Globalism: Logical Fallacies
It is important to study logic because most logical fallacies seem more or less reasonable, even though they are not. Sometimes there is innocent intent with error, but more often, there is a deliberate attempt to misdirect. Among the controlled media subverted to Globalism, there are a great many today who have studied hard upon the “engineering of consent.”
This presentation uses examples of standard Globalist arguments as they are countered by those of Libertarian Nationalism. Sometimes examples are left to the reader. Fallacies are divided into four standard categories. Some fit into more than one category and, of course, many arguments involve more than one fallacy.
August 9, 2017
Fallacies of Relevance
Arguments to Cases Not Relevant
Appeal to Force
Might Makes Right
"New World Order goals are correct because men of great power support them."
Suggests that the origin of something necessarily determines its essence and character
“He comes from a background of privation, so he will naturally support our Socialist agenda.”
Addresses opponent instead of his argument
Often involves phony psychologizing
You are called a racist if you if you work to preserve all races and cultures.
You are called a homophobe if you do not support teaching children in the public schools that same-gender sex perversion is really just an equal alternative lifestyle.
You are called an Islamophobe if you do not support the slow takeover of your country by Islam, as in Europe today.
Opponent should accept an argument because of his circumstances or category
“You are a Democrat, so you must support all Democratic Party policies.”
Guilt by Association
Water Seeks its Own Level
Birds of a Feather Flock Together
One’s character is judged totally by the company he keeps
“He has meetings so often with the Russians, so he must be on their payroll.”
Poisoning the Well
Presenting negative, especially false, information about a person before they speak so as to discredit their argument
Most of what Globalists say about Nationalists
Attempt to invalidate a person's experiences by twisting facts, memories, events, and evidence in order to disorient a vulnerable opponent and make them doubt their own judgement
Globalist media spokesmen regularly make claims and then, when challenged, deny ever having made them
Attempts to validate an argument by citing a plurality or majority consensus
“Everybody supports it.”
It is an obligation of government to provide ongoing livelihood for the “disenfranchised” because immigrant third world savages, seeking sustenance, and their subverted accomplices, vastly outnumber good people at the voting booths
Flag waving at the opponent to imply that he is not loyal to his country
“All the best people support it.”
“Many of the Globalists are bluebloods.”
Appeal to Tradition
Premise is true because people have always believed it
“Two inescapable verities, death and taxes.”
A Priori Argument
Starts with as established belief, then searches for any reasonable-sounding argument to defend the argument based upon it.
False assumption that if there are economic differences between two racial groups at any fixed point in time that there must be foul play involved. Therefore government must implement “social justice” by victimizing the more successful group. Ignores history.
The More Righteous for Not Questioning version of A Priori is liked by religious fanatics.
With enflamed piety,
“Don’t speak to me of reason.
Don’t confuse me with facts.
Don’t confound me with logic.
Don’t burden me with truth.
The anointed one is my redeemer,
And I will not disobey!”
Appeal to Improper Authority
One claims that his argument is right because someone famous or powerful supports it
Sound economic policies must be wrong because famous, uneducated, Hollywood twits make impassioned, but treasonous, threats against those who support them.
Appeal to emotion or pity
Often ignores the long term
“By 1920, Ludwig Von Misses had proved everything that Karl Marx ever postulated.”
“But … poor people are suffering.”
Conclusion must be false because the consequences of it being true are just too terrible to contemplate
“My heart tells me that that no major religion could ever endorse or condone rape.”
Guess what? Islam does. Wake up!
Argument must be false because you don’t understand its technicalities
“We can’t eliminate the personal income tax. How will we pay for government?”
Grasping at Straws
Desperate citing of unrelated irrelevancies
“Are you for or against Socialism?”
“I believe we should all love each other, nobody understands another person's feelings, you should think about being in the other person’s shoes, what about poverty, what happens if we have to eat pigeons and rats?”
Blizzard or cloud of distraction used deliberately to cover up the main issues
Ongoing rhetoric of Globalist media
Uses a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument
“Their economic proposals remind me of the time my cousin Lucy got locked inside the neighbors’ outhouse in a snowstorm. The neighbors were away, and she was missing in there for three days. When the police finally found her … well, you can just imagine …”
Last Refuge of Little Minds
Jumping on a minor spelling or pronunciation problem, grammatical error, or typo to distract from the substance of the argument.
In an Email letter:
“It’s wrong that American women are being told they must wear berkas.”
“I’m sorry, but the term is burkas.”
Errors in Syllogistic Reasoning
Begging the Question
Premise and conclusion say the same thing
Often ignores slow changes over time
“Recreational drugs don’t hurt us, because we are back to normal the next morning.”
Phrasing premise and conclusion in different words that mean the same thing
“Absolute individual liberty will present a danger to society, because society cannot be safe if people are truly free.”
Jumping to Conclusions
Cannot See the Forest for the Trees
Too small a sample to support a sweeping generalization. This often involves reasoning backwards inductively
from an exceptional particular instance to a false general premise
Some high IQ members of a genetically inferior group are able to succeed, so they all can.
Therefore evolved societies should be ruined to give special advantage to Stone Age people.
References a cause-effect relationship that does not exist
Two common types:
Non Causa Pro Causa
Mistaking a false cause for a real cause
“Free thinking led to all this drug use.”
In truth, Prohibition created a huge black market profit potential that led to a program of aggressive marketing we call pushing.
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
After this, therefore because of this
Assumes that correlation equals causation.
If one circumstance occurs in proximity to another, then it must be the cause of it.
“The excess love of whiskey in the 1920s caused the terrible gang wars of that period.”
In real life, it was the inability of bootleggers to arbitrate disputes in the courts that caused the gang wars. Prohibition was the cause. Make court actions illegal in real estate disputes, and watch the murder rate go sky high.
Argument used to establish a particular conclusion by redirecting it back as though evidenced by a more general related premise which may, or may not, be true.
A proposal is under consideration for increase in immigration by racially incompatible people.
“It is desirable for society to have a diverse racial and ethnic population.”
To guilt ridden self-haters, this seems self-evident. They all agree. Later…
“My proposal is this…like I said at the beginning … it is desirable to have a diverse … therefore I move that we …”
The entire premise is false. Historically there has never been even one multi-racial society that did not self-destruct because of the forced unnatural mixing.
A subcategory of Ignorantio Elenchi is
The Red Herring
Changing the subject to avoid answering
“Marxism doesn’t work.”
“All people are entitled to personal dignity.”
Another form of the Red Herring is
“And you too!"
An argument must be false because the person presenting it doesn't follow it himself.
”We need to take back our streets.”
“We do?? I never see you out at night.”
Yet another Red Herring is the
Straw Man Argument
Takes one of an opponent’s weaker, less central, arguments, refutes it, then acts as though it was the crux of the issue. This is usually done using exceptional particulars.
“All those poor people who accidentally shoot themselves at home would still be alive if guns were banned.”
Ignores the vastly greater number who have been murdered in no-gun zones because they had no way to defend themselves. In 2016, 400 people in Chicago alone.
Argument does not follow from the previous.
Usually ignores many other considerations
“Use of energy is too high. We must have a carbon tax.”
Energy use is too high because there are nearly 8 billion people on Earth when there should be 320 million.
Another specific type of Non Sequitur is the
Slippery Slope Fallacy
Argues that, once a step is taken, more steps of negative consequence will inevitably follow
“If you encourage liberty and individuality, it will most certainly lead to cultural divisiveness.”
Strong cultures are good, bring it on!
Harbors the premise that there are only two possible solutions, therefore disproving one automatically validates the other. Ignores other alternatives
In cases of snuff porn video makers, “Rehabilitation therapy with parole is the best solution, because long, fixed periods of incarceration don’t work.”
Ignores the fact that death is the only effective way of ridding society of the threat posed by the proven irredeemable evil inherent in constitutional psychopathy.
Phony comparison to prove a point rather than arguing deductively and inductively
“Freedom is like pepper. A little tastes good, but too much gives you indigestion.”
Undistributed Middle Term
The minor and major premise of a syllogism might or might not overlap. The falseness is usually obvious or even funny, but not always.
“Libertarians engage in free thought.
Crooks engage in free thought.
Therefore Libertarians are crooks.”
Premise contradicts another earlier premise
“We need to construct Holocaust study programs so that it can never happen again.”
Sorry, but there is no hard evidence that it ever happened in the first place.
See essay, World War II and Causes
Suggests a universal principle, then insists that it does not apply to the issue at hand
"Monogamous relationships are the norm because they give people what they truly need. Prostitution must therefore remain illegal.”
Ignores the fact that prostitution also gives many other people what they truly need, without detriment to anyone. Globalists don't want free enterprise prostitutes to compete with their human trafficking operations.
Where There's Smoke There's Fire
Repeating a statement too often in the hopes that the listener will begin to accept it as truth, instead of providing evidence.
Phony Russian narrative touted by subverted Globalist media. Totally disproved, but reintroduced every two weeks
Argument based upon false claims, but is logically coherent
“How could they have good intentions, when they murdered six million innocent people?”
Argues that because something happened, it was inevitable.
“Taking back Danzig was bound to lead to war sooner or later.”
Where there is smoke, there is fire
Occurs when one sees an apparent pattern of data and applies to their argument
“He has so many conversations with the Russian Prime Minister, he must be a spy.”
Missing the Point
The premise supports a conclusion different from the one drawn
“Fuel prices are much too high, so speed limits will have to be lowered.”
Fuel prices are too high for many reasons unrelated to speed, besides, slower speeds do not reduce fuelconsumption.
Exploits the false assumption that events which receive the most publicity are also the most common
This trick is used by subverted Globalist media bosses to destroy race and culture by instilling unwarranted guilt and self-hatred in host populations: In America, white on nonwhite crime is made front page news over and over, enflamed by phony editorials and bills to Congress about white racism. Nonwhite on white crime is buried on page four with no mention of race. This has been done by Jewish media bosses in America since 1945. Ride the city bus every day to see the result.
Defending an absurdity by calling it something it is not. Often ignores the longer term
The breed-up-quick crowd refer to race mixing as diversity. In actuality it is just the opposite, because over time it would ultimately obliterate all individual races, resulting in grey slavery. Real diversity is indigenous populations in separate sovereign nations competing in a free world market, with travelers enjoying potent undiluted cultures.
A stereotype is the random generalization that an individual member of an identifiable group, for better or for worse, probably possesses a particular characteristic which is alleged to, but may or may not, be especially common among members of the group. Stereotypes are often based upon race, nationality, sex, and age, but only become harmful when used to make judgements of consequence about a person, without any substantive knowledge of the person as an individual.
“Watch out, or them corn-servatives will call you a pre-vert and summon the poe-lice.”
False Grouping Stereotype
The notion that ideas must me embraced as package deals
If someone supports gun ownership, they must, of course, oppose a woman’s right to choose about abortion.
Attributing a property to something that could not possibly have that property
Two things are compared that are not related, in order to make something more appealing than it really is
Quoting Out of Context
When an original phrase is distorted by quoting it out of context
Posits that a term’s original meaning applies to its colloquial and modern understanding in current circumstances
Belief that likelihood of a specific event can be effected by unrelated events, or that something has happened so often in the past that it is less likely that it will happen in the future.
Inflation of Conflict
Belief that instances where so many scholars have differing opinions, that this in itself calls the credibility of the entire field into question. Therefore no action should be taken.
These last four were used at Nuremberg.
Read the transcripts for yourself.
Use of several inconsistent arguments to defend a position
Too many arguments for the opponent to answer them all
Proof by Verbosity
Argument too complicated and verbose for opponent to address all the particulars
Person making argument is so well-respected that everyone takes his claims as truth
Fallacies 0f Ambiguity
Change of Meanings in Discussion
Render Arguments Fallacious
Making equivalent things that are not
Referring to the country, the people, and the government as though they were one thing.
Country is a geographically defined area within which exists the potential for absolute individual liberty. Government is that group of subverted collectivist traitors in the service of international finance who prevent this liberty from occurring. The people are that majority of brainwashed, deluded individuals who aid and abet government in doing this.
“We will stop Libertarian truth with censorship.”
Reasoning from of the parts of the whole to the the whole itself
“Libertarianism is a sham.”
“It won’t pay for sex change.”
Argues that what is true of the whole must be true of individual parts
Grammatical construction causes ambiguity
Use of a double meaning or an unclear description applied to mislead or misrepresent the truth, then changing the meaning of the terms later. This is often done by politicians.
Fallacies of Omission
Absence of Necessary Information
Stacking the Deck
Ignores examples that disprove the point
“Libertarians are always libertines.”
No True Scotsman Fallacy
Stacking the deck by defining terms narrowly to exclude relevant examples
“Bolshevists were evil. They murdered sixty-six million people during their revolution.”
“Yes, but their revolution was for the future of Russia. Forty six million of the casualties were Ukrainians and Poles.”
Appeal to Ignorance
We should not establish a truly Libertarian society because there has never been one in the past, so we cannot know what bad things might come of it.
Hypothesis contrary to fact
“In America, whites owe blacks bigtime.”
In the USA, virtually all black people are descended from those who were brought to America as slaves. Most white people in America, however, are not descended from southern plantation owners, and have inherited no culpability in any of this. The presence of black people in America is, for most white people, simply an unjust cultural and gene pool encroachment.
Another related lie is that all free people were unjustly enriched by the institution of slavery. In truth, the only people who gained from slavery were the plantation owners. Everybody else was hurt because of what it did to the price of commodities and the labor market. The slavery lies are used to promote so called "social justice" via mandatory wealth redistribution.
Implies that another unproven statement is true without evidence or discussion
“How many deaths from overdose will be acceptable to you Libertarians, if we repeal Prohibition relative to heroin?”
Ignores the fact that before Provision there was no epidemic in drug use, because there was no black market profit potential to sell it.
Argument from the Negative
Running to Extremes
One position is untenable, so the opposite must be true
Right wing extremist parent produces
left wing extremist child, who produces right wing extremist child, who produces left wing extremist
child … ad infinitum.
Collectivist government favorite for adding insult to injury by naming harmful policies the exact opposite of what they are. The truth is totally omitted.
Formal Examples:Monetary Control Act
Bank Secrecy Act
Homeland Security Act