexual depictions of nudity such as those in scientific biology books. So if you believe that an AI can filter all digital communication and only aim surveillance at child sexual abuse, you are stupid. An AI would obviously make lots of false detections because of its very lousy overall resolution.

Big Pharma outgrowing Big Tobacco is an example of one sector of capitalism outgrowing another. Such shifts do not change the fact that Big Business is after profit by all means, it is just that the biggest sectors demonize criticisms more effectively by possessing more lobbyism. The reason why media demonize criticisms of pharmaceutical corporations more than they ever demonized criticisms of tobacco corporations is because pharmaceutical corporations can lobby more than tobacco corporations ever could, not because pharmaceutical corporations are better than tobacco corporations (they are not). So big corporations have increased their power in recent decades, not decreased it. And as a result, the problem of corporations corrupting society for profit is worse today, not mitigated.

Parkinson's inefficiency coefficient and today's governments[]

Committees with more than 20 or 21 members cannot efficiently make decisions. C Northcote Parkinson documented in the 1950s that countries with more than 21 ministers in their governments were all totalitarian, usually communist, and that the governments did not have the true power in those countries. In the case of communist countries, the true power lay in the communist parties. Today, countries do not present their numbers of ministers in their governments as simple numbers, but counting the ministers one by one can be used to reveal the true number. It turns out that in Sweden, the number of ministers in the government is 24 which is above the inefficiency coefficient. The number of ministers in more supposedly "democratic" governments should be counted too.

So in Sweden, and in any "democratic" countries with 22 or more ministers in the government, the government no longer has the power. Given that there is no Communist one party state in such countries, the true power must be sought elsewhere. Given the increasing lobbyism, it is reasonable to suspect that big corporations play the role in today's "democratic" countries that the Communist party played in the Soviet Union in C Northcote Parkinson's day. This may be a result of corporations with increasing lobbying power first lobbying to increase the number of ministers above the Parkinson inefficiency coefficient to make states mere playthings of corporations, and then using the governments as puppets once that number was reached.

The reason why governments do not publish their numbers of ministers as a simple number may be because the corporations have lobbied against such publication to make it more difficult to count and compare the number of ministers. That may serve the purpose of giving a false appearance of "democratic" countries being truly democratic and of the state having the power, to conceal the fact that corporations have the power. If you have counted the number of ministers in another current government, please feel free to add the number here.

In the case of countries that frequently change their number of ministers but always keep the number above a certain level, ranges can be given. For example, the United Kingdom has more than a hundred ministers in its government. That is far above the inefficiency coefficient, and neatly illustrates C Northcote Parkinson's point that governments that have passed the inefficiency coefficient no longer resists further increases of the number of ministers on the grounds that it wastes more time since the entire meeting is already a waste of time if the member count exceeds the inefficiency coefficient.

In some cases, government powerlessness is covered up by inofficial status of some officials who are part of the meeting to make their number appear lower than it actually is. For example, in the United States the cabinet has 16 official members (the vice president plus 15 "secretaries", i.e. ministers by another name). But there are also an additional 10 members of the cabinet that take part in the meetings as de facto ministers, placing the meeting size at 25 or 26 members which is above the Parkinson inefficiency coefficient.

In the European Union, both the European Council and the European Commission have one member from each European Union member state. Since the European Union has 27 member states, this places both the European Council and the European Commission above the inefficiency coefficient. Ironically but perhaps not coincidentally, the media started to claim that European Union politics is "important" precisely when the European Union's expansion caused the number of members to rise above the Parkinsonian inefficiency coefficient and rendering the council and the commission de facto powerless. It is possible that the reason why media started depicting everything as political and consider politics the main division of people when governments became powerless is because corporate control over both media and politics makes the corporations push their drive to increase corporate control by extending corporate puppet politics into as many aspects of life as possible onto media. In this way, those believing that it is "necessary" to be political or that "one cannot choose to not be political" are lackey sheep brainwashed by corporations.

Neolithic democracies were much older than modern democracies, and they disappeared[]

The claim that "people in democracies pull society towards better and stabler democracies over time" also cannot explain what happened to Neolithic democracies. During the Neolithic, there was a period of about a thousand years after the origin of early cities before the first signs of palaces, monarchies or aristocracies appear in the archaeological record. During this time, cities typically had a city square surrounded by common households and smaller buildings rather than a palace at their center. This architectural pattern is known from early democracies in later recorded history from the Iron Age, but not from any autocracies or aristocracies from any era in recorded history.

The duration of Neolithic democracies of about a thousand years place them at about four to five times the age of the oldest modern democracies which are only about 200 to 250 years old. So if democracies improved and became stabler "because people pull society that way", how could democracies so much older than any modern democracies be replaced by the absolute monarchies that later dominated the Bronze Age? If you think today's democracies are so vastly better at preserving themselves than those of the interwar era less than a hundred years ago, how do you explain that democracies 750 to 800 years older could possibly fail?

Why mutually contradictory human rights destroy democracy from within[]

One theory that can explain why it happened is Limitation of law by means of damned if you do and damned if you don't. Accumulation of long lists of human rights leads to situations in which obeying one human rights law automatically violates another human right, classifying everything as "crimes against humanity". Corporate lobbyism using "social justice" movements as puppets to divide and rule against actual criticisms of capitalism largely explains why such limitations of law already exists. Based purely on the longevity of Neolithic democracy, it could otherwise seem inexplicable that numerous examples of damned if you do and damned if you don't that label advocacy of a law as one form of discrimination and abolitionism of the same law as another "ism" or "phobia" have appeared in the 2010s and early 2020s. But corporate lobbyism explains the accelerated ageing of modern democracy.

It is no coincidence that the "social justice" activists that believe that "good people can balance different human rights" are exactly those that most often get accused by each other of every "ism" and "phobia" in the book because of each other's advocacy of different rights. One famous example is that feminists like J K Rowling get accused of transphobia while those accusing them of being TERFs get accused of misogyny, but there are more examples. Those for age restrictions on genital surgery get accused of transphobia and those against such age restrictions get accused of intersexphobia. Those remembering that Jews suffered the highest per capita rate of being murdered during the Holocaust get accused of racism against black people, and those saying that black people have always been the most persecuted group get accused of Holocaust denial. So no matter what you are for or against, limitation of law will always get you with "bigot" labels.

Crony capitalism can use false flag publications that claim to point out that different human rights contradict each other but focus one-sidedly on contradictions between rights to cultural tradition and women's rights, as a way of silencing discussions about other contradictions between human rights. The crony capitalist system then writes bullshit publications claiming that "contradictions between different human rights do not exist because the West have not always respected them and does not demand rights of other cultures that it does not demand of itself", as if conflict between cultural heritage and gender equality was the only human rights collision. Of the allegations mentioned in the section above, none is older than WWII and only the allegation of Holocaust denial predates the turn of the millennium. And even that was not a contradiction between two allegations of discrimination before its antagonistic allegation of "color-blind racism" existed. Most cases in point that human rights contain the seeds of their own destruction do not involve old cultural heritage, but are instead collisions between modern allegations of "discrimination". Human rights contradict themselves.

The false dichotomy between claiming that the Nuremberg trial only used charges that were already laid down during the trial of Peter von Hagenbach in 1474 and denying that anyone could be convicted despite superior orders before the Nuremberg trial is another example. Peter von Hagenbach was convicted for allowing his troops to commit a number of crimes including murder, rape and perjury and the court did not accept his following of the orders of the Duke of Burgundy as a defense. However, the list of charges against Peter von Hagenbach was much shorter than that during the Nuremberg trial. Slavery, use of child soldiers, non-lethal torture and extermination of people of a different religion are examples of acts that were prosecuted during the Nuremberg trial but not during the trial of Peter von Hagenbach. And that is not even mentioning the extensions of definitions of peacetime crimes against humanity that have accelerated in the 2000s.

Crony capitalism may use a controlled opposition that claims to deny pre-Nuremberg convictions for following orders as a way of concealing the increasing number of contradictions between different human rights. It is dubious if an extremely weakened empire can be considered an international organization, especially if it has a strong unifying religious authority as the Holy Roman Empire had in the Pope at the time of the Hagenbach trial which hapened before the Reformation. A unifying religious authority is in sharp contrast to international organizations in the modern sense.

As no tribunal at the time considered it a crime to persecute non-Catholics on the Pope's behalf, the court's decision to not accept superior orders as a defense should be put into the context that the order came from a Duke (a secular authority) as opposed to the Pope and that both perpetrators and victims were Catholics. It also happened in the context of a morality different from capitalism's, considering "demonic possession" aggravating instead of extenuating as shown here. This also explains why the question of superior orders was first brought up in court again in the 1900s, though convictions following the Boer War and WWI shows that such convictions existed before the Nuremberg trial (further discrediting crony capitalism's false dichotomy between the myth of legal continuity with the Hagenbach trial and the myth that no such convictions existed before Nuremberg).

The trials of British war criminals after the Boer war dismissed the superior orders defense on the grounds that it could not be proven that a superior order existed for the prosecuted acts, thus not settling the question of whether or not superior orders was a valid defense. The first modern context convictions for acts where evidence of superior orders existed happened during the trials against German war criminals upon World War I. While this predates the Nuremberg trial (and was referred to as a precedent during it), there was a gap spanning more than 400 years between the Hagenbach trial and those trials. A law that has not been used for more than 400 years is obsolete by a wide margin. The one similarity between the trial of Peter von Hagenbach and the war crime trials after both World Wars that was applied continuously during the centuries separating them is the use of the death penalty. So if you think similarities between the trial of Peter von Hagenbach and war crime trials in the 20th century that did not become obsolete during the centuries in between should be observed as a precedent, what you promote is the death penalty and not conviction of acts that obeyed superior orders.

Also, the modern examples of peacetime "crimes against humanity" involve collisions between different internationally recognized human rights and not only between national orders and international law. That means that the claim that "conscientious objectors can apply for refugee status if they would be convicted for disobeying orders if they did not violate human rights" misses the point that obeying one human right violates another human right today.

International law permitting additions of new peremptory norms (jus cogens) is a road to international law collapsing under its self-contradictions, as it leads to two or more total bans on derogation contradicting each other. Practical examples can arise for already existing conventions, such as pirates liberating slaves highlighting the conflict between the ban on slavery and the ban on piracy. The ban on execution of criminals who were under 18 years when the crime was committed, as well as the International Crime Court's rule of not prosecuting war criminals who committed their war crimes before they turned 18, runs into issues with defining the precise moment at which a person turns 18. This is due to things such as time zones and the fact that the time zone in which a crime is committed is not necessarily the same time zone in which the delinquent was born. It is also unclear how the rule against refoulement could possibly be applied in a global disaster situation in which no safe countries exist, and how not committing one genocide could possibly not be another genocide in itself in a future in which not enough food for everyone exists. And then there is the possibility of future additions of new jus cogens and their mutual collisions.

This means that anyone who believes himself or herself to defend democracy can be labelled as an "anti-democrat" by others who also believe themselves to defend democracy. One effect of this is that people who intend to fight for democracy mistake each other for people who fight against democracy, causing such movements to hallucinate about an "anti-democratic alliance" that does not exist. This adds more fantasy monsters that crony capitalist bureaucracy claims to be "necessary for fighting back against" in addition to capitalism's directly controlled false flag movements. Capitalism may well lobby for mutually exclusive human rights for the purpose of making the movements that believe themselves to fight for democracy do the false-flagging job for them without additional lobbying costs. The result of that limitation of law is a situation where the fight against alleged "enemies of democracy", by its own missing foresight causing it to fail to predict the consequences of motive-assuming accusations, becomes a worse terror than any regime with coherent goals could possibly be.

Those who claim that "good people know the balance of the right punishment and/or forensic psychiatric treatment to give justice without excessive cruelty" miss the point that there are hardly two people who draw the line in exactly the same place. So if everyone checks everyone's "goodness" by checking their views on "justice" with both labels as "cruel sadists" if they are for "excessive punishment" and with labels as "defender of horrible criminals" if they are for "too mild" punishment, everyone will label everyone else as a "psychopath" on one count or another. This effect is increased by disagreements on purely word formal things such as whether to call the confinement areas "prisons" or "closed psychiatric wards" and whether to call those placed there without the choice to leave "prisoners" or "patients". The result is the Robespierre effect, in which those believing that they do good get labelled as evil by the rules they wrote themselves and get purged as a result.

The Robespierre effect is mischaracterized by crony capitalist psychology as meaning "extreme hatred that disregards the effect that it will backfire on oneself". A correct description of the Robespierre effect that follows Occam's razor by not invoking redundant "psychological mechanisms" that would only waste nutrients is that the Robespierre analogs do what they do out of a belief that it is "ethically necessary" to prevent those they are persecuting from allegedly doing something even worse. According to the correct characterization, Robespierreoids genuinely lack the brain capacity to understand that they will themselves be labelled as what they consider "evil" or "dangerous". The Robespierreites believe themselves to "have the ability to balance different rights" because they lack the foresight to understand that mutually contradictory rights cannot be balanced, for the same reason as those who believe that people with good mathematical skills can solve the Seven Bridges of Königsberg believe that because they lack the reasoning skills to understand that the problem is unsolvable.

And of course, a prison by any other name relies on the same infrastructure for things such as delivering food and water to residents who are not free to leave and search for it themselves, for repairing structural failures in the building to keep the unfree residents in, for keeping personnel there which in turn relies on more supplies being delivered, for the upkeep of security systems and so on. These requirements are the same, and toll on the same resources when crises make the scarcity of resources obvious, no matter if you call it a prison or a psychiatric ward.

One way that people who initially were all opponents of capital punishment can start do disagree on the death penalty is by supply chain failures in which not all unfree residents can be fed without being let out of the building to search for their own food. This makes it possible for some of the personnel to argue that it is cruel starvation torture to let more unfree residents that must be kept in for the safety of others live until they starve to death than there is food for. And the incompetence of the "ethicists" that are too stupid to understand that they are doing a Robespierre may well be the cause of the supply chain failure that causes the dilemma in the first place.

Organizations that divert criticism from corporations[]

Organizations other than the corporations themselves that the corporations have incentives to back include, for example, "social justice" movements that only aim their classifications of people that they tell to "check their privilege" at groups that the persons in question would have belonged to even if they were not on the company boards and never consider "members in the company boards" a group in itself. Such movements act in the capitalist interest of big corporations by diverting criticisms from the corporations as systems and capitalism itself and instead focus on replacing physical persons in company boards based on group classifications that have zero relevance to the capitalist system.

With so many "social justice" movements, why none for sapience?[]

Given the massive number of group classifications that "intersectionality" operates with, its failure to even mention sapience as a ground for discrimination really stands out. The theory that intersectional-type "social justice" movements are tools for capitalism and not oppositions against it can explain this glaring omission as a result of capitalism having an incentive to gain as many non-sapient stupid consumers classified as "people" as possible to profitably sell useless garbage and even more useless sinecural "services" to, while persecuting sapients because being sapient entails the possibility of thinking of other ways of living outside the capitalistically profitable consumerist wheel.

This means that the claim that contemporary definitions of "human being" reflect a truth about what groups can fight for their own rights is bullshit. If capitalism finds it profitable to extend personhood to parrots in the future, and have not collapsed by then against all evidence of an imminent collapse of digitalized society, capitalist lobby organizations will train parrots to imitate "social justice" phrases that capitalist lobbyists have modified to refer to parrots. The result is that the parrots will utter the phrases. Then the same organizations that previously claimed that "parrots are not people because they do not fight for their own rights" will claim that "parrots were people all along and suffered in silence until social justice movements recently allowed them to express their perspectives".

The fact that "listening to who demands their own rights" cannot distinguish intelligent life from non-intelligent life does not mean that there is no way to distinguish intelligent life from non-intelligent life. Intelligent life can be distinguished from unintelligent life by running scenarios on what types of behavior are capable of supporting testing of hypotheses and cultural evolution, and of whether or not a mechanism that is claimed to produce said behavior "under some circumstances" make evolutionary sense. This is explained here. Since it is the actual effects of the brains that determine whether or not technological civilization is created and maintained, not quotas in population percentages around an "average", the brains and behaviors must be measured in absolute numbers and not in "standard deviations", see here and here. Just as fruit flies would not start creating technological civilizations just because all animals with bigger brains than fruit flies dies out, it is idiotic to claim that a fixed population percentage are "geniuses" regardless of brain capacity in absolute numbers.

Why controlled oppositions do not criticize capitalism[]

Since the corporations have no interest in spreading coherent criticisms of the corporations, the controlled pseudo-oppositions used as false flag organizations by the corporations are actually predicted by this theory to claim that "groups" other than the corporations as institutions are the problem, just different "groups" than the organizations backed by the corporations do. At least in their corporately generated nonsense, though they also imitate some quotes from rational criticism without coherently integrating it with the nonsense as a way to trick any media or other entity that relies on statistics and not logical coherence analysis into falsely associating them.

For example, a controlled pseudo-opposition such as Nazis with their "jews are the problem" nonsense is just as big a diverter of criticism from the corporate system as the publicly corporately backed intersectional feminist "men are the problem" nonsense, as neither points out that capitalism and big corporations are the problem. They both claim to be able to solve the problem by merely replacing physical persons within the capitalist system (or "mitigate" the problem, as they say as an euphemism when they straw man accuse critics of being "utopists"). And when media starts to have difficulties understanding that criticisms of capitalism are in fact criticisms of capitalism, and instead claims by association fallacy that people who criticize capitalism "must obviously" do so as a "rationalization" of a movement that does not actually criticize the big corporations as systems, such media becomes tools for corporate demonization of critics of capitalism.

By controlling both sides of a polarized debate, the corporations can easily order one side to commit more violence than the other. This is simply a way of making it look as is the puppets were the agents, and false allegations of "balance fallacies" when pointing out the similarities are capitalist ways to commit the "one puppet makes more damage than the other, therefore they cannot be under the same control" fallacy. This becomes clear when the controlled oppositions contradict their own premises while agreeing with definitions that their alleged opponents use to claim the controlled oppositions to have "covert arguments". For example, neo-Nazi organizations contradict their Nazi premise when claiming to support multinational white supremacy since Hitler's identity politics was German identity politics and not worldwide white identity politics.

For Hitler, preserving Germans mattered a thousand times more than preserving British, French or American people. Hitler classified Slavs as subhuman and considered it silly of American white supremacists to be shocked over Japan's victory over Russia in 1904 - 1905. Hitler viewed it as merely one group of "subhumans" defeating another group of "subhumans", with no relevance to the alleged superiority of the Germans. Also, Hitler did not care about what the Japanese would do to "white" Australians if and when Japan conquered Australia.

The scale of sizes of identity politics can be extrapolated even further down. For example, a movement that wanted to preserve one particular inbred village in its inbred state would have no motive to oppose immigration on a national scale or advocate segregation of skin colors, as they would view intermarriage with people from the next village as exactly as big a threat as intermarriage with people from a different continent. This is one example against the false dichotomy fallacy "if you do not support woke identity politics, you are for white identity politics". There are more examples against that fallacy, including non-regressionist genetics.

Misunderstanding what Panglossianism means[]

Dismissing the points above by saying things such as "I also wish that we lived in the best of worlds" misses the point that Panglossianism (the claim that we live in the best of worlds) is not the same thing as the claim that the world is perfect. Panglossianism is the claim that the world would be worse if it was not exactly as it is, that the world is the best possible world. This means that the claim that "the world is not perfect, but it would be even worse without intersectional organizations that tell groups of physical persons to check their privilege instead of fighting corporations" is Panglossian, even if it is ignorantly claimed to be anti-Panglossian.

Why political spectra are bullshit[]

Why the left-right spectrum is nonsense[]

Classifications of political spectra are nonsense created by capitalism to keep people fighting over nonsense instead of criticizing capitalism. For example, the left-right political spectrum is bullshit. For instance, corporations control the state through lobbyism, so the question "should private corporations or the state decide that?" is a nonsense question that means "should really big private corporations decide that or should really big private corporations decide that?".

Claims of political "right" trolls posing as "left" or political "left" trolls posing as "right" are themselves diversions created by corporations. The real trolling is commercial, not political in any "left/right" sense. The whole "left-right political debate" is stageplay staged by capitalism, which also explains why no such "debate" existed before the capitalist system existed. The capitalist trolls pose some of their trolling as "right trolling left" and/or "left trolling right" to make the sheep believe that the "left" and "right" categories capitalism made up as diversions are the actual groups,. This is staged part as distraction and part to make both sheep that claim to be "left" assume criticism of capitalism to be "right-wing trolling" and sheep that claim to be "right" assume criticism of capitalism to be "left-wing trolling".

Another reason why the left-right political spectrum is nonsense is that "left" in the political sense refers to republicanism during the French revolution and "right" refers to monarchism during the French revolution. That refers to the literal placement of members in the assembly. Since the "right" of the French Revolution advocated constitutional monarchy and there were no members advocating for reinstatement of absolute monarchy present, "right wing" does not exist. It was also a one-issue yes or no question, republic (left) or constitutional monarcy (right), so the whole concept of treating "political left" and "political right" as a spectrum or apply it to more than one question is nonsense. Those called "the swamp" during the French Revolution, sometimes said to have been "centrist", were just a placement for those who did not consider the question of monarchy or republic important. That did not preclude them being engaged in other questions, nor was the reason for them considering the question of monarchy or republic unimportant the same for all of them.

If you talk about "redefining left and right for a current context", why only left and right? Why not Plantagenets or Austro-slavists? If you say that "those examples are not modern", it is true for Plantagenets. But Austro-slavists were more recent than the French Revolution and if you say Austro-slavism is too far back in history to be transferable, why not say the same of the French Revolution?

Also, there are many Marxist criticisms of intersectionality. For example, the idea that capitalism created gender feminism and critical race theory to divide the working class along lines of gender and skin color instead of struggling together against the capitalists. So the claim that "Marxism is left and criticism of intersectionality is right" is bullshit as it contradicts itself. There are also neo-Nazis that adopt intersectionality's ideas, not only on "struggle between races" but also the false claim that "homosexuals created Pride to decriminalize their sexuality". Neo-Nazism claiming that "being Jewish is the most important feature of a Jew, and being gay is the most important feature of a homosexual" contradicts itself as it cannot answer what is the most important feature of a homosexual Jew. In that way, neo-Nazism resembles intersectionality in its self-contradictions, as intersectionality cannot answer whether gender or ethnicity is the most important feature of a black woman.

By contrast, Marxism's notions of class struggle driven by roles in production are at least consistent. Das Kapital clearly says that it is concentration of capital that worsens exploitation of workers and leads to revolution, not diffuse and subjective "experiences of intersectional oppression". Marxism is based on the idea that capital concentration must sharpen the distinctions between classes to make revolution possible. This makes it follow logically from Marxism that intersectionality obstructs revolution instead of facilitating it, since intersectionality mixes lots of scales of "privilege" and "oppression" which counteracts the clear-cut separation between oppressor and oppressed that Marxism posits to be necessary for revolution.

Why the GAL-TAN scale and migratory right/left definitions are nonsense[]

The GAL-TAN spectrum is bullshit too. The two alleged categories "Green Alternative Libertarian" and "Traditional Authoritarian Nationalistic" both contain contradictions between their first and last letters and an A in the middle that is too unclear to mean anything. Green and libertarian does not mix because libertarianism believes that an unregulated market solves everything through competition, and opposes green environmental legislation for exactly that reason.

Traditionalism and nationalism does not mix because the nationalist concept of "Volksgemeinschaft" could not exist without enlightenment philosophy's criticism of the traditional distinction between aristocrat and peasant that made aristocrats from one country consider themselves to have more in common with aristocrats from another country than with the peasants of their own country. Racial biology was first created by "enlightenment" philosophers, and opposed by lords who did not think their peasants should be liberated just because they happened to have light skin. The claim that the lords simply feared to be measured themselves while the "enlightenment" philosophers had checked their backgrounds is undermined by the fact that many enlightenment era racial biologists did not consider themselves "racially pure".

And both alternative and authoritarian are extremely unclear since authority can mean different things depending on which the authority is and one authority can be alternative to another authority. To "trust scientists" in a way that depicts "scientist" as a specific profession is exactly as much an argument from authority as "trusting the pope". To think in accordance with the scientific method oneself is not the same thing as "trusting scientists" as an exterior authority.

Before enlightenment philosophy existed, there were no attempts to make borders between countries match ethno-cultural and/or linguistic demographics. Kingdoms changed shape according to war results and marriages, and kings had no qualms against marrying foreign princesses and making their sons with them heirs of their own kingdoms. The king did not care about the ethno-cultural or linguistic background of the princess. By contrast, France became nationalistic during the French Revolution, and the first German nationalists were inspired by the French nationalism of the French revolutionaires. This clearly shows that nationalism is in opposition to traditionalism, as opposed to being linked to it as proponents of the GAL-TAN scale claims.

The claim that "the left is for globalization of people but against globalization of capital, and the right is for globalization of capital but against globalization of people" is obvious bullshit. Since very low population densities and very high population densities can both reduce the profitability of a geographical area for global capital, any globalized capital can profit from migrations from areas with higher-than profitable population density to areas with lower-than-profitable population density. It is in the profit interest of the corporations to remove any restrictions against such migration. And late stages of capitalism that have shifted focus from producing better things to dumbing down customers to buy garbage that wears out fast profit more from stupid consumers than from efficient producers, removing any incentive to be selective about the competence of the people moved and instead promoting migration of large volumes.

Shifts in what areas migration is allowed to can be in the interest of capitalism when an area that was previously too sparsely populated for capitalist interest have reached just the "right" population density for capitalist interest. For example, the limitations of immigration in countries that until recently have permitted much more immigration may simply be a result of corporations having already reached their population density goals for these countries, the exact population density that is most profitable for capitalism can vary depending on environmental factors. The claim that it is due to "right-wing populism" may be a decoy used by capitalism to conceal its control over politics.

Absurdity of cognitive theories of political spectra[]

The claim that fear is linked to low intelligence and to opinions "to the right" contradicts itself. Many things that are claimed by the institutions promoting the scale to be "to the left" involve fear. Fear for one's own life in a changed climate can drive engagement for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, especially in young people in whose lifetimes the consequences will get severe. The claim that young people are more engaged in climate change limitation because it is their future contradicts the claim that the difference is about young people being more empathic to others than old people. And if a woman is afraid of being raped, that is fear too. So fear cannot distinguish so-called "right-wing xenophobia" from many phenomena that are alleged by intersectionality to be "leftist". Saying that "one is rational, the other is irrational" contradicts intersectionality's own claim that the definition of rationality is a mere power structure and not objective.

The claim that "leftism" is linked to high education and that "rightism" is linked to low education directly contradicts the claim that "rightism" is linked to specialization in the natural sciences, since it takes a high education to be a specialist in the natural sciences. At least to be formally specialized in the natural sciences, but that distinction is not relevant to the point since it is formal merits that the statistics measure anyway. If the natural sciences were as despicable as gang crime and neo-Nazism, that would contradict any effort to get women into the natural sciences. After all, no gender equality movement ever tries to get more women into criminal gangs or neo-Nazi organizations. Global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions is itself a natural scientific concept, so if "right" is defined as natural science and "left" is defined as social "science", then listening to climate science is "rightist" because it is natural scientific while anthropogenic global warming denial is "leftist" because it considers global warming research to be a power structure instead of research of facts.

There are also historical reasons why the claim that social constructionism is "left" and the attempt to find objective truth through natural science is "right" contradicts the classification of communism as "left" and the classification of fascism as "right". Fascism claimed that truth was constructed by those in power, as examplified by Italian fascism's claim that "Mussolini is always right". So the fascists were social constructionists believing that truth could not be discovered by objective science. The Nazi use of the label "Jewish physics" shows that the Nazis labelled theories based on who created them, instead of reasoning based on evidence as the natural scientific method says that science should do. So the Nazis were social constructionists.

It is true that communism did not exactly believe that natural science could discover everything on its own without "class awareness". However, communism was still closer to the natural scientific method than fascism was since communism said that the material base was objectively the same no matter what "false consciousness" people believed in.

The claim that fear is linked to unintelligence is in itself absurd, since a well-developed understanding of consequences leads to predictions of dangers that have not yet arrived but will arrive in the future. That means more fear, not less. And since intelligence must be able to save one's life when it is in danger to offset natural selection against the energy costs of big brains, the claim that fear "turns reason off" is evolutionarily absurd. With the study loan system that intelligence-hating capitalism have lobbied for, it is possible that the threat of a debt trap deters many people with good foresight from higher studies, filling universities with stupid statisticians. Today, that is. It is possible that more intelligent people were present at universities in the past when admission and related costs were different.

Studies attempting to measure differences in the brain between people with different political views miss the point that people who reject all today's political movements fall outside the studies. The features that separate such people from politicians may be more important than the features separating different subsets of politicians in ways that make differences between politician and politician unappliceable to the paramount difference between politician and non-politician. An analogous example is that the difference between a human brain and an ant brain is more important than the difference between the brains of different castes of ants in an ant colony, a paramountness that makes the difference between a working ant and an ant soldier unappliceable to the difference between ants and humans. To claim that a non-politician belongs to one political movement because the person criticizes another political movement is as idiotic as claiming that a human has the brain of an ant soldier because the human's brain is not like the brain of a working ant.

It is ironic that RationalWiki uses the term "dog whistle" for terms and arguments that the wiki claims to indicate specific movements, while claiming to be rational. If you have higher brain resolution and higher brain capacity than a dog (the link between brain capacity and brain resolution is explained here), you do not perceive terms and arguments as "dog whistles". You need more brain capacity than a dog to be rational, and "RationalWiki" committs association fallacies which is not rational.

And dog level is just an upper bound on the brain capacity of those making such an assumption, not a lower bound. Since insects and their larvae have some ability to learn conditioned reflexes, albeit at an even lower resolution than dogs, it is possible that politicians have less brain capacity than dogs and maybe as low as insects. After all, dogs can learn far more commands than the two categories that copies "democrat" and "republican" (even outside the United States) that politicians that see no problem with polarization operate with, despite the limited brain resolution of dogs. Being limited to two options is closer to the conditioned reflex resolution of insect larvae choosing ways in tunnels than to dogs learning commands. So perhaps the politicianoids on RationalWiki (and their "we have something to learn from intersectionality" type neo-Nazi mirror images) have no more brainpower than insects when correcting for body size.

The fact that more advanced brains can resolve of more alternatives makes it absurd to claim that "being human is to be political" and "rejecting politics is political if you are human" in the context of defining politics as a choice between a small number of movements. For example, a choice between "conservative" and "progressive" that excluded third, fourth and more separate alternatives would require no more cognition than that of a planarian worm since planarian worms can choose between two tunnels, making it ecologically unbalanced and evolutionarily absurd to claim that such a choice "is the hallmark of human moral agency". Just as a brain more advanced than that of a planarian worm would understand that there are more possible ways to go than to choose between two corridors, a sapient brain would understand that the possibility of having a third, fourth and so on worldview always remains no matter how much two political movements claim that criticism of one movement's opinion corridor "can only be a rhetorical device to conform to the other movement's opinion corridor".

It is an irrational self-contradiction of so-called "rational sceptics" to claim that expressing a particular view today means having a particular "agenda" that people who expressed identical views in the past did not necessarily have, and at the same time claim that people today are more intelligent than people in the past. More intelligent brains have more ways the signals can take, which both means that the same indata can branch into more types of outdata and that the same types of outdata can result from a wider range of indata. The latter point is especially relevant in this case, since it means that increased intelligence can only increase and never decrease the number of possible causes for the same action or utterance. This means that the entire claim that "knowing better" would entail a specific "agenda" being the only possible motive for a particular view is bullshit.

Intersectionality misses the point of emergent job effects[]

Intersectionality's assumption that anything that is not "nature" must be "social norms" learned during childhood, and its mirror image in "racial realism" assuming that anything that is not "social norms" from childhood must be "nature", committs the same fallacy. Not only is contemporary discourse on "nature" and "nurture" misframed, as shown by its fallacious lumping of hormones in the womb that may not even be controlled by the genes of the fetus with genetics under the name "nature", but it misses the point of job descriptions that are neither genetic nor learned during childhood. Personnel follows the rules of work when they are at work, and that has effects even if they behave completely differently when they are not at work.

Multiple entities in a swarm that follow simple rules display emergent swarm behaviors. Rules at work can act as the simple rules, producing emergent swarm behaviors in the workforce that is not written explicitly into the rules at work. Nor does it have anything to do with genetics, hormones or childhood (remember that hormones in the womb produced by the mother's body or spread by pollution are closer to environment after birth than to genetics, since birth is not implied by the selfish gene to be a "magical limit"). Corporations can create rules at work that produce emergent job behaviors that fits their profit and would not exist at all without the corporations. That includes emergent "discrimination" specifically created to trick fools into believing the apparent discrimination to be caused by "social norms", using the fools as puppets to extend capitalist control through a crony bureaucracy that claims to "fight discriminatory norms".

The difference between civilization creation and capitalist wealth[]

Another fallacy shared by both sides in the false dichotomy between intersectionality and "racial realism" is the assumption that capitalist wealth equals creation of civilization. That assumption misses a number of points. One is that capitalism parasitizes on infrastructure that was either built before capitalism existed, or at least before capitalist control (including its cronies) reached the sectors of society that built the infrastructure. To assume that capitalism generates the material preconditions for its wealth just because it is concentrated to the same geographical areas is the same fallacy of equating correlation with causation as assuming that the virus causing pneumonia produced the lungs because it is concentrated to the lungs.

Another point is that capitalism hates the intelligence that can invent ways of living beyond consumerism. This point implies that capitalism systematically makes those capable of inventing novel ways of living less wealthy as a way of counteracting their intelligent action. Since the ability to invent ways of living without a consumerist society is exactly what it takes to build the infrastructure that was later taken over by capitalism, capitalism makes those capable of building civilization less wealthy than those incapable of building civilization. This means that the entire framing of contemporary debate on the causes of "success" misses the mark, since the assumption that wealth in capitalism has the same cause as civilization-building is dead wrong. Pointing this out is not to "choose sides" within the misframed debate, just as atheism is not a "choice of sides" in a debate on the color of God's beard.

Libertarianism: capitalism's guise of "criticizing" its own cronies[]

Capitalism lobbies for government control, as explained here. Libertarianism claims to "fight against socialism and for capitalism", but the fact that capitalism lobbies for the things it claims to fight against means that libertarianism is a controlled opposition of crony capitalism that cannot rid the world of the controls that it claims to fight.

One example of something that libertarianism claims to be "socialist" but is in fact a result of capitalist lobbyism is laws against "discrimination". Libertarianism claims that it is "socialist" for the state to tell business owners who they are not allowed to decide whether or not they want to sell to. While librtarianism is an interesting example of the fact that it is possible to oppose segregation laws for the same reason as one opposes "anti-discrimination" laws, contrary to uniparty "bipartisan" "choose sides between two movements" nonsense, the claim that corporations would allow freedom to choose whom one sells to exist misses the point of corporate competition. If businesses are allowed to choose whom they sell to, it results in specialized niche businesses which hampers the market expansion of really big corporations. The biggest corporations therefore have incentives to destroy smaller niche corporations so that the big business can sell to more customers. And one way to do that is by lobbying for laws that forbid businesses from choosing whom they sell to. Since the biggest corporations can afford the most lobbyists, big corporations outlobby small corporations.

Libertarianism's claim that laws against discrimination are based on an intersectional political agenda outside corporate control cannot explain why corporations are legally allowed to discriminate physical persons for not being corporations. For example, by selling things to other corporations that they refuse to sell to consumers who are simply individuals. Since corporations as a group have more power than physical persons as a group, such discrimination would have beein illegal (while the reverse, selling things to physical persons that one refuses to sell to corporations, would still have been perfectly legal) if laws against discrimination were truly based on a philosophy of affirmative action for any group with less power as a group than any other group. However, the theory that it is corporate lobbyism by big corporations that is the cause of anti-discrimination laws can explain why corporations are allowed to practice corporate privilege, since prohibiting such privilege would have prevented corporations from forcibly extending supply chains and selling products that are not really necessary.

Libertarianism claims that laws against narcotics are "socialist", but that misses the point that pharmaceutical corporations can expand their sales by banning smaller-scale production. A prescription system can easily be controlled by pharma lobbyism to create overprescription as shown here. That includes capitalist lobbyism for involuntary commitment. This theory can explain why legal sales of narcotic prescription drugs are a much bigger industry today than narcotic sales ever was before narcotics became illegal, even per capita. This means that if free production of narcotics and use of freely produced narcotics became legal, pharmaceutical corporations would have economical incentives to reverse the decriminalization through lobbyism and reintroduce requirements for prescription that made the market controllable by Big Pharma. And no, the fact that there are multiple pharmaceutical corporations would not change that since only having to compete against a few corporations with a similar modus operandi does not cut into profits nearly as much as having to compete against very different producers that are free from Parkinson's law, see here.

While free production of narcotics and other prescription medicines are serious competition, there are also marginal phenomena that pharma lobbyism have incentives to overblow as advertising for medication. For example, crony capitalist media claims that sales of childlike sex dolls are a powerful industry while in fact sales of sex dolls of any kind are marginal without much profit. The media hoax is used to market evolutionarily absurd myths of "reinforcement learning" for selling libido repressants like SSRI by accusing critics of it to "support" another lobby organization, missing the point that a third alternative is to consider dolls irrelevant with neither positive nor negative effects. Psychiatry's claim of "reinforcement learning" misses the point that Paleolithic humans were subject to boom-bust cycles, making the age and maturity distribution of Stone Age groups so variable evolution cannot have selected for population percentage quotas in the brain mechanism for recognizing sexual maturity. By fundamentally supporting psychiatry's belief in "normal distributions" instead of pointning this evolutionary fact out, libertarianism revelas itself to be a puppet of psychiatry.

The fact that corporations that sell libido repressants do not get cancelled debunks libertarianism's claim that feminist allegations of "victim blaming" prevents psychiatry from treating sex offenders. Actual feminists do not say that marketing of medicines to prevent sex crimes should be cancelled, which would be a hypocrisy against feminism's notions of "victim blaming" if feminism was based on an idea and not lobbyism. But the fact that feminist organizations do not apply their standards against the idea that sex offenders cannot control their impulses (apparent in the allegation that it is "victim blaming" to say that rapists cannot resist short skirts) to the idea that pedophiles need libido repressants to not molest children becomes understandable if one knows that feminism is capitalist and not an actual movement of women and girls fighting for their own rights. But instead of understanding that, libertarianism acts as a controlled opposition of feminism (i.e. a controlled opposition of corporate feminism) by buying its nonsense about "groups fighting for their rights".

The capitalist roots of feminism is also evidenced by what feminism does not criticize when defining "providing for oneself". While feminism talks a lot about freeing women from economic dependance on men and that women should "provide for themselves", feminism does not even notice that depending on corporations in a capitalist economy is not to provide for oneself. To take capitalism's assumptions for granted, such as believing that you "provide for yourself" when you depend on paychecks from a corporation, is to be a capitalist puppet. Thus, contemporary feminism is a capitalist puppet movement.

Why "just in time" economics and intersectionality shares the same fallacies[]

Any corporation that profits from claiming that the market solves problems "just in time" has incentives to lobby against the notion that foresight is required to keep infrastructure and supply chains functioning. Foresight should not be confused with "five year plans", as explained here. Capitalism has incentives to lobby against every attempt to understand cause and effect objectively through falsifiable theories and experiments, since understanding of cause and effect shows that knock-on effects of initially small disruptions in production that relies on many components do not solve themselves as shown here and here. So capitalism lobbies for bullshit that denies the knowability of objective reality such as social constructionism. Intersectionality's "perspectivism" is essentially capitalism's "just in time" nonsense. The social constructionist claim that understanding of reality is not required to build and keep up civilization copies the claim that an "invisible hand" can keep civilization working. Libertarianism misses the point that if intersectionality was destroyed while capitalism remained, capitalism would lobby intersectionality back.

"Just in time" economics shares fallacies with intersectionality that reveal them both to draw from the same inability to think consequences through. In the same way as "just in time" economics babbles about statistics when claiming that it is "extremely unlikely" that the internet will go down (missing the points about production chains above), intersectionality misses the point that statistics-based administration is bound to strike innocent people. When intersectionality claims that it will not persecute you for belonging to an allegedly "privileged" group because "you are not like the horrible people it wants to fight", it contradicts its own claim that it is "necessary" to classify people into groups based on anything other than individual "horribleness". Any system that claims it "necessary" to generalize will persecute innocent people based on the generalizations it believes to be "necessary", otherwise it would not have deemed generalizations "necessary".

Dismissal of crime deterrence misses saturated deterrance[]

The "arguments" behind the claim that "deterrance does not prevent crime" falsely generalize the lack of significant difference between very long prison sentences and the death penalty into an allegation that prison does not deter either. It also misses the point that one must think that one will get caught if one breaks the law for the deterrance to have any effect. The reason why the death penalty does not deter more than very long prison sentences may simply be that a lifetime in prison, or even a very long definite sentence such as 40 to 50 years in prison, essentially amount to a ruined life anyway (saturated deterrance). It does not mean that crime would be unaffected if the risk of going to prison if breaking the law dropped to zero. Also, since it is those believing that they can get away with breaking the law that are not deterred by long prison sentences, it is idiotic to profile people who believe that they will inevitably go to prison if they break the law as "criminal by having bad values". The latter category are exactly the ones who would never dare break the law no matter what they thought of the law!

While gun violence in other Nordic countries and many other European countries is decreasing, gang-related gun violence in Sweden is increasing. Sweden also have about four times higher per capita prescriptions of psychiatric medication to children and adolescents than Norway and Denmark, the result of such prescriptions having increased dramatically in Sweden after 2010 while those in Norway and Denmark remain at about the same levels as 2010. This may be linked by Swedish institutions profiling youths with early-blooming law reading and literal law obedience behavior fully manifest at Sweden's age of criminal responsibility (15, also the age at which gang shootings in Sweden become common) as "needing intervention against their authoritarian obedience to the letter of the law". That "intervention" results in brain-damaging psychiatric medication that destroys the understanding of consequences and makes medicated youths easier for criminal gangs to recruit. While the intelligence-hating values of capitalism may not recognize the tragedy of medicating minds out of existence, it also pays a price in gang-shot blood that it does recognize as tragic.

Societal collapse and allegations of sexual motives for political views[]

This is about links between sexual bulverism/sexual identity discourse and societal collapse. For a similar link between views on food and societal collapse, see Stupid gourmet chef war on civilization.

The allegation that the idea of decadence in collapsing civilizations, called "declinism", is a "cognitive bias" is debunked here.

What the GAL-TAN spectrum alleges to be "traditional homophobia" is in many cases not traditional. For example, censorship of men kissing men in Russia is not traditional there for a number of reasons. One is parochial, since assuming that a kiss is sexual is not Slavic tradition. That shows that the Putin regime's censorship of male kissing is imported American identity politics, not Russian tradition. In fact, there is a tradition in Russia of non-sexual kissing (often between men) as a greeting of politeness.

The arguments for the censorship itself, the assumption that a sexuality is a political agenda, is not traditional for universal reasons. There is no place in the world where it is traditional to assume that a political view is sexually motivated or that people with a particular sexuality have a particular political agenda. The modern examples have only existed for a few decades of deindustrialization under late stage capitalism, and the historical antecedents were all in the late stages of declining civilizations close to their fall. This applies all over, no matter what political views are alleged to be sexually motivated and no matter what sexuality is alleged to be the motivator of the political views.

Evading the question of what "motive" is assumed by saying that "sexuality is about much more than sex" leads to contradictions with the historical evidence that is alleged to show "oppression of homosexuality". The criminalization of homosexuality that have historically existed have criminalized sex acts between people of the same sex, not "identifying as homosexual". There is not and have never been a country where people who would otherwise have been convicted for a homosexual act could avoid punishment by stating an identification as "heterosexual".

While some countries have recently passed laws that criminalize identification as homosexual in itself, those laws are mirror images of recent Western discourse on sexual identity and not traditional. The new laws also do not decriminalize homosexual acts by persons who identify as heterosexual, but merely adds another criminalization. The fact that such countries are almost exclusively former British colonies where older laws against homosexual acts (not identity) are left from former British colonial laws makes it even more obvious that it is not tradition in these countries, where most of the population speaks English as their second language and are not of British descent. Homosexuality was permitted in most pre-colonial societies in their territories.

Jurisdictions with the so-called "gay panic defense" also passed that into law as a result of contemporary or near-contemporary (1960s or later) discourse on sexual identity. Before that, no jurisdiction considered the knowledge or belief that a person identified as homosexual an extenuating circumstance in assault or murder. At a time when there was hardly any discourse on identification by sexual orientation, it would have been strange if such discourse had been written into the law as a criminal defense no matter the difference in application.

The use of the word gay in the sense of homosexual, which is a modern meaning of the word, is evidence that a law with that wording cannot be very old. Knowing or believing that a person is happy have never been a legal ground for killing that person. Old laws against homosexual acts not only did not criminalize identification as homosexual, they also did not allow people without the authority to punish criminals in general to punish people who had engaged in such acts. While the professionalization of punishment have varied over the course of history, people who were not authorized to punish thieves or murderers have never had a "right" specifically to punish homosexuals. In societies where a specialized criminal system was present, no people outside it were historically allowed to punish homosexual acts.

Very close friendships between men with platonic romantic elements, and art depicting naked men, have been considered fine and masculine in many of the centuries in which homosexual acts were criminalized. In countries where homosexual acts were still criminalized, the police did not start treating close friendships between men as "suspicious" until the 1900s, even men who lived together were not treated as suspects in the 1800s or earlier. Naked men in publicly displayed art passed without any complaints about "thrusting homosexuality into people's faces" until the same time (Renaissance art is an excellent example, and other examples as late as the 1800s are not uncommon). The fact that artistic depictions of naked men were not censored when homosexual acts were illegal also debunks the notion of a "power struggle between sexual orientations".

It is hypocrisy of "evolutionary" psychology to claim to follow logically from the theory of evolution, and at the same time promote such evolutionarily absurd claims as the claim that heterosexual men are disgusted by male homosexuality. It is evolutionarily nonsensical to equate lack of sexual attraction with disgust. If you had to be disgusted by everything that you are not sexually aroused by, you would not be able to live. Imagine having to be disgusted by water! You would die from dehydration. So why would it not be possible to only be sexually aroused by women and still find sex between men neutral and not disgusting? Given the historical examples above, the theory that capitalism fabricated the claim that "straight men are disgusted by homosexual men" by making a controlled opposition of crony capitalist "queer theory" bureaucracy call themselves "conservative" and falsely claim to be "disgusted" by gay men makes more sense.

Since statistical methodology dumbs "research" down, physiological measurements that claim to "prove" that heterosexual men feel disgust when they are shown homosexuality between men are flawed too, since they have passed "normal distribution" filters. The same nonsensical methodology replaces science with nonsense all over academia. Since purely quantitative polls are easily fabricated by Big Business shilling, "evolutionary" psychology is a puppet of capitalism when it claims that "polls on people living today shows human nature" instead of deriving logically what follows from evolution as real evolutionary psychology would do.

The fact that nude art is not linked to societal collapse have been claimed as "evidence" that decadence is not linked to societal collapse, but that claim misses the point that writings showing that rulers interpreted the art of their time or earlier as "pornography" is linked to societal collapse. This may be the same phenomenon as stupid capitalist marketers asking if a person who requests a tool "has a fetish for that tool" are useless at solving the technical problems that must be solved to keep civilization running, as shown here. So the historical evidence does not contradict the link between decadence and societal collapse, it just shows that the decadence is in those assuming that others have sexual motives and not in those alleged to have sexual motives.

As for the claim that "homosexuality remained criminalized long after other non-reproducing sexual relationships such as anal sex or sex acts during which contraceptives are used were decriminalized", that varies between countries and is not universally true.

The time at which homosexual acts were decriminalized varies between countries, in some countries it happened as early as the 1800s or even the late 1700s. This is explainable as overall decriminalization of non-reproducing sex acts when large families became less important for subsistence in which random chance determined exactly when what act was decriminalized, with no need to invoke a bias specifically against homosexuality to explain it. After all, there is no need to invoke biases against specific letters when different words become unreadable after different numbers of copies of a copy. This theory explains why both homosexuality and other non-reproducing sex acts (including those with contraceptives) were legal in the slave societies of antiquity but became illegal in the Medieval. Breeding helping hands is less important for subsistence when you can buy helping hands in a slave market.

But even in Medieval Europe, abstinence from sex was not a crime. There were even people (priests, monks, nuns, unmarried people, widows and widowers) who were not allowed to have sex. Nobody in Medieval Europe was punished for not wanting to have sex, which contradicts the claim of "traditional persecution of asexual people". The fact that many people needed to have children to get helping hands was about practicality, not about a "norm" of having sex for the sake of having sex. Not only did artificial insemination not exist in the Medieval, but there is no reason to assume that a person who does not like non-reproductive sex as entertainment would "feel oppressed" by having to copulate for reproductive purposes today either. Unwillingness to rely on capitalism's products and infrastructure (such as artificial pregnancy equipment) can have reasons unrelated to "sex norms" claimed by social constructionism. And not all animal species that reproduce by copulation show signs of orgasm.

Just as allegations of "homosexual agendas" behind men kissing men in Eastern Europe is imported American identity politics and not traditionally Slavic, allegations against unmarried people in contemporary Eastern Europe is imported American discourse on so-called "incels". Historically, monks and nuns living in celibacy in Eastern Europe were not treated with anything like that Americanized suspicion. So what intersectionality claims to be "oppressive traditions that should be criticized by contemporary discourse" is not tradition, but an effect of the contemporary discourse that intersectionality claims to be the solution. The claim that the solution is to "inform" people about intersectionality's distinction between "asexual" and "incel" misses the point that such discourse is based on the assumption that "a sexuality equals an agenda" that causes the suspicion it is said to fight. As shown below, the assumption of sexualities being agendas is a symptom of dying civilizations.

Kibbutz evidence that allegations of "incest advocacy" are not in human nature[]

While "evolutionary" psychology says that primates avoiding mating with those they grew up with is evidence of an innate "incest taboo", that interpretation misses the point that avoiding something oneself does not imply punishing others for it. It is true that people who grew up on the same kibbutz in Israel did not fall in love with each other. However, follow-up studies show that they did not condemn fictional characters who married other fictional characters who grew up on the same kibbutz as them in fictional stories. This is a case in point of the distinction between not being sexually interested in something and wanting to punish others for such acts.

Not only does this mean that it is idiotic to assume that a person who does not think incest should be punished is into incest himself or herself, but by extension means that all allegations that a person has a particular sexual interest based on his or her moral or political views are idiotic. The claim that it is "in human nature" to link one's own non-interest to punishment is false. In the context that such allegations are linked to societal collapse, this also means that people on kibbutzim are much better at creating civilizations than "evolutionary" psychologists are. This, in turn, debunks the stupid Nazi claim that "Jews cause societal collapse", as if the fact that ancient Israelites created their own Iron Age civilization long before international support existed was not evidence enough.

Historical examples of the link to societal collapse[]

When the wars that inspired the story of the Trojan War happened, sources from the time say that they were about control over trade routes in the East Mediterranean. The story of Helen's abduction was added when Bronze Age civilization was falling apart as a result of trade route instability disrupting the availability of alloys for making bronze, and Mycenaean city states alleged that people who opposed increased naval armaments did so because they wanted to abduct women to forcibly marry as the Wilian king allegedly had. Canaanite rulers during the same decline alleged that people who advocated solar calendars instead of the religiously sanctioned lunar calendar did so because they wanted to molest young boys, and did not understand the agricultural impracticality of the lunar calendar. When the Roman Empire came close to its fall, its already Christian rulers began to assume that men who opposed the state's decisions were homosexual (applying to homosexuality between adult men for the first time).

The pattern even applies to the difference between declining and non-declining civilizations at the same time. The term "Ottoman decline myth" refers to the myth that the Ottoman Empire began declining as early as the mid-1500s. Ottoman decline in the 1800s is not a myth, as the Ottoman Empire lost territories and underwent increasing corruption. During the 1800s, Ottoman sultans began claiming that those who wanted to retain slavery did so because they wanted to have sex slaves. This was in contrast to the reason for Ottoman royal slavery given when it was instated, that corruption was prevented by making high officials slaves of the Sultan. The fact that selective devshirme of intelligent boys to the Ottoman state delayed Ottoman decadence centuries past Glubb's 250 year limit is noteworthy.

But in the United States, which was a rising industrial and military power in the 1800s, the abolitionists never claimed that slavery advocates had sexual motives. Since immigration advertisement to the United States based on obvious nonsense was far from over at the time, descendants of gullible fools comprised a much smaller percentage of the United States population during industrialization than they do today. So a high per capita invention rate in the United States at that time does not contradict the theory that the gullible drain have dumbed the United States down as detailed here.

The fact that the Civil War itself did not cause the United States to fall shows that even starting wars and shooting people is less barbaric than assuming that political views are sexually motivated. That does not bode well for societies in which half of political movements appear to believe Pride to be a sexually motivated "homosexual conspiracy" to destroy morality and the other half believes criticism of migration to be an "incel movement". Discourse on alleged "pedophilia advocacy" began shortly after industrial decline too. As shown by the wide range of examples above, the link between allegations of sexual motivations behind political views and societal collapse applies to all such allegations so claims on the lines of "our allegations of sexual motives for politics are more correct/more ethical than theirs" are nonsense. Have everyone with the brainpower to not assume sexual motives for politics abandoned all political movements?

The fact that different societal collapses have different specific allegations of sexual motives means that while completely identical allegations are likely to share a common origin and being copied, different allegations that share the similarity that they allege sexual motives for views may simply be a result of both civilizations approaching collapse. While allegations of criticism of immigration being an "incel rationalization" and the allegation of any depiction of something homoerotic being a "Pride agenda" are obvious copies of United States discourse, there are differences between European and American allegations of "pedophilic agendas" that imply that such allegations in Europe are at least partly home-grown and not all imported from the United States.

While allegations of "pedophilic political agendas" in the United States focus on allegations of grooming, those in Europe focus more on allegations of incest. People who say that the voting age should be lowered get accused of grooming in the United States but not in Europe, and people who say that authorities should not tell families how their children should be raised get accused of incest in Europe but not in the United States. That is a difference on the same magnitude as the difference between the allegations of "sexual agendas" between the collapses of different civilizations.

Mechanisms behind the link to societal collapse[]

The question "are there not worse things in a societal collapse than governance assuming sexual motives?", just like the question "are there not worse things in a car crash than the driver having slurred speech before the crash?", misses the point that mild effects are symptoms of an underlying cause that also causes severe effects. History shows that the claim that "now we know better" is a mischaracterization of the belief in any such alleged movement including the one most often characterized as "better known now" today since all beliefs in sexually motivated political agendas are stupid allegations made by idiots mismanaging civilizations to collapse. Allegations of sexual motives are symptoms of missing brain capacity in those making the allegations, just as the car driver's slurred speech is a symptom of things such as intoxication or stroke.

One possible mechanism of the link between rulers that assume sexual motives behind political views and societal collapse is that the assumptions are symptoms of inability to reason, degenerating discussions into ad hominem fallacies. The principle can be illustrated by an example of a ship. If a couple has sex in the engine room at a particular time every day, a captain that lacks the ability to understand the consequences of machine failure may assume that any repairman repairing the machines at that time is a voyeur, but a captain capable of understanding what machine failure leads to would never make such an assumption.

The stupid captain's general inability to understand the consequences of machine failure would spill over on decisions at other times as well, even when there is no sex act going on in the engine room. These general effects of technical incompetence include not only restricting technical personnel's access to the engine room, but also other things like ordering the tanking of unsuitable fuel, loading of inadequate spare parts and navigating into areas where electromagnetic conditions disrupt onboard electronics. While the specific direct cause of the ship sinking may vary by chance, the reason why those cases are not mitigated and therefore the reason why it is predictable that the ship will sink is because Ezekiel Bulver is captain. Scale it up from a ship to a civilization, and you have this mechanism of societal collapse in a nutshell. The claim that "it is hypocrisy to call that an ad hominem fallacy while claiming capitalist conspiracies" misses the point that physical persons, but not corporations, have their own metabolisms, which places corporations outside selection against nutrient-wasting rationalization of decisions that would have been taken anyway.

Another possible way for the non-sapient mismanagement behind societal collapse to cause allegations of "links" between sexuality and political movements is the low brain resolution of non-sapients. It is the same basic mechanism that Ivan Pavlov discovered when comparing different animal species, that bigger-brained species have more specific conditioned reflexes while smaller-brained species salivate at a wider range of metronom ticking rates from the one at which they were served food. Those claiming that "sexuality is about much more than sex" may simply be low brain resolution hominids that conflate concepts in a dog-like way, and the effects can easily include conflating sexuality with politics. If idiots like that rule, it is no wonder that civilization falls from within.

Since the search for simple explanations is important for making correct predictions, brains that do not search for simple explanations mismanage civilizations to collapse. This applied even before Occam formulated his razor in words, and it still applies today and will always do. One possible mechanism for the link between allegations of sexual motives behind views and societal collapse is that the claim that the only alternatives when an allegation of sex crimes is made is that the allegation is either true or the result of a conscious lie lacks the search for simple explanations. A similar fallacy is committed more generally by psychiatry today, all over the place. The example of ChatGPT falsely alleging that a law professor had committed sex crimes clearly shows that non-sapient systems can make allegations of sex crimes without even knowing what they are doing. This shows that the claim that "if you do not believe in an allegation of a sex crime, you attribute spiteful lying to the alleger" violates Occam's razor.

In the case of societies where institutions claim that most sex offenders get away and alleges people who think that they would get caught and punished if they committed a sex crime to "defend sex offenders", profiling them as suspected of such crimes, another possible mechanism is that such profiling undercuts the idea that crime does not pay. And then the civilization-undercutting idea that crime pays can spread to other crimes like theft and murder, since believing that there are some crimes that the judicial system cannot fight opens the door to thinking that there are more crimes that they cannot fight. The allegation that "sex offenders usually get away" may itself be a symptom of lobbyism by private prison corporations that profit from increasing sex crime (by tricking people who contemplate committing such crimes to think they will not be punished if they do) to increase the prison population. The private prison industrial complex comprises not only corporations that directly own prisons, but also corporations that sell surveillance and security systems to prisons regardless of whether the prisons themselves are private or not.

While the spill-over to theft and murder may initially be limited by corporations having profit interest in not getting their assets stolen or having their customers killed (while rape victims can still consume), growth of the prison-industrial complex can later make it a more dominating part of Big Business and remove those limitations to spillover. And then crime in general increases until the system is overloaded. The claim that "if you think false rape allegations are common, you allege that women are liars" is nonsense since it assumes that the physical persons formally making allegations must have a choice, missing the point that big corporations can make physical person file any allegation that is profitable to the corporations. It also misses the point that boys and men can allege.

This theory can also explain the historical recurrence of the link between allegations of sexual motives for opinions and societal collapse regardless of which the specific sexual taboos are. For example, the lobbying profit would be exactly the same (applied to a different act) in a country where homosexuality was illegal and the claims focused on homosexuality instead of rape. While all societies have laws regulating what sex acts are permitted and which are not, the existence of such laws is not the same thing as allegations of sexual motives for moral views or political views.

Late capitalism's absurd backdating of identity politics[]

While many of the reforms of sex laws that are alleged to be "progressive" by crony capitalist history predate the industrial decline, the pseudohistorical "narratives" depicting them as "rights revolutions" were all made up when industry was already in decline. It applies both to decriminalizations, such as the fact that there were no movements identifying as "polyamorous" when extramarital sex was decriminalized and that many countries decriminalized homosexual acts long before the Pride movement existed, and to criminalizations. While many Western countries criminalized marital rape before deindustrialization, the nonsensical claim that the earlier lack of such criminalization was about "wives being the property of their husbands" postdates the early 1970s deindustrialization.

The claim that "women were the property of men" is obviously a mischaracterization of simple lack of laws against marital rape in a country where wives can divorce their husbands even against the husband's will, men cannot buy and sell their wives, and women cannot be convicted for raping men under any circumstances. The claim that criminalization of child sexual abuse was about views of pedophilia as an illness or political talks about "placing the well-being of children above all" also contradict the timeline, since most Western countries increased their ages of consent to their current limits in the late 1800s or early 1900s. That was long before psychiatry classified pedophilia as a mental illness and even further before there were any political movements talking about "the rights of children being the most important". In the case of all these reforms, the claim that "the legislation only existed on paper before the historical perspective of intersectionality existed" misses the point of why it would have been written on paper if everyone with power at the time opposed it?

The capitalist march through academic institutions[]

The changes of academia about 1970-1971 that made it overspecialized and halted any further officially peer reviewed axiomatic progress towards more unified theories coincided with the great industrial death in the early 1970s. While some have misinterpreted this as a socialist "long march through the institutions", that interpretation is contradicted by a number of facts. Firstly, the corporations that killed their industries did not die themselves, they made more money in the service sector which allowed them to practice more lobbyism. This increase in lobbyism obviously increased the power of capitalist corporations, making it absurd to believe that anticapitalism would have seized any actual power at the time. This, of course, does not preclude the possibility that the long capitalist march through the institutions used the name of socialism as a decoy.

Secondly, a look at the changes of rules in academia at the time clearly disprove any notion that socialism, or any other anti-capitalism, was responsible for the changes. One of the main causes of the decline of (legal and openly published) fundamental research in the early 1970s was that the rules for permission to research that would otherwise be illegal (e.g. research ethics stuff) were amended to include requirements that the results must be potentially possible to make profitable to a market economy. No anti-capitalist movement would ever have lobbied for such rules. The theory of a capitalist long march through the institutions can explain this, but the theory of a Marxist ditto cannot.

And the theory of capitalism's long march through the institutions of academia can explain why it coincided with deindustrialization precisely because the transition to more service sector gave corporations more power to take control of other institutions, provided that the universities and academia were the first new targets for corporate power extension upon deindustrialization. And since the universities had, at the time, been something of the world's last Wild West for decades, it makes it likely that the corporations would indeed have targeted academia first to silence independent criticisms in the context of its time.

Before the reforms of ethics permit and peer review rules in the early 1970s, universities had been a haven from the bureaucratization that had engulfed the rest of Western society beginning in the 1700s and becoming a complete pain in the 1900s. The connection between capitalist lobbyism and bureaucratization is explainable as a result of corporations profiting from regulations making their products compulsory by law, giving legal persons in capitalism incentives to lobby for increasingly regulated societies and decreasing freedom for physical persons. And their role as the last Wild West is a possible explanation of why universities became more and more central to research as the rest of society bureaucratized, and ceasing to create new unifications of scientific explanations as soon as requirements for capitalist profitability became part of their ethical rules. That is, the universities served science not by providing something that was needed because of allegedly "increasing complexity" of science itself, but by providing a safe haven from the anti-scientific effects of crony capitalism.

One example of how much more independent universities were in the past compared to what they are today is that some American universities such as Yale University admitted black scientists even before the American Civil War. That made it a haven from Suppression of African people, at least for individuals capable of doing science, even during a time when the surrounding bureaucracy supported slavery! Say one example of a university today that acts in such a sharp contrast to the values of today's bureaucratic institutions as Yale University acted in contrast to the values of American bureaucratic institutions before the Civil War. There are none (no, universities choosing sides between a parliament and a court does not count since the historical example is of some universities contrasting against the entire surrounding bureaucracy, not choosing sides between two parts of it). Crony capitalism made bureaucracy kill an academic freedom that even slavery could not kill. So much for the claim that "academia is more free today than it was in the past".

History shows that even in ancient civilization cycles, the percentage of the population at universities increased towards the end of each civilization. This happened when university credentials began to be used as career promoters in a capitalist context which existed a number of times before industrialization. While Glubb misinterpreted this empirical fact as an "age of intellect" and assumed that intellect played a part in the downfall of civilization, that assumption misses the point that the invention and scientific discovery rate per capita did not increase as shown here. The number of great scientists in the eras Glubb referred to as the age of pioneers and the age of conquest were quite high for the low total population in those eras.

Filling the numbers at the universities with parrotoid non-sapients does not create more intellects. In combination with a debt-based study loan system, it drives intellects out of the universities as shown here. The low resolution idiots that remain at universities, by being unable to understand reason, are easily brainwashed by capitalist lobbyism to assume that actual reason is "rationalization" (which is absurd).

Such idiots in power can account for that kind of degraded civilizations collapsing under the same external stresses that a competently ruled civilization would survive. A civilization in which psychologists assuming that the search for the cause of disasters "is a defense mechanism to rationalize one's failures" is completely unsuited to solve problems that threaten civilization. For example, if the rulers label farmers who remark that the climate is damaging their crops as "rationalizing their failure at farming" instead of engaging with the arguments, that ad hominem fallacy is an obstacle against breeding new crops that can withstand the changed climate. At the same time, a civilization not ruled by psychologists would be capable of surviving the same climate change by breeding new crop strains. It is the ad hominem fallacies that decadent idiots mistake for "rationality", not actual non ad hominem rationality, that causes decadent civilizations to fail under climates that non-decadent civilizations survive as shown by the historical cases of some civilizations surviving the same climate changes during which other civilizations collapsed.

The absurd claim that "science have become too complex for simple theories"[]

The claims of "increasing complexity of science" are spurious on many levels. As for the scientific explanations themselves, progress towards more unified theories mean that fewer theories explain more phenomena following logically from fewer premises. This means that advanced science is less complex than primitive science at the levels of theory and prediction-making. As for industrial prerequisites for scientific experiments, the data may be more mixed. However, one should not forget that corporations have incentives to lobby for the use of their products to produce other products and so on, giving capitalism incentives to lobby for unnecessarily long supply chains that are not actually needed to make the final products.

And just as this theory predicts, supply chain analysis of the ingredients required to make a chemical that includes alternatives that work just as well, beginning with an "advanced" product and tracking different possible routes back to basic scratch, show that the shortest possible route is often many times shorter than any route ever commercialized. Typically, the shortest route yielded by such analysis involve chemical reactions discovered at different times in which one step was declared obsolete by capitalism for merely financial reasons despite working before another step was discovered. So it is possible to do "advanced" scientific experiments with a far simpler infrastructure than crony capitalism's version of the history of science claims.

Genetic engineering and early discoveries[]

With such room for chance as to when specific chemical synthesis processes are discovered, this theory predicts that there should be some examples of chemicals that unlock advanced scientific experiments being discovered early and with a "simple" infrastructure. Such examples do exist. One of them is polyethylene glycol, which was first synthesized in 1859. It was discovered much later, in the 1970s, that polyethylene glycol of molecular weights between 1000 and 6000 at concentrations of 35 to 50 percent by weight dissolved in water (50% means that the polyethylene glycol weighs the same as the water, since it makes the polyethylene glycol 50% of the weight of the solution) causes cells to fuse if they are sufficiently close together and creating a cell that combine chromosomes from two or more cells, even if they are from completely different species.

It is sometimes claimed that old-fashioned polyethylene glycol like that discovered in 1859 is "non-fusogenic" and that modern polyethylene glycol mediates cell fusion only because it has antioxidants and preservatives added to it. However, experiments show that allegedly "nonfusogenic" polyethylene glycol without additives can mediate cell fusion regardless of species barriers if the incubation is timed to precisely 15 minutes before the most of polyethylene glycol is removed from the cells by means such as dilution. The experiments that appeared to show that such PEG is non-fusogenic only incubated the cells for 2 to 3 minutes, which requires additives to accelerate the fusion.

Polyethylene glycol-mediated cell fusion is appropriate technology for genetic engineering that works without ridiculously complex infrastructure, skipping the bullshit steps of first sequencing genes with a stupid computer and then producing a new strain from a digitalized vector factory. If one could send the knowledge of timing in fusion effects back in time to 1859 without any physical supplies passed through time travel, it would have been possible for a person in the past to fuse species that are not closely related in the year Charles Darwin published The origin of Species, using only the polyethylene glycol produced in his or her time.

Protoplasts, cells that naturally have cell walls but have been stripped of them, were created by physical methods in 1880, albeit at a low survival rate for the cells. Protoplast fusion removes the problem of cell walls in fusing cells from plants, fungi and other non-animal cells with the help of polyethylene glycol (while cells from the animal kingdom are easier to fuse with polyethylene glycol since they never have cell walls). Enzymatic methods increase the survival rate of the protoplasts compared to mechanical methods, but industrial production of enzymes will break down when civilization collapses. There may be alternatives in appropriate technology. Chitinase that breaks down chitin, the material in fungal cell walls, is abundant in chestnut, green beans, avocado, bananas, tomatoes, papaya and kiwi fruit, and produced by the mold Aspergillus niger. Cellulase and pectinase that breaks down the cellulose and pectin that make up plant cell walls are produced by bacteria found in the manure excreted by grass-eating animals such as horses, cows and sheep.

The claim that simple production of polyethylene glycol could not be achieved in a postapocalyptic future because the accessible resources that existed during industrialization have been consumed makes no sense, since all necessary ingredients can be produced in a number of ways some of which do not involve fossil fuels. Some of the ingredients of polyethylene glycol, such as ethanol, have always been produced by non-fossil means, and even the other ingredients have non-fossil possibilities. Depletion of easily accessible sulphur does not preclude postapocalyptic rebooting of the sulphuric acid production required to make some ingredients, since there are alternative simple routes to producing sulphuric acid that involve baking common pyrite rocks that are not depleted.

Another example of appropriate genetic engineering technology, that was not discovered that early but would have been physically possible very early if the knowledge existed, is liposome delivery. Some methods for manufacturing liposome vectors, such as the Mozafari method and other even simpler methods inspired by it or antecedent to it, are good examples. The ethanol injection method for manufacturing liposomes could be pulled off with the equipment of a preindustrial alchemist, if the knowledge was combined with it. Since the lipids used can be extracted from natural biological tissue with distillation techniques in which ethanol, common alcohol, is the only laboratory chemical, there would be no supply chain issues with getting the lipids.

Appropriate technology for RNA extraction[]

RNA sequencing by capitalism's means require PCR, which relies on variable temperatures that make the inactivation of all RNAses including heat resistent ones necessary. But extraction of RNA for other uses of its biological effects can be done at cold temperatures, at which thermoresistent RNAses that are not destroyed by heating to 95 degrees Celsius or hotter have lower activity. The resulting RNA still has a limited lifespan, but can be used for effects that work faster than a full analysis.

So if you place the airtight containers containing the chromatograph and the liquid used for chromatography in boiling water and are not too far above sea level, the result can extract RNA at slowed degradation rates if it is kept cold during the later extraction. Using airtight containers means that the boiling-heated chromatographs and fluids can be left to cool before they are used without being recontaminated by exogenous RNAse. It is also possible to destroy RNAse without chemicals using UV light, the frequencies of 275 nanometers and 365 nanometers being especially effective. Practical information on how early UV lamps were invented is useful for constructing equipment for RNAse removal without complex infrastructure. Methods that were never commercialized can still be useful, and capitalism's assumption that "it does not work if it was not commercialized" should not be believed.

Chromatographs can be made with very simple materials, including paper, cellulose, and heat-recycled silica gel. While such chromatographs may not yield completely pure products, they can increase the concentration. And for many biological purposes, water can be used as a chromatography fluid. Precipitation can be used as an alternative to chromatography, as explained in https://cshprotocols.cshlp.org/content/2020/3/pdb.prot101717.full but with non-chemical reductions of RNAse activity instead of DEPC.

Spectroscopy testing the composition of alloys and rockets[]

The claim that building anything that can withstand severe mechanical and thermal stress such as that of a rocket launch would require an immense amount of specialization and be lost if the institutions disappeared is bullshit. When Werner von Braun explained the specifications of the materials for the rocket (he was building the V2 for the German military at the time, but he planned for spaceflight far beyond Hitler's intention of only using it as a weapon on Earth when he ordered the specifications) such as withstanding thousands of degrees of heat and being able to eject hundreds of tons per second, the engineers told him that he described just any old firefighter vehicle. That is, a firefighting vehicle that was not even new during the WWII era!

The claim that "not even industrialization would be possible without immensely complex materials" contradicts the claim that industrialism was simple that the institutions also make. It contradicts Institutionum's own timeline, showing the absurdity of what the institutions claim. Furthermore, with the knowledge of elements and spectroscopy and possession of a physical copy of the spectral lines of different elements, it is possible to indentify the element composition of alloys and reverse-engineer them even if the manufacturing process have been forgotten. Just alter the composition of your alloy until its spectral lines exactly match those of the sample you are reverse-engineering it from. If the alloys are corroded, just subtract the oxygen from the composition.

The spectroscopy can be performed by vacuum pumping a thick glass jar and vaporizing samples in it by focusing strong light on the samples. Shine a ray of strong light through the jar before and after the vaporization to detect the differences as absorption lines. Tune the amount of vaporization until the absorption lines partially weaken the light without blocking it out completely, and repeat the process on different alloy mixtures until the lines exactly match. Thich glass capable of containing a vacuum, creation of vacuum through the use of very tall columns of fluid where gravity drains the top, creation of extremely hot temperatures through the focusing of light and prisms breaking light into spectra all existed before industrialism.

The claim that rocketry without computers "only works if you do not care where the rocket ends up" is bullshit. When Werner von Braun built the V2 rockets, it mattered where they landed. If the V2 rockets had hit Berlin instead of London, Werner von Braun would have been executed. And the rocketry of the WWII era lacked computers. The automatic trajectory corrections were fixed with analog gyros, and can be done so again in the future. Robert H Goddard's blueprints can be used as inspirations for even simpler rocket steering systems.

If launches to Earth orbit using analog gyroscopes would fail, there is no need to give up just because the global computer chip industry have collapsed. The electronics used during successful space launches in the 1950s had vacuum tubes which would be possible to recreate fast after a societal collapse if the knowledge is retained in older technology books. That would require no wait for Moore's law to reinstate itself, since the vacuum tubes that were the closest thing to computers in 1950s rocketry were not integrated circuits and therefore not subject to Moore's law. Claiming that it would be "cheating" because it is electronics misses the point that it is not about avoiding any conduction of electricity, it is about future spaceflight not being kept hostage by big corporations that are hostile to space colonization. You do not have to go Amish and hate a steam engine to fight corporatocracy, some steam engines were made in antiquity and by keeping knowledge of how to save steps you can make more "advanced" things like rockets with simpler infrastructure even after a collapse.

As for the claim that "computers would be needed to steer interplanetary rockets to the right gravity assists", why stick to chemical rockets that need gravity assist at interplanetary distances? Ion thrusters and solar sails can accelerate spacecraft to such high speeds with minimal propellant (or, in the case of solar sails, no propellant at all) they do not need gravity assist. Chemical rockets give fast acceleration that is useful for launches from planetary surfaces, but other propulsion methods are superior in the vacuum of space.

Of course, reverse engineering of alloys using spectroscopy can also be used to make other things than rockets. Laminated magnetic cores, clockworks, various pressurization containers and structural components of certain buildings are examples of that. The loss of digitalization need not entail a loss of robot assistants, since modern knowledge can be used to upgrade the function of older engineering principles. Analog robots built with the engineering principles of Jacques de Vaucanson style automata can be made to emulate the reflexes of small-brained animals that can perform work such as some insects. While the alloys required for the engineering have been around since at least the 1700s if not even longer, the sweet spot of textbooks on insect behavior that can be used to generate "complex" behavior from simple reflexes is in the 1990s. Then insect behavior was well studied, but textbooks had not yet succumbed to extension of animal rights activism to insects and its violation of Occam's razor in assuming more complex brain mechanisms in insects than needed to explain their behavior.

Have Noam Chomsky missed academia's hostility to explanations?[]

After ChatGPT became famous, Noam Chomsky wrote that artificial intelligences will not take the jobs because AIs only trade in probabilities and do not search for explanations as humans do. Have Noam Chomsky missed that since about 1971, academia hates the pursuit of explanations and favors those who only trade in probabilities? The fact that many academians behave in ways explainable by them being as devoid of explanation-seeking as an AI (which by Occam's razor and Morgan's canon means that it should not be assumed that they can search for explanations) is older than ChatGPT. Not only did such academians rise to power at the universities in the 1970s, but computer-generated papers have appeared in academic journals since the 1990s (e.g. the Sokal hoax). So while AIs could not create a civilization, they could take the jobs in today's fatally mismanaged and dying civilization.

Academia's claim that "academic hoaxes only proves that fraud can be made to pass peer review, as we already knew" misses the point that computer-generated bullshit have passed peer review, not only fraud written by humans. The objection that "human brains are information processing systems too" misses the point that the bullshit generators are not strong artificial general intelligences that understand what they write, but mere grammatical rule and word frequency analysis machines that understand nothing of what the words mean. Getting that kind of nonsense past peer review is a completely different beast from skilled fraud passing peer review, and a peer review system that lets computer-generated bullshit pass clearly lacks the ability to assess quality of content at all. A peer review system that merely filters based on "signal" words regardless of what the words mean in full sentence context is obviously worse than useless.

While the language generated by Chomsky generators in the 1990s was semantically bullshit, it was grammatically correct by Chomsky's "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" standard. The bullshitishness was not worse than the standard in social constructionist journals, which were and are similarly full of bullshit. This is noteworthy since in the 1990s, the amount of statistics that computers could process was not higher than the amount of linguistic stimuli that human infants and toddlers get before they start generating full sentences. This, along with the limited amount of functional DNA, shows that universal grammar is not a solution to "poverty of the stimulus" since the genome is poorer than the stimulus. So it is not impossible that fools born without the ability to search for explanations could still pass as "linguistically normal" and eventually become academic statisticians.

Since bullshit generator AIs can pass as intelligent on controlled settings, until someone starts asking questions that the AI have not been trained for to the AI, social constructionism's dismissal of the idea of having to prove one's intelligence as "a power structure" is a hotbed for passing bullshit generators off as intelligent. This applies regardless of whether the bullshit generator is an AI or a stupid hominid classified as human by law. Since "evolutionary" psychology often claims that one should not demand proof of intelligence "out of social politeness", it would probably be possible to pass computer-generated nonsense into an "evolutionary" psychology journal as well. The methods could be the same as those used on social constructionist journals. Someone actually intelligent would be tired of being lumped with idiots that cannot reason and be willing to prove his or her intelligence to get out of that, and not at all "feel offended" by having to prove intelligence.

When Noam Chomsky says that humans have a general explanation-seeking brain function, he contradicts his own claim of a language-specific module for explanations specifically of how language works. While general seeking of explanations as an effect of overall brain capacity is a viable way for civilization-creators to work, lots of specialized modules would take up unrealistic amount of functional DNA. Specialized modules (e.g. one for grammar, one for semantics, one for emotional empathy, one for cognitive empathy, one for physical objects and so on) would also eat away the very generalizability that makes explanations evolutionarily superior to statistics or simple reflexes, as explained here.

While the inability of sign language-trained apes to generate full sentences have been claimed to "prove" a uniquely human grammar-specific brain module, that interpretation misses the point that no chain is stronger than its weakest link. Many word classes are required to make a full sentence (regardless of whether or not you understand what the words mean), and some word classes have much fewer words than others. Ape hands have similarities to human hands but also specific limitations, meaning that apes are anatomically capable of making some but not all signs in human sign language. If only one word class that is necessary to produce a full sentence lacks words that ape hands can sign, the ape will fail to produce a full sentence for purely anatomical reasons that imply nothing about the brain. And since word classes with purely formal functions that lack semantic meaning are notorious for containing few words, such formal word classes are the most likely candidates for lacking signs that apes are anatomically capable of producing with their hands. By Occam's razor, this theory is simpler than the assumption of a specialized grammar module.

Noam Chomsky's dismissal of the examples of recursion on corvids (crows and related birds) and in digital text generators, the claim that it "is not relevant to the inherence of universal grammar in humans", misses the point that the examples contradict Chomsky's claim that recursion opens up potentially infinitely long sentences. This point repeats itself in the observations that many humans that can produce a few recursions lose track of long sentences with many recursions in them. Explaining all these cases as a result of recursion not automatically making sentences potentially infinitely long is much more scientifically axiomatic by reduction to fewer premises than Chomsky's nonsense about one unrelatedness in corvids and computers and a completely separate limitation of working memory in humans. If humans with poor working memory cannot produce or understand longer sentences than a magpie, it would be an evolutionarily nonsensical waste of nutrients for the human to have a specialized grammar module that the magpie lacked.

Comparisons between different primates shows links between toolmaking and the ability to learn language. Extrapolated to differences between humans of different maximum numbers of recursions in sentences, this gives capitalism motives to hate people who speak in long coherent sentences since capitalism hates inventors, as explained here. Capitalism hates your guts if you speak in coherent sentences longer than a tabloid headline because the ability to do so is linked to the ability to invent, which competes with the Light bulb conspiracy's sales of garbage that wears out fast.

By promoting idiots that lack the ability to understand long sentences to leading positions in psychiatry, capitalism labels all sentences longer than tabloid headlines as "word salads" no matter if they are coherent or not. Psychiatry's controls then labels subordinate psychiatrists who understand and act on the distinction as those "malpracticing", not the leading psychiatrists that are cognitively unable to make the distinction. Since the medication does not prevent the medicated from consuming, it is not a problem for capitalism that the lack of distinction leads to medication of both potential inventors and the already stupid. The potential inventors are lost through brain damage and become more profitable consumers for capitalism in addition to buying the medicines, and capitalism's values do not recognize the tragedy of destroying minds. The destruction is a goal for capitalism. And as for the already stupid, they keep consuming and also profitably buys the pills.

Such lumping without regard for biomarkers and validity is part of crony capitalist psychiatry's dividing and ruling against intelligent life, as shown here. The fact that it is contemporary psychiatry, not "traditional values", that repress people who speak in long coherent sentences is evidenced by the fact that most if not all scientific articles written before 1960 are full of long sentences that psychiatry would label as "autistic word salads" today.

If people who expressed themselves in that way were really repressed and prevented from getting heard in the past, and benefitted from "more understanding" today, the pattern would have been the inverse with articles written that way being nonexistent before 1960 and increasing to the present day. How those speaking in incoherent long sentences were treated is irrelevant to how those speaking in coherent long sentences were treated, the fact that the ruling psychiatrists today cannot make the distinction is no more relevant than the fact that a chimpanzee cannot distinguish a long sentence spoken by a human from a long sentence generated by a Chomsky generator.

Advertisement