Rebranding the Simulacrum with Sophistry

Written by Joseph Postma on September 23, 2021. Posted in Current News

“Rebranding is a marketing strategy in which a new name, term, symbol, design, concept or combination thereof is created for an established brand with the intention of developing a new, differentiated identity in the minds of consumers, investors, competitors, and other stakeholders.[1]

Often, this involves radical changes to a brand’s logo, name, legal names, image, marketing strategy, and advertising themes.”

simulacrum: an unsatisfactory imitation or substitute (Google Dictionary)
simulacrum: a slight, unreal, or vague semblance of something; superficial likeness (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/simulacrum)
simulacrum: a representation which bears no relation to any reality whatsoever (French social theorist Jean Baudrillard, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacrum)

sophistry: a method of argument that is seemingly plausible though actually invalid and misleading; the art of using such arguments; subtle but unsound or fallacious reasoning (Collins English Dictionary)

I’ve written previously somewhere: what is the point of creating a simulacrum? The point is that when you can re-create another person’s perception of reality, and indeed their reality, then you own that person, because you’re in control of their world and what they are able to perceive about the world. Yes yes…the Matrix movie.

But I just want to list a few pertinent examples:

Rebranding the entirely normal and nominal weather into the simulacrum of “climate change”, which you must now dedicate your life to “solving”, where the sophistry of the term “climate change” in its meaningful sense cannot rationally be “denied” because it is something that exists and has always existed, thus defending the simulacrum through the ambiguity of its actual meaning. But we must now pay people and let them control the entire world to protect us from the weather.

Rebranding the entirely normal and nominal seasonal cold and flu into the simulacrum of “THE VIRUS”, which you must now dedicate your life to “solving”. The body’s natural and common immune cleansing reaction to changes in environment and sunlight and general diet and lifestyle becomes something which is anathema to the body and which you must therefore pay other people to protect you from and also allow them to control world.

And another example in practice, related to the climate sophistry:

I just spent the last three days writing a book over EMAIL to a group of world-wide skeptics and some organization they’re part of with political influence.

Of course, as always, some snake in the grass 5’th column operatives got in on the thread, and start arguing for backradiation heating, etc.

So of course, I patiently go through the First Law, its definition, its equation, and then the definition and equations for heat, explaining that what is required to increase temperature is heat, and heat comes from something hotter only, as per the definitions and the equations for which I supplied all the references, etc. That is:

The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us how to increase the temperature of a body:

dU = Q + W = m Cp dT

To get a positive dT, where the context is heat and radiation and not work, one requires positive heat Q.

The definition for Q for conductive transfer is for example:

Q = k *(Thot – Tcool)

and a simple expression for plane parallel geometry for radiant heat transfer is for example:

Q = sigma * (Thot^4 – Tcool ^4)

Heat is what is required to increase temperature (First Law of Thermodynamics), and heat is a difference of energy whether in conductive or radiative terms.

Each of the two terms on the right-hand side of the above heat equations are energy. It is the difference between energy, which is heat. And so, of course, the laws of thermodynamics do refer to energy, and they define when energy can act as heat.

You know what the two snakes in the grass did then? Sparing the personal attacks to my intelligence they feigned to manage perceptions, they write, to quote:

“Your definition of heat is much too restrictive. WE define heat as the thermal radiation which can come from an icecube, and that this must be absorbed by any other body, and therefore indeed a cold substance can make a hotter object increase in temperature via radiation, because this is about energy, not your restrictive definition of heat to which radiation doesn’t apply.”

So, their argument (sophistry) is to just make up new definitions, which they have no equations or references for…they just make up with words new sophistical arbitrary definitions and call “my” (they’re not MINE) definitions of the First Law and heat “too restrictive”!

I mean, you can argue anything you want, and you can win any argument, when you can merely change and make up new definitions for words on a whim.

“I would only ask you to be consistent; or, if you must change, change openly and let there be no deception.” – Socrates

Yah…”too restrictive” indeed, because they debunk the RGHE, and so, they simply create new definitions.

So I ended that exchange with:

This is mockery. People, this is mockery. This is a mockery of conversation, of thinking, of reason, of bare decency.

I cannot believe that this is what I have to engage with. I really cannot believe it.

We’re all being played for fools by these people in a con-game. Can others really not see that this is what these snake-in-the-grass fake “skeptics” are doing?

Do you all enjoy being mocked? Because we’re being mocked.

Of course, the purpose of rebranding and simulacra is not only mockery, although mockery seems to be an important part of it: the purpose is of course control, and more so, profit. It’s really just about parasitical profit. Profit in energy, of its various forms…profit of power.

But it is specifically a parasitical strategy to profit, which is what makes it so dysgenic, degenerative, destructive, and disgusting. Parasites destroy their host…there is no symbiosis or mutual benefit…they are simply and plainly a destructive race to the bottom, to total death.

Take for example the Lion – the King of the Savannah. Apparently groups of ticks will burrow into the lion’s neck to the point that the lion will have a large gaping baseball-sized hole right in their neck that can never heal, and then, the lion dies. The ticks had a great old party riding that lion down, the ticks had the best time of their parasitical life, they had the life that they would wish to live over and over again forever, as they sucked the life out of the lion and rode its negentropy down to entropic destruction – that’s their perception, of their life.

There is no negotiating with a tick, a parasite. To negotiate with them is to ask them to not live their life! How can you ask something to not live its style of life? Of course you can’t. It’s not about morality or ethics or compromise for mutual benefit – it cannot be. A parasite must extract wealth and energy from its host, and there is no return in exchange possible to be given by them – that’s how they live, how they exist, and they cannot and do not exist or live otherwise.

The only thing that you do with parasites is destroy them, because that’s the only thing that they will do with you.

See more here: climateofsophistry.com

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.