Archive for September 2005


September 29, 2005

[quote=”One Eye Trouser Trout”]I believe evolution is a crock of shit….reason being is because if evolution was real…then why are monkey still around? and why haven’t we actually SEEN evolution take effect in an animal? i dont belieev that every animal would just happen to evolve all at the same time.[/quote]

I’ve had many debates with those who are pro-evolutionist so to speak. Most of those people held to the belief that Creationism was of a different “scientific standard” than Evolution. Or they said that Evolution could be proved while Creationism couldn’t.

My position is that Creationism isn’t a theory not because it can’t be proved, but because it doesn’t explain how intelligence, any intelligence affected the creation of life on earth as we know it. Was it space aliens tinkering with our genetics as we selectively breed cattle, something like that? Was it God that introduced a chaos variable as described by chaos theory, into the celestial cauldron of proto-plasmic goo that eventually resulted in the appearance of mankind? Is evolution on its principles correct, but the appearance of sentient intelligence was only brought out by intelligent meddling?

You can’t say creationism is a theory without it providing a stable explanation for things. The reason why that matters, is simple. Because that then leaves evolution as the [i]only[/i] theory around.

The Theory of Evolution, is then, on par with the Theory of Relatvisim or the Special Theory of Relativism. Meaning, because of what THT discussed, you cannot conduct experiments that de facto proves the consistency of the explanations in the theory. Exactly as you cannot conduct direct experiments, reviewable by a peer group of scientists, on black holes for example. Nor can you send a man at .5 c to Alpha Centauri A and then talk to him when he gets back about how much time has passed.

That does not mean the theory is wrong, it simply means it will stay a theory until such a time as all hypotheses in the theory can be experimented and verified to be accurate, consistent, and true. When a theory can account for all inconsistencies and all models of explanation, then I believe it will graduate to a law, or a principle if it is only one hypothesis. Heisenberg’s Principle of Uncertainty, Newton’s Law of Gravity.

You will certainly have heard that Einstein described gravity much better as a function of the curvature of space time, which accounted for many stellar phenomenon that was undetected in Newton’s days, than Newton’s inversed square (?) equation. As I see it, Newton conducted all the experiments to show that he was correct, and he was. But his law did not explain other such phenomenon, and therefore it became obsolete.

The Theory of Evolution has conducted many experiments, if not EVERY experiment, concerning its hypotheses. Which, as far as I recall, is that single cell organisms evolve through generations, mutation is one example, to multi-celled organisms. And that the environment in which they survive, provides for better adaptations that allow specific strains of cells which are higher evolved to survive and procreate better. Thereby resulting in the new species outlasting and killing off the weaker species.

We see that in the difference between species today, adapted to their environments, in which things are there for a reason, and that reason is to survive better in their environment.

Now the question is, how exactly does one species “metamorphosize” into another species. There’s a lot of versions of that explanation going around, the most relevant one is about the “missing link”.

But, to quote real life examples of Evolutionary experiments, you can see it in such things as genetically engineered plants. Where we produce plants that are better able to survive in specific conditions, or even unspecific conditions.

In fact, that would not be an experiment per say, but an actual “application” of scientific theorem. Which carries a much greater worth than just somebody cooking up the right batch of chemicals.

But, where as Evolution assumes that everything was a staple of mutation, randomness, entropy to enthalpy, Creationism assumes that an intelligence was at work.

Genetically engineered plants didn’t occur naturally, it was made by intelligences, us. Is that proof we were tampered with? No. Is it proof that evolution, here or anywhere, is always random? No to that one too. Is it an indication that Intelligent design is possible? Of course.

Evolution is probably true. There is a chance that humans were aided through outside intervention. You could even postulate that an alien race threw out a piece of junk asteroid and when it hit the Earth, it allowed us to evolve instead of the dinos. That would be “Intelligent design”, but only principally. I don’t hear of any consistent explanation by the Creationists, except to say that Evolution is true, except that part about no Intelligences. Like politics, you have to offer an alternative, not just talk down the other guy.

Crealution so to speak. Crea+lution.


The results of self-defense

September 29, 2005



Star Wars again

September 29, 2005

Why the Jedi Council needed to become extinct
And various other links here

Operation Restore Rights

September 27, 2005

A flash slide of the campaign.

Left and Right Propaganda techniques

September 27, 2005

One of the things the Republicans are better in terms of propaganda, is picture and photo propaganda. Take a look at the Left’s aesthetics below.

The Left’s Picture Propaganda

Now take a look at the Right’s aesthetics.


Then take a look at both

The Left is very ugly, on so many levels.

UPDATE Another example of Republican propaganda done well

Christopher Hitchins and a British lunatic

September 26, 2005

Is the title too biased?

If you actually saw the debate at a New York University, on 9/14/05, you might think different. It was an excellent debate. Bush could learn a lot of rhetoric cues and vocabulary from Hitchins. Hitchins knows how to communicate to the Left, the wacko and the idealistic both. And that is very very useful in propaganda.

I’ll update this as an analysis of the debate, which would fill volumes. Or if I can find the CSPAN pod cast, it’ll make up for it.

Second Draft

September 25, 2005

I’d be interested to see to what levels the art of persuasion may be produced by these revolutions in information technology.

I have already see the manner in which the Left have produced propaganda with their inherited control over world wide media, and I have also seen which side has benefited by this distortion. But propaganda need not be a distortion, it in fact may reinforce a truth and make it appear truer than it really is.

Propaganda that distorts truth, to a certain level, has perpetuated the need for propaganda. Because usually, old WWII propaganda used to aid the war effort stopped after the war ended, because the propaganda’s purpose had been fullfilled. That propaganda’s purpose was to elevate the good qualities in war and to diminish the bad to nonexistence, but once the war ends then there is no need to elevate the good qualities of something that no longer exists.

Current media propaganda serves the opposite purpose seemingly. They elevate the bad qualities, and diminish to nonexistence the good qualities.

And the method of this propagation is not leaving out the bad parts, it is leaving out the good parts and only reporting on the bad parts. But the thing is, when the war ends, the bad parts will not exist anymore, but the propaganda must continue to produce more bad reports simply to prevent someone from finding out the good that would invalidate the bad.

In WWII, once we found out the bad (Omaha Beach, the tanks sinking, and the casualties), the result is not that such diminishes the good. Which is an advantage to persuasion techniques that emphasize instead of distorts. Because once you emphasize the good without the bad, reporting the bad then actually enhances the public relations of the good.

Another example of the differences in propaganda technique, between emphasis and distortion of the truth, is also in the subject of the truth. If the subject of the propaganda is really true, then you won’t need the propaganda permanently, cause it is only a tools to aid in dissimilation of reality. But if the subject of propaganda is actually false, then you require propaganda ad infinitum, or else the whole project will collapse because of being exposed to reality.

Such a collapse is seen in Nazi and Islamic propaganda. Much of their claims of the Master Race and the Jews being the fault of everything, is blatantly not true and is in fact a lie designed to facilitate their destruction and someone else’s elevation.

The internet, may produce some other combination than the ones currently in use, I speculate.

For an example of incompetent propaganda, the techique of using the art of persuasion, look at troutsky post above.

He is trying to sarcastically present some refutation or counterpoint. But what he ends up accomplishing is confusing people because he did a double assumption, and usually in propaganda you can’t base your technique upon the assumption that your audience is psychic or “in the know”. That would defeat the whole purpose of persuasion.

Usually if you are using satire, you present the opposite of what you believe, using stylistic devices to both communicate your disbelief and to also wound the opposing person’s viewpoint.

In other words, you make the opponent’s viewpoint into a strawman and make fun of it cause it is easily blown over.

But T changes his style from satire to direct viewpoint communication halfway through. Instead of perpetuating the opposite of his viewpoint, he starts communicating his viewpoint as if his viewpoint is the opposite of his own viewpoint, and that is a nice way to confuse the audience. And when the audience is confused, they start to think, and thinking is not what you want if you want to persuade someone. At least thinking that isn’t like what you meant for them to have. Cause people who start to think based upon some outside stimulus, becomes then a randomized process that you can’t predict.

The media probably knows this, and does not want to confuse the audience. For whatever reason, some of them have begun to think the audience must not be confused because they do not have the intellect to process information correctly. *Shrugs*, I doubt a propaganda machine tries not to confuse people because the people are too stupid to know truth from reality. If there were people like that, you wouldn’t need a propaganda machine in the first place. You’d just be able to tell people what they will believe.

Obviously the media doesn’t do that, cause everytime they talk about Iraq they don’t say “You must tell President Bush to pull out of Iraq and admit his mistakes”.

No, they use more subtle methods of persuasion than that. Not that subtle, but subtler than direct thought control.

I hope to see a method of propaganda, a technique of persuasion if you will, that is a sort of hybridization of the two previous techniques. The one we see today in the MSM, an the one we saw before in the MSM in WWII.

But, unlike a normal hybridization, I don’t want a mix of the two, I want something totally new.

I want a propaganda philosophy that sets out to expose the truth, but neither diminishes the good nor the bad news to get success. I want a technique of persuasion that allows people to understand the subject (the truth that is propagandized), without requiring omission of truth or distortion of truth.

In other words, I hope for a self-contained self-replicating technique. The beginning looks good, since the website claims to want to give the audience enough information for them to come to the right conclusions. They must be confident of a certain truth, and they will even tell us that in one way or another.

Some people may ask, how can you do propaganda if you tell everyone the truth, about everything. And I would say, what is better than truth at persuading people to believe in it?

Truth is power. And a subtle one at that.