

### Assholes & Bullshit:

### A Language Problem

Copyright Douglas H. Plumb

Smashwords Edition, Published by Douglas H. Plumb

License Notes

You may share this book as much as you wish, but you may not change it's contents. You may copy and give it away, but you cannot sell it. PDF format is probably the most universal.

dougplumb123@gmail.com

Other Books: "The Famous and Illustrious Dr. Treekenstein" on Smashwords and everywhere else I hope.

July 2020

EPUB ISBN: 9780994769213

### 

###  Table Of Contents

Introduction

Assholes

Assholes With Power

Assholes of the First Kind

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

Rules For Identifying Assholes

Rule 1: The Protection Racket

Rule 2: Descriptive and Prescriptive Writing

Rule 3: The Ego Booster

Rule 4: The Asshole and Bullshit Connection

Rule 5: Power Corrupts

Rule 6: Trust: A Sometimes Necessary Evil

Conclusions

Bullshit

Rules for Bullshit Detection

Rule 1: The Cross Examination

Rule 2: Witness Credibility

Rule 3: Four Corners

Rule 4: Evidence

Rule 5: Zebras

Rule 6: Obligations

Rule 7: Big Lies and Lies Of Commission

Rule 8: Lies Of Omission

Rule 9: Crowds are Stupid

Rule 10: Hands and Words

Rule 11: Statistical Outliers

Rule 12: Two Ears, One Mouth

Rule 13: One Who Believes Bullshit is Dumber Than One Who Knows Nothing

Conclusions

The Assholes Of Science

What is Truth?

What is Science?

Conclusions

### Introduction

There are well posed problems and ill posed problems. To pose a problem well we need suitable expressions to express the problem in the most compact, efficient and accurate way.

Some people say that people who use profanity have a lack of imagination or ability to express themselves. I'm one of those people. But if you cannot tell it like it is with language barriers in place then those language barriers must be lifted.

It almost seems like a conspiracy that we see these words as profanity when they describe the profane so perfectly. Some words are profane and their use shows a lack of imagination and ability to express oneself when they are used. Too many people use them too often, it is laziness. But we need words to describe the profane and they in themselves shouldn't be viewed as profane.

Everyone knows exactly what I mean by "asshole" and "bullshit". I think these two words are two of the best known words in the language, which makes them useful in reframing a problem that we all see and experience. We use these words often in our everyday speech. Those who can express themselves well use them as often as those who can barely speak the language.

I believe that if young people really understood what an asshole is, IE: this knowledge actually guided their actions and thoughts we would see a very different world than the one we see now. Constant change has become the norm and for the most part, it's being brought to us by assholes. Most of this change is fueled by bullshit. Knowing and understanding are two different things. We know that crossing a busy highway is dangerous but do it sometimes anyway, in that sense we don't understand, or "stand-under" what we know.

If you are reading this book to learn something about sociopaths and psychopaths, you are reading the wrong book. You should get Martha Stout's book "The Sociopath Next Door" because it really is extremely well written, simpler than this one and it's a great first step toward healing your injuries. She is a Harvard professor and writes way better than me and her book is beautiful. She is one of my favorite living thinkers because of that book and that book played a huge role in healing my narcissistic person encounter injuries.

This is a political theory and law book and its the political theory and law you should have learned in public education and it's "dirt simple". So is Stout's book which is one reason I liked it so much.

I make my argument using the language I believe appropriate for lawyers, not political scientists, and is not the standard language that you would expect to hear from either of these groups. The hour is late and it's time to just tell it like it is. I think that lawyers think better and clearer than other people and that to be educated we must become better at thinking like lawyers. Lawyering is really all about asshole and bullshit detection and prevention. I always try to think like a lawyer rather than a scientist or anything else when trying to determine if what I am hearing is bullshit. A good lawyer can tell when a doctor is bullshitting without knowing a thing about medicine. Both assholes and bullshit have been around since the beginning of time and it's the science of jurisprudence, the first subject ever called a science that deals with both assholes and bullshit. Assholes are dealt with using punitive laws and bullshit is detected using evidence and cross examination.

I've been reading, thinking, listening and writing about the changes society has undertaken after seeing these changes up close and personal in 2001. I haven't been doing this for popularity but to distill my own thoughts. I've only written only about 100,000 words, not nearly enough to be a real writer. I've wanted to look at this recent political change rationally rather than empirically and try and find a way to encompass the problem at it's root and express it simply and clearly. Lots of people already do great work in history and current events but there are few rationalists in what we sometimes call "the truth movement". Rationalist thought is being forgotten and idealists are often viewed as fools. Plato was an idealist, so was Kant, G.K. Chesterton and so am I. We need ideals to ground our thinking in logic. Ideals govern and control thought.

It seems to me that we have a real asshole problem and a real bullshit problem and that's about as eloquent as I can say it. I would never sacrifice truth for style. It also seems like people are being hypnotized by mass media and education to love both assholes and bullshit. I think our love for assholes and bullshit is actually replacing an instinctive love of truth. Hardly anyone wants to know what the truth is anymore. Anyone who has seen an entertainment hypnotist such as Mike Mandell and can see through one percent of the bullshit in our media and from the mouths of politicians must find the idea of mass hypnosis both believable and likely.

It is not only the leaders that are often assholes, but we the people have been educated and indoctrinated into becoming assholes. We live in an emerging asshole society and we really have forgotten our understanding of what an asshole is. It hasn't happened by accident and has something to do with how we talk about politics.

We knowingly and willingly buy things made by child slaves. We know the wars and foreign occupations are just done to export our corrupt money all over the world. We support the wars as if that is a good and noble thing. We do not expect that a movie star on a toothpaste ad really uses that brand of toothpaste. We don't know our neighbors and children move far away from parents in the pursuit of more fake dollars. We do not own our cars or houses but imagine that we do. We accept a public education system which is really nothing more than an idiot factory.

What does a society of assholes really deserve?

We did not elect leaders prior to the emergence of communism as a popular political idea, we elected legislators and rationalism was our guide. Rationalism and it's universal law has been replaced with leaders and agenda and new laws don't have to be rational, logical or based on the science it is said to be based on. The West was built on universal and therefore necessarily rational law. The West was great because the West was good, as Tocqueville said about America. This was a long time ago. Law is being replaced by rules to aid agenda's set forth by oligarchies who almost always throughout history turn out to be assholes. Marcus Aurelius, a ancient Roman emperor and philosopher, is often said to be the only emperor that was truly for Rome and it's people rather than himself. He was a philosopher as well.

I wrote this to provide a hopefully interesting introduction to the tools that people need to detect bullshit and identify assholes much more effectively and quickly than they do now. Everybody thinks they can do this well, but if you can do it like a lawyer you will do it better. I want to show the time tested cognitive tools that have become part of the science of jurisprudence to save time in identifying assholes and avoiding bullshit.

The key is to recognize bullshit, connect it to the asshole spreading it or at the root of it and stop listening to that asshole. It seems simple, but in reality it isn't or we wouldn't have this asshole problem in the first place. The fact that we have not stopped listening to assholes is the evidence that we are under a mass hypnosis. A little bit of truth is the antidote for propaganda, and hopefully hypnosis, and we need to be reminded about some fundamental truths about assholes and bullshit.

I believe that people need to be reminded of what an asshole actually is as well as be reminded to use their natural asshole and bullshit detection tools when watching TV just as much as they would when buying a used car, if not much much more.

The news is not truth, it's a narrative that is maintained uniformly throughout the Networks and Hollywood. Neither has any obligation to tell us the truth about anything. The Network News is for entertainment purposes only, "legally" speaking, which means they aren't liable for their bullshit. Public education tells incredibly grotesque and monstrous lies of omission to maintain this narrative.

There is a science of assholes and bullshit and it's called the Science of Jurisprudence. Most of it is really simple and intuitive and it's really about detecting and avoiding assholes and bullshit. A science book like this is usually something you can read on the beach, I'm not saying you would want to.

They don't teach lawyers this science anymore and this is due to something called the Administrative Procedures Act of 1947, all Western Countries have it and it gives the courts right to assume that you have given up your rights because you are an idiot and cannot understand them. Agency gives right in Roman law and the West has in it's great wisdom practiced Roman law, as well as English law.

The last book on this subject was published in the 1940's and is called Theoretical Jurisprudence by John Salmond. I think many older ones are better but this one is very good and you can find many of these as free PDF's on the web. It's good to read a few of these. The fact that this isn't taught to lawyers is evidence that we live in an age of absurdism. I'm no lawyer, but I read a stack of these books.

Absurdism occurs when there is no meaning or purpose to life and all of the truths that we get from our sense of purpose and meaning become irrelevant. This includes rational moral truth based on the universal law. We are losing touch with the concept of objective right and wrong. Theoretical jurisprudence is rational truth in law. It's math for law, and it's being forgotten.

This loss of the foundational truths of the West will result in a categorical loss in human freedoms of all forms. The oligarchs who run our society are very much opposed to ordinary people having time to think or energy to make change. Powerful people want to keep and expand their power. They want it so their power can never be questioned or challenged. No one likes to give up power and most would like more. To some, power over others is everything.

They want us working the mines for fourteen hours a day, or dead. This is history, most people have been slaves throughout history. Western Societies have been exceptions to this general rule over the past few hundred years.

There is a group within any group that determines the agendas. If not explicitly true then it is implicit. Kant calls this group the Illuminati and one exists for any organization, secretly or in the open. Conspiracy theorists aren't crazy but they are well read and Kant was certainly one of them.

Philosophically I am what people call a Kantian and I think we misunderstand a lot of things by not putting them into Kantian terms. One hundred years ago the most respected philosophers were Plato, Kant and Shakespeare. Kant is truly monumental in philosophy and many divide the history of philosophy into pre and post Kantian periods. Kant is an extremely difficult philosopher to read, but for us mortals we have Sebastian Gardner's Routledge Guide to the Critique Of Pure Reason and the knowledge to read Kantian Logic before actually reading Kant.

Unlike most of the other difficult philosophers, Kant is very much worth reading. Kant, much more than my university education in engineering, taught me how to think. I believe Kant to be the greatest thinker that ever lived and by a very long shot and I am no where near the only one that would say this. His ideas are studied by all kinds of students, from art to biology, the physical sciences and the science of jurisprudence. This eighteenth century philosopher has ground breaking ideas and innovations of thought that are still accepted today in many different subject areas.

His ideas require close, careful and long term study to be understood. No one says they understand it all and he has been estimated to have had an IQ in access of 180. His Critique Of Pure Reason remains one of the most important and difficult books ever written.

I'm going to use Kantian terms to look at the political landscape rather than the typical left/right, democratic/republican or liberal/conservative paradigm. This will make intuitive sense to you. The ideas I present here don't really need outside help for support, people sometimes call these ideas "axiomatic", although not all are axiomatic, they are still simple, logical and intuitive. Really, it's almost all sitting up there in your head, I'm just going to turn some lights on. Better words paint clearer pictures.

It seems to me that we have to start talking about assholes, to flesh out the idea and get some words that are connected to this idea. Maybe we can say something about assholes. Maybe we can clarify and solidify our working definition of the word asshole.

Could I have chosen better words than assholes and bullshit? I don't think so.

I look up the online thesaurus to find synonyms for the word asshole. I get a list of possible synonyms and get sixteen possible fits. I get a few really really bad words, ones that I would almost never use. I have never heard or read the word "philgarlic". Some of the other words I got were "asshat", "asswipe", and "schmuck", and these really do not fit. I get the word "idiot" which would have fit if it was one hundred years ago, when we were required to have a moral sense and received a moral education.

I cannot find it in my American Heritage 1971 dictionary. In my Webster's unabridged, I cannot find asshole but can find "asshat". I find a definition in my Webster's ninth collegiate addition, "stupid, incompetent or detestable person". I wouldn't use the word asshole to describe someone who is stupid or incompetent unless they intentionally misrepresented themselves. Most people that are stupid don't know they are stupid and therefore can't be called assholes. Stupid assholes are just the assholes that think they are smarter than everyone else in direct opposition to what is obvious and they believe that their imagined superior intellect gives the license to be an asshole.

The word "contemptible person" came up on the web, but that really doesn't quite fit, especially in these times in which we live. It seems like the real assholes are the least contemptible persons, even heroes for many. I could have used the word psychopath or sociopath, but those words only describe the most extreme of assholes. A lot of assholes don't really think that they are assholes because they are stuck on the first stage of Kohlberg's three stages of moral development, which I explain in the segment on assholes. Think of the phrase "go-along-to-get-along" when considering this pre-adolescent first stage of moral development.

Think "professionals". Our society has been in a process of demoralization for well over a half of a century and most professionals now have the moral compass of a troubled twelve year old boy in my own experience. I don't think that people operating at this level can really and truly understand what an asshole is, but I'm no doctor, or any kind of professional, so who am I to say? They know what an asshole is but do not understand it in their actions. The famous French sociology intellectual, Jacques Ellul explains that no one in power cares what people believe or think, it's what they do with their hands that matters. See "Propaganda: The Shaping Of Men Attitudes".

The term asshole really has a well understood, clear, and strict definition. An asshole is someone that violates the universal law: "treat others the way you want to be treated", the Golden Rule, the Roman "Right Of Self", or the Great Unwritten Writ. So asshole is really a scientific term due to a strict definition, which cannot be worded perfectly, hence the "Great Unwritten Writ" in law. This is the precept from which Western law is created.

Bullshit is different in that it is a descriptive term of art.

The word "narrative" immediately springs to mind when I think of polite words that mean bullshit, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to equate "bullshit" with "narrative". A narrative can be similar to a white lie in intention.

I look up bullshit in my Webster's unabridged dictionary from 1981 and there is no listing. I look it up in my 1987 Webster's collegiate dictionary, which is very abridged and get "nonsense, foolish insolent talk" and "to talk nonsense with the intention of deceiving" and this, I believe, is the best definition I could find. Although sometimes, what is used to deceive is not nonsense but truth made to be taken out of context. So it doesn't quite fit.

The word "propaganda" is also a possible fit, but not exactly. There is good propaganda, such as the propaganda that gets us to go out and get more exercise, as we saw a campaign for that in the seventies on television here in Ontario. The word "liar" almost fits but the techniques of art in bullshit have a wider scope than just being lies. Sometimes people use bullshit techniques to fertilize our minds with limited truth to allow the lies of the future to prosper and grow when planted. "Negative Propaganda" or "Bad Propaganda" could have worked but it doesn't go well with the other part of the title "Assholes" and one word is better than two, especially when you need to use the expression all the time.

Bullshit does not quite mean deception. People can be deceived for their own benefit. This can be done with well intentioned propaganda, and what we call "white lies". I'm not sure you can just call that bullshit because there is virtue in it. It's not all bad and doesn't include bad agency, and I think the word bullshitter implies a bad agency.

I get a bunch of synonyms from the web, the only one I like is "hogwash". But "hogwash" is an object, so is bullshit, but really bullshit is understood to be an art form as well. It is often, but not always the art of the asshole. Some assholes are assholes for other reasons than being artful bullshitters.

I think the best definition I could find "to talk nonsense with the intention of deceiving" hits it close, but really bullshitters may not be speaking nonsense. Can you still be considered bullshitting when just lying by omission? I hope someone can answer that in the comments, it seems to me that being a bullshitter requires an action of some sort. The phrase "bad propaganda" seems to be the best overall fit to me.

Lying by omission really deserves it's own word, it can actually be worse than lying by commission. Maybe there is a word for this and it's been kept hidden from everyone. Lying by omission is the primary tool of the propaganda state, things would add up if there was a conspiracy to prevent people from using or knowing that word, if one exists. I couldn't find a word for this on the web or in a few dictionaries.

I can find neither assholes or bullshit in my Blacks 4th Law Dictionary. I would guess that these two words get used by both lawyers and people talking about lawyers more than anyone else. Maybe the lawyers plotted to keep these two words out of the dictionary.

I could have used words from the Christian Bible such as sinner, but atheists would think themselves exempt.

It wouldn't have to be lawyers behind a conspiracy to keep these words out of the dictionary. It could have been any number of groups: Madison Avenue Propagandists, Wall Street Bankers, the professionals, public educators, governments or NGO's. If I had to guess I would say it would most likely be NGO's behind it. They could all be in on it together, or the people who edit dictionaries could be MK Ultra programmed. Lots of people have an interest in preventing people from knowing more about bullshit.

Maybe it was a secret society of administrative attorneys, income tax accountants, and used car salesmen. I don't think it is fair to group used car salesmen with professionals. I don't think you could get a group of used car salesmen to stay quiet about something so obvious as the bullshit attacks of 9 11.

We really and truly are surrounded by assholes, which makes this such an important word.

I think that we are entering a communist dictatorship where the lower level dictators are operating at the earliest stage of what is well known as Kolberg's stages of moral development, which essentially means that anything is possible and it will be dictated from above and implemented from below. If the true powers of this world are assholes then their lower level enforcers will also be assholes due to their own retarded moral development. Who saws off the branch they sit on? Is there honor among thieves? It's a collective madness that I have struggled to understand for many years and I'm no closer to it now than I was on the day I started. Either I'm crazy or everyone else is.

Some people in power have no choice other than to be assholes, the public demands assholes in the elections. We have required our elected officials to serve both us and private banking interests at the same time since 1913. No man can serve two masters unless he is an asshole, so that is why it feels like we have assholes running things. It's because we do and we have for over one hundred years.

I'm not really a conspiracy theorist, I just identify bullshit and think about why we have so many assholes in power. All of politics is conspiracy, according to Aristotle in The Politic, and if you can think clearly you can see that this is obviously true. Politics is also a kind of science and it's been around for thousands of years. You can clearly see today's reality in the pages of Plato and Aristotle. There is nothing new about assholes joining secret societies and getting involved in politics. There is nothing new about wars and why they are fought and there is nothing new about corruption. The Republic of Plato considers the question "is it better to be an asshole?". In Plato's Republic, the best life to be had is that of an asshole that is seen as a saint. Kant, of course, addresses this question better in his Metaphysics Of Morals, a subject beyond the scope of these first few sections. I hope to explain that and make this a "living" book and elaborate and expand on these topics.

You don't encounter many assholes in everyday life. Being an asshole at the ordinary man's level is still relatively prohibited, although you can have empowered assholes at work and in other positions of power but they are demasculated through political correctness. I'm not saying that is a good thing. I think we should learn to want to treat people better rather than be forced to at gunpoint or threatened with economic or legal sanction. The asshole you meet in everyday life can just be thought of as a victim of retarded development.

Sometimes people are so nice as to be like a rubber band being stretched, much of this is political correctness. Stretch that band too far and it snaps. I sometimes wonder if this is the true purpose of political correctness, along with suppressing intelligent debate and cross examination of establishment narratives.

So who am I to be talking about such lofty ideas?

I don't have a PhD in the Greeks and can't read Latin, I'm not a Stanford math PhD. I barely got through my undergrad electrical engineering degree from a school you never heard of. I left a "dream" job writing code to preserve my sanity in 2001. I could not think about all of this and do that at the same time and I couldn't stop thinking about all of this. No amount of fake or even real money is worth giving up your sanity. I'm not often accused of being the sharpest tool in the box but I've been thinking about all this and intensely studying law and philosophy in periods over the past twenty years. I've read lots theoretical politics from the greatest of the thinkers in our history and I have done politics on campaigns, sitting on my student union board of directors at my Alma-mater, and in running for office.

I'm not using this platform to bring you my ideas, except one. It's only my idea that these powerful words should become part of respectable conservative language to be used in formal company, but this idea stands alone. It's an idea I think is worth considering. Let someone else explain why not. It's also my idea that new good ideas are few, the solutions to our problems lie in what we have forgotten. One of my favorite quotes comes from Donald Rumsfeld, "There are things we know, things we don't know and things we don't know we don't know". I just add the caveat "and things forgotten". I think we forgot a lot about assholes and bullshit when the TV gets turned on, we watch a Hollywood movie, or a politician opens his mouth.

I'm simply reading old philosophy and law books and trying to provide the cognitive tools that I have gleaned from these so that other people may identify bullshit more effectively and better recognize assholes.

Most people have had their minds warped and twisted by the assholes of Hollywood, the assholes of Network Television and the assholes of Public Education. A well educated person should be able to easily smell bullshit, but look around and we can see this is obviously not true. Most people are not familiar with the science of jurisprudence and often fall victim to the asshole's because they believe a lot of what can easily be exposed as bullshit using a few simple rules. Learn these rules and you will believe a lot less bullshit.

It will be a cool sunny day in hell before the assholes of public education, the assholes of network television and the assholes of Hollywood start showing people how to detect bullshit and explain why they should stop listening to assholes.

### Assholes

I first encountered a book on this topic, Aaron James book "Assholes: A Theory" on mainstream bookshelves, it is sold everywhere. The book has two incredibly important takeaways that I wanted to elaborate on. "Asshole" is a distinctively Western term and Westerners understand it's meaning clearly. There is much to be said about these two takeaways.

Aaron James defines the asshole as one that believes he can operate by a different set of rules than everyone else. I define the asshole as one who violates the universal law, and we are all assholes to an extent. Both really mean the same thing, but my definition lets me bring in the Original Sin, which gets me a little deeper into the asshole problem. James says that masculine word is "asshole" and the feminine is "bitch". "Asshole" and "bitch" have the same meaning, but here I will use the masculine sense, else some of those Rockefeller Feminist bitches might complain that I am discriminating against women by focusing this essay on bitches rather than assholes. I am safe from the censors if I stick to assholes because assholes are men. I got that from James as well.

Aarron James explains that you have to be careful about what you say because there are a lot of assholes that don't think others deserve the right of free speech, although they themselves cannot possibly believe that their own words should ever be censored. Ideals trump reason and rationality in a world run by assholes.

It's a good light reading book if you are interested in assholes. It's good to be reminded that you are not the only one facing this problem.

In my experience there are two fundamentally different types of assholes, but they are both assholes for the same reason. There is the arrested development kind of asshole who cannot think beyond punishment and reward and explanations for this at the psychological level lie outside the scope of this essay and my abilities and are generally well understood anyway. There is the second kind of asshole, the kind with power.

## Assholes With Power

I think there are three important observations to be made on the subject of powerful assholes. The Republic Of Plato states that (1) secret societies exist to take something away from everyone else and that (2) war is fought for money. The book is 2500 years old but as true today as it was back then. There are universal truths in politics.

The removal of narcissism (3) as a personality disorder from the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual (DSM) in psychiatry has allowed this kind of asshole to proliferate rather than be treated or somehow retarded from having jobs that may involve rational moral thinking of a higher order.

Generally speaking, members of the public know what an asshole is but they do not seem to be able to apply this knowledge when making judgments regarding the politic of our society or recognize assholes from mainstream media. Minds turn off when the television gets turned on. Somehow assholes have become leaders and heroes.

People understanding things like assholes and bullshit is not in the interest of any oligarchy, and it never has been. The general interests of the oligarchy, who controls finance and establishes boundaries for national governments to operate within through implicit financial control have never and never will coincide with the interests, hopes, dreams and aspirations of the average person. They write about what they want but nobody reads anymore. Of course it's all out in the open. Alan Watt, ex guitarist for Alan Parsons and now the creator of "Cutting Through The Matrix" www.Cuttingthroughthematrix.ca explains all that. He does it empirically. Jon Rappoport, "No More Fake News", www.nomorefakenews.com takes a different approach. Both are indispensable to anyone looking to shovel all the bullshit away from the truth.

People pushing ethical agendas have been painting a picture of our past Western juristic society as something unethical, and avoiding cross examinations of their ideas while doing so. Juristic ideas almost do not exist in the modern education systems, which are ethical brain washing systems. Ethical ideas go unchallenged in principle. I'm going to explain what I mean by "juristic" and "ethical" systems in this section, but for now it's sufficient to say for now that assholes don't do well in juristic societies and juristic societies aren't favored by assholes. Powerful assholes do incredibly well in purely ethical systems of government.

The very word "law" implies universality. Law, whether physical, mathematical or moral is universal. Western law has it's basis in rational universal law, and it's essential purpose is to protect you and me from assholes. Assholes are people that violate this universal law.

As a science, this idea of universal law stands up well over time. It's initial precept, the golden rule, the single commandment in Christianity, or the great unwritten writ, has not changed in 2000 years, whereas physics has undergone changes in it's precepts, first the work of Newton and now ideas like Noether's theorem form the basis in physics. Only math and moral law have not had their basic precepts changed - math and the universal law are both accepted purely rational truths. The very idea of the asshole is as a-priori as the shortest distance between two points being a straight line.

Law is based on religion. It has to be, laws must be unchangeable by men. Laws do not emerge from thin air but from the Gods but this is beyond the scope of this essay. The laws that come from God are carved in stone and cannot be changed by men. Laws anchor us to reality, whatever that reality may be.

Laws require statutes, or rules for it's application. Statutes are written under the guidance of law by men, statutes make judgments less dependent on judges and shorten the time that would otherwise be taken by deducing verdict strictly from first principles. This is a great Roman Justinian innovation to fight corruption, the judgments being made less dependent on the judges, who could be assholes. It's also worth noting that if engineers deduced everything from first principles we would still be dependent on steam engines. A modern fair system must have many statutes but too many statutes can lead to statutory abuse. Too few leads to wide interpretations and room for assholes to move around in.

Statutes need to be regulated and the common law, or the idea of universal law regulates courts to prevent statutory abuse. This is the great innovation of Christianity above other forms of purely statutory religions. Christianity is revolutionary rather than evolutionary when compared to other religions. It is regulative, not constitutive. It regulates the legislators and their statutes so that we are not abused by assholes.

Statutes are pictures of this horse, the common law is the actual horse. Statutes, ideally, are ideal expressions of the common law but we don't live in an ideal world.

The great Original Writ of Western Jurisprudence is universal law, sometimes referred to as natural law, but there are faults with every expression, so it is also called the "unwritten law" or the Great Unwritten Writ in books about theoretical jurisprudence.

This natural law has been expressed in many ways, the Greek Golden Rule, The single commandment of the New Testament, the Roman "Right of Self", and in Kant's three successive categorical imperatives. I cannot see why "don't be an asshole" could not be a modern expression of this common law, this precept that is necessary for a science, in this case the science of jurisprudence. Imagine if those words were carved in stone on every courthouse and had lawful force and effect.

Like math having counting and the shortest distance between two points being a straight line is enough to know to be able to deduce all of math, the ideal of "don't be an asshole"could be a precept for the purely rational science of jurisprudence, but the single commandment of the New Testament is written in stone and has served the West well and it says the same thing, essentially "don't be an asshole" and this is the only commandment in the New Testament.

Christianity has the concept of Original Sin, no law can be perfect and applied jurisprudence is filled with practical difficulties as anyone who has watched Judge Judy can attest.

Douglas Adams, in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy mentions a guy, two thousand years ago, who came up with the idea that the world would be a better place if we just treated each other better, in my words, if some people just stopped being assholes, and he ended up nailed to a cross. The world is filled with assholes.

Why so many assholes? The science of law knows a lot about assholes, but statutory regulators do not always know a lot about law, and they are all assholes to varying degrees. People always vote for the lessor of the assholes currently running for office rather than run for office themselves and they tend to vote for highly qualified assholes rather than less qualified non assholes. We worship expert assholes rather than good honest people as if assholes are required for the job. It's hard to find good honest people who want the responsibility of power. Assholes ignore this responsibility.

There is always the kind of asshole that willingly puts himself into a position of having to serve two masters (the people and the financial institutions). No man can serve two masters. People fall into corruption and power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. To be protected from assholes we must have other assholes in power, it's the central argument for anarchy.

It's the original sin. No man can be a moral ideal. We live in an empirical world. Satan rules this empirical world, the physical world of time and space. Christ rules in the rational world, which is time and space independent, with the precept of universal law. He states that he is not of this world in the New Covenant. If you don't know that Lucifer runs this world, it is time to learn. That statement partly just means the world isn't perfect in a moral sense. The world will always be run by powerful assholes and their power depends on the people not applying what they know about assholes to what they hear from assholes.

I believe that assholes grew in great numbers when countries allowed private banks to print their money, and made the countries go bankrupt. Elected governments now must operate within parameters set by banks and serve the public at the same time. No man can serve two masters, so everyone that tries must be an asshole to some extent. We live in a world full of assholes because the world is run by private money interests with great concentrations of power, and therefore great concentrations of corruption, and powerful assholes.

Christ himself threw the money changers out of the temple. One does not mix water, the law of man, with wine, the law of reason which gets better with age, unless necessary and our corrupt money changers do not belong in a place of reasoned universal law.

Assholes are often sorry they ever became assholes. Imagine if you were walking in a field with dog shit all over the place. If you could never wipe your shoe, would you worry about stepping in it? Probably not because you know it will eventually happen and it will stick to your shoe and you can't get it off. So you give up and end up tracking it all over the place. Forgiveness is a necessary part of a good society and a key aspect of Christianity, it lets us wipe off our shoes and always try not to be assholes. Forgiveness is the antidote for guilt and shame, it is necessary because the devil operates in guilt and shame.

The expression "oh well, I'm going to hell anyway" just makes you another asshole in Christianity. I think a lot of young people become assholes and are sorry they did later in life. I just blame it on our unbelievably rotten public education system, run by assholes. In eight or twelve years of classroom instruction people could be a lot wiser.

There are three kinds of societies according to Immanual Kant in his Metaphysics Of Morals, the juristic, the despotic and the ethical society. The juristic society has it's laws regulated by the common law which creates the science of jurisprudence, hence juristic society. The despotic society is the anarchist society where there are no laws to protect people from assholes that have power. It is a transitional state as society switches from ethical base to juristic, or from juristic to ethical as we are currently experiencing this slow change as ideologies seem to trump what most people think of as common sense.

Ethics is an art because it isn't universal and doesn't have precepts from which a science depends. An ethical system is a system run by men rather than principles. The artist may paint the tree in such a way as it's colors please the viewers of the painting. An artist can paint a picture of a tree from a picture of a tree ad infinitum, eventually the painted tree no longer has the essential characteristics of a tree because it loses it's reference to the actual tree. The scientist must draw the tree as it truly is or face sharp criticism.

There is always the dangers of assholes taking power in an ethical society because ethical societies cannot be regulated by the common law and the science of jurisprudence. Ethical societies have precepts that come from the hopes, dreams and aspirations of it's ruling classes, ideologies, rather than a requirement of law that is universal. This is asshole law and the people will demand an ethical society citing all of the negatives of the juristic society and without knowing the basis, nature and real history of the juristic society. Often times they will do this, believing themselves qualified and without knowing the meaning of the word "juristic". This would be an example of a stupid asshole.

Ethical systems somehow tell their members that they are smarter than those who believe in juristic systems and that juristic systems should not be studied because they were created by white men. White men ended slavery and created the West, the place where everyone on this planet wants to live. Truly, we the ordinary people, black, brown, yellow or white, male or female, are blessed to live in such a beautiful society, the likes of which are a blip in history never seen before. The West is just not such a great place for assholes, although this has been slowly changing over the past century.

There is no yardstick from which to define evil in any ethical society. Evil is what opposes the agenda that defines the ethic. The agenda changes and the ethic changes along with it. Assholes multiply like fruit flies to protect the agenda and maintain the ethic. I will explain how this happens shortly in my rules for asshole detection.

Assholes have killed more than one hundred million people in the communist revolutions of the previous century alone and there are always new ones saying they are smarter than the ones of history. The ones behind the "Great Leap Forward" or the "New Soviet" killed tens of millions of Christians because Christians had a yardstick from which to clearly identify assholes. There will always be newer and better assholes because power creates them and they will always be threatened by Christianity.

History is often recognized as a great big lie, a lie of omission told by assholes. It's not what they say, but what they do not say that allows beliefs and opinions to be molded to the needs of assholes in power. If the assholes in Hollywood made movies about communist revolutions the world would be a better place than it is today. This doesn't happen because the assholes of Hollywood are mostly communists.

Lies of omission are much less easily detected than lies of commission. Most people know nothing about the Bolshevik Revolution or Great Leap Forward or the many other communist revolutions in the world during the last century because mainstream history is a series of lies of omission to serve the needs of the assholes in power. These assholes are communists so don't like to talk much about what happens during communist revolutions but it's been put on paper. Harvard University has a Solzhenitsyn Center named after the author of "Gulag Archipelago" which exposed the communists of Russia who were financed by the banks in the United States. A communist revolution is far sicker, meaner and more depraved than anything you have seen in movies about World War Two from the assholes of Hollywood. The sickness, cruelty and sheer magnitude of a communist revolution lies outside the boundaries of the imagination of a healthy mind.

## Assholes of the First Kind

Blackstone's commentary on English law uses the word "mean" in place of "stupid", back then stupidity and meanness were almost synonyms. Back then people were truly educated.

Morality was taught but sometimes not well understood by the stupid. Now we have educated assholes of the first kind because the education system does not include enough moral education to match the level of power they attain from the practice of science.

C. S. Lewis explains that people in our scientific society study advanced topics and ideas but do not have the moral education required to understand the larger issues that go with their power and influence. This creates what he calls "clever devils".

Being famous used to denote fame for some great moral act. Now we have assholes that are famous. It's an inversion of good and evil. G. K. Chesterton explains the inversion that takes place when Christianity is lost.

Assholes of the second kind deliberately create a retarded development in society to create the assholes of the first kind that will accept a society run by assholes. Many people simply do not care, or believe they have no power when all the power lies in their own willingness to accept responsibility, not only with votes but with wallet as well.

This first kind of asshole operates only from immediate self interest, not long term, and expects those around him to do the same, and expects to be ruled by assholes.

One hundred years ago we would have recognized the disadvantage of allowing corporations to export know-how and productive capacities. People would buy things made by their relatives, friends and neighbors. Now we all buy things made by foreign slaves in ethical systems of government run by assholes for our own short term benefit of cost savings. We worship comfort rather than the good as our highest ideal. Rousseau explains that comfort is one of the great corruptors of mankind. Comfort makes us weak and stupid and we export the power of the people when we export productivity. People losing power leads to people being ruled by assholes.

It seems to me that anyone who profits in any way from slave labor is obviously an asshole. To fix the world we all have to stop being assholes and we need to talk about it.

John Locke once said that the reason for conflict is lack of communication. The defense of ideologies at the expense of universal law requires censorship and therefore increases the possibility of conflict in principle. One can only look at the behavior of those pushing for an ethical society to see how censorship and even violence are used to quash contrary viewpoints. One can be arrested now for expressing contrary viewpoints to "accepted narratives" or challenging establishment ideals or giving accepted narratives a cross examination (asking the wrong questions).

Communication is the tool intelligent people use to resolve conflict. Understanding reduces conflict and can only occur with communication. The better and greater the communication, the less chance for conflict. Communication is often restricted by assholes to foment conflict, divide people and create a society more easily led by assholes. Communication is also restricted by immature and weak people who do not like to have their ideas challenged.

Having a valid opinion requires knowledge of both sides of an argument. To have a valid opinion means you believe you can win a debate and for that you have to know your opponent's view and why it is wrong, and why he believes it to be true. You can only get this by listening, not through ignorance. What do you know that he or she doesn't? What does he or she know that you do not? Common ground is achieved with communication. People having common ground gives them defense from assholes in power. Not knowing your opponents view makes you just another stupid asshole. Me having to explain this is just evidence of an unbelievably corrupted public education system. If you cannot defend your ideas than you are a stupid asshole if you voice them.

Champions of bad ideas don't like to be challenged or questioned when they know they are spreading bullshit.

Now people are simply programmed and the modern university educated people have no idea about anything called a juristic society or healthy debate, or really anything that could credibly challenge their programmed views. Younger people don't have the life experience which teaches them about assholes and bullshit in the real world. Not everything can be learned in schools.

They will stand and cheer for a more ethical society, they will stand and cheer as new more powerful assholes take power and the former assholes that were regulated by scientific jurisprudence disappear. They will be the new useful idiots.

A publicly educated and media educated citizen can be easily regulated with simple propaganda created by assholes. The purpose of modern education is not to teach people how to think but to teach them how to behave as a people ruled by assholes, that is not to ask questions or raise doubt or controversy.

Propaganda usually takes the form of lies by omission rather than commission. It also has ideas that get planted into the subconscious mind in movies created by the assholes of Hollywood. This is a very simple and very powerful technique of propaganda. The most significant aspects of history over the last century and beyond are simply not mentioned on the networks, in Hollywood movies and in public education.

Watch almost any movie that involves really rotten assholes. They are almost always visibly Christians. This gets people hating Christianity at the subconscious level and then later looking at facts that add up to historical lies of omission written by assholes that reinforce their opinion that is ultimately based on feeling and ignorance rather than fact.

The only good society is a fair society. A fair society operates by universal law. The hard reality of Original Sin prevents the perfect society. Few people at the end of sixteen years of Western public education understand the concept of Original Sin.

## Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

Kohlberg's stages of moral development is a simple, well respected and well known idea. There are hundreds of short five minute explanations for this three stage model of moral development on YouTube. Each stage contains part (a) and part (b), some call it six stages. I'm going to explain this concept in a simplified three stage form to better match the context of this essay. Readers are strongly encouraged to watch a few of the many five minute YouTube videos on this topic. Honestly, I think my explanation is the best. Newton may have invented calculus, but Leibniz made it possible for the ordinary person to understand it.

In stage one we have the people pleasing level. The child seeks only to please those around them and please himself, obedience and self interest are the key words in identifying this first stage.

Social pressure can be powerful, we all conform against our better judgment to some degree and politicians operate from pressure from the electorate as well as pressure to conform to long term ethical agendas from the assholes that occupy the real seats of power.

Politicians are representatives and therefore vote on behalf of the represented. The squeaky wheel gets oiled. The maintenance of a republic or democracy must fall on the citizen if authority and responsibility are to remain balanced. There is no other way for a democracy to work.

The politician can work at stage one and often does so willingly and knowingly. Pleasing your supporters defines the responsibilities associated with the job, because in reality the politicians only quantifiable responsibility is to get himself re-elected. Doing the right thing often gets you negative media coverage from assholes and reduced chances of being re-elected from an electorate that mainly operates at this pre-adolescent stage of moral development.

Somehow, in the media, politicians that were the lesser assholes were made out to be total assholes and the total assholes were portrayed as non assholes. People stopped watching and participating in the system sensing that they were being fed bullshit all the time. The system became over run by assholes who were really just working in the interest of other bigger and more powerful assholes.

Public education policy changed and the responsibility of participating in and maintaining a democracy was no longer taught. Civics became social studies. People began to think of themselves as merely driftwood floating in a sea of bullshit, and they have been left confused regarding their responsibilities of keeping assholes at bay. People do not use basic methods of asshole and bullshit detection and continue to listen to assholes.

Many people now operate professionally at stage one of the stages of moral development. Going along to get along is what professionals do and those who step out of the box are punished. We are becoming a society of assholes of the first kind, run by assholes of the second kind. Demoralization of a society is a necessary step to get people to abandon universal law and be ruled by assholes.

You can bet that in hell there is a preponderance of assholes and we are well on our way there.

In stage two there is the recognition for rules. Society must have laws to exist and people should follow those laws for the good of society. This is called the "conventional level" of moral development and moral development ceases at this point for most people.

In stage three, the post conventional stage, there is the recognition that no law can be truly universal. Universal principles should regulate written law. Few people reach this stage of abstract reasoning and this level of reasoning is required to truly understand both Christianity and the science of Western Jurisprudence.

Christianity has the disadvantage of a low cognitive availability because it is not about simple rule following such as the case with statutory religions. Christian concepts such as Original Sin, The Trinity and the concept of forgiveness have been deduced from logic and reason and they can be justified rather than merely accepted as another rule created by powerful and illustrious assholes. This level of understanding requires careful thought and good education.

The Catholics did not only play a key role in the development of modern science but deduced these rational moral concepts from the concept of universal law as preached by Christ in the New Covenant, just as mathematicians created calculus from arithmetic and geometry.

Assholes in power have painted the Catholics as evil with selective propaganda and lies of omission because the Christians have the cognitive tools to identify assholes and therefore must be brainwashed to hate their own religion, or be dumbed down or destroyed to impede opposition that powerful assholes may otherwise face.

## Rules for Identifying Assholes

Assholes can often be suspected by the following actions. These actions should excite your asshole detectors.

# Rule 1: The Protection Racket

Assholes often promise safety. The protection racket is as old as the hills. If you are walking down the street on a hot day and a man drives up to you on the sidewalk and offers you a free ice cream if you get into his van, it's probably not a good idea to get in the van. Safety gives license for draconian rule making and ignorance of the basic universal rights of people and the setting aside of universal law. Is it really an emergency or is it just assholes saying there is a state of emergency?

#  Rule 2: Descriptive & Prescriptive Writing

There is descriptive and prescriptive writing. Goebbels, the propaganda minister for the Nazi's is often quoted as saying that if you repeat propaganda often enough people will believe it. This is in fact true. He was being descriptive, not prescriptive. It's important to know if someone is being descriptive or prescriptive before determining if they are an asshole.

Philosophers such as Machiavelli, Rousseau and Nietzsche and others are sometimes labeled as assholes by people who misrepresent them as being prescriptive. It's a form of bullshit designed to draw people away from reading I think. Nietzsche, Rousseau, Machiavelli and others have very relevant things to say about these times. Assholes spread bullshit to kill your curiosity. Philosophers being misrepresented by assholes to draw you away from them is nothing new.

# Rule 3: The Ego Booster

We all like to be told we are great and it's a real boost to our ego. I said earlier that assholes multiply like fruit flies in some ethical systems. Assholes are created when an asshole meets a non asshole and showers them with compliments and admiration. This creates hubris and hubris is antithetical to wisdom. The hubris makes people fertile for the conversion and ripe for trusting other bigger and more powerful assholes. A master bullshitter is always someone you are going to like.

We usually think highly of those who think highly of ourselves. This method is probably the most popular among assholes and works very well on young people already infected with hubris, psychopathy or narcissism, or in other words, victims of public education.

# Rule 4: The Asshole & Bullshit Connection

When we hear bullshit, we should connect it to the asshole spreading it and stop listening to that asshole. This does occur in our day to day interactions, we don't generally like assholes or listen to them. Why can't we apply this to the political and propaganda state? It's the question of the century I suppose. I think it's strong circumstantial evidence of mass hypnosis.

# Rule 5: Power Corrupts

Power corrupts and people, like gasses, expand to fill their container. People with power must be contained. It's the original sin, we need money to have a society, we need law to have money and we need people to write legislation and administer and enforce law to have law with forceful and fair effect.

The less we know about law, the more likely we are to be ruled by assholes. We must have law and that law must be enforced to have peaceful society. Western Jurisprudence is the best tool from which to contain assholes because Western Jurisprudence is about universal law, which the asshole, by definition, is opposed. Ethical systems have assholes in power for which there is no defense because they have no clear and universal definition of evil.

# Rule 6: Trust: A Sometimes Necessary Evil

Assholes often require trust, they avoid accountability. Trust in reason itself (Christ himself), all others bring evidence. Trust is sometimes a necessary evil but when it is being peddled as a virtue rather than necessity you can bet that you are dealing with an asshole. Trust is related to utilitarianism and the law of equity. Jeremy Bentham is often understood as a champion of these ideas but describes them as sometimes necessary evils rather than virtues in his writings.

Ethical societies are based on trust. Juristic societies are based on contract. Authority and responsibility balance in a juristic society. Their lack of balance creates assholes that require trust in ethical societies. Trust creates powerful and unaccountable assholes.

## Conclusions

The word "asshole" is a uniquely Western word because the West has a system of laws and of internal ethics that essentially follows universal law. The Western consciousness is essentially Christian and Christianity gives us the universal law in written form so that it cannot be changed or restated to serve the needs of powerful assholes.

For the most part we treat others the way we would wish or expect to be treated in the West. The Western nations are where everyone wants to live. No one leaves a Western country to live in an ethical, or in other words, under a communist system of government.

This written law of the New Covenant is the lawful basis of the Commonwealth and it is similar in non commonwealth Western countries. The West adopted universal law as a principle from which to regulate law making to create good laws that encourage and preserve human rights, which leads to good commerce and high productivity. Most books, but not all books on Jurisprudence explain that it's all all based on Christianity, but people knew that back then because they were well educated. Few people write books just to state the obvious.

It is the only system of law that forbids slavery because it is juristic and therefore universal and is therefore antithetical to assholes of all forms, including slave owners, where ethical systems are not universal by definition. Christianity and universal law ended slavery in civilized countries and very few Christians have ever been involved in slavery. Slavery is the business of those who follow purely statutory systems of law, ethical systems unregulated by the principle of universal law.

This universal law is the best antidote to the asshole problem, and it is essentially the single commandment of the New Testament. It is the concept of Christian love. As we lose the concept of universal law we become overrun with assholes as G.K. Chesterton explains. It's in his book "The Last Man" I think. G.K. Chesterton never uses the word "asshole", times were different a hundred or so years ago. I like to think that he would use that word if he was writing today.

No one should want to be ruled by assholes, even if they think they are better connected to the assholes in power than everyone else, or even if they are one of the assholes themselves. Anything can change under an ethical system, as Alexander Solzhenitsyn explains in Gulag Archipelago. He was one of the assholes and he was in the camps with many other former assholes.

The Protestant Kant explains that Christianity is the "best map of human consciousness" and Kant showed that we had moral knowledge a-priori. That is, purely from reason itself prior to any experience. Experience shines a light in the mind to what is already there. The West will soon lose Christianity and common law rule simply because it's people have been dumbed down with public education and media by assholes to the point of not being able to comprehend it or understand it's relationship with law.

Statutory religions such as Judaism, Islam, Atheism and Feminism as well as others do not have this clear definition of evil which is why Christianity, by a very long shot, has been the most persecuted religion throughout history. Assholes in power do not like Christianity and the Christian yardstick for clearly identifying them. The modern "selfism" has only the advantage of simplicity, for a simple minded and demoralized people ready to be ruled by assholes.

Kant states succinctly, in Metaphysics of Morals, "No one would want to live in an ethical society", expecting his readers to understand him. Kant neatly summarizes Nietzsche in a single paragraph in his Critique Of Pure Reason, which was written about 40 years before Nietzsche was born. Kant is the great forgotten philosopher, and is as important as Plato or Aristotle for many. No one would say that about Nietzsche. I think Nietzsche was so wise because he must have studied Kant.

Christianity and Western Jurisprudence remain the best cognitive tools from which to identify assholes, which is why they are both under attack by assholes in power and the asshole public educators who serve them. Public education has the purpose of getting people to accept a society run by assholes.

Corporations have an ethic, the courts are juristic which combats the assholes and bullshit that comes from corporations and keeps them at bay. Corporations are ruled by sin - money and power. Their ethic is how they achieve those ends while remaining in good standing in the courts of public opinion. A juristic system keeps them honest - just so long as they are not allowed to be involved in government. Fascism occurs when corporations and governments unite. The visible freedom movements of today are in reality, a demoralized public demand for corporate fascism.

There are those who silently believe in a utopia that can be created by an ethical society. The rational and historical reality shows something quite different. We can, however, live in a society that puts reins on assholes and bullshit rather than allow them to flourish. This is about as close to Utopia as the Original Sin will permit. Original sin and the corruptibility of mankind is a hard fact, not something just made up by some powerful and illustrious asshole.

It's the assholes of public education that have been teaching with whopping and grotesque lies of omission with regard to both history, ethics and the nature of modern Western societies that allow us to forget the basic nature of men. To be educated we must educate ourselves and not depend on the assholes of public education, the assholes of the Networks and the assholes of Hollywood.

###  Bullshit

Everybody knows what bullshit is and I introduce this topic in the Introduction to the play list "Assholes and Bullshit". This section continues on some of the ideas in the one on assholes. The idea of assholes is necessarily connected to bullshit. So I'm going to review a bit on the section on assholes first.

Normally we use words like conservative, liberal, left, right, communist, socialist, corporatist, democracy and others to categorize political belief. It's better, simpler and clearer to think of ideas of politics being either ethical or juristic. Thinking in these terms can cut through a lot of bullshit. It's an important idea, brought to us by one of the greatest thinkers of history, Immanual Kant. Most people are unaware of this basic idea.

I explained that essentially there are three kinds of societies, ethical, juristic and despotic. I showed why a purely ethical society usually requires assholes and bullshit to function and a juristic society specifically rejects both assholes and bullshit when operating ideally. Despotic societies are transitional states.

I should probably state that the left tend to be ethical where right tend to be juristic in nature. The left tends toward present, right now empirical needs and the right tends toward the preservation of natural law, which is time and place independent and of Christ. Lucifer rules this world and we compromise with the devil, our empirical needs, just to survive. We are born sinners.

You need both vectors, ethical and juristic, to form a political spectrum. The trick in our politic is to keep both sides happy. Countries have to feed their hungry and disadvantaged, and defend borders and educate people or the people get robbed. Politics is about figuring out how to do things such as maintain an ethic and violate universal law as little as possible and keep the peace.

In this way we compromise with the devil, that is, violate universal law to survive, and this usually takes the form of taxation. It's Christian logic that built the Western juristic societies and it's Trinity is manifest in the three branches of government in Western societies, see my video on Christian Doctrine for an explanation of this.

A juristic society gives us the tools to identify assholes and detect bullshit in scientific jurisprudence, which forms the basis for statutory systems. Ethical societies have their statutes based on the hopes, dreams and aspirations of a ruling class rather than universal principles and set universal principles aside for ethical agendas. The interests of a ruling class almost never coincide with the interests of common people.

In this section I want to explain some techniques used in identifying bullshit. We should identify the bullshit and then connect it to the assholes that are spreading it around.

In everyday life, at work or socially we all have confidence in our ability to detect bullshit. We intuitively think that those skills can be transferred over to making judgments on things we see and hear on the media. In reality our minds turn off as soon as the television turns on.

We forget that there are millions of dollars invested in creating an image and a story and by people that we know are master bullshitters. If it is possible to create mathematical models to refine and perfect the art of bullshit you can bet that they are working on it or have done it. They may already have bullshit down to a hard science, but we can only use tools to identify it and think of it as an art rather than a hard science.

People have a subconscious idea that organizations like the CIA are cloak and dagger operations. We imagine cold war and world war two stories from the assholes of Hollywood to create a mental conception of what these organizations actually do. In reality they are the master bullshitters and control and filter what you see on the media as their primary function. They are the ones that mold and shape the minds of the zombies by creating and controlling both the bullshit spread by the Networks and the assholes of Hollywood. The rest of us who don't want to be zombies need to have well developed abilities in the detection of bullshit.

Imagine your walk through everyday life as one walking across a field trying to avoid stepping in it. We interact with people at work and at play and generally believe we have the ability to detect bullshit. Most people who spread bullshit aren't masters at it and they don't have the knowledge from billions of dollars invested to find ways to convert an odor to a fragrance and make bullshit look like a perfect facsimile of the true, the good, and the beautiful all in one steaming hot pile.

The master bullshitters of the media make it ubiquitous in such a way that you walk across that field and you see piles but you don't see the little invisible particles that are slowly collecting on the soles of your feet as you walk around the piles. Sometimes you have to stop and wipe of your shoe because you have collected enough to see it. People do not often look down at their shoes and assume that because they haven't seen it where they have walked, it isn't there. They start thinking that the sound of galloping is a herd of zebras rather than horses.

There are many examples of ideas being planted into the subconscious minds of the public by the assholes of Hollywood and the assholes of Network news.

The assholes of Hollywood create a subconscious attitude toward Christianity by making the worse of the assholes in it's movies to be visibly Christian, with Christian crosses tattooed on them or in some kind of jewelry representing the cross. This enters viewer's minds uncritically and repeatedly and forms an attitude in a viewer through repetition, a simple, well known and well used technique in the art of bullshit.

Subsequent historical lies of omission reinforce that attitude and people believe they have a justified opinion that is against Christianity and it's juristic society. People believe Christians are assholes when Christianity is really the single antidote to the asshole problem. The demand for an ethical society must be due to the underlying negative view of juristic societies that has built up over time watching movies and television made by the assholes of Hollywood and the assholes of the Networks and the assholes of public education. It's a matrix of assholes.

The assholes of Network News use the term "lawmakers" in place of legislators. It's a subtle ploy. Legislation is written as statutes, not laws. They want you to forget the difference. If legislators were in fact lawmakers then they would have the right to mandate sex change operations for all of their citizens to enhance gender sensitivities. By shaping thought well enough they may one day have this right given to them by the sleeping public as they awaken to the reality of a purely ethical system.

Cognitive devices will tell you what you should or should not believe, not whether something is in fact true or false. We don't have time machines and we cannot go back in history or go back to an event to see what actually happened. So we want to know objectively what we should and should not believe, not subjectively what we think happened.

According the Jacques Ellul, a famous French-Canadian sociologist, who wrote the defining book on propaganda, well educated people are not sometimes as good as ordinary people at detecting bullshit because they think they cannot be so easily fooled and therefore have their guard down. Professionals and academics overestimate their own abilities outside the area of their expertise. I personally think that everybody naturally underestimates their own susceptibility to propaganda to some extent.

We have to filter out all the bullshit and remain objective before we try to figure out what happened or what the truth is. The trick here is to stay humble and objective during this process.

This is what lawyers do. They don't and shouldn't care if your guilty or not because they cannot know. Their job is to expose the bullshit coming from the opposing side, something they can know. They determine what should and should not be believed by exposing bullshit in a completely objective way. The objectivity is ensured with the adversarial system. Both sides want to win and they do so by exposing the bullshit coming from the opposing side. All the bullshit gets exposed, and along with it, the asshole, in an ideal implementation of a perfect juristic system. Original Sin stands in opposition to Utopia.

Say whatever you want about lawyers but you want a winner on your side and winners test the system.

For a thousand years, all the smart people went to Rome to study law and created the science of jurisprudence. It has well tested methods from which to detect and identify bullshit. It turns out that with a few simple cognitive tools you can filter out most bullshit you hear quickly and easily without doing piles of research.

## Rules for Detecting Bullshit

It's no surprise that it is easier to build a log cabin if you have an ax and a saw. In the same way cognitive tools aid in thinking and make it easier and faster to filter bullshit from the truth. Most of the following tools and rules come from jurisprudence but not all of them. They all help protect us from believing bullshit.

# Rule 1: The Cross Examination

The cross examination must be considered as the precursor to the modern scientific method. It is no surprise that a lawyer, Francis Bacon came up with the idea of the scientific method. The scientific method is a method used to prove that an idea is wrong. If the idea can never be proven wrong, it is assumed to be correct. The scientific method is the physical science equivalent to the juristic method of cross examination. I fully explain the scientific method in another video on my channel, "Doug Plumb" called "Dialectic Snippets: The Scientific Method". The scientific method is essentially a cross examination of a stated physical principle by some kind of experiment.

The idea of the cross examination is to examine the facts put forth by the other side and expose the bullshit, and see if any truth remains. It's the gold standard of proof initially brought to us by the Roman jurists.

Censorship is nothing more than the prevention of a cross examination. The word "Fact Checker" is a new word for censor. That which cannot withstand cross examination should not be taken as truth and truth does not need the protection of censorship. Eventually truth emerges and bullshit gets swept aside through informal cross examinations.

In a truly free and open society all ideas and aspects of history should be subject to cross examination. It would be (and is) silly that they are not. More evidence of fear and mass hypnosis. A desire for censorship shows a greater need for cross examinations.

Words, or rocks, sticks and bullets? Your choice.

# Rule 2: Witness Credibility

The cross examined witness must have credibility to be a witness. Assholes are not allowed to testify and the credibility of the witness is as important as the testimony. Assholes have a personal ethic that may not be compatible with them giving reliable testimony. The ones that we see and hear about in the news often seem to have an unbounded sense of entitlement and likely can't be trusted for anything.

# Rule 3: Four Corners

Closely related to this idea is a rule known as the four corners rule. The meaning of this rule has changed in the last hundred or so years, and I don't know or care what it means now. It's original meaning is that if a document is submitted to court and it contains bullshit, then it is rejected from evidence in it's entirety. The courts categorically reject bullshit.

# Rule 4: Evidence

Rules of evidence require that physical evidence be connected to media and eyewitness testimony. It doesn't become evidence until there is physical or corporeal evidence to connect this kind of thing to reality. During the attacks on 9 11 we saw airplanes being flown into buildings, the footage was repeated over and over again. Eyewitnesses spoke of seeing airplanes.

There wasn't any physical evidence of airplanes colliding with the buildings or being involved in the 9 11 attacks in any way. Crashes like these would leave a preponderance of physical evidence. I heard people explain that the airplanes vaporized on impact on the buildings and that plane buried themselves into the ground in Pennsylvania because of the speed of the collision. This is nonsense that could be disproven by any conscientious grade nine student of physics.

In fact we have no evidence of planes colliding with buildings and this should therefore not be part of a narrative that explains what may have happened on 9 11. We should look for other explanations that do not involve airplanes.

Much of the evidence was destroyed immediately after the event. The destruction of evidence is a well known and well understood crime. Both 9 11 and it's media coverage were both brought to us by assholes and the events surrounding 9 11 form a great illustration of the power of modern media and it's abilities to manufacture bullshit, as well as the peoples willingness to accept bullshit and listen to assholes without any kind of critical thought. The assholes who destroyed the evidence on 9-11 provided the official narrative. In this case, the word "narrative" is directly synonymous with the word "bullshit", as it often is.

Assholes use persecution to make their point, the non asshole has evidence and can therefore use persuasion. If persecution rather than persuasion is being used to make a point then you can be sure that you are hearing bullshit. Debate is always restricted by assholes to protect bullshit from being exposed.

# Rule 5: Zebras

There is an old proverb and it says that when you hear galloping, think horses not zebras. If you find yourself believing that a galloping sound is zebras then it is time to have a look at the soles of your feet. Has a high rise ever before collapsed from fire? Do the collapses of 9 11 look like the result of a controlled demolition? What is the most likely explanation outside of all the bullshit you hear? Occam's razor is often a good rule, but it's not perfect so it isn't a law. This is known as a maxim of judgement rather than a law. Sometimes the galloping sound really is zebras.

# Rule 6: Obligations

An important aspect of the science of jurisprudence is the law of obligation.

Bullshit is everywhere and that most of what we hear from those in almost any kind of Network News or alternative news is bullshit. I think that we should always be skeptical of all media, at least as much as we are of any everyday person we may meet. "How are they funded?" .

Network News is classified as entertainment. I'm not sure if this is a result of the Patriot Act or the Defense Authorization Act, but Network News is perfectly free to lie to you with no liability. The networks have no obligation to tell you the truth about anything. They cannot carry the obligation of not lying by omission because they cannot know everything. I think they still inform people that the information given is to be regarded as entertainment in the closing credits of news programs. You may as well be watching Bugs Bunny in our presently devolving Western society.

In an ethical system the essential purpose of big media is to maintain the narrative that supports the agenda which dictates the ethic.

If someone doesn't have an obligation to tell you the truth, then you should never assume that they are. To do so would involve a huge leap of faith, a faith in the honesty of the person you are listening to, a faith in the idea that their basic moral constitution is the same as yours.

Authority and responsibility should always match for trust. You cannot trust anyone as an authority who does not take a form of lawful responsibility. Direct falsifiable claims are an indicator you are listening to a non asshole. Falsifiable just means they are worded clearly and can be definitively shown to be wrong if so. Assholes use vague statements to blur lines of responsibility.

# Rule 7: Big Lies and Lies of Commission

If you are going to lie, make it a whopper. Small lies get questioned but often the big lies cannot be believed to be lies because of their magnitude. Size gives credibility. "Tell a big enough lie and people will believe it". I forget who said that but you can find out on the web, who really knows who said it? Often times the media are blatant liars. So if the networks tell you that scientists say that if you don't get vaccinated all the polar bears will melt, a smart thing to do is see if scientists actually say that because in many cases you will find that they in fact do not. Pundits bend and shape the media lens to get you to conclude what they want as well as actually lie by commission by telling some real whoppers. A pundit is not the same thing as a reporter.

# Rule 8: Lies of Omission

An example of this is when they show you a picture of a polar bear swimming and neglect to tell you that polar bears normally swim. They allow you to assume that polar bears are drowning from the melting ice because most people had no idea that polar bears can and do swim great distances. It's a great way to tug at your emotions. We do not reason and detect bullshit and assholes using our emotions. When and why do we sometimes exclaim to others "Be reasonable!".

# Rule 9: Crowds are Stupid

Crowds are dumber than people. Mark Twain, or whoever he really was, said "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect". People cease to be guided by their own will and logic in crowds. Crowds are tools for the assholes to manipulate and control.

# Rule 10: Hands and Words

Do they behave as if what they are saying is true? The environmental movement always provides great examples of bullshit. You get people on the set saying sea levels are rising then buying beachfront property. You get expensive and wasteful solar and wind farms with that expense and waste resulting in more CO2 being put into the air than getting the equivalent energy from conventional combustion fuels. You have to burn too much fuel to mine the materials to build expensive alternative energy devices as well as dispose of them to have anything close to a net decrease in carbon dioxide. This is well known to be true by at least an order of magnitude.

# Rule 11: Statistical Outliers

In a country of three hundred million people, everything happens every day. It's what gets reported that shapes public opinion. A white cop shoots a black man and it's news around the world. A white guy gets shot by a black cop and no one hears about it.

Closely related to lies of omission is that statistical outliers are chosen to shape public opinion. Stories are chosen to mold and shape opinion rather than by relevance. The news item in all the headlines may not be the most important thing that is happening.

If a Catholic priest gets caught abusing children, it's news around the world. Do people seriously not think this happens anywhere else, such as in Mosques and Synagogues? Are Catholics predisposed to this kind of behavior in reality or is the news just shaping our opinions so that we think of child molesters when we think of Catholic priests and Christianity? Are all Catholic clergy members child molesters? What about Imams and Rabbi's?

Why is it news when it's the Catholic church? Another reason could be that this is in violation of all law in Christianity so it's more newsy than when it happens with the clergy of a purely statutory religion where this is permitted for individuals of status.

# Rule 12: Two Ears, One Mouth

God gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason. Listen to them long enough and bullshitters often reveal themselves in their own contradictions. Restating the words spoken back to the speaker gets them to elaborate and possibly contradict themselves.

Always think of yourself as an idiot, that's what Socrates did. It saves other people the trouble of pointing it out when necessary and saves you the humiliation. We usually only know a small fraction of what we think we know. A wise man listens to his opponents. It's good questions that light the way forward into further enlightenment.

# Rule 13: One Who Believes Bullshit is Dumber Than One Who Knows Nothing

It's a hard fact and rational truth. It may be the only truth that has ever been spoken. It's a fundamental truth, and one to always remember before settling in too comfortably with any set of beliefs. It's always better to remain silent than to be wrong. I have no idea who said it first, and likely no one else does either.

## Conclusions

These ideas and rules are intuitive but we often forget we have them and forget to apply them when listening to media, politicians and other kinds of bullshitters. These ideas, I think, are built into our minds since they are purely rational, that is that they will always be true, independent of time or location. To be aware of rational principles, I think is to be illuminated. It is good to be reminded of these principles as we shovel our way through a world that largely runs on bullshit.

So with the amount of information that is available, how can we be sure we have filtered out all the bullshit? We can never be sure that we have done it and we should never have too much confidence in our own views. Arguing with opposition exposes the bullshit that may have justified our own beliefs and intelligent people are both able and unafraid to adjust accordingly.

You can quickly determine if some of your favorite news sources are good sources of information rather than assholes and therefore filter out bullshit before you actually hear most of it using the likely incomplete list of tools and techniques listed above. Over time you develop a short list of sources that you go to for information because you start knowing who the assholes are and to not waste time reading or listening to them. The key is to stop listening to these assholes once their bullshit has been exposed. The fact that we don't do this is strong circumstantial evidence of mass hypnosis. "Once a liar, always a liar" is a good maxim of judgment that is well known but not always understood.

It's important to be skeptical of everything you hear on the media even when you think there is no bullshit involved. Why do they call it a story? Just because a story is misleading doesn't mean that it is the product of a bullshitter. Well intentioned reporters should never be blindly believed or trusted.

Even with the best and most well intentioned journalists, a lens will have to be created by the journalist for the story to be told. What did the journalist think was important in the story? If you were there would you agree? In this way the media lens is created.

The more you know about bullshit, the less time you will spend reading and listening to it. These simple rules can save many hours of research into a topic, only to find out that it's all bullshit and you could have known that from the start. I think lawyers must be the best critical thinkers.

The science of jurisprudence is all about the detection of bullshit and the identification of assholes. Trials are a technique used to filter bullshit and leave only the truth. There are three sides to every story, his side, her side and the truth. The adversarial system has opponents identifying the bullshit coming from the opposing sides, as well as find lies of omission. In the science of Western jurisprudence, ideally, all the bullshit gets separated from the truth, the lies of omission get exposed, and the asshole can be clearly identified. This science has been practiced throughout history. It has been used over the past thousand years and all of this knowledge could soon be forgotten. The science that deals with assholes and bullshit must be preserved.

There are assholes who want to end our adversarial system of laws and when this happens it will no longer be possible to see a lot of the bullshit that we can expect in the top down ethical rule of the world to come.

###  The Assholes Of Science

This essay will apply the concepts of assholes, bullshit, juristic and ethical societies to describe a new type of ethical society, the scientific society. I'm going to introduce two additional concepts, fact and right, to explain the basic retarded nature of any kind of scientific society. It is not only retarded because it is scientific, but also because it is ethical and has no basis in right. The nature of the ethical society was explained in the first essay on assholes.

We in the West live in societies such that we could elect the hillside strangler, Ted Bundy, as our next leader if he had not already been executed by the state. He was a well liked guy by his neighbors and was very attractive to women. If he looked good on television and was treated well by the pundits, he could easily become the leader of the free world. We have become a morally retarded society, how have we come to this point, and what does it have to do with the assholes of science?

Assholes of public education, mainstream media and Hollywood have sold the public an understanding of science in that it is the only true path to any kind of ultimate truth. Science is sold to the public as an all encompassing truth because it is a requirement for a purely ethical society. Communism cannot persist if materialism (science) is not the dominant religion of the population. There is no juristic component or concept of "right" in a purely ethical society. Ethics are not built on a basis of right and do not provide a basis for human right other than wish or desire. Laws cannot be written from wish or desire because wishes and desires can change. Wishes and desires are often created and maintained by the propaganda arm in its various forms by assholes in power.

Materialist philosophy is absolutely necessary to bring forth a communist revolution in the same way that a container is needed to boil water. The container contains the water so you can apply heat and boil it. You cannot boil the water while it's in the lake, you have to take it out and put it in a pot. Materialism contains the public mind so that it does not expand into the concept of right and wreck the whole plan of top down, pyramid, needle point ethical rule by scientific consensus.

Mathematical equations and science are not solved or practiced by consensus, except in the mainstream media. Science has the scientific method, science is not created by consensus or desire. Scientific consensus is rule by oligarchy because scientists get paychecks.

The notion that science is based on truth is based on insinuated bullshit, through lies of omission that allow the true nature and philosophy of science to remain hidden from most members of the public. Interesting aspects of science that contradict the grand narrative regarding science as an absolute and unconditioned truth remain hidden. People interpolate in their own minds that science is the pursuit of an all encompassing truth and that science will one day bring us the grand Utopia. You just get the wrong idea, which is the purpose of the lies of omission told by the assholes of science and the assholes of public education.

Right, or the basic concept of universal law is justified not by a subjective desire or convenience, but by the existence of a Creator. Not one of us creates something to see it destroyed. Its law for within from without that cannot be touched or corrupted by man. Christ brings us the light of reason in universal law for peace on earth so that assholes do not destroy the creation of God.

Auto mechanics can bullshit philosophers and cooks can poison auto mechanics. We live in an organic society and members of the public assume that the institutions, professionals and organs that surround them reflect their own natural morality. This is incredibly naive and a normal healthy child should not be so naive. This is why I always put the word "asshole" before any mention of public educators in my writing.

Professionals and the intellectual class know about propaganda and narratives but believe themselves discerning enough to see through all the bullshit, unlike everyone else. Hubris runs contrary to wisdom. They assume the institutions operate as they do themselves in intention, universal law - honesty and without hypocrisy. In the West this morality is well understood, its why the term "asshole" has been such a well used and understood term. As we move toward a scientific materialist philosophy we gradually lose our understanding of what an asshole actually is because we lose the idea of universal right, the idea which forms the basis for the definition of an asshole.

Science keeps us safe and comfortable, which is what we want from society. Money is the lifeblood of society. Societies essentially exist so that we can have money and therefore an economy which leads to comfort and safety, all provided by science. Society and science are natural partners, they both have the same purpose. Gasoline and matches are natural partners. In both cases the combination becomes far greater than the sum of the parts.

Lucifer, the God of matter, runs this sensory world and worldly institutions slowly become corrupted because they are operated and created by powerful men and their natural predisposition for sin - greed and power. Original sin is a reality that surrounds us.

It seems that science governs all that we see, hear, touch, smell, or taste and this is probably true. Everyone expects that science will one day explain the nature of matter. To believe that science can one day explain all of experience is to believe that reality itself consists of nothing more than a giant chemical reaction. There is no free will in a chemical reaction. Your next move depends only on your previous state. You are nothing more than the sum of your experiences. No responsibility means no freedom and right becomes meaningless. There is no sin in a world defined by the dictates of science and the nature of matter.

The ruling classes naturally expand their horizons to the boundaries of their container, if none exists, anything becomes possible. Eventually they become assholes because power creates assholes even if they don't start out that way. The protagonist in the first of the series of movies called "The Hostel" explains this as he is torturing a tied up woman by burning her face with a blow torch (paraphrased)"Once you have been everywhere, seen everything and met everybody, what else is there?". The rich man sometimes has everything but a mirror and sees mankind as corrupt and imagines himself good, suffering in a world of devils and forced to become one just to survive.

The ethic of a society that has only matter as a guiding truth will fulfill the dictates of matter - comfort and safety maximized. Its the greatest good for the greatest number, or maybe something else, depending on the dictates of a particular economy or just the hopes and dreams of the ruling class. The ethic depends on what the ruling class has "educated" us as to what is the good on their networks and in their schools. The rulers are so far removed from the commoners that there is no concept of right in the laws governing the commoners. They are useful, and when no longer useful, discarded, as you would step on an insect. The agenda that dictates the ethic is ultimately the economy and wealth (power) creation.

These societies fall apart from the power created by the imbalance of responsibility with authority and require trust and licentiousness to struggle for temporary order as they slowly fall apart from corruption, like a person bleeding to death while running for a bandage. Entitlement overtakes right and the power corrupts men like the wind and sun corrupt the paint on a fence. A person bleeding to death and bleeding out while running for a bandage is the perfect metaphor for a country that has it's currency creation in the hands of privately owned institutions.

Bureaucrats that actually run things become sick with licentiousness, an additional rule here or there can fix things. Licentiousness has been a well known illness since books were chiseled into stone. "Sick with licentiousness" is the phrase used in the Republic Of Plato.

Original sin and the second law of thermodynamics both describe reality, one reality in right, another in fact. They are not just doctrines created by powerful and illustrious assholes. All men are sinners in right and in the physical world in fact everything falls apart, from the paint on a fence to a bird nest, as the second law of thermodynamics, or the scientific law of entropy dictates.

The physical scientists have their second law of thermodynamics that tells us everything falls apart with time, Christians have original sin and its subsequent corruption of men and their institutions.

## What is Truth?

Philosophers speak of the true, the good and the beautiful to describe reality. Physicists and scientists think of the world as composed of particles and energy described by math. Lawyers think in terms of fact and right. Fact and Right mean the same thing as the terms "true" and "good" that philosophers use. The subjective nature of beauty makes it irrelevant to law. The beauty in a machine lies only in the thinking that created it.

There is nothing beautiful about assholes or bullshit. Beauty lies in creation. Created statutory laws are sometimes ugly, but a necessary compromise because all men are little bit corrupt. You have to paint a fence once in while to prevent the paint from cracking and falling off. The world of right requires careful maintenance as well.

If you are in a court charged with car theft, you have had to have the car in your factual possession and not have the right to it provided by some previous agreement between you and the owner. Plaintiffs must prove both relevant facts and rights were violated. Fact and right are required for truth in law.

This idea can be extended to ethical and juristic societies. Ethical societies govern from fact alone, an agenda based on empirical needs and purely ethical societies have no understanding of right. Juristic societies operate according to the preservation of right and allow people to operate in fact freely to create and run the private economy. Fact is the empirical reality of space and time: the people, the economy and the state. The concept of right is space - time independent, our laws, we expect our institutions to operate in fact within boundaries set by right.

No material or economic benefit can justify the breaking of right in a juristic society.

You cannot be captured and have your organs removed and sold by anyone, no matter what the economic benefit to the state or a corporation could be in a society governed by right. In a society based only on facts, even just scientific facts, rights cannot exist. Privilege takes the place of right. The unconscious machine can't guarantee you anything, you are merely one of it's parts. When your part goes out of date there is no justification, in purely scientific terms, for keeping you around. There is no law to protect your existence or that places the soul above matter.

A common man who loses a child to an oligarch in need of a new heart may not even view that oligarch as an asshole, thinking that he would have done the same thing if the tables had been turned. This is what I mean by a society of assholes. Assholes expect other people to be assholes. Empirical or factual hell has people being thrown into pits of fire by devils with pitchforks as a metaphor. Rational hell in right just has them surrounded by assholes.

Kant describes this reality in terms of fact and right in his Critique of Pure Reason, but in later books uses the words "is" and "ought". Truth, he says, is comprised of both fact and right in the science of jurisprudence. His ideas about "is" and "ought" are natural to our consciousness and shape the Western world around us.

Greed, power and other forms of corruption form part of the character of all men and a scientific society is unconscious of this because it is unconscious of right. No one weeds the garden because no one has the responsibility, authority, right or even consciousness to do so.

If we believe that only in matter a final grand unconditioned truth will emerge, we will live in a purely ethical scientific society with no lawful basis for right. If there is a creator, the godly desire for our own preservation is implied by creation. It's a logic that is outside the world of men and provides the precept necessary to justify our consciousness of right. It explains our consciousness and self awareness as something that lies outside the domain of the physical sciences.

The ancient atomists are re-emerging and these are the assholes of science. This is a belief that there is no creator and that science will one day describe all aspects of reality and that reality is ultimately composed of tiny particles. This belief requires faith in matter that is more contrary to common sense and experience than a faith in a Creator.

Whether one believes that ultimate truth is in God or matter is strictly a matter of faith. The belief in the existence of atoms and all of their spinning particles is an act of faith. No one knows really, what a gravitational or electromagnetic field actually is, they are only known by their effect. A Creator is inferred by the fact that we are conscious and self aware, something the purely cause and effect material world can never explain and would never need.

Who were God's parents? What happened before the universe started? How big is it? Can it be infinite? Can it be finite? What lies beyond if it is finite? How can something be infinite? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? These are all questions that reason sometimes thinks it can answer, but reason cannot be exercised beyond the limits of experience. Beyond experience reason becomes speculation or faith when justified by evidence. Our experience will always be limited and reason can trick us to go beyond. To go beyond experience in a search for an unconditioned truth is to have faith.

How do moral instincts evolve? It presupposes that there is a scientific explanation, evolution being a scientific phenomenon. Words can be invisible weapons. To presuppose that there is a scientific explanation is to perceive the world as one giant chemical reaction, in which case there is no agency, and therefore no right, freewill or morality. The scientific method and a cause and effect world have no concept of right so the question doesn't belong there. How much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?

Faith can be in the machine of science, but you have to accept your own freewill as imaginary. You cannot imagine yourself as conscious or self aware to believe this. There is no reason for self awareness or consciousness to exist in a purely cause and effect scientific universe. No reason for you to believe anything, you can be ruled only by your material wishes and instincts and by those who provide for them.

Kant described two philosophers searching for an all encompassing truth as "one philosopher milking a he goat as the the holds a sieve underneath".

Asking science about right is like looking for a woodchuck that actually chucks wood. The subject of right is purely spiritual and does not have a foot in the space and time universe.

A perfectly straight line or an ideal world are only products of a rational space that lies outside time and space. Physical effects such as diffraction and gravity prevent a perfect straight line from ever coming into existence. Original sin prevents the ideal society from becoming a possibility. These ideas, the straight line and the perfectly good man can be used to make laws in right not dependent on observations, they are pure ideas outside observation. They provide yardsticks from which to judge that which is real. Utopia, and the perfectly straight line cannot exist in reality.

To have knowledge, one must have knowledge from which that knowledge is based. The knowledge that starts it all is based only on faith. The God side cannot be proven empirically and the science side can be disproven rationally, and in many ways using science itself.

The circumstantial evidence for gravity is that every time you drop something it falls. No one knows what gravity is. The idea that two masses can attract with nothing connecting them in any way that is detectable with even science tests the limits of natural reason. It sounds unbelievable but everywhere it is truth and an accepted basic law of science. We call this effect gravity and experience it as a potential energy source, we see it and interpret it only in terms of its purpose or its effect.

The circumstantial evidence for the existence of God is simply that God-fearing societies based on the laws of God prosper and the societies based on matter and science are absolutely horrific and do not last.

There is no definition of evil in science and a yardstick from which to measure and persecute evil, no one has the right or power to do it. The scientific society operates only by the trust of the ruling class. Materialist philosophy sets a ruling classes free and the commoners to the mines. Rulers expand, like gases, to fill their container and a society unconscious of right cannot put bounds on that container. A society run by assholes naturally emerges in time.

## What is Science?

Lets start off by stating what science is not. Science is not consensus. If you get a group of scientists in a room expressing opinions, they are not practicing science. Sometimes when there is a patient on an operating table brought in on an emergency, the doctor must use his opinion because the patient will bleed to death if the doctor starts scientifically diagnosing with tests, etc. This is not science but it must be so in emergencies. Opinion can be a replacement for science but this does not make opinion science. Science is incorruptable but scientists can be assholes as well as any lawyer or politician. Scientific consensus is "color of science". Science is practicing the scientific method.

Opinions may or may not be valid, they are better than guesses but the subjective products of men who receive paychecks and are subject to the social pressures of those around them whom also have opinions and paycheques. They are not the objective scientific method.

There are many different possible ways of defining science. In the introduction to this book I explained that the techniques of bullshit are an art form, but the term asshole was a scientific term due to its strict definition.

New subjects and techniques start out as an art and transition to a science as systematic rules that are non contradictory develop after a period of experiments and observations. In this essay I wish to speak directly regarding the physical sciences. Science in this essay refers to chemistry, physics, engineering, etc.

There is mathematical science, economic science, engineering science and physics. Materialists want to explain the world in the context of matter and energy and physics is the study of matter and energy. Everything in the physical world is composed of matter and energy. Ultimately all of the physical science related sciences and their laws, everything from biology to civil engineering must stand up to the laws of physics. If science explains an ultimate material reality, it will be explained in physics. Biologists cannot have laws that violate the rules of chemistry, the chemist cannot have rules that violate physics and physics cannot violate the rules of mathematics.

Physics is based on observation and an idea that matter is composed of atoms. Atoms consist of tiny particles held in orbit by an invisible and unknowable force field that attracts these particles to another mass of particles in the center. These moving charges create electromagnetic waves. We see and detect atoms in the form of these waves with scientific instruments and create the idea of the moving charges in our imagination from the waves as a model to simplify and express what is observed. No one has a real picture of an actual atom.

The particles that we imagine are products from the experience brought by our sensory perceptions operating in our sensual world of Newtonian physics. We have experienced charge as static electricity and have lots of experience with force and mass in our daily regular lives.

This is a bit complex, so let me illustrate with an example. You have been locked in a cage all your life and have had three objects in your possession inside the cage, a rubber ball, a coin, and a piece of paper. Any other object, such as a bird, an ice cube or a train would be completely foreign to you. You are learning science in that cage and a teacher hands you a closed opague box with an object in it, a classic teaching device in science.

You are asked to conduct experiments to determine what is inside the box. You shake it around and feel how the object bounces in the box. It's too heavy to be a piece of paper and it doesn't roll around so it can't be the rubber ball so it has to be the coin. You try to disprove that it is a coin by maybe listening closer to the sound it makes as it hits the container when you shake it, or do other experiments. Maybe it's an object you have never seen before.

Using the scientific method, you conclude that it must be a coin in the box because the coin explains all the observable evidence. No evidence contradicts the coin hypothesis. The coin hypothesis is true by the scientific method.

The scientific method is like a cross examination in a court of law: the prosecutor tries to show that the defendant is lying by asking questions that could disprove his testimony. In the same way, science is discovered by scientists trying to disprove hypothesis.

Inside the box there is not a coin in reality but a mechanical washer. The idea that there is a coin will never contradict anything observed about the box, and the box always feels like there is a coin inside. You know you can allow the box to get wet and that the coin inside will be attracted to a magnet. Those two observations do not apply to either of the other two objects, the rubber ball and piece of paper.

The coin in the box model works, engineers use the idea to build machines and objects from the boxes containing the coin. These boxes always have the consistent properties that the engineers depend on for their machines to work. No one is any the wiser, nor any closer to the truth, the box can be used because it has predictable and known properties.

The engineers and economists don't care what is actually in the box, only that the model works. Only theologians and physicists care about what is in the box. The theologians want truth, just the same as the physicists, but for different reasons, one to establish fact and the other to establish right. The Catholics were scientists, conducting autopsies and doing experiment during what the asshole public educators, the asshole Networks and the assholes of Hollywood refer to as the dark ages.

There is no serious economic motivation to determine what is actually in the box, the economic effort goes into making things from these boxes to make society comfortable and safe.

There is a real world example of science that is exactly like this and really illustrates the nature of science in our society. Equations distract and confuse readers and this is a sufficiently simple example to be explained with words. This example is also an excellent example of bullshit that forms part of science through lies of omission.

An electronic device known as a capacitor forms a part of nearly every electric circuit in existence, almost all but the simplest electrical circuits require capacitors. The behavior of electric circuits is the subject matter of circuit theory and all of the laws in circuit theory come from Maxwell's equations. Maxwell was a mathematician who simplified the equations found by experiment by Oliver Heaviside that explain electricity and magnetism. Maxwell's equations form part of the basis or foundation for everything we know about physics. All of the physical sciences have Maxwell's equations as part of their basis because these equations form part of the foundations of physics.

The question is, are Maxwell's equations absolute truth? Are these truths space and time independent ? We can do a simple thought experiment and think outside of time and space and test the equations of Maxwell.

Almost all electric circuits have an aspect of time in the equations that describe their behavior. They exist in space-time and can be described in terms involving space and time. The ideas are valid in that box of space and time, but what about outside the space-time box of the empirical reality that is our physical experience?

A capacitor is just a simple device that consists of two electrically conducting plates separated by an insulator. If you connect a battery to a capacitor, one plate becomes positively charged and the other negatively charged, depending on which way it is connected to the battery. As soon as the connection takes place, electrons flow from the battery to the plates on the capacitor until the voltage of the capacitor matches that of the battery. Voltage is like water pressure and water only flows when there is a different water pressure at one end of a hose than another. If the pressure is the same at both ends the flow stops. Disconnect the capacitor from the battery and the capacitor holds this charge. Capacitors in a simple sense are like batteries but they don't hold charge long enough and do not hold sufficient charge to be useful as batteries in practice. They simply store potential energy in circuits, for small fractions of a second at a time.

Lets think of that capacitor as the box with the coin inside. In our everyday usage of the capacitor it behaves as Maxwell's equations say it should. There is a time component to our experimental observations, everything takes time. Suppose we could eliminate time in this thought experiment and peek outside the box of time to see if truth remains the same. Are Maxwell's Equations absolute truth? Do they still describe the behavior of the capacitor? We can test this by looking at some time independent versions of Maxwell's equations. It sounds complicated but it won't be.

If I take a capacitor that is rated at one Farad, it will store a very large quantity of electrons, this number is so big we need a name for it, this is called a coulomb of charge. If I connect a one Farad capacitor to a one volt battery I get one coulomb of charge difference stored on the plates of the capacitor after the voltage equalizes with that of the battery. If I disconnect the battery and connect the two plates with a wire, half of of one coulomb of charge will flow from one plate to another. The flow stops after a time because the quantity of electrons eventually becomes equal on both plates and therefore there is no more voltage pressure difference between the plates. There is no more energy stored in the capacitor, it has zero charge. This takes time because the wire has resistance. It could take a few milliseconds, or a nanosecond, depending on the resistance of the wire and the capacity of the capacitor to store a charge or the size of the capacitor. A one Farad capacitor stores one coulomb of electrons for every volt of it's charge. A one Farad capacitor stores ten coulombs of charge when charged with ten volts. Q(charge in coulombs)= C(capacitance in Farads) * V (volts).

In the real empirical world all electric circuits have resistance, suppose we think about ideal capacitors and ideal conductors with no resistance. Everything happens instantaneously because nothing opposes the flow of electrons so there is no time component to discharging the capacitor in this domain. We are outside the box of time.

Lets first charge a one Farad capacitor with one Coulomb of charge. This requires a one Volt battery. There is no electrical resistance so the capacitor is fully charged the instant it is connected to the battery. Maxwell's equations tell us that this capacitor will have a half joule of potential energy stored on it (E(energy)=1/2C*V). Energy cannot be created or destroyed and neither can charge. We have our one farad ideal capacitor charged to one volt and storing one coulomb of charge, the energy being 1/2 joule. (The energy of 1/2 joule is enough to heat a cubic centimeter of water one half degree Celcius)

We bring in another ideal capacitor of one farad and connect its plates to the plates of the charged capacitor. Some of the charge moves from the charged capacitor to the uncharged capacitor, instantly because there is no resistance, and therefore no time involved. Each capacitor now has one half coulomb of charge on each of its plates. The capacitors both now have a voltage of 1/2 volt. There were no losses due to friction or heat because there is no opposition to current flow, so the amount of energy in the system with two capacitors must be the same as the energy in the original single capacitor before the charge transfer took place.

We calculate the energy in the two capacitors from Maxwell's equations and find that each capacitor has 1/8 of a joule of energy. The two capacitors together have 1/4 joule of energy. The problem is that the initial capacitor had a charge equivalent of 1/2 joule of energy. This is a paradox and it is known as the "Two Capacitor Paradox".

The above speculation (speculation because we go beyond space-time experience) assumed that charge would be conserved and if this is the case then energy is not conserved. Some energy, 1/4 joule, disappeared into a black hole or something. If we do the calculation based on the idea of energy conservation then charge is no longer conserved and we lose some charge into that same black hole or whatever it is.

There have been many sophistical attempts to make this little problem go away and it's been around almost since capacitors were invented. Its a crack in the foundation of science, the idea that science can explain truth and reality. It is not good for a state that wishes it's people to worship science. The sophistical attempts are done by assholes and the debunking always contains an erroneous or bad assumption in it's initial analysis. Every few years someone writes a bad paper attempting to explain this paradox so that it can finally be swept under the rug.

Science in all of its forms is pure speculation when it tries to reach that which goes beyond empirical experience. Truth is defined by empirical experience in science with the scientific method. Science turns into speculation and faith when we expect it to predict what is beyond experience in space and time as we understand it.

Maxwell's equations work in the real world, we fully understand what capacitors do and can predict it on paper. Huge capacitors are sometimes used in hydro power distribution that operate over fractions of a second and microscopic ones are used in computers that operate in time scales of a fraction of a nanosecond. They all work according to Maxwell's equations but when we step outside the box of empirical experience, outside of the time dimension, this law no longer is a law. All bets are off. Maxwell's equations apply to the world of experience and are not absolute truths in and of themselves.

Therefore science in and of itself is not an absolute truth because it all depends on Maxwell's equations. It doesn't matter that Maxwell's equations are not absolute truth, they work, they are used to build machines and benefit the economy.

Science pays because it works and science works because it creates wealth and comfort - it pays. No one wants to be without it. It's got nothing to do with any kind of unconditioned or absolute truth.

Science can be useful for three things: evil, good and profit. In our modern Western world it is the corporations that lead they way in science. Corporations and unaccountable non government organizations (NGO's) influence both academic science as taught in universities and that which is taught to the general public by the assholes of the Networks and Tee-Vee.

Corporations are systems made for profit. You put some money into a system comprised of economists, engineers and workers and if more money comes out than went in, the corporation pleases the shareholders and is believed to be a good thing. Science becomes just another form of money. It's all managed by unconscious share holders in the end, watching trends and lines on their computers.

As long as people are safe and comfortable they care little for anything else. They do not care who dictates reality, they do not care where the ship is headed, so long as they are warm, comfortable and have enough to eat. Long term thinking oligarchical families know this and our lack of a long term world view gets used against us. People live in the moment. Live in the moment, forget about all of this and your history and how you got to where you are.

It's all been deliberate and designed this way by the oligarchy that has now almost completely dismantled and destroyed the juristic societies of the West. These are the people that print money, and control finance and implicitly control governments. The rich want an ethical society, and reality is created with their tools, the assholes of media, education and entertainment. This is Marxism and the first tenet of the Communist Manifesto is a privately owned central bank and the absolute power it provides for an oligarchy.

The central bank can set parameters from which the government may operate. Reality is created by those with their hands on the purse strings. It has direct implicit control over governments by setting interest rates. It has the same control over governments when the country is bankrupt that the banks have in foreclosing a mortgage. Most Western countries if not all, have been bankrupt since 1933, and the banks have been slowly foreclosing with Bills and statutes. There is no oversight to the central banks, they operate autonomously and do not answer to elected governments. Alan Greenspan, a former head of the Federal Reserve, explained this himself in a youtube video, which has of course been censored.

Did the assholes of science force us to this point? I think we went willingly, it's an easy path, and more importantly a simple and comfortable path. The left and right political parties are simple in essence. The Left wishes to eliminate the right of man and make him a tool for the ruling classes. The right measures ones contribution to society entirely in dollars. You are what you do.

Both sides are entirely materialistic in nature even though one pretends to believe in a higher power. G.K. Chesterton writes of a St. Francis, of which there are two in history. The one Chesterton mentions in his book about Thomas Aquinas is the one who sought to convert Christians to Christianity. It seems like an impossible task to me, after talking with many Christians about their beliefs. Modern right wing Christians are in reality no more Christian than the devil himself and are as dumb as the die hard Marxists. Both are much too smart to have to actually investigate or listen to ideas that run contrary to their own beliefs.

## Conclusions

Most of what everyone knows about science, which is almost nothing and religion of which people are totally ignorant comes from these assholes of which I speak come in the form of lies of omission. I'm reminded of the Supertramp song, Child Of Vision, that has the line "You watch the television because it tells you that you should". Somehow the historical and scientific documentaries created by the assholes of the Networks and the assholes of Hollywood manage to convince people that they are intelligent for watching them. In history they contain gigantic, sick, and grotesque lies of omission. In science they somehow convince people that science does or will one day give us an encompassing truth.

The assholes of science seek to retard perception, make us unconscious of right to make us lawful slaves to a ruling class. The rich really are different because they see the world differently.

Intelligence is the ability to think critically and recognize patterns. Intelligent people apply a method of cross examination or the scientific method to things they hear from our rulers and the powerful and illustrious assholes that manage and create opinions. Intelligence and truth seeking, and not acquiescence gets us closer to the truth in things.

Our society became a society of assholes because we are assholes. We must become more intelligent so that we do not operate like assholes.

Is it better to be one of the assholes? I hope to add another chapter and answer this question, with the help of Plato and Kant.
