Friday, June 23, 2017

The Resolution of Ideology

In Antifragile, the author, Taleb, makes a reference to a phenomenon I'd call the resolution of information, but maybe it goes by another name already. The information we gather from data often depends on the scale in which we view it. Imagine some measurement in time. Perhaps the price of a stock index, or the unemployment rate, or the oil flow through a pipeline. If we view the data on an annual scope, we might gather some information from it. We might make out long-term trends and seasonal patterns in the data. The information we gather is the signal, and our task is to separate it from the noise. Suppose the data amounts to 50% signal and 50% noise.

Now imagine we view the same data on a daily scope. Suddenly random market fluctuations will become vastly more significant, with more like 1% signal and 99% noise. If we refine our resolution to hourly data, we will be so saturated with noise that there will be no hope of detecting any meaningful signal.

Taleb notes that this phenomenon highlights the uselessness of 24-hour news coverage. It is saturated with noise. Even if the mainstream media wasn't primarily an outlet for falsehoods, propaganda, and detergent commercials, it would be difficult to gain much of value from it. If the news actually was accurate and impartial, the "information" gained from viewing 24-hour news sources would likely be just confirmation bias of our own worldviews.

Something that has given me great trouble these last few months is that I frequently encounter or befriend people with whom I have much in common. We might share similar outlooks, interests, and attitudes on life. Generally we're on the same wavelength, with one major exception: politics. And as our society becomes increasingly split, being on the opposite side of politics is becoming a bigger and bigger deal. It bothers me that people who I personally align with end up on what is quite certainly the wrong side, and that the separation can be enough to strain, if not outright sever, what would otherwise be perfectly cordial and beneficial relationships.

How can people so loving acquire a political orientation that is so hateful? How can people who are such natural and caring parents side with those who want to destroy the family? How can those who desire a simple, elegant, and peaceful life advocate for the destruction of traditional society? How can those so beautiful and talented join forces with those who see aesthetics and success as inherently evil and oppressive?

The following video really lays out the ideological foundings of the modern left. It is worth viewing for its own sake.


How many of your liberal acquaintances, those who are otherwise decent people, know anything about the core of leftist ideology? How many know that critical theory is really just nihilism or, at least, anti-Westernism? The typical liberal doesn't know about any of this. They know that the left is "pro-environment", and the environment is important to us, so that's good. They know the left is "pro-woman", and we love our women, so that's good. They know the left is in favor of helping the poor, and since our Christian values uphold such belief, then that is good. But those viewpoints are the superficial resolution of the leftist ideology. They are just noise. They don't mean anything. The left isn't really pro-woman when they throw tens of millions of dollars to prevent the Georgia 6th District from electing their first woman congressman. And they aren't pro-gay when they ban gay Trump supporters from gay-pride events or ignore Muslim violence against gays. And they aren't pro-poor when they advocate for open-borders policies.

Most liberals only see the very narrow resolution of the leftist ideology, which doesn't reveal the full signal, which is that the leftism is an ideological movement that is quite open about its desire to destroy our current civilization. It is purely subversive and targets the good, stabilizing aspects of society while encouraging the immoral and destructive. One has trouble separating leftism from the works of Satan as described in Christian literature. They desire to destroy civilization so they can rebuild a better one in its wake. Given their historical record, this isn't likely, but that doesn't mean they won't have success destroying what's already there.

Someone with a narrow resolution will interpret the same message quite differently than someone with a wide resolution. For instance, we might interpret a sinusoid as a perpetually increasing value if we are zoomed in too far. Even when a typical liberal gets some of the signal it's usually incomplete. They see the feminism or women's advocacy and see that as its own signal. Perhaps such advocacy for women is a good thing (ignoring 3rd wave feminism, which is insane), but that advocacy is a portion of the larger signal. Leftists are pro-female only because they perceive society as pro-male, just as they are pro-gay because society is traditionally pro-heterosexuality, and are pro-drugs because societies tend to oppose them, on the whole. We see routinely, such as with the recent election in Georgia, that advocating for their preferred groups isn't actually a big priority for them, not compared to the prime objective of liberalism which, currently, is doing anything to attack Donald Trump.

If we look at a signal long enough, with a narrow resolution, contradictions will inevitably arise. Our example of a perpetually increasing signal in some cases appears to be decreasing. If we don't know that what we are looking at is a sinusoid, then we must come up with some rationalization as to why the signal is sometimes upwards, sometimes downwards, and sometimes level. If it happens that 9 observations show an upward trend, and the 10th downward, we would tend to focus our attention on the 10th to determine why it is an outlier. The ideology of being anti-society drives its own contradictions. Feminism and gender fluidity both result from the leftist ideology, but, without an understanding of the deeper leftist signal, rectifying them is an impossible task for typical liberals to undertake. Feminism is neutered if any man can call himself a woman as needed to get the desired gender preference. The only real response to the apparent contradiction is to either (a) acknowledge that the who point of liberalism is to destroy society, or (b) to resort to ad hominems, straw man arguments, and physical violence to vent their frustration with the intractable paradox. We tend to see a lot of the latter these days.

Many otherwise decent people are caught up supporting the leftist signal of evil because they only view it in parts and it is often buried in noise by propaganda and the 24-hour news cycle. While I'm a big advocate of r/K political theory, we have to realize that one's r/K leanings can be strongly influenced by their perceptions of reality. Many people are pushed away from the left when the intractability of its own contradictions become too exhausting, and many more are pushed away by the hysterical behaviors of its frustrated low-resolution acolytes. Our goal should be to always press liberals into the conundrum where they must either admit to the logical inconsistency of their viewpoint or that they wish to destroy western civilization. (Or, most likely, lash out in pathetic fits of hysteria.)

We on the right can take some lessons from all this. Note that the left has great success in persuasion despite a horribly flawed ideology that most of them struggle to rationalize. They do this by persuading with noise and signal fragments. How often do you hear leftists advocate to destroy society so that a better society can be rebuilt in its ashes? They never do that. It's always some partial signal wrapped in enough noise to give it the appearance of moral superiority and social approval. They also tend to insulate the truth of the actions from the superficial narrative with several layers of rationalization and plausible deniability.

"Why do you violently oppose free speech for the alt-right?"
"We support free speech, just not for fascists."
"Why are they fascists?"
"They're fascists because they want to oppress women, gays, kittens, ..."
"How will they oppress them?"
"blah blah blah"

And so on. There is a truth at the bottom of all this. They oppose anyone attempting to defend society. Traditionalism is equal to fascism. They'll never come out and say it. Most don't even realize what the truth at the bottom really is. Again, they've been sold on one little snippet of the ugly ideology that's been dressed up to look pretty. We need to keep these tactics in mind. At some point, we will probably be advocating for actions that are bitter to the palate. One example that is likely to be seen in the near future, and many are already arguing for, is the removal of Islam from Europe, one way or another. This is just a hypothetical, but if it came to that, our tendency on the right would be to make a grand case for the removal of Islam. That is, we'd expose and broadcast the full-spectrum signal. It might be wiser to follow the liberal strategy. Yes have removal as an academic objective, but keep public discourse fragmented and layered. People might be able to latch on to some snippets of an anti-Islam campaign if they are properly isolated and padded with noise to give them the air of moral superiority. For instance, banning halal meats because the process is cruel to animals. This is just an example, but the larger lesson is this: to properly counter progressivism and to bolster our own positions, we must always be consciously aware of the resolution of ideology.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

When is it War?

A week and a half off from politics and social issues has been refreshing. I'd recommend it to anyone.

It seems that the west is becoming accustomed to Islamic terror. Many smaller attacks aren't even being picked up by the mainstream media these days. But perhaps there is a more general trend. A Republican Congressman was shot at a baseball game and the media quickly moved on from the story. This is in stark contrast to the coverage for Gabrielle Giffords which continued for weeks after she was shot. Are we becoming less sensitized to violence overall, or is this just the standard narrative spinning by the MSM? There was recently a "counter-terror attack" in the UK, where a Brit drove a van into a crowd of Muslims. After an initial media blitz and a chorus of false equivalency claims, it too quickly fell off the MSM radar.

In either case, it seems that terror attacks in Europe are becoming routine. Islamic terror is rampant, and there may be counter-terror forming up. The evidence is limited, but there have been anti-Muslim attacks in Britain and Canada in the last year. Muslims are moving into Western countries and just don't have the patience to hold off on violent activities even while a small minority. The locals are starting to respond in kind. The question is: at what point does all this become a civil war? Would we call it a civil war if attacks were daily? Or does civil war imply direct, violent interaction between armed belligerents? How long can attacks on soft civilian targets continue until each side starts forming up into militant units for self-protection?

It seems that as bad as things appear to be, this is really low-grade violence compared to what might erupt in a few years if Muslims are allowed to continue streaming into Europe and grow strong enough to feel competent to engage in open hostility against their hosts. The Europeans are so soft and their morale so low (suicidal, basically) that the Muslims really only need some as yet undetermined fraction of the native population to reach that level. Until then we'll see terror attacks gaining less and less attention by the public as they grow increasingly frequent.

Friday, June 9, 2017

Vacation

This blog will be on hiatus for about the next ten days, which sounds like an eternity in today's political/news climate. But hopefully there won't be much to write about when I get back. :)

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Comey: Square Peg in a Round Hole

Comey has been hard to peg down. You think he's one thing and then he's another. You think he's genuinely honest and then you think he's an absolute weasel. What's the deal with him? Is he extraordinarily complex? Is he mental? After seeing plenty of Comey in action, I would make the suggestion: he's a square.

He has a reputation as a by-the-book guy. As a cop's cop. He seems to be dedicated to protocol (except when he's violating it). I still think he was genuinely trying to do the best job he could. Whether he did it well or flubbed it entirely, you have to appreciate what a pickle the man was in. A preposterously corrupt candidate under investigation for shitting all over national security and his boss was meeting her husband, the former president, on a private jet in secret! It was absolutely a Constitutional crisis. We ask why Comey didn't follow the normal protocol, and probably he should have, but this was not in any way normal circumstances. Averting a national political catastrophe is not in his job description and we shouldn't be surprised he wasn't cut out for the task.

We have this tendency to think that the leaders of organizations should be the premier technicians from the relevant domain. While it is certainly a plus if they are, and they must be competent in domain knowledge, their primary role is to provide political leadership. The FBI Director is appointed. It is by definition a political role. People are promoted to this level, not because of their technical competence, or even their domain knowledge, but their ability to successfully engage in the power game to support the organizational mission. People who excel at the power game have their own language. Power talk.

Based on Comey's testimony it is clear to me that what we have here is a case where one powerful leader is speaking in power talk and the other is not. Trump's language is somewhat cryptic yet suggestive. He meets with Comey. "I'd like to have you stay. You're doing a great job. I just need loyalty." Trump meets several times with Comey, or on the phone, to have similar conversations. But Comey is a square. He doesn't speak power talk himself. He's actually frightened by it, as suggested in his own testimony, and reports that he tried to avoid Trump at social events.

While most of us (being little people) can understand Comey's reaction, as we'd react in a similar fashion, you must also consider from Trump's perspective. He's a tycoon. He's been surrounded by powerful people his whole life. His primary role in society is this: he speaks power talk to other powerful people to strike deals, and takes a cut of the transaction for himself. So he goes to Washington, the pinnacle of power, and probably assumes he is in like company. Imagine his frustration at having these conversations with Comey over and over again and not having the message go through. The message is clear: I'm being eaten alive because the media and half the country say I'm under FBI investigation and there is strong evidence against me. Set the record straight.

There's nothing to suggest he was asking Comey to call off any investigations (which he is authorized to do) or anything illegal. Was there a quid pro quo on offer? Implicitly yes, there was. And because quid never materialized, neither did quo, which was Comey's continued employment with Trump's branch of government. Is it shady? Arguably yes. But also arguably no. That is the dynamic of every organization. Is the president supposed to have no influence at all in these matters? Then why have a president of the executive branch at all? If he's violating the law it really falls on Congress -- not his underlings in the FBI -- to keep him in check. That's what they're doing now with the Senate investigation, and what many Democrats are threatening to do with House impeachment hearings. There's a convention of non-interference between the White House and the Hoover Building, but it's merely convention. Ultimately the FBI works for the president, and it's naive to think that perfect insulation is even possible, let alone preferable.

Comey mentions that Loretta Lynch ordered him to refer to the Clinton investigation as a "matter". Was that ethical? Surely not. She was asking him to use the language of the campaign of the political party in power. Was it illegal? Probably not, but it should be. Lynch didn't use power talk on Comey, either because she doesn't speak power talk herself or because she knows Comey doesn't, so she gave it to him direct. A common complaint from other nations, particularly from Russia (as explained frequently on the Saker blog linked on the sidebar), was that the Obama administration didn't engage in diplomacy, but merely issued orders and ultimatums. Diplomacy is just power talk between nations. Obama and his cronies did not have the necessary skills to engage in proper diplomacy. Trump came in and found that his Obama-appointed FBI Director did not either.

Comey's organization had been co-opted as a weapon against the sitting president. Investigations were launched in response to media reports (as admitted by Comey), then those investigations -- not specifically directed at Trump -- were used to justify calls for impeachment. Trump tried to get Comey to fix the situation. Comey, who after the Clinton investigation was probably terrified to do anything to deviate from rote protocol, refused. And so he was fired. I find myself unable to assign moral judgment in all this. Comey was justified to resist pressure to make another unorthodox announcement when technically Trump might still get swept up in the ongoing investigation. Trump was justified in firing Comey because the FBI was underpinning a political attack that was preventing him from carrying out his agenda, among other reasons.

Comey mentioned that he felt he failed to respond to Trump appropriately at times because he was caught off-guard and didn't know what to say. That's because he doesn't speak power talk. He also mentions waking up at night with certain revelations, or that he has kept himself up at night self-analyzing his own actions. Do you think Trump loses sleep ruminating? Comey has confessed that he knew when he exonerated Clinton he was making a bad decision, but it was the least bad decision and that he was risking his career to avert a Constitutional crisis. He was right on the latter point, and I commend him for his "service before self" attitude. But if he was properly qualified for the job, meaning he was adept at power talk, he would have responded appropriately to Trump, would have worked a deal where he satisfied Trump's needs to de-weaponize the FBI without hindering his ability to do the investigation "the right way." Instead, he got canned, and he no longer has the authority to ensure the FBI maintains the proper attention to protocol. There is no doubt that Trump will appoint someone more adept at the political game than Comey and, we hope, just as patriotic and duty-oriented. If so, our nation will ultimately be better served by our new FBI Director than we were with Comey, the square peg in the round hole.

Wildly Successful "Muh Russia" Psy Ops Campaign Winds Down

The Russian conspiracy theory is now right about a year old. The narrative began in June of last year when it became clear to most people that Trump had secured the Republican nomination and there would be no brokered convention. This was also after DNC emails -- which showed collusion between the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and the media to sway the outcome of the Democratic primary -- had been released by Wikileaks, and after Clinton campaign manager John Podesta's emails had been hacked, but prior to their release by Wikileaks.

The Muh Russia conspiracy theory includes 3 major components.
  1. That Russia surreptitiously acted to sway the US election in favor of Trump, including by hacking the DNC emails and releasing them through Wikileaks.
  2. That the Trump campaign somehow coordinated with the Russians in their activities.
  3. That Trump committed obstruction of justice to hinder/stop investigations into Muh Russia out of fear that they would reveal his criminal activities.
The culmination of the media frenzy is the current investigation into the matter by the US Senate. The event has been hyped to Super Bowl levels by the media. The first major testimony, made yesterday by NSA Director Rogers, was disappointing to the left. Rogers not only flatly denied that he had received any sort of pressure to from the administration as suggested, but he even pushed back on the hysteria being laid on him by Senators such as California's Kamala Harris.

Similarly Comey's much-anticipated testimony today didn't deliver much of substance. Trump was never under investigation, he pressured Comey to go easy on Flynn, and he seemed to try to extract some sort of display of loyalty from Comey, which I believe to mean that Trump wanted Comey to publicly announce that Trump was not under investigation, which would be a fair request given that every left-winger in existence is saying Trump isn't fit for the presidency because he is "under investigation". (They certainly didn't hold that view when Candidate Clinton actually was under FBI investigation.)

The narrative is generally falling apart in the media. Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor with a reputation as a staunch liberal, argues that nothing Trump has done could be considered as obstruction of justice.


While the investigations are ongoing, there are clear indications that the media frenzy is subsiding. Some high-ranking Democrats are engaging in expectations management about the whole ordeal. The first aspect of the narrative -- that Russia worked to rig the election -- is defended by both Rogers and Comey. We have to believe they have some reason for those assertions. However the evidence that has been made public is highly lacking, and there's no evidence that the Russian publicly leaked any information to Wikileaks. In fact, the only evidence out there suggests that they did not. The second and third aspects, that Trump colluded with the Russians and is covering it up, are losing steam. The only aspect of all this that might be unethical is Trump encouraging Comey to lay off on Flynn. Unethical, perhaps, but legal. As Dershowitz tells us, even if Trump had ordered Comey to lay off Flynn, it would have been within his legal authority as head of the executive branch. Whether Trump's coercion was proper is a matter to be decided in the next election. However, it is a far cry from what is being alleged here: that Trump is a traitor for helping Russia rig the US election, and has sought to obstruct the subsequent investigation. Both charges are totally without merit. It seems likely he used his influence to try to protect Flynn, who had been a loyal and early support of Trump, joining him at times on the campaign trail. Perhaps that's improper, but let's look at it within context. The Democrats wanted to re-elect the Clintons to office. Their history of pay-for-pardon while in office is surely much more unethical than Trump's attempt to protect an ally from an investigation that only occurred in the first place due to widespread and misplaced media hysteria that was triggered by political opponents. This is all as if he was accused of murder, and it turns out he had just tried to sweet talk a cop to get out of a speeding ticket.

Because this is all so well documented, I suspect this entire incident will one day became a canonical case study in mass propaganda and delusion. When they teach the principle "if you repeat a lie often enough people will start to believe it", this will be the go-to example. It will be studied from a political science perspective as well because the Democrats were able to turn a reality where they were caught rigging an election to one where they were the victims of a rigged election, and they were able to bog down their political adversaries in the process. Many on the right are truly ecstatic at this point. The whole nonsense narrative is finally being destroyed through exposure to reality. They anticipate that they will be vindicated, and the leftist media discredited, in the eyes of the public. But why should anything change? If that was to be true, it would have happened in response to the DNC emails, over a year ago. The notion that the left will finally acknowledge objective reality is a fantasy. This whole ordeal will be rationalized or memory-holed. Don't believe me? Just ask a liberal about the Wikileaks or Trump's tax returns and see what kind of responses you get.

This narrative has failed in the sense that it didn't get Trump impeached. In many cities crowds gathered to watch the Comey hearing on TVs, like a political Super Bowl party. They truly believe something of substance against Trump was going to come out of this. However overall the whole fiasco has be a resounding success. No one is talking about Democrats rigging an election, or Obama spying on a political candidate, or the billions of dollars in political slush funds Trump just shut down, or the massive crackdowns on pedophilia and human trafficking, or the emails just released showing Hillary was advised by security experts not to run a private server, or Eric Holder being looked at for squashing the Fast & Furious investigation, or the murder of Seth Rich......

Those are all newsworthy items, especially the political slush fund. No, all eyes are turned onto a fake Trump scandal. If brainwashing and misdirecting the general public were the general goal, then this has been a wild success. Trump, the master of perceptions, certainly has his work cut out for him, and his greatly handicapped because the media is owned by the left.

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Beta Male Inaction

A video going around on Facebook shows a Philly policeman maintaining a professional demeanor during an encounter with an extremely belligerent and hostile woman. She is probably drunk but definitely nuts. I'd bet that she's a virtue-signaling prog and that, given her belligerence, she has a social media trail that could quickly settle the wager.

The video isn't that interesting on its face. Yes, the cop did an excellent job holding his composure, yet we sort of hold cops to that standard anyway. Good for him, but he is just doing his job. More interestingly, watch the limp-wristed beta manlet she has in tow. Have you ever seen anything so pathetic? I initially assumed he was her boyfriend, and maybe he is. He plays the role of the ineffective appeaser. He tries to calm the woman down, which doesn't work. He tries to restore positive vibes with the officer, which doesn't work. This guy doesn't really do anything; he might as well not exist.

He's so weak that I have to question if he's really with her, or is just your standard beta orbiter hoping he can appease his way into her pants. The fact that the woman made sexually suggestive comments towards the cop would indicate that she's not romantically involved with the manlet. And it doesn't matter really. Maybe he's her brother or her co-worker. The dynamic is the same. The woman feels free to be as awful as she wants because no matter how grotesque she becomes some pathetic manboy will remain dutifully by her side. A healthy person signals and maintains personal boundaries and all relationships are conditional on those boundaries being respected. This guy seems to have no set boundaries and, even when it's apparent that he realizes her behavior is unacceptable, is unwilling to exercise the only card that most people have in such a situation: a willingness to terminate an unsatisfactory relationship. They say you can't change a person. Well, you can. You can give them the option of respecting your boundaries or losing the relationship. If you are sufficiently valuable to them they will change their behavior, or try to at least.

This is a micro version of the macro problem in society. The progs are out of control. No one is forcing them to conform to any sort of modes of behavior. How do we "walk away" in our scenario? I say give them California. Dice it off and deport the most radical lefties to their prog paradise. They'll be begging for us to take them back within a decade.

UPDATE
Heavy.com has more on the incident. The reporter has lost her job and is claiming she didn't drink that much and was probably drugged. Lol. She admits thought that she had at least 5 drinks. That's enough to get a lot of girls hammered. We've all seen it. Here's a better shot of the perp.


A pretty brunette with those blue-green eyes? No wonder she never heard the word no. But either way guys, hot or not, boundaries are boundaries. And my respect to the beautiful women out there (I understand many of them read this blog) who remain grounded despite society giving them plenty of room for bad behavior. Frankly, it takes more self-discipline for pretty women to maintain character and class because society (played in this scene by the lanky beta male) rewards them either way.

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

The Law of Immigrant Domination

The recent post Why Muslims Keep Committing Terror Attacks in Europe proposed a Law of Immigrant domination.
To take over a democratic nation through immigration, the invaders must amass a voting population equal to  $\frac{1}{3}$ of the native voting population to achieve political dominance.
The idea is that in a democracy the immigrant bloc does not need a population majority to control the national politics. Because some percentage of the native population will be r-selected traitors, all that is needed is for the immigrant + r-type populations to exceed 50% of the total. Without knowing anything about the distribution of r-types, k-types, and moderates in a particular country, the best we can do is assume a uniform distribution, hence $\frac{1}{3}$ for each segment.

What we need is an index to measure the r-selectedness of a nation. (AnonCon hinted at doing something like this in a recent post.) Developing a science for measuring general r-selectedness would require enough work to fill a book. Let's just look at the case study at the core of all this: Muslim migration into Europe. The best litmus test is a straightforward question: do you support more Muslim immigration into Europe? Those who support it are r-types, those who reject it are K.

A recent poll has asked exactly that question to Europeans. The results don't show a uniform distribution. (But we wouldn't really expect them to.)


Unfortunately, our guinea pig for Muslim takeover, Sweden, is not mentioned. Let's just look at the results as a whole.

Opposed: 54.6%
Neutral: 25.3%
Support: 20.1%

Germany's numbers are pretty similar to the European average. So this looks quite a bit better than the uniform distribution assumed by the Law of Immigrant Domination. This would indicate that only 20% of Europeans are hard r-selected, which is much lower than I would have assumed, given the overall tone of their rhetoric. By this measurement, assuming it is reflective of native Europeans and not skewed by immigrants in the survey, Muslims would need 38% of the population to dominate politically. Whatever the demographics numbers are currently, we're a long way from 38%.

Or are we? In the US the non-white population is at about that percentage. And since current trends indicate a growing racial divide in politics (there's a pro-white party and an anti-white party, more or less) then we aren't really far from that dynamic in the US at all. Further, we must consider that western nations are not pure democracies. Most Europeans want to ban immigration, yet immigrants keep coming in by the boatload. The vast majority of Americans opposed the Wall Street bank bailouts, yet they were handed out from presidents of both parties. Saying that a voting bloc needs 50% of the population is idealistic: the number is skewed, sometimes heavily, by the will of the ruling elites. In the west the elites are obsessed with foreign immigration, which can be judged by their propaganda activities (mainstream media) and by what elected politicians are actually saying.

The Law of Immigrant Domination is clearly far too simple to capture the complexities at play here. Even if we could capture the dynamics in a model, we'd be too short on good data to make very good use of it, and we don't have much in the way of historical precedent to compare with. Does it really matter though if the model is not predictive? It hardly matters whether the tipping point is 25% or 38% Muslim. We'll make it there in either case, as things are headed now. This is probably one of those areas where human intuition and logic are just as effective as scientific formulations. And my human intuition tells me the western nations are doomed, unless we make a drastic change of direction very soon.

Saturday, June 3, 2017

Religions, Cults, and the Alt-Right

The word religion gets thrown around a lot on this blog, usually in reference to the Progs. It's worth elaborating on the the meaning of the word, and of related terms like cult. These definitions are meant to codify the terms as they're used on this blog. It's not meant to be a clarification of what Wikipedia or Mr. Webster have to say on the subject.

A religion is a social entity whose members make logically improbable statements to signal their allegiance. Religion requires belief, and the belief must be, to some degree, anti-scientific or irrational. 

Spirituality is the belief that there is more to existence than pure materialism. It is somewhat anti-scientific as it requires the belief that science can't give us all the answers. (As Vox Day notes, science doesn't have an opinion on rape.) However this does not imply that spirituality is inherently religious, because spirituality may occur without religious social signaling. Also religions are not necessarily spiritual. In the USSR communism and atheism were the state religions.

A cult is a religion that demands purity. Mainstream Christianity and Islam are not cults. Christianity teaches that everyone is a sinner, thus no one is pure. Islam doesn't generally require proof of devotion: displays of submission are adequate. However, organizations like the Taliban, which strictly punish any minor perceived deviations from behavioral norms, are cults. Progressivism is a cult as they even punish subconscious transgressions (microagressions) of their belief system.

The subjective part of all this is the notion of logical improbability. No one in a cult believes they are in a cult. While their psychologies drive them to make logically improbable statements to gain inclusion, it seems to be done at a subconscious level. At the cognitive level they are able to convince themselves that they truly do hold the belief. Because of this it can be very difficult for even a rational person to determine that their beliefs don't amount to religion. 

Of special notice is Scientism, the religion of science; a group whose religion largely revolves around the mistaken belief that they are not religious. They've rejected religion in the colloquial sense (mainstream spirituality-based organized religion) but not in the sense defined here. These people are especially dangerous because they believe they are immune to assuming logically improbable belief systems. In a recent facebook conversation regarding Parexit -- where I was the only participant who supports exiting from the Paris Accords -- one commenter suggested that I "consider peer-review". Such a statement is not a logical argument but an expression of religious belief. If only I'd embrace the truth of the holy infallible peer-review I'd see the error of my ways and seek salvation! I responded that I spent two years in grad school and was quite familiar with the shortcomings of the peer-review process. I was told I was being too cynical. (Again with not an argument.) I responded that now three times climate research has been outed as fake, including NOAA scientists who received political pressure to come to some favored conclusions in time for the same Paris Accords that the US just left. I received no further responses.

Surely she wasn't familiar with the NOAA research scandal. On a purely logical level we'd hope that she would take note of that new information and update her worldview accordingly. But there's very little chance of that, because she has not adopted a logical stance but a religious one. The whole encounter was neutralized by labeling me as overly cynical, which was a way of calling me a heretic. It doesn't matter what arguments a heretic makes, because heretics are by their very nature wicked and wrong.

It's not just the left that experiences cult-like behavior. The alt-right sees plenty of examples of demands for purity. Many want to reject alt-light personalities like Milo because he doesn't personally conform to a more traditional lifestyle. For those of us who want to see the alt-right succeed we should work to identify and contain cult-like behavior wherever it arises. For that matter we should root out religious proclivities as well. That means calling out logically improbable beliefs wherever we encounter them, even if it means punching right.

[I'm not entirely certain on the last part. Maybe what we really need is a religion. Islam is a religion and it's taking over the world.]

Friday, June 2, 2017

The Ol' Libtard Switcharoo

Kathy Griffin bought herself another fifteen minutes of fame by enacting an ISISesque (there's a fun word) beheading of Donald Trump in a photo shoot. The response has been almost universal condemnation. Even Chelsea Clinton expressed her disgust at the act. (Credit where it's due). Griffin, who has apologized, is planning a conference today, to talk about her bullying at the hands of the Trump family! If you suspect the world might be going nuts, you wouldn't suffer a shortage of evidence to support the claim.

The tactic at hand, to accuse your opponent of whatever you have done, is straight out of the Saul Alinsky playbook and is used routinely by the left. (I'm sure there are Republicans who do too. That party isn't without its share of cretins.) It was the driving force behind the "Trump attacks gold star family" fiasco, where the father of the fallen soldier delivered an insulting diatribe against Trump in a key speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention. When Trump returned the rebuke, he was vilified by the media for daring to say anything bad about such a nice man.

[Trump seems to have learned the hard way that a high-status person can raise the status of a lower person by responding to their criticisms. Despite excellent execution in one direction (Trump was able to get the media to raise his status by tricking them into covering him all the time), he seemed surprisingly unable to defend himself from the reverse scenario, such as when he tweeted against SNL after he was already president. He could have circumvented this painful learning process by reading Antifragile, an excellent book by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.]

The ultimate example of the Ol' Libtard Switcharoo has been the Russian conspiracy theory. Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and the media colluded to make sure the Democratic primary was not a fair contest. When the evidence of that cheating leaked, they flipped the script. Instead of being evidence of the cheating in favor of the Democrats, that evidence became evidence of cheating against the Democrats! Can you appreciate not just how utterly absurd this is, but that half the American population bought the ruse? This is profoundly troubling, but interesting too, in this sense that watching one's body succumb to cancer might be interesting from a scientific perspective. One day a Democrat will be arrested for murdering his wife and, not being able to help himself, will plead, "I didn't murder her. She murdered me!" Hopefully the police are not as gullible as the American voting public.

I don't like to name call. Not everyone who is a liberal should be called a "libtard". Many are decent; some are quite smart. But anyone who engages in or falls for this mindless "I know you are but what am I" charade is fair game. They aren't using the human brain they were blessed with. They are subject to ridicule. So please, when you see the Ol' Libtard Switcharoo in action, call it out for what it is.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Parexit

The US has exited the Paris Climate agreement. You really have to hand it to Trump for carrying through with that campaign promise. Imagine the great pressure on him not to do so. The vast majority of what we'd consider to be establishment forces are poised against him on this issue. The political elites, the media, the celebrities, foreign interests, even many global corporations are opposed to his action. He has benefited politically from having people like Elon Musk (the left's darling entrepreneur) involved in his government, who has suggested he will end that relationship in response to Parexit. It would be very, very easy for Trump to pay tribute to the religion, but he has opted not to, for a single reason: it's not a good deal for the US. He's right, and he is sticking to his principles on this issue. We think of Trump as the ultimate pragmatist, but this is not pragmatic for him politically. The negative reaction is so strong that the political gains of serving his base can hardly be worth the tremendous backlash he's receiving, and yet he has done so anyway.

Despite the hysteria, he made the right decision. The Paris agreement was flawed economically, politically and scientifically.

Economic

The goal of the Paris agreement is to reduce global carbon emissions. That may be a laudable goal, but the reality is that the agreement will shift carbon emissions from advanced countries to backwards countries. The agreement punishes successful economies and rewards failed economies. Perhaps you can see why the liberals love the agreement so much: it's welfare on steroids. Generally speaking, they support anything that punishes success and rewards failure. I can't off hand think of any example that contradicts the principle.

The agreement doesn't stop at just shifting economic production, but actually advocates a direct transfer of wealth as well. The financial goal is an annual transfer of $100 billion a year from rich to poor countries. The reasoning behind this is that backwards countries need investments to modernize towards more efficient, carbon-friendly economies. But that is not logical from an environmental viewpoint. Advanced economies always generate more externalities than primitive ones. The proposed transfer of finances is not evidence but proof that the primary agenda of the agreement is more about social justice than the environment. The liberal agenda is always wrapped in virtue signaling.

Political

In their angst over why Trump would remove the US from a virtuous climate agreement, I wonder how many are stopping to ask themselves why he was able to unilaterally remove the US from the agreement in the first place. None that I can find. Trump was able to do so because Obama unilaterally put the US into the agreement. Unilateral action by one president can be unilaterally undone by the next one.

Many conservative commentators are informing us that the US involvement in the Paris agreement wasn't Constitutional because it was a treaty that was never ratified by the Senate. And they're right, but they aren't right enough. It's true that international treaties must be ratified by the Senate; the president does not have the authority to act on his own. But that assumes that a climate agreement can be considered a treaty. Treaties are relevant to war/peace posturing between nations. Climate agreements have nothing to do with those sorts of diplomatic relations. They are internal policy decisions reached in unison with other nations. They must be enacted in the normal way: by passing both houses and the president. The agreement really just amounts to a tax on the American people. It is an outrage that Obama imposed it on Americans. How did he even get away with it? Even if the agreement was the most wonderful thing imaginable, Trump would be right to revoke that unilateral decision and encourage the Congress to legislate on the issue in the proper manner.

But even that isn't right enough. Where is the federal government granted the authority to dictate carbon emissions regulations? [You can almost hear a distant muttering about the Commerce Clause.] In response to Trump's action, many states are considering adopting the climate agreement's standards anyway (warning: Buzzfeed). That is wonderful news! Have you ever noticed that the left always resorts to states' rights when it benefits their agenda? If only they adopted states' rights in principle I wouldn't have nearly the problem with them that I do. California can be as liberal as it wants, just don't impose it on Missouri.


Scientific

The major premise of all this is that the agreement will reverse man-made climate change. We've heard some wild responses to Trump's action. That climate change is sexist and racist. (Don't laugh, racist climate change is actually codified in the Democratic national platform.) But the most common allegation is that the act is anti-science. Nearly everyone I see opposed to the measure reminds us that it is anti-science, and they are pro-science. None of them have any clue about the science at hand or, if they do, they sure don't indicate it.

The core aim of the agreement is to restrain the global temperature to within 2° Celsius of the pre-industrial global temperature, with a preferred delta of 1.5°. I'm not able to find where they define the pre-industrial temperature. Clearly the temperature a few thousand years ago was cooler than a few hundred. A favorite tactic they like to play is to measure from the Maunder Minimum, a period of abnormally cool weather near the end of the pre-industrial era.

The big question in all of this is the degree to which humans are impacting the climate. (Unless you're Bill Nye, who is certain that the climate would not change at all if it weren't for humans.) Let's go through some scenarios, just to understand the dynamics a bit. Let's say Nye is correct, and only humans can change the climate. If human actions caused a 2° degree change in global temperature, then the agreement would require no action. We'd just barely meet the requirement. If human actions caused a change of 4° then drastic action would be needed. We'd have to reduce carbon emissions by 50%, which effectively means a 50% reduction in human economic activities. (Which means more poverty and all that.)

Let's say Bill Nye is wrong and that the climate can change without human activity. (There's a bit of evidence to that effect.) Let's say the natural underlying climate cycles would increase the Earth's temperature 1°. Then all human economic activities would have to be reduced to the point their impact had at most a 1° impact on the climate. What if the natural forces caused a 2° increase? Then we would have to halt all burning of fossil fuels completely. In short, we'd have to stop nearly all economic activity and revert back to pre-industrial economies. And if it is 3°? Then we'd have to get creative. Perhaps we could increase the Earth's albedo (its tendency to reflect sunlight) by seeding clouds with chemicals and wrapping equatorial areas in aluminum foil. Or perhaps we could erect some sort of massive solar umbrella at the first Lagrangian point. Interesting approaches, but none include the global transfer of wealth, so they're not likely to be considered.

The point of all this is that we don't know how much warming is caused by humans and how much is natural. Hell we're not even sure exactly how much warming there is. It makes no sense to base the agreement on a hard-set temperature limit. A more reasonable approach would be to concede that we aren't sure exactly what the effect of human behavior on the climate is -- although we know that carbon dioxide must have at least a small effect -- and to throttle carbon emissions to get the most economic bang for the carbon buck. While that creates its own complications, at least we'd be framing the problem in the proper manner. The goal would be maximizing our efficiency and reducing our potential impact, rather than binding ourselves to arbitrary goals which may not even be feasible. But this won't happen, because they will never concede that the question of climate change is anything but wholly settled.

Carbon exchanges

One aspect of the agreement is carbon exchanges, where carbon emissions carry a cost that can be bought in a marketplace. I'm not opposed to the idea in principle. I advocate for a similar concept (see Energy Backed Currency) in which the national currency is backed by energy production. This arrangement would have the effect of increasing efficiency by reducing unproductive energy use. Carbon credits are a proxy to that approach, but they allow for far too much tinkering and exploiting. Much of the regulation will be politicking over who gets more carbon credits (thus they can influence who the economic winners are) and will manipulate things to benefit economic activities that bureaucrats think are environmentally friendly but really aren't. Further, there is a question of what to do with the collected taxes. In energy-backed currency the taxes are used to cancel government bonds. In a carbon credit scheme the money is collected and given to ... someone. Carbon credits are inherently redistributive; energy-backed currency is not.


The Grand Triggering

There is a bonus to Trump removing the US from the Paris climate agreement: the enormous triggering of the left. There is great entertainment value in this, but it serves practical purposes. In the intermediate-term, it means that in 4 years liberals will likely be exhausted and demoralized, much as they were before Reagan's epic landslide re-election. And in the long-term, the American psyche will improve as the atrophied amygalae that drive people to leftism in the first place become exercised and either strengthened and returned to healthy functioning, or pushed towards over-the-top neuroticism. We're seeing signs of all those effects already.

Covfefe: case study in projection

The big news today is Covfefe-gate. Last night Trump's tweet included the non-word "covfefe", and apparently that's big news to people. Especially to people who specialize in big news, like CNN, who have made the incident a major headline.


I love the first related headline underneath: President Trump's tweet typo goes viral. We really have memed ourselves into the future. Before I go on, just take a moment to appreciate what a wonderful moment in time we're living in.

The gist of the article is that Trump's typo is proof that he is a renegade president with no discipline, no self-control, and who summarily rejects all good advice he might be given.The piece was penned by a CNN Editor-at-large (whatever that means) in the Politics section (why does CNN even distinguish at this point?) and was labeled as Analysis. Here's what passes for political analysis from a CNN editor. Let's start with the very first sentence.
To be clear: This is, on its face, dumb.
Wow, look at him analyze! I smell Pulitzer. (That's not even a joke, given that they just gave a Pulitzer over the Russia conspiracy theory. How do you reward journalism with no evidence?) The rest of the opening paragraph:
Trump seemed to be trying to type "coverage" and misspelled it. As he often does. Then he fell asleep and didn't correct the mistake until he got up in the morning. We've all been there! (OK, not all of us. But me.) 
Okay, so it's not really that dumb. Typos are perfectly natural, we all do it, but the president should have better communication processes in place to catch these kinds of gaffes before they happen. Fair enough. The next paragraph:
While spending time trying, as Trump suggested, to figure out what "covfefe" means is a waste, it's far more worthwhile to take a big step back and look at the situation that leads to the President of the United States tweeting, poorly, at 12:06 a.m. about the bad press he gets.
This is where the irony really sets in. He's talking about how the big problem here is how Trump's tweets evoke bad press. Mr Cillizza, you are the bad press. You are CNN, the pre-eminent 24-hour news source. You are writing political analysis that begins with Trump is a dumb face, lol. Your organization gives Trump "bad press" for eating ice cream, and a whole host of other inane minutiae. CNN is like the abusive husband who provides sober & impartial analysis: she really shouldn't talk back like she does. It only gets her hit.



The thing is that "Convfefe" tells you all you need to know about the media. It is just as likely that Trump wrote the typo on purpose as their conclusion that a man with an Ivy League graduate degree in economics misspelled a word with such a large Hamming error that we aren't quite sure what word he was going for. If the media is correct then yes perhaps Trump is a rogue Tweeting President, but he always was. That's half the reason he was elected. If they are wrong then it merely reinforces the notion that Trump has great strategic control of the media. In either case it shows the media has gone hysterical in their Trump coverage, where a random typo is the major news of the day. I'll leave you with this wonderful gem of irony, thanks to CNN.

CNN's Cheif Political Analyst on Trump's typo

Monday, May 29, 2017

The Calm of Real-World Liberals, and the One-Sidedness of Parental Signaling

This blog has been cold this weekend as the writer found himself blissfully distant from any sort of internet connection. We spent our weekend camping at a hippie music festival in eastern Missouri with lots of day hiking mixed in. A couple things to mention from that. First, Hawn State Park and Pickle Springs Conservation Area are well worth a visit if you ever find yourself in the St Francois Mountains. Second, the music festival, full of people who are probably leftists (if you asked them), was surprisingly devoid of politics. The most I saw was a single Bernie bumper sticker. I didn't encounter one iota of Trump bashing, which I pretty well expected. The closest I got into politics was with an older fellow decked out in tie-dye whom my girlfriend recognized as a regular from the now-defunct festival Schwagstock. (In fact he lived on the property.) We got into a conversation about how that land had been essentially stolen by the government (it is now Echo Bluff State Park). I decided to test the waters a bit and throw out the analogy with the Oregon standoff, where a group of armed right-wingers -- who were vilified by the media and liberals -- stood ground against the very same sort of shady theft of private land by the government. He understood the comparison and was in complete agreement with me. I don't have any sort of analysis to offer on all this, but I thought the observations were worth sharing. It does seem to me that leftists in the real-world may not be so consumed with the rabid anti-Trump hysteria that we see when we observe the media and even social media. This is a promising observation, of course, and would seem to be counter-evidence to my conviction that the country is headed fast to schism and civil war. Or perhaps the observation is moot. Missouri hippies tend to be people-of-the-woods types who aren't really comparable to the coastal liberals that dominate the left.

Today we picked our daughter up and we're all back home, which is really the happiest aspect of the whole long weekend, and that joy reminds me of the signaling I receive as a parent. Of all the advice I've received as a parent, the most common is that parents need to make sure they fully embrace the joys of parenting while their children are young. We are doting parents and we appreciate the advice and we think it is a worthwhile sentiment. But what I realize is that I very rarely encounter the counter-balancing message. The call to enjoy parenting is representative of the typical theme in modern America: embrace of pleasure. Make sure that you see parenting as pleasurable rather than stressful. Parenting is both pleasurable and stressful, and the advice is somewhat superficial. Does it really matter whether or not I enjoy parenthood? This is the sort of über individualism that permeates our society. I get very little signaling on what matters more: raising a good human. It seems to me that society should be much more concerned whether I raise children who will benefit society rather than whether or not I enjoy the process. I also find that society doesn't help me to counter my natural weakness as a parent. Our tendency (the mother more than me) is to want to indulge the child. To spoil her. We try not to, because of our own convictions. But society doesn't generally help us in that aspect. I find myself being careful not to appear too strict while in public. It seems that society should serve the opposite role. It should encourage proper and, at times, difficult parenting. This may seem like a silly rant, but I can't help but think that the signaling young parents receive might be the most significant observation one can make about a society.

Thursday, May 25, 2017

The Expansion and Contraction of Equality

Mark Zuckerberg (do you ever dislike someone so much you cringe at having to type their name?) gave a stump speech at the Harvard commencement. There are many rumors he is toying with the notion of a presidential run in 2020. His approach is to mimic the strategy that made Bernie Sanders so successful: communism.
If we can develop a strong grassroots movement which says that every man, woman and child in this country is entitled to a minimum standard of living — is entitled to health care, is entitled to education, is entitled to housing — then we can succeed. [...] We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure everyone has a cushion to try new ideas.
It's certainly socialism. Free healthcare, free education, free housing, free money. Communism is not a precise term. He's not advocating that the state seize the means of production, but advocating for a cradle-to-grave welfare state is about as far left as you can get before you hit undeniable communism. Is there an increment in between that I'm missing? Zuck (I can type it that way because it kind of sounds like yuck) has discovered the secret to political success: offer the people free shit. Or, more accurately, promise people to give them other people's shit.

But whatever, that's not the point of this post. That the left is openly advocating for communism or almost-communism is quite obvious and not a terribly interesting observation. [What is slightly more interesting is the established pattern that successful democracies end in a brief era of socialism followed by autocracy.] Zucker (rhymes with fucker) also had this to say on the subject of equality.
Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it’s time for our generation to define a new social contract.
He corroborates the remarks I made in Equality and Other Founding Myths, where I described the same phenomenon. The expansion of equality from the Declaration of Independence has looked something like this.
  1. Equality of non-divinity. No man has been granted a divine right to rule over others.
  2. Equality under the law.
  3. Equality of opportunity. The justification for public education, non-discrimination laws, workplace safety regulations, etc.
  4. Equality of outcome. The justification for massive wealth redistribution schemes, affirmative actions laws, etc.
  5. Equality of being. No human shall be permitted to be tangibly better than another in any regard.
We're so close to #4 you can almost taste it. We're partially there, of course, but the new hip trend is full-blown equality of outcome. Equality of being is the last remaining possible expansion of equality, save perhaps for human extinction. Because #4 is always disastrous, both theoretically disastrous and empirically disastrous, #5 is also hypothetical, because society will never be able to progress beyond #4. The big question is not what is the next expansion of equality (as Zuckerborg asks), but to what level of equality will we regress after socialism destroys our society?

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

European Terrorism: Relax Everyone, It's Homegrown

He's just like us

The media, predictable as ever, is running with headlines like this.

Note his image has been altered to make his skin appear lighter. He looks whiter than the blonde news anchor.

To see these kinds of headlines as predictable you have to understand two things about mainstream journalists. First, they are primarily concerned with propagating a certain political narrative. Second, they're mentally deficient and don't even know what a Muslim is. The narrative is dominated by two influences: global corporatism and liberal ideology. Liberal ideology is something of a misnomer because they don't truly have an ideology. What they have is a psychological disposition to reject their own nations, and everything falls out of that. Most of the time the liberals stance consists of identifying the "other" side and opposing whatever it is they support.

Donald Trump has made this a very simple task for them. He has come to personify everything they oppose. He is, in short, the boogeyman. Because he's been widely portrayed by the leftist media as a villain, he is assumed by all on the left to be an extreme far-right ideologue. I've been in discourse with one liberal friend who has decided that Trump is not really an ideologue and even tries to use that as a rhetorical attack against Trump and his supporters. At least he can partially see through the curtain: there's hope for him. Because Trump is framed as an extremist, whenever he takes a moderate position he forces his leftist foes to adopt an opposing position that is either extremist itself or contradicts other aspects of the liberal narrative.

When it comes to immigration Trump is not really an extremist. As far as I know his only strong stances are to end sham refugee programs and to enforce the laws on the books. Enforcing federal law is not an extremist stance. It is the primary duty of the president. Trump has not advocated for reducing legal immigration, which many of us want. Trump has not suggested that immigration should not alter the national demographics, which is the alt-right stance. How do I know Trump isn't an immigration hardliner? Because I am one. We support Trump because at least he fought the open-borders lunacy. He's still miles away from where we stand on the issue.

The media knows the big battle right now is with illegal immigration and refugees, so their headline is crafted to slant towards their position in that battle. No, we can't blame this one on refugees because he is second-generation. He was born and raised here just like you and loves soccer just like you. He's not a foreigner so your xenophobia is totally irrational. This would not have been prevented by ending refugee programs.

That he was second-generation is much, much worse. They're basically saying, even though they don't realize it, that the problem isn't with unvetted refugees, but with all Muslims. Right-leaning Europeans have explained the situation. The first wave of Muslim immigration to Europe (in modern times) was in the 1970s and 80s. These immigrants were heavily vetted and immigration was selective and many were, indeed, doctors and lawyers, as the left think of immigrants today. These immigrants were generally high IQ, conscientious, and grateful to their host nations. They were in smaller numbers and tended to disperse amongst the Europeans and to integrate with them. In short, they were a success story.

The second and third generations have been a different story. Not having been raised in the hardships of the third world, they don't share their parents' gratitude. Their IQs are closer to the racial mean than that of their parents. And as their numbers have grown, they've tended to isolate themselves into homogeneous neighborhoods and to identify by their race & religion. These are the ones becoming radicalized by Islam. The conclusion is becoming clear: we can't even allow well-vetted mass immigration. The left, in their zeal to disprove conservatives on refugee terrorism, are helping make the case against Muslim immigration altogether. Sure the bomber wasn't a refugee. But his parents were. Sure most of the European terrorists have not been refugees. That they're homegrown is a much deeper problem with much more sinister implications for how to deal with the problem. As far as I can tell, the only solutions are a strong heavy-handed police state or removal of Muslims from Europe. Both are problematic, to say the least.

Muh lone wolf

Also predictable has been the media's reflexive insistence that the attack was done by a lone wolf. Which is their roundabout way of saying Islam had nothing to do with this.


Isn't it weird how they always end up making multiple arrests in these lone wolf attacks?

The accused, shortly after working on his tan.

The Bloody Shovel blog suggests that the attacker was a dork who was probably resentful towards white girls and that's why he targeted this particular crowd. Surely all the Islamic terrorists have personal reasons for becoming radicalized.

Children targeted

As predicted, many of the victims were teenagers or even younger. 22 now dead, with 64 remaining in the hospital, 20 of whom are in critical condition. Many of them are young girls who will never become mothers. This is a war to displace Europeans, but only one side is fighting.


Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Why Muslims Keep Committing Terror Acts in Europe

It has puzzled me for some time why we keep seeing large Islamic terror attacks in Europe. Logically it doesn't make much sense. Assuming the goal is to displace the native population and eventually take the lands for themselves, making very loud noises is the worst strategy possible. The ideal strategy is to lay low, smile and pretend to assimilate (the Islamic act of taqiyya, which was suggested in the Quran) while making demands on society to bend towards the preferences of Islam. Once they have 50% of the population then they effectively own the country and can then become as violent as they wish. They don't even need that many, as the default behavior of r-selected liberals is treason and they will reliably vote in favor of invaders. If we assume the native population is made up of $\frac{1}{3}$ liberals, $\frac{1}{3}$ moderates, and $\frac{1}{3}$ conservatives, then the foreigners need to only make up 25% of the total population to dominate it politically. At that point, they can control immigration and work towards becoming the true majority of the country.
Las of immigrant domination 
To take over a democratic nation through immigration, the invaders must amass a voting population equal to $\frac{1}{3}$ of the native voting population to achieve political dominance.
But they aren't there yet. The last official numbers had some European countries approaching 10% Muslim. That was before Merkel's great gift of cultural enrichment, which brought millions of new Muslims in from all over the world, and they are still pouring in. Europe is bracing for a secondary wave, as the established "refugees" -- mostly young men -- begin importing their families as well. They may well be at more like 15% by now. But certainly still far short of 25%. They should consider that to be the minimum threshold for violence. At 25% violence can begin at a minimal level, throttling up as their percentage increase towards 50%, at which point they can be as repressive and genocidal as they wish. It would seem then that, with all this blatant terrorism, they are letting the cat out of the bag far too soon. Why?

The answer, which took me quite a while to comprehend, is very simple. It's so simple it's tautological. The reason they're engaging in terror is because Islam is a violent religion. Islam is founded on the principle that if you can give cover to men's more sinister urges by giving them holy sanction, and if you can also direct those urges in unison against a common enemy, then you wield enormous worldly power. Just look at what happened under Mohammed's direction. The Arab world exploded from a tribal backwater to the major world power in just decades. What Mohammed did was something akin to discovering how to release energy from the atom. The only other examples of a nation springing forth to prominence so abruptly that I can think of are the Macedonians and the Mongols. All three civilizations were united under great leaders, but Macedon and Mongolia crumbled within a couple generations after their leaders' deaths. Mohammed's leadership was codified into a theological-political machine and to this day it not only survives but is the fastest growing religion in the world.

Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote on the matter nearly 800 years ago.
He (Mohammed) did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms – which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.

[Mohammed] seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teachings also contain precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men.
Islam allows its adherents to engage in carnal delights without shame. Plunder, rape, and torture of enemies are not only tolerated in Islam, they are encouraged. Some time ago there was an interview of an ISIS operative who explained that the soldiers did not enjoy the brutal tortures they inflicted on their enemies and apostates, but that it was necessary for their holy objective to build the Caliphate. He reasoned that by inflicting those tortures they would so weaken the resolve of their enemies that expansion of the Caliphate could continue with less overall violence. The logic is there, but don't believe for a second that most of these people are not very sadistic men enjoying their work. There's no real logical reason for them to keep all the Yazidi girls as sex slaves except that it is the reward to the men who fight for Islam.

It should be noted that this is nothing like Christianity. You might even call the two religions to be opposites. Liberals love bashing Christians and will routinely allege that it is no different from Islam. But their arguments invariably either reference the Old Testament or some later addition to the religion. It hardly matters what is stated in the Old Testament, which is the Hebrew Bible. While the Old Testament is included in the Christian Bible, the whole point of Christianity is the New Testament. Christianity without the New Testament is Judaism.

Christianity did not explode into the world under Jesus's leadership. It took centuries to rise to prominence and only after it was bent and molded in ways that allowed followers of the pacifist religion to serve in the military. Many criticize the Christianity of later centuries for its threats of eternal burning in hell. It does come close to the level of Islam in focusing on the physical, but that was never core to the religion and has largely disappeared. Similarly, even though Jesus was anti-materialism personified, a great many Christians today have fallen prey to American materialism and consumerism. But there is nothing in the religion that can really justify that. They are living counter to the religious teachings. In Christianity they are tolerated; in Islam they'd risk being killed as Apostates.

At any rate, Islam's inherent violence may actually be hindering its ability to conquer Europe. The Eastern world is known for being strategically cunning and patient, but Islam can no more extract masculine expansionism than Christianity might extract eternal salvation. It's the core of the religion. Much of this is caused by ISIS, who encourage and instruct all living in the Muslim diaspora to attack soft targets in western countries to inflict the greatest numbers of casualties. ISIS has also live-streamed to the world just how ugly the fight for the Caliphate really is. This is a questionable strategy. But it's not really a strategy all. They are merely attempting to follow the religious texts to the letter, to build the Caliphate as Mohammed did. If ISIS fails it will be more a failure of Islam than of their particular strategy or execution. Trump's policy regarding Islam is singularly focused on defeating ISIS. Likewise, it is not a strategy. It is merely responding to the most egregious threat facing humanity. But I have to question if it is the best long-term approach. The worst thing we can do is to make Islam just barely tolerable while their numbers in Europe ratchet upwards towards 25%.

Monday, May 22, 2017

Muslims Kill Liberals pt 5

There was a massive terror attack in Manchester England this evening at a concert. At the time of this writing, the toll is 20 dead and 50 injured. I'm not familiar with Ariana Grande or her music (Chicks on the Right were against her months ago) but, by the look of it, I imagine her concerts are attended mostly by teenagers. I suspect this story will become much more tragic as the details emerge. As bad as political terrorism is, intentionally targeting children is beyond an outrage. And for a country to allow wanton acts of violence against their children is the most disgraceful failure. If protecting children from outside violence is not the primary duty of society, then I don't know what is.

Even the musk ox understands the primary duty of society.


How the Russians respond when you fuck with their kids.

As the trend goes with Islamic terrorism, they're attacking liberals. I'd like to share a couple more images. First is Miss Grande's (that can't be her real name) response to the great tragedy. No, not the murder of children, but the election of Donald Trump. Second is a screenshot from her own website.



If you read here regularly then you're familiar with r/K political theory (if not visit the Anonymous Conservative blog link in the sidebar) and that the r-types are represented by rabbits. Here we have a young lady dressed as a sexy rabbit in front of a pink backdrop with a GIRL POWER! tour slogan. And one cannot overlook the phrase Dangerous Woman nor its accuracy. Once feminism takes power society becomes very dangerous indeed. What has struck me about the last few months & years is how much it all feels like an exhilarating but perhaps cliché novel script. Here we have the scantily clad diva pop star -- driven to tears at the election of the evil racist who wants to end unlimited immigration -- having her performance and her fan base blasted by the same cultural enrichment she apparently enjoys. Could there be a better metaphor for the dangers of a degenerate, effeminate, and irrational society? The left seem to have lost all sense of irony, which is sad. That's just no way to go through life.

Also, many on reddit are reporting that, instead of covering the terror attack, CNN chose to cover the elusive Trump-Russia connection. You really can't make this shit up. They briefly announced the attack and went back to Muh Russia conspiracy. For an hour! How can you talk about a politically motivated conspiracy theory without evidence or even a hypothesis for an hour? By sheer necessity, if you're CNN and the other option is covering radical Islamic terrorism. I almost respect their dedication and devil-may-care attitude.

UPDATE: one victim was sure to let us know beforehand that most victims of terror attacks are Muslim.


Friday, May 19, 2017

Unnamed and uncredible news sources, right in your living room

Mike Cernovich posted on Medium today that he doesn't think Trump is handling the media situation very well. The gist of the article is: why is Trump spending so much time defending from the constant mainstream hit pieces when he could be going on the attack himself. His supporters don't follow the mainstream news anyway, so why does he even bother with them?

He's not wrong that Trump should be attacking more and defending less. But the notion that he could change the media narrative experienced by the segment of the society that aren't rabid Trump-hating lefties is not practical, for a very specific reason. Perhaps you've figured it out already from the title of this post.

If Trump starts ignoring the New York Times entirely, what will change? Cernovich is probably right that most Trump supporters are not regular readers of the NYT. Trump's Twitter account has more direct reach, I'd imagine. But what happens when they run a story? Look at the recent one where allegedly Comey wrote a memo saying bad things about Trump. The source for that story is a guy with a Twitter history of calling Trump supporters racists and saying they should be deported. Not exactly a solid source. So why does the story get so much traction? Is it because so many people have NYT subscriptions? No. Is it because so many visit their website? No. Is it because so many share their stories on social media? That's definitely a factor. But the big reason, the real reason their stories have so much impact, is because the TV networks cover them.

It hardly matters whether or not Trump supporters read liberal newspapers. The TV tells people what the news is. The TV sets the agenda. And the TV thinks that the New York Times and Washington Post are premier credible news organizations. If it weren't for the TV the newspapers would have practically no impact at all. But their stories get covered by the TV. Millions of Americans see the news and that becomes the big issue that everyone is talking about. It gets spread on social media, the radio people then have to talk about it, and soon everyone is talking about what the NYT wrote because the TV made it a story. It's not as easy as just saying Trump should get off the defensive. The problem with Big Narrative is that it's beamed into the retinas of millions of brain-dead zombies all over the country. That's a much bigger problem.

On another note my favorite pro-Trump online hangount, r/the_donald, has gone dark for the evening in protest of the admins' recent purging of top mods there. I decided I'd make the risky venture to Reddit's hub of liberal insanity and check out r/politics. Here's what I found (red texts are my edits).


Of the top ten posts, eight are links to articles where the headline is information attributed to an unnamed source. This is evidence of just how detached they've become. While r/politics may be a special place, it is fairly reflective of the liberal mainstream narrative where a torrent of Trump scandals is dominating the news cycle and is all unverified. It could be made up for all we know. So far no major scandals have been verified with any evidence and several have been shown to be false. The tax return nonsense got blown up by Rachel Maddow. The PissGate thing was a farce. The Russian thing is clearly conspiracy theory but it hasn't blown up on them yet. So what we have is a pattern of the media being wrong about Trump scandals, and yet the left is going nuts over scandal allegations brought by liberal mainstream media outlets citing source that are either unnamed or without credibility. This is not healthy. This is madness. Utter madness.

I agree with Cernovich that there are serious questions about how well Trump is handling all this but they simply pale in comparison to mass hallucination from the voting public . You don't worry whether you paid the electric bill when your house is on fire. You deal with the big problems. Trump's competence might be a problem, but it's not the big problem. The big problem is that we live in a democracy where half the citizens are brainwashed by the TV.

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Peak Delusion

The good and the bad news is that we seem to have hit peak insanity. Good because it can't get any worse (right?) and bad because it is really hard to retain much faith in humanity in the face of such widespread lunacy. The thing about peaks is we can't even really be sure we've hit the top. (Or maybe it's the bottom in this case.) I thought we had already hit peak lunacy after the PissGate / Russian dossier fiasco. I believed that is was so clearly insane that the rabid left would surely realize how carried away they have become. But that didn't happen. I guess it's a bit like supposing that this time the schizophreniac will surely realize the voices aren't real. They've basically memory-holed the entire incident. They can't update their worldview to accommodate the new information because they reject it like a failed organ transplant.

For the last couple days I've been engaged in a long -- and highly unproductive -- debate with a couple of left-wingers on facebook. The argument is in regards to someone who posted the recent Washington Post article about Trump revealing sensitive information to the Russian Foreign Minister. My major point has been that, because this is wholly unsubstantiated and refuted by every known involved party, that means we have to question the sole source of this information: the Washington Post. This isn't complicated logic. It's an understanding that all humans innately possess. If someone tells us something and we can't independently verify it, we must consider the integrity of the person giving the information. Naturally I try remind the other party of the false Trump stories with which the mainstream media has already been burned and humiliated, such as the dossier. Never do they respond directly to my mention of those past embarrassments. They either respond only to other points of the statement I made or indirectly as if I had made an entirely different argument altogether. The major evidence at hand -- that the media has provably lost credibility in the matter -- doesn't even seem to register at all.

If you read the Anonymous Conservative blog (linked in the bloglist on the sidebar) then you are familiar with Bob, the case study that led AnonCon to many of his viewpoints on the functionality of the amygdala as well as how it can malfunction. Bob suffered routine humiliation during childhood, and his amygdala became so sensitized, the pain pathways so reinforced, that his psyche seems to have responded by routing painful stimuli away from the pain pathways. AnonCon would experiment on Bob. He deduced something of a formula for what would trigger Bob's amygdala. When used to full effect, Bob would become completely overwhelmed, announce he felt ill, and have to isolate himself and lie down for a spell. When he returned he would be completely refreshed and seemingly incognizant of the interaction that had driven him over the edge. His brain seemed to be coping with the painful stimulus by rejecting it altogether.

This is all eerily similar to what I observe going on with hysterical leftists. All the information that should help them balance the reality of world events against their internal biases isn't there: they've rejected it. All that is left is bias. They respond irrationally when you remind them of the facts regarding the repeated failures of the mainstream liberal narrative because they truly are confused by what you are saying. They filter out the painful part and what is left doesn't make any sense.

The psychological disorder identified by AnonCon has now become a sociological malady which infects a disturbing portion of the voting public. Democracy and rampant hallucination cannot coexist. Not for a very long time, anyway. Reality always catches up in the end. So where does that put us in the context of the Russia investigation? Sociologically it's a disaster. Politically it might be a godsend for the embattled Trump presidency. As mentioned in yesterday's post, it is unlikely anything significant will come out against Trump's team but there are multiple opportunities for the liberal narrative to be routed or for their own scandals to re-emerge. Also, it lowers the threshold for conservatives to push for their own independent investigations. The threshold is either mass hysteria or none at all. Think of how thin the justification for investigation is. There is no evidence of collusion. They say we need to investigate to find the evidence. We need to investigate to find the evidence that might justify an investigation. But it's even worse than that. Not only is there no evidence of a crime, there is no hypothesis for a crime. I've not been able to get a single liberal to even try to explain what exactly the collusion would be. The scenario is something like this, where a policeman knocks on your door.

Police: We'd like to talk to you. You're under investigation for a murder.
You: Okay, do you have any reason to believe I might have committed the murder?
Police: No, but we need to investigate you to see if any evidence exists.
You: Okay, well whose murder are you investigating?
Police: We're not sure yet. We need to investigate to see who you might have murdered.

This is, of course, ludicrous, and is canonical state tyranny. There is no evidence of collusion. There is no hypothesis for collusion. But it will be investigated anyway. The really troublesome aspect of all this is that even if the investigation ends up as a complete routing of the left's accusations; it won't even faze most of them. They'll just move on, still enraged by Trump's Russia ties, still incognizant of the abundance of countering reality. I guess we can only hope that there are enough rational people in the middle that this will allow us to finally marginalize the hysterical left. If that isn't the case, and a majority of the population exhibits incurable delusion, then we are, generally speaking, in a whole lot of trouble, and the world's first modern experiment with democratic self-rule will have reached its conclusion.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Deputy AG Appoints Independent Counsel

The Justice Department just appointed former FBI Director Mueller to oversee an investigation into the Muh Russia conspiracy theory. There have some rumors, not to mention a lot of clamoring from the left about it. I've been a little torn on the idea. I would like to see the whole conspiracy theory get nuked out of orbit in a glorious fashion, but I've been hesitant to allow the left to control the narrative like that. We should be focused on building a wall, or renegotiating trade deals; not a year-old conspiracy theory with no evidence. This is just a drag on the Trump administration, a way to tie him down and drain energy.

From the perspective of the left it might appear to be a no-lose arrangements. They never pay the price when they're humiliated; they just scoot along down the news cycle and send the whole affair down the memory whose. And still, I love watching their antics blow up in their faces. One thing we've learned in all this is that any time the Democrats are really giddy about something, it's about to blow up in their face. Think election night when they were sure their win was a mathematical certainty, or the giddy arrogance of Rachel Maddow and her viewers before her epic tax-return dud, or their self-assurance that the PissGate dossier was going to end Trump. Every time they'r really excited about something it ends up a disaster for them. This investigation is scoped to include the accusations as well as similar matters. Lets look at all the ways this might blow up on them.

Disproves Comey was fired to stop investigation

Right away The Narrative takes a blow to the shins from the bat of truth. Remember the nonsense from last week. After crying for months that Comey should be fired, they were outraged when Trump fired him, per the request of Deputy General Rod Rosenstein, who had recently been confirmed to his position and was highly recommended by Chuck Schumer. This would seem to indicate that all the hand-wringing being done that he had swung the election, even made recently by Hillary herself, were false. If he really lost them the election then there's no way they should object to his firing. But they did, and they claimed it proved that Trump was trying to kill the investigation. That's all we heard last week. That it was "Nixonian". That it was obstruction of justice. And yet the same Deputy AG who advised the firing is now blowing open the investigation, which destroys that whole theory, which has been their major narrative for about a week now.

FBI was zeroing in on Trump

The Muh Russia conspiracy theory includes the notion that Trump fired Comey because he was getting close to cracking the case. (Don't get me wrong, if that turns out to be the case, and that's why Trump fired him, then of course he should be impeached.) They're also quite convinced now that Trump was actively obstructing the investigation, based on a phone call received by the New York Times by an alleged associate of Comey reciting he recollection of a memo that Comey had written about a meeting with Trump. (Does this sound like journalism?) And this all presupposes that there was in investigation into Trump at all, or which there has been, as always, no evidence.

Muh Russians hacked the election

And at the core of all this is the supposition that the Russians hacked the election. It is assumed (without evidence) that Russian hackers broke into the DNC computers. downloaded the files, and then gave them to Wikileaks. (Even though Wikileaks denies that they did, and have hinted heavily that murdered DCN employee Seth Rich was the leaker.) How exactly this chain of operations would have required collaboration with the Trump campaign is beyond me. As far as I know they don't even have a specific hypothesis for their allegations of treason.

Here are all their narrative points that have been discredited already, or stand to be discredited by the investigation.
  1. Election lost because of Comey's actions
  2. Trump fired Comey to kill investigation
  3. Trump was obstructing the investigation
  4. FBI investigation was closing in on Trump's misdeeds
  5. There was an active FBI investigation into Trump himself
  6. Trump colluded with the Russians to hack the election
  7. The Russians hacked the election
  8. The election was hacked
Besides the false narratives that may be destroyed by this investigation, there are also some very uncomfortable issues the Democrats might not want to see brought back into the media spotlight.
  1. The DNC & Podesta emails show rampant fraud and corruption from the DNC and Clinton campaign.
  2. The Democrat primaries were rigged
  3. Seth Rich's murder is still open. The family's private investigator has concluded that he was in contact with Wikileaks and there is a police cover up of the alleged robbery where no valuable items were stolen.
  4. Trump's team was being spied on during the election and while he was President-elect
So by my count we're at 8 major leftist narrative points that stand to be discredited, and 4 major scandals that may be brought back to light. There's really only one way for this to work in their favor: if Trump really did collude to rig the election. There are 12 ways this can blow up in their faces. The only thing for us to do is to help ensure that this sinks the Muh Russia conspiracy for good, and discredits the mainstream media for good. (Although like always, they'll probably all just pretend it didn't happen.)