Dear Friends,
It seems to me, swindlers need to control information. That is the essence of a con. Scammers control information to maintain intentional asymmetric knowledge, that’s the way fraud is done. In the case of a pig in a poke, the fraud is that a cat is in the bag, not a piglet. That is the asymmetric information that leads to the fraud. Every swindle has this as a basic element. From fake stock certificates to Ponzi schemes, there is always an element of asymmetric knowledge. That is the fulcrum upon which the scam turns. From this we can logically conclude that when someone is adamant about maintaining asymmetric information, where they have the knowledge and we don’t, while vilifying any attempt to equalize that knowledge… is playing a game on us. We are the marks to their con.
What honest reason would there be for controlled asymmetric knowledge… other than a parent-child relationship? Is it just when some are forced to be ignorant, by conniving, manipulation, or censorship while others have access to the information? When does ignorance benefit the ignorant? I maintain ignorance is a hindrance, not an advantage. That means enforced ignorance is intentionally hobbling someone intellectually. Every argument about limiting information is to the advantage of the limiter and the disadvantage of the limited. So, we can conclude that there is no valid or just reason to enforce asymmetric information, unless the limiter is a parent. In a society of equals then asymmetric information is an anathema. It may be legal but it’s always immoral.
The law is only exploited to maintain asymmetric knowledge in an unequal society. Censorship is never about silencing someone, it is always about limiting information. No one standing alone in a forest is censored, because no one can hear the wrong speak. It’s only when information that equalizes knowledge is blurted out, that speech must be controlled. Moreover, looking at recent history, virtually all of what has been censored as misinformation, was true, and the “truth” forwarded by the narrative was wrong. Turns out that Covid did come from a lab, the Vaccine was ineffective and dangerous, George Floyd did die of an overdose, the Biden laptop wasn’t Russian disinformation, and the Biden diary was indeed hers… among a litany of other abuses that were censored and are memory-holed.
There are spurious arguments aplenty to “justify” censorship and asymmetric information. National defense is over used but still effective. “Protecting” people from “misinformation,” is another. The goal becomes more overt when they say they need to build consensus. Taken at face value, every one is spurious. I have to wonder… how does keeping patriotic Americans in the dark protect national security, when we all know the CCP and Russia have access to our most sensitive information? Hillary’s email server scandal all but proves that. When the information the elites are protecting turns out to be false, and the information they were protecting us from is the truth… that suggests nefarious intent. Stupidity isn’t so ambitious. Building consensus is clearly a euphemism for manipulation.
As legalism replaces moralism, cons will explode in amplitude and frequency. This is because people no longer ask themselves, “Is this moral?” but, “How can I get this past the law?” Nothing drives this behavior more than when the elite lead by example. If the whole system has become a swindle, it only makes sense to become a swindler. In a place where people are imprisoned for non-crime hate incidents there is clearly a game being played. When censorship is justified by national security or to build consensus, the scam is in play. Wise and smart people notice when ignorance is enforced. They realize that they are being played as patsies and act accordingly. Not by taking up the career of a swindler, but by withdrawing from the game. They can’t make you a patsy if you don’t participate.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
