Friday, December 29, 2017

Fauxahontas: High Priestess

Here is the text of a recent by Elizabeth Warren:
I'm going to say something really crazy: I believe in science. Climate change is real and we have a moral obligation to protect this Earth for our children and grandchildren.
Now you have to ask yourself, what information is being conveyed by this message? It couldn't be called an argument about climate science. Nothing empirical is provided. Some might call it climate advocacy, but it's not really that either. No one is going to be swayed by these two sentences. It's really just a profession of belief. It says it right there. I believe in science. Most on the alt right would call this virtue signaling, but it could more accurately termed as belief signaling. The major qualitative difference between Warren's tweet and, say, the Nicene Creed, is that the Council of Nicea wasn't limited to a 140 characters. She is reminding everyone that she is a high priestess of The Cult.

Let's look at the tweet bit by bit.
I'm going to say something really crazy.
We know, Liz. No need for the disclaimer.
I believe in science. Climate change is real.
The Taoists taught that, to truly understand anything, you must also understand its opposite. You can't understand warmth without knowing cold. You can't understand light without experiencing dark. A good analytical tool of these kinds of statements is to consider what the opposite statement would be. I don't believe in science? Who has ever said something like that? It'd be like saying, "I don't believe in wrenches." Science is a tool. It doesn't make sense to state a belief in something that no one doubts the existence of. Climate change is real. As opposed to...climate change is fake? No one doubts climate change happens. Her statements don't have any literal meaning. They don't profess a logical adherence to empirical evidence. They profess an adherence to their version of anthropomorphic climate change (and more importantly leveraging that for desired social change) in spite of the flaws in the evidence. It is all just a profession of faith. No real information is conveyed.
We have a moral obligation to protect this Earth for our children and grandchildren.
As opposed to what? We have a moral obligation to destroy the planet? Another non-statement. Just "think of the children!" emotional pandering. Of course she doesn't really care about children, or she wouldn't advocate the dismantling of a carbon-based economy that has alleviated the previous condition where most children died before the age of 5. Also note the capitalization of Earth, like Christians might capitalize Him when referring to God. The Cult is something like a form of paganism, but instead of powerful gods and goddesses, they worship deified victims. Mother Earth isn't a powerful spiritual force, but just another victim of evil western civilization who must be protected by enlightened liberals.

These are the kinds of people who are highly concerned about a separation of church and state, yet have no problem taking to Twitter to make grandiose professions of faith. The Soviets famously outlawed religion, but really we know they just banned the competition. Only worship of the state was permitted. Similarly, people like Fauxahontas aren't really serious about separation of religion and state. They just want to marginalize any belief system that competes with The Cult. Elizabeth Warren is a US Senator, and she has every desire to translate her irrational belief system into law. The Christians aren't doing so. There won't be a law defending the sanctity of the sabbath. The biggest threat to separation of church and state comes from the left.

Wednesday, December 27, 2017

Megacowards

The Washington Post decided to run an article where they laid out a case against the historical existence of Jesus. On Christmas morning. It is quite a statement, I suppose. A sharp thumb into the eyes of Christians around the world. Or it attempts to be. But I wonder, do any Christians really care? Yes I'm sure there is annoyance at such deliberate provocation from what is supposedly a respectable news outlet. I'm annoyed and I don't even go to church. But does anyone really care about their analysis? Do Christians, at least the more thoughtful ones, really care if there is a case against the literal existence of Jesus? Maybe he is, after all, a fictional character, an archetypal depiction of the ideal spiritual being, leading his followers toward peace and inner salvation. Who cares? If the Washington Post could absolutely prove, beyond a doubt, that Christ never actually walked the Earth (or on water for that matter), do you think it would stop even a single Christian from practicing their faith? Certainly it wouldn't be enough to matter. Christianity is much deeper than a story about a guy.

Here's what gets me about people who make these kinds of arguments, and I probably used to be one of them. Some of the most annoying conversations I've ever had are with people trying to logically or empirically disprove the literal word of the Bible. The arguments go something like this: the Bible can't literally be true because [reasons], therefore those who believe in the Bible are unsophisticated rubes. They assume that the least sophisticated interpretation of the Bible is the literal and verbatim interpretation. Fair enough. But then they denounce the Bible using that same interpretation! They are making the least sophisticated critique of the Bible possible, then they strut around putting on airs like they're enlightened intellectuals. They call themselves progressive, and the rest are backwards. These people are worse than useless, not because they're ignorant, but because they don't realize they are professing the exact same ignorance they pretend to be against.

So there's that, but who cares? Of course the Dunning-Krueger effect exists; that is nothing new. Even more profound is the deliberate display of hatred towards western traditions. You don't get much more western traditiony than Christmas. But that's nothing new either. The modern left and their media mouthpieces are hotbeds of anti-Western hatred. We know that. Everyone reading blogs like this is doing so for a reason. You literally trust strangers on the internet to give you social analysis more than you do the lying media. What is most extraordinary to me is the sheer level of cowardice that such a piece reflects, given the context. Trashing Christians, there's a dangerous route. Has anyone in the western media ever been killed for saying bad things about Christians? What about for saying bad things about Islam? This doesn't need to be explained. It's the reason they'll drive past 6 Muslim bakeries to "shop" at the Christian baker. Here's a prediction: you will never ever ever ever (ever times infinity) read an article out of a major mainstream outlet that makes the case against the existence of the prophet Mohammad on the first day of Ramadan. They would never dare, out of ideology sure, but more out of fear. If it ever happens, I will renounce this blog and shut it down forever, because I will have been proven as wrong as possible. But it won't happen. What's most striking is that, just like how these Christophobics think they're very sophisticated, they actually believe they are very brave! I guarantee you that all associated with the article are proud of how they bravely stood up to oppressive Christianity on its most holy day. They think they're brave. But they'd never do the same against Islam. Because they don't want to end up on the wrong side of a Charlie Hedbo-type of massacre.

I call this post Megacowards because I don't know of a proper term to describe these people. They're a mix of cowardice and treason. But it's bigger than normal individual cowardice. That is micro-cowardice. What's going on here is more like macro-cowardice; a civilizational fear to confront the obvious enemies. Treason isn't quite the right word either, if only because it conveys an element of strength. I think treason gives them a bit too much credit. And it doesn't convey that they are ironically cowardly. (Damn hipsters!) Megacowardice will have to suffice for now.

There is one fault in Christianity exposed by all this. It has made us too nice. It's the New Testament that has done it. It taught us to see the good in everyone. Not a bad lesson, particularly because the Bible is meant as a lesson in spiritual salvation, not a treatise on political theory. It is beneficial for us spiritually and emotionally to see others as sharing the spark of divinity, rather than as "others" who must be always treated as a threat. But there must be some balance. Yes, being afraid of everyone is exhausting and is no way to live a meaningful life. However, we must also strike against evil wherever it exists. That was more the theme of the Old Testament. (Growing up with my Children's Bible, I was only ever interested in reading the Old Testament stories.) The Christian world has taken the New Testament into domains for which it was never intended, and discarded the Old Testament entirely.

The concept of evil in the world, the works of Satan, have drifted from their original meaning. The common notion is of intentional malice, the deliberate infliction of harm and pain. That is certainly the ethos of the left! Their constant cries of oppression and injustice are just a modern version of those who used to see the works of Satan everywhere they looked. But Satan wasn't really a major player in the Bible, and the forces of evil weren't deliberate malice, but the winds of chaos. God is order, Satan is chaos, and Jesus is man's struggle between those forces. If there is one thing that could rope me back into being a church man, it would be the resurgence of that old idea. Entropy is evil, disorder is the devil. And in fact, not to get too grandiose, but that is the one missing piece of the puzzle that could restore the west. If we had the religious conviction that equates disorder to the devil, we would have no choice but to take the proper actions. This Washington Post article isn't just annoyingly unsophisticated. It's evil! It really is, in the sense that it is the seductive song of disorder. It is the serpent in the garden. Western society is the most ordered civilization to ever exist, with all flaws considered. We've tamed nature, solved countless mysteries of the universe, scattered the fruits of our victories over entropy throughout the world. And these people want to destroy it and everything it stands for. They side with Muslim foreigners over us, an ideology that knows only conquest and submission, and has hardly a thing in its long history to be proud of.

The problem with Christians these days is they are weak. They don't know what evil really is. Only a cartoonish version similar to what the left believes in. And they never name the devil when they see it. The word “devil” means “false accuser” or “slanderer". Need I say more? If Christians today can't call the devil for what it is, then what is the the point of their faith at all? They are not being even slightly pious and soon will be destroyed by the biggest cowards to ever walk the Earth. None of this is very righteous. I think we're about due for a prophet.

Tuesday, December 26, 2017

Winning the Noise-to-Noise Ratio

It looks like I inadvertently took a weeklong break. I took my computer with me on our Christmas vacation to a little cabin in the Colorado Rockies, but couldn't quite gin up the motivation to delve into political and social commentary when there was hiking and hot tubs in the fresh snow. Idle time went to drinking and playing guitar. I'm sure you can understand. I hope your Christmas was as enjoyable as mine was.

Before the break a few people had reached out to me asking what I thought about the proposed tax cuts. I was surprised that anyone would ask me about that subject, let alone multiple people. It seems pretty straight-forward. Of course I support the tax cuts! It is the second-most important plank in the platform, after immigration reform. Nearly everything the Washington Leviathan does works against our interests. The city is infested with liberals and neocons. They take our money and use it to fund programs that destroy us. That Congress is actually passing substantial tax cuts is almost too good to be true. It's a Christmas miracle.

The only aspect that peeves me is that they are temporary. Why would that be so? If anything, increasing taxes should be temporary. We're going to take some more of your money, but only for a while. Such temporary taxes have occurred frequently throughout history, usually to fund wars. But a temporary tax cut reveals the mindset that our incomes naturally belong to the government, and they are gracious enough to grant us a short-term reprieve. I'm not sure if anyone truly believes that the Trump era, as great as it is, is really going to "save America". We all know the liberals are going to revert his actions and raise taxes the first chance they get. So why make it any easier for them than it needs to be?

Although supporting tax cuts sounds straightforward, it's understandable that people would be skeptical about anything they hear. In fact, people who are naturally suspicious of the tax cuts are probably the people paying attention, as we've learned so often that government actions tend to be the opposite of whatever they were advertised as. It's perfectly consistent to assume that tax cut is just Washington-speak for tax increase. Welcome to the Orwellian present. And, in fact, that is what has happened, but in reverse. The major propaganda was that the tax cuts were going to ravage the middle class. It is, as expected, the opposite of the truth. The new tax plan will significantly alleviate the burden of the middle class, increase taxes at the very top, and leave the bottom pretty well unaffected. (I'm sure you can figure out why a tax cut plan would not greatly effect the lower income brackets.) I even saw a headline on MSNBC predicting that increasing deductibles would cause less charitable donations. They are willing to propose that taking less of people's incomes will cause them to give less to charity. Nothing is too absurd for the mainstream press.

But the people asking me about tax cuts know the media is bunk. They are accustomed to assuming a very low signal-to-noise ratio from these institutions. The noise is nothing new. I think the difference here is that nearly all the noise is coming from the left on this issue. There isn't a great blitz in conservative media arguing for tax cuts, no viral meme campaigns, not even much going around on social media. There's just not much to say on the subject. That tax cuts are desirable is almost self-evident. The left has all kinds of propaganda fodder because they just make shit up and fuel their opposition through fiction-induced rage. They don't have any facts in their favor, but they sure do have emotions. Nancy Pelosi actually called it an apocalypse. The government taking less of peoples' incomes is literally the end of the world! Have you ever heard anything more hyperbolic?

This seems to be a very good example of emotions vs. dry logic in the realm of public persuasion. It's not that the right doesn't engage in emotion-driven persuasion, but they haven't done much on this issue. The alarming outcome is that the left seems to be winning the propaganda battle. One survey found that when asked if they supported the Republican tax plans, 2/3 of Americans reported they did not. Yet when they were asked about the individual components of the plans, there was overwhelming support for almost all of them. If that isn't empirical proof of propaganda, I don't know what is. Public opinions on a subject depend greatly on whether they are forced to think of that subject in terms of public branding or if they are forced to analyze the subject themselves.

We may be winning the signal-to-noise ratio, but are losing the noise-to-noise ratio. The first is important. We try to ensure our messaging contains a high degree of truth. For unpaid hobby blogs like this one that is especially apparent, as the whole point it to try to dig towards the truth and share with anyone willing to follow along. But from a partisan propaganda perspective there is utility in having a high truth signal. For one, people will trust us. It is certainly more persuasive to be trusted than untrusted. I so distrust the left that I assume the opposite position from their's by default on any issue I'm uninformed on. It's a pretty reliable heuristic. For people like me, their propaganda efforts yield a negative return. A second benefit of a high signal-to-noise ratio is that there is a significant market for that. Many people will eventually be driven away by the low signal-to-noise ratio of the left after growing weary of the constant distress of cognitive dissonance. At some point the truth begins to feel like a breath of fresh air. This is a nice effect too, because it means we draw on the most capable from the left, and the dullards stay glued to the corporate boob tube.

Signal-to-noise ratio may be beneficial in the long run, but in terms of individual political battles it doesn't amount to much. The noise-to-noise ratio is far more important. We learned that during the election. The internet's guerrilla campaign to elect Trump was wildly successful because of meme warfare, not because of cold political commentary. Normal people, the swing voters that are needed to sway elections, realize the signal-to-noise ratio in media is weak, and they tend to distrust both sides. However, when they only hear noise from one side, they tend to be influenced by that side, even if the truth signal is practically zero or, as is so often the case, less than zero. It's unfortunate, but it seems that, in our current environment, influence is given to the most noisy, not the most truthful. Perhaps that is Democracy in a nutshell, but here we are nevertheless.

If there is one thing we must be doing it is increasing our noise output at any cost. The major approach to this is not to become some ideological cult. As formulated before on this blog, cults demand purity. Thus they drive away those who would be natural allies. Allies are essential in noise warfare. The noisier the ally, the more valuable. A simple rule of thumb is this: if a public figure tends to pull society in our preferred direction, they are an ally. It may be the case that one day they will push society the wrong way, but we deal with that day when it arises. The normal example I go to is Milo. He's a gay libertarian, certainly more liberal than many on the far right are comfortable with. Still, he sits on our side of the divide, and he's very noisy. He's a valuable ally. Perhaps one day society will shift so far to the right that Milo ends up on the other side. That's not a bad problem to have, and either he will adapt to the new environment or he will lose support from the right. It's not really a big deal. What is a big deal is that we keep in mind that we are engaged in noise warfare, and we desperately need noisy allies to win the persuasion battles.

Monday, December 18, 2017

The Uncouth Coup

Bombard's Body Language did an analysis on Rosenstein's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.


Her takeaway is that Rosenstein's body language was loudly broadcasting the answers he didn't dare verbalize. Yes, the investigation has expanded its scope beyond mere Russian election interference. Yes, the family finances are being generally targeted in a desperate play to find evidence of any possible legal infractions, including process crimes. Yes, it's a political witchhunt, a coup against the sitting president by the deep state contingent at the Department of Justice.

But there's another aspect to consider, which is just how inept Rosenstein seems to be at his job. He's simply not able to properly execute his role, which includes going before Congress and telling convincing lies that are slippery enough to evade perjury charges. While on the one hand the testimony is alarming because it confirms that the inquiry is itching to oust Trump, on the other hand Rosenstein's performance gives some reassurance that the deep state operatives aren't capable of carrying out their intended mutiny.

His performance reminds me a bit of Robby Mook, Hillary's campaign manager whose interviews always revealed him as someone far out of his league. Why do the lefty's seem to promote noobs to powerful positions?

The phenomenon is just a natural consequence of the left-wing ideology. Spandrell laid it out pretty well in his most recent post. Left-wing governments operate by granting status to people who would never attain such status by their own merits. Thus the lefty base is highly loyal and motivated, because they know it is the best deal they're going to get. But here we see the downside of the strategy, which is that their high-ranking officers are under-qualified for their posts. This is a serious coup attempt, and they're playing hardball. But their roster is weak. Boil away all the politics and propaganda and what we have is a battle of strategic acumen. And the real question to be answered is whether Trump is up to the challenge. Certainly we can now appreciate his sharp instincts when he publicized Rosenstein's recommendation letter when he fired Comey. (Rosenstein was likely attempting to set the stage for obstruction of justice allegations). If Trump wins, he finally owns the government, and can implement his ambitious agenda. If not, he will be largely marginalized, at best. 2018 will be another interesting year.

Sunday, December 17, 2017

Process Crimes are Punishable

The latest rumor from the left is the Trump plans to have Robert Mueller fired as special counsel, possibly around Christmas. The White House responded that they have no intention to do so. And of course they won't. The Mueller investigation has been the Golden Goose that keeps on giving. Trump's best interests are that the disastrous inquiry continue for some time. Every few weeks something new falls into his favor. Proof that his team's communications were unmasked. Evidence of extreme partisanship by lead investigators of both Trump and Clinton. The only success they've had, after many months of this, is in charging Flynn, a prior Obama-appointee caught in a bizarre perjury trap regarding legal activities. They were so desperate they nabbed him for a tangential process crime.

This is a wonderful precedent, if you're Trump, because the whole investigation is starting to look like one big process crime. Not only do we have texts showing that the intentions of the investigators are legally seditious, Trump's lawyers are now claiming that Mueller's team illegally gained access to 15,000 of Trump's emails. Sounds like a process crime to me. Someone better get charged. Not now, of course. The Mueller fishing trip must be allowed to come up embarrassingly empty-handed. Any attempt by Trump to shut down the fiasco will just give credence to his enemies' claims of obstruction of justice. Let the process run its course, and then the DOJ can pick up where Mueller left off: hanging political opponents up on process crimes.

Saturday, December 16, 2017

Religious Warfare on the Gridiron

What's going on in football these days amounts to religious warfare. Clearly the kneelers and hand holders and other protestors are doing so for one and only one reason: to signal allegiance to The Cult. The actions are intended partly to advance liberal ideology, but mostly as plays for status. The Cult denounces heretic and non-believers, but gives great regard to virtue signaling. Players are kneeling for the same reason that people have always made grandiose public spectacles of piety.

However, they aren't the only religion jockeying for position on the playing field, because the anthem itself is already religious signaling. It represents what many people might call Americanism, but I would call something more like Pan-Americanism. It is its own belief system. When spectators stand before the match with hand over heart reciting the national prayer with fighter jets flying overhead, they are signaling allegiance to the American empire, to Enlightenment virtues, and to the belief that all the people contained within the borders of the USA constitute a single unified nation.

The two major national religions are competing for control of the public spaces. We might be tempted to say that the liberals are politicizing football, but the truth is it was already politicized when it was decided that reciting national prayers was the best way to start the games. Anything that is politicized invites lefty intrusion. Look at Christianity, which became politicized, from what I hear, in the 1980s. Every church in my neighborhood is painfully liberal, to the point of pandering to gay marriage on their websites. The best defense to keeping something you like from being overrun by liberal fanatics is not to let it become politicized in the first place. There is no reason at all for football to be just another venue for political theater. There are rumors that Vince McMahon is considering resurrecting the XFL in light of the new market potential for uncucked football. The smart move would be to make it strictly non-political. But you can bet that they will be unable to help themselves from making it a big patriot bonanza to rub it into the noses of the anti-American National Felons League. The XFL won't be a reprieve from the religious wars, just an alternate arena where a more preferable religious sect holds dominance.

Thursday, December 14, 2017

Is it Worse to be Ruled by Yankees or by Stalin?

In The Fourth Stage of American History, the ZMan describes American nation in four major epochs. First was the colonial stage. The successful war of independence ushered in the constitutional stage, where there was some balance of power between north and south, with presidents tending to arise from the near south. The Civil War gave political dominance to Yankeedom (and to some extent the Midlands), which is where we find ourselves today.
There were 15 presidents before Lincoln. Six of them were from Yankeedom or the Midlands. The rest were from the Tidewater or the South. Virginia used to be called the Cradle of Presidents because seven pre-Civil War presidents were from there. Only one post-Civil War president, Woodrow Wilson, has been from Virginia. Of the 30 since the war, 25 have been from Yankeedom or from the Midlands. There have been 19 from parts of the country that fall into the dark blue portion of that linked map.

Since the Civil War, America has been dominated by one region of the country. It stands to reason that politics would be rooted in this region as well. Because Progressives, in various manifestations, are dominant in the North, they have been the driving force in America politics and culture as a whole. Naturally, any reaction to this would be culturally rooted in the North as well. Put another way, politics in America has been a lover’s quarrel between the two halves of Yankeedom since the Civil War.
That Yankeedom should rise to dominance is perfectly understandable given the way we think about things around here. Democracy's Demographic Demonry gave a look at how different regions of the country were settled. In Hawaii, the natives were displaced by imported laborers from Asia, which, when coupled with the imposition of head-count style democracy, led the Hawaiians to constitute a powerless minority in their own homelands. A similar thing happened in the south. The natives were evicted, but then African slaves were imported. The rest of the country behaved similarly. In the southwest Hispanic labor is used in agriculture. The west engaged in the importation of Asian labor. In all these places, profit-seeking was the foremost concern, with little thought to long-term consequences.

Only in Yankeedom and the Midlands were things done the right way. Or in one of the right ways, anyway. It seems there are about three ways a nation can rightfully behave towards another with acceptable long-term results. The first is to respect their sovereignty. That is the peaceful option. The second is to evict them from some (or all) of their lands. That is the conquest option. The third is to dominate the nation by force or other coercion. That is the colonial option.

The second two options might not seem very "rightful" as they involve force and cruelty, but we're looking from the perspective of the long-term health of nations. Colonialism can actually preserve the subservient nation, and can help strengthen them. Many nations on earth today were drug into the modern era from a primitive state by western powers. Conquest is a dirty business as well. Nations may be evicted from their homelands, or eliminated entirely. But that is the natural order and we owe our existence to millennia of conquests, where more capable peoples ousted the inferior. It has been the primary driver of our evolution of higher intelligence.

Only in Yankeedom and the Midlands were things done rightly, through conquest. The invaders took the lands and used them for their own nation-building, and created something of far greater value than the natives had ever built. Nowhere else was one of the rightful approaches taken. Nowhere was the sovereignty of the existing nations respected. Nowhere in present-day USA were natives colonized and controlled, but otherwise allowed to persist. The Hawaiians would be been far better off had they been merely exploited, rather than demographically reduced.

So it stands to reason that Yankeedom would come to dominate. That's where the real nation-building was happening, and civilizations are build on the back of nations. So far this is all perfectly understandable. What is more confounding is why Yankeedom, in itself the most powerful and influential civilization that ever existed, would then become the host for liberalism, which now dominates politics in the US and even globally. It's troubling that they could, in just several generations, do everything right to create the world's foremost civilization, and then in just a few generations become intent on doing everything wrong to destroy itself.

What's troubling is that there seems to be something baked into the very core of humanity that doesn't allow us to do the right thing for very long. Success makes us soft and naive. You almost wonder if it would be better, in the long run, to be an exploited nation, rather than the exploiter. Ask yourself, if your goal was the long-term success of your nation, would it be better to be a dominant nation like America, or to be dominated by America? What about dominated by Nazi Germany? What about dominated by Stalinist Russia?

Clearly you don't want to be America, where the strongest political movement is all about national suicide as fast as possible. Being dominated by America isn't much better. Because then you're Western Europe and see national suicide as some sort of race. But, you might also be Japan, who have done very well keeping things together, so long as they can correct their serious fertility dilemma. So based on evidence, you're overall better being dominated by America than being America, because at least you have some chance. Being dominated by Nazi Germany would be very bad, because they were all about conquest and you were at risk of extermination. But what about domination by the Soviet Union? They were about political domination of their satellites. It was a form of colonialism. It was all very Russo-centric, but the dominated nations remained intact. Not only that, but we notice something peculiar. The nations formerly dominated by the USSR are the same ones acting with any sense of self-preservation today. In one of the greatest ironies of the world ever, communism turns out to have been an inoculation against liberalism. Although, give it time. They will probably rise to prosperity in the coming decades, only to fall prey to the same forces of decay.

Conquest is great for the conqueror but cataclysmic for the vanquished. A weak nation is replaced by a strong one. The world mourns and moves on. Colonialism & exploitation can be fine for national preservation, even great, so long as the stronger power isn't willing or able to destroy the vassal demographically or culturally. Being the dominant power helps protect against being invaded or exploited, but nevertheless leaves the host nation vulnerable to ultimate destruction. Why times are good, the people get soft. And no one is willing to do the legwork to maintain society when they are physically and materially secure. All social policy becomes viewed from the lens of economic utility. It's the great paradox of civilization. Too little and everyone is poor and destitute. Too much and the whole thing collapses. Under Yankees, everything is headed for collapse, and they seem hell-bent on destroying every western nation on their way out.

Monday, December 11, 2017

Muslim Kill Liberals pt 7

A terrorist attack in New York was partially thwarted by Darwin when the device donated early. Many took to Twitter to condemn the attack because...he picked the wrong target! He should have gone after Trump Tower. This is a natural reaction from r-selected lefties, who import Musilms as foot soldiers to fight against western civilization. They expect the Muslims will attack their common enemy and yet, as we've seen in numerous posts here, Muslims tend to kill liberals. Even if liberals manage to destroy oppressive western civilization, they are sure to destroy themselves in the process.


It's also worth noting that many are trying to blame the attack on Trump's decision to move the Israeli embassy, as requested by Congress. They want American foreign policy to be dictated by violent outside threats. Which only shows that at some point violence will be our only option. The left is not swayed by reason, logic, or evidence. Only violence. They are cowards who naturally prostate before those most likely to cause them harm. It's not that violence is preferable, it's just the only option. Look at the migration dynamics. Nonviolent places like Scandinavia are being invaded. Muslims are doing most of the invading, but many also flow from Latin America, the most violent place on earth. It's peculiar that the left, who fashion themselves as sophisticated, have created a world where violence is the answer.

Saturday, December 9, 2017

Antiprofitability and Economic Independence

Charles Hugh Smith took on the premise for universal basic income (UBI) today in his post Marx, Robotics, and the Collapse of Profits. The premise for UBI is that, as more industries become automated, wealth will consolidate into the hands of fewer and fewer people. In the inevitable future a few capitalists will own the robots that create all the goods. However, the people will mostly be unemployed. The only way to provide for the welfare of the masses, and the only way to supply buyers for the robot-manufactured products and keep the economy running, will be to redistribute wealth from the barons to the people. Many support a scheme where the government provides a UBI for all citizens (and all resident non-citizens, no doubt) funded by taxing the producers.

There are many social arguments against UBI, which often can be boiled down to the old adage, "idle hands are the devil's playground." There is also great moral hazard in having a democracy, where leaders are elected by the people, in charge of issuing paychecks to the people. Men would not do well under a UBI. "Don't worry, the government will protect and feed your family. You go watch football." Men decay in such scenarios, and their nations will quickly follow behind them.

Smith approaches the issue from an economic perspective, and insists that the UBI premise is false because the economy-by-robots is ultimately unprofitable and, if anything, it is the remaining human-led economies that would be taxed to subsidize unprofitable robots. It is good to see economic arguments against the UBI-driving scenario because there is an equivalent to Murphy's Law for socioeconomic systems. If a venture tends to destroy society but it is profitable, eventually it will be tried. If Smith is correct then we don't really need to have the UBI debate, because the conditions for it will never arise.

Unfortunately his argument is based on some flimsy assumptions. Because profits tend to fall, he says, industrialists will only be able to maintain profits by massively investing in production capital to increase output. Eventually the robotic industries will become unprofitable and significant capital investments will be destroyed. Marx believed that, because profits tend to fall, eventually the driving force of capitalism would be eliminated through natural forces and the whole capitalist order would destroy itself through exhaustion. So the robotics scenario is just the Marxian debate put into a format that is easier to grasp intuitively.

Smith's big flaw here it to assume that the tendency of profits to fall means profits will fall perpetually; to zero and beyond. Not just unprofitable, but antiprofitable. The problem is there is no supporting evidence for such a claim. That's not to say that industries never become antiprofitable, but not for the reasons he provides. What industry has even been driven to antiprofitability by over-investment in itself? I suspect there's a very good reason he provided no examples.

Let's look at some ourselves. Take farming. That's an industry that has become so heavily automated, so commoditized, that it certainly fits the the kind of scenario that Smith describes. By his theory, farmers would have so over-invested in machinery that farming would run at a loss and invested capital would be destroyed. Historically, farming was done manually. Grain was sown by hand, harvested with reapers, and then ground by hand or with the aid of machinery such as water mills. Was hand farming done in because landowners over-produced reapers and grinding stones, driving profits below zero? Of course that doesn't make any sense at all, and has never happened. Farming has always been profitable, because investment follows demand. When demand is being met, the incentive for investment wanes.

As long as an industry is profitable it will continue. So why is it no longer profitable to cut wheat by hand anymore? For thousands of years it was, and there's no reason it couldn't happen now. Anyone could pick up a few acres of land and advertise for a couple of laborers if they were so inclined. A hundred years ago or so it would be profitable to do so if you had the investment capital. Today it's not, and the reason is pretty obvious. You wouldn't make enough off the grain to pay the workers. The cost of labor has gone up! No one is going to come toil in your soil for a sack of corn. The government even forbids it. Commoditization drives down profits, but not to zero. Antiprofitability is caused pirmarily by increasing labor costs. If labor is replaced by automation, and automation is always getting cheaper, then actually it ensures that the industry won't be driven to antiprofitability. The only other way it might happen then is if other costs increase, such as energy prices or tax bills. The author has it backwards and flipped. Commoditization won't lead to antiprofitability that demands tax subsidies, but increasing taxes on those industries could lead to antiprofitability.

So where does that leave us now, in the context of UBI? If Marx and Smith are wrong and automation isn't actually self-destructive, then what's to stop the trend of the commoditization of industries? Well, besides even larger maladies like an energy crisis or political instability, nothing. But that may be okay. The wrong assumption that UBI promoters make is the conflation of commoditization with the monopolization of the means of production. It's very troubling if true, because economic power yields political power. Even if their assumption is true, UBI is not a good solution in that context, as it advocates giving all the economic control to the government. If certainly satisfies the rule that all liberal policies must make the problem they are addressing even worse. Let's take away excessive economic control from the hands of global capitalists (okay, I'm listening) and give it to the government. Idiots!

Well here in the dissident right we are not idiots (definitely not!) and we have a different economic agenda. Instead of concentrating economic power in the hands of global capitalists (bad) or centralized governments (worst), let's put economic power in the hands of the people. Gee, it's so simple it might just work, although it sounds a bit platitudinous or cliche (power to the people!).  But I do believe that the commoditization of industry is actually putting more economic control into the hands of the people already. Economic independence occurs when people are self-contained units that can generate profit. The opposite of economically independent would be a factory-employee who has no capacity to generate income without the company's machinery and other business capital. Even more the opposite of economically independent is the welfare dependent, which is what UBI enthusiasts want us all to become.

There's a luthier in my town who I have commissioned to build a guitar. He has a day job where he makes a modest income, but has nonetheless put together a shop where he can construct an entire guitar by hand. His ambition is to transition to full-time luthiery. He is on track to achieving maximal economic independence. He would never be able to do so if it wasn't for the commoditization of the tools of his trade. Without them he'd never be able to afford the capital costs and his only option to build guitars would be to work in a guitar factory. While he can't compete with those factories on efficiency, overall the benefits of industrial efficiency have given him increased economic independence.

Many occupations are seeing increasing economic independence thanks to the benefits of commoditization. It hasn't been that long since computer programming meant gaining employment at a place that could afford the massive computers. Today the tools of the trade can acquired from a week's pay. You need a computer and an internet connection. Maybe some software. Many programmers are self-employed and work from home. This would not be possible without the commoditization of the processor and other computer hardware.

People tend to be too narrowly focused when they think about industrial robots. Say a factory that makes wrenches fires its workers and buys wrench-making robots. Ah, social plague, we must redistribute wealth or the factory worker is destitute and no one will be able to buy wrenches! But think of the auto mechanic. If wrenches become cheaper, it's easier for him to acquire the tools to open his own shop, rather than working for a wage. From our perspective this is mostly positive. The jobs being created are much more economically independent than the ones being destroyed. Economic independence means less centralization of economic power, from which follows less centralization of political and social power. The result is a freer, more natural, and more holistic society. Compare this to the liberal plan where everyone is a wage slave for the biggest corporation of them all, FedGov. Our goals give people independence and a sense of meaning. Their goals destroy everything natural and good about life and are doomed to catastrophe.

Marx believed the tendency of profits to fall would be the ruin of capitalism. Charles Hugh Smith believes that profits will tend to fall below zero. The reality is that industries don't inherently drive themselves to antiprofitability, and the falling profits of commodities permits more economic independence for workers. It may be our foremost goal on the right to do everything possible to transfer economic power away from the government and corporations and into the hands of ordinary people.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Celebrating Perversity

Some months ago this flyer appeared on a campus in Canada. One wonders how many letters have been added since then.


It's notable that their alphabet soup, which includes three sexual orientations for the letter T, and two for G, Q, A, and P, is missing one very significant letter: H, for heterosexual. If everyone is included but the biggest, most obvious group, isn't that deliberately exclusive? They do put allies as a group, who are presumably straight people who will be tolerated just so long as they're the right kind of straight people. Virtue signaling is a requirement. Don't really care about gays one way or another? Sorry, you're not included in the inclusiveness club.

It's apparent that the marketers of this event will soon have to start text wrapping their accelerating acronym or switch to a smaller font. The problem with defining every possible sexual orientation is that the upper limit is the population size. Each person is a unique snowflake, and so is their sexuality. Hey inclusiveness club, I prefer brunettes with curly hair (but not too curly). Give me a letter. Bill here has a shoe fetish, give him an S. Larry only like red shoes, so he needs a different letter. The list is doomed to become an ever expanding catalogue of kinks. Can you honestly think of a more degrading measure to categorize humans? Describing everyone by what they like in bed then to post it all over campus likes it's enlightened. One of the biggest mistakes our society ever made was to start letting stupid people into colleges. This is what happens. They think this filth is sophistication! The whole point of civilization is that we are supposed to tame our baser instincts for a greater purpose. Here these lunatics are out trying to subvert everything. If Satan is walking amongst us, he's surely posting these kinds of flyers on campus, encouraging everyone to cave to their carnal desires and calling it "progressive".

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

The Winds are Shifting

During a hot week in summer it can often feel like reprieve from the cruel heat is just a fantasy. The weather forecasts say a cold front is due in. And then you feel it. A sudden uptick in the breeze that rustles the leaves and feels slightly cooler than it should be. It doesn't seem like much, but it's the first sign of what's to come: an intense storm followed by more pleasant weather.

The political world feels like that today. CNBC ran an article calling out all the media for being anti-Trumpers who are out to harm the president however they can. Some newspapers are calling for an end to the Mueller investigation, even the Washington Post! Granted, it was an opinion piece by one of their token quasi-conservatives, not an editorial, but still, that article couldn't have been printed a week ago. Not even two days ago. Something has changed.

No one has been sure what to expect from the Mueller fishing expedition. Theories have run rampant on both sides. On the right we hear nothing will be found, or they'll offer up a couple sacrificial pawns on both sides and move on, or that Mueller is "our guy" and the whole thing is a clever trap to prosecute Democrats, or that the whole thing is a coup and they'll find anyway to ring Team Trump up on bogus charges or so-called "process crimes." The last item is probably the most true, but the coup seems to have landed with a thud. And the blundering media has, as always, found a way to turn a minor victory into a stinging defeat. It should have been a nice trophy. They got one of Trump's guys. But then ABC ran with the bogus claim that Flynn had pled guilty to lying about Russian communications before the election. Suddenly this wasn't just a pawn, but proof of the collusion narrative! The media latched onto the story with a frenzy, the stock market took a massive dive. This was HUGE NEWS! The left-wing talking heads were giddy with euphoria. Finally, what they've been saying is proven true, and Trump is finished!!

Then ABC was forced to issue a "clarification." Actually, it wasn't proof of collusion. The crime was for neglecting to inform the FBI about perfectly legitimate actions of an incoming administration. This was barely even in the ballpark of what the Mueller team set out to investigate. Suddenly their big victory was just an Obama political appointee pleading to a minor charge after likely being caught in a perjury trap, for actions we've known about for many months. Had the media kept it's pants on the event could have been a nice bump for left-wing enthusiasm. Instead it became a depressing setback. Sometimes you almost have to wonder if these hysterical pundits aren't working for Trump the whole time. The left was taken to a soaring high and then swiftly brought crashing back to reality. What a beautiful thing to behold!

And the reality is this: the Flynn indictment is a strong indication that there is nothing in the realm of collusion, or any major found wrongdoings. It's just too far off the path of inquiry. Trump is surely safe. But the conspirators may not be. Attempting a coup is always dangerous, and the sheer magnitude of the deep-state machinations to remove the head of state say a lot. Why are they so afraid of Trump? We've grown pretty pessimistic at the notion that Democrat criminals will ever face justice. I'd say now is the time to dial that pessimism back a notch, or even two. The coup is up, and even Washington Post readers are being told it was all a big scam. People like McCabe are in the hot seat now, not Trump. Will we see actual prosecutions of deep state operatives as this fizzles out? I predict we will. Trump has shown great determination to keep his campaign promises lately. I think he'll go after them if the evidence is there (and surely it is). Trump is not a pushover. He's not operating from the beltway playbook; he's channeling the Art of War. (He actually tweeted some Sun Tzu quotes a few years ago.) If Trump is the political jiu jitsu master we suspect he is, there will be brutal retribution. You don't lure your enemy into a vulnerable position and then decline to counterattack. He has every reason to do so. Out of strategic pragmatism. For personal vengeance. To set an example to future foes. To deal the left so many punishing losses that they lose their will to fight. Oh, and look at what the left's response has been. To instead direct their rage towards the tax cut bills. Focusing on another major political defeat! Are you happy with your president yet?

There is still the open question of why the hell Flynn perjured himself to begin with. As before, theories run rampant. The left suspects there must be sinister motives. The right suspects he was caught in a perjury trap. But if he was, why plead guilty? If it was an honest omission then he'd likely prevail in court. The prosecution must prove willful intent to mislead. (And we know how those intent things can go.) Trump must have thought he lied too, since Flynn was fired. So what's going on? Some are saying the whole thing was a ruse, and Flynn was the bait. Now his NDA is lifted and he is free to talk about other crimes committed. But that doesn't hold water. You don't plead guilty to perjury to place yourself as a key witness, because your testimony then carries little credibility. It's certainly strange.

What's more clear is how ridiculous the situation was that put Flynn in a perjury situation to begin with. The FBI interviewed Flynn a mere four days after assuming office, and then compared that to his communications to prove he wasn't be completely forth rite. Well, why was Flynn being interviewed by the FBI, and how did they have record of his communications? The answer to both questions: the piss-gate dossier, the expose of absurdity that just won't die already! The dossier (as well as constant howling by the DNC and the media) were used to justify FISA warrants against the Trump team for alleged collusion and then to justify the special counsel. What a position! You can spy on your opponent, grill him over the his recorded activities, and then prosecute for any discrepancies. It's called a perjury trap because you could prosecute just about anyone this way. But in this case they were using the foreign intelligence powers of the state to attempt to unseat the elected president. Now that sounds like a coup to me! I think they genuinely believed they'd find something to hang Trump with if they could just get the surveillance. Establishment hacks naturally assuming their political opponent is a rampant criminal just sounds like petty projection. I believe Sun Tzu said something about not knowing your enemy or yourself.

Yes, the winds are shifting. Trump is carrying on with a lot of vigor and enthusiasm. He doesn't seem subdued by the unfolding events, but pleased that all the pieces are falling into place. The left is nearly out of ammo once the collusion hooey backfires. They'll go back to their old routine of just reacting to everything Trump with ever decreasing rage. And if the Prophesy of the Triggering holds, we'll see more and more start to act as if they had never even been radically anti-Trump at all.

Saturday, December 2, 2017

r/K Themes in Moana

Moana is the current blockbuster sensation in the young children's market. I finally watched it last night after some intense lobbying by my four-year-old. It's a good movie, I enjoyed watching it with her, but I'm always on alert during children's shows for any subtle messaging or propaganda. Often the messaging isn't deliberate, but it can say a lot about the internal biases of those producing the film, as well as what they think is marketable in the current culture. I believe Moana falls into that category. It's not deliberate propaganda, but the contents of the movie say a lot and give a lot to chew on for social commentary. So let's begin.

Moana is a Polynesian princess whose tribe encounters a food supply crisis. Fish stocks have collapsed and the coconuts fallen to disease. Moana suggests fishing the outer waters but her father, the chief, insists it is too dangerous. Eventually Moana is compelled by her grandmother and the ocean to embark on a journey to save her people. Aided by her male counterpart Maui, a human-turned-demigod voiced by The Rock, she faces off against pirate coconuts, monsters of the deep, and finally Tikal, a powerful volcanic demon. Ultimately she discovers new fertile land, returns to her home island, and convinces her tribe to make the ocean voyage.

Societies become K-selected when they live at the carrying capacity of their environments. It has always been my assumption that island nations, like the Hawaiians, were probably very K in nature. That means they were competitive, hierarchal, and valued chastity and delayed sexualization of children. Leaving for richer lands is sometimes the best option, but r-type people are more likely to want to escape competition for limited resources than Ks are. The Moana scenario was very common in history. Sometimes there was a successful exodus, but most of the time the results were less poetic: a lot of people starved to death. K-selected society isn't all roses and honey. Those who can't compete for the limited resources die. In time of food shortages the weak and low-ranking die of starvation and illness. There's a reason Polynesians are so well-adapted to store fat, much to their detriment in the modern era.

The conflict between Moana and her father is a conflict between r and K. Moana wants to flee for greener pastures. Her father, the strong chief, wishes to stay and face the difficulties. Ultimately Moana has her way. The movie is a tale of r winning over K. How very Hollywood. 

There is more to the story than just that, of course. The main character embarks on a journey of personal growth that also benefits her society. This is a heroic epic. Other writers have bemoaned the death of the heroic epic, yet here we have one in the greatest blockbuster out right now. Or we almost do. In a heroic epic, the protagonist overcomes some tragic flaw in their journey. Moana has no tragic flaw. She was always right; she was just restrained by those around her. Stupid, backwards K societies are always standing in the way of utopia. The movie is all about girl power, so instead the flaw is given to her male companion. Maui is a demigod in a reduced state. Without his magic hook he has no power, and we find him marooned on a desert island. His flaw is that he is self-interested, vain, and overly individualistic. Ultimately he overcomes his flaws, helps deliver his estranged tribe from harm, and becomes more empowered himself. He is actually the hero of the tale. Moana was supposed to be, but the writers just couldn't bear to depict her as flawed.  

It's worth noting that the tribe-oriented heroic epic is still permitted at all. The reason seems pretty obvious. National identities are permitted, but only for non-whites. I don't watch many movies, but I can't think of many exceptions to the rule. The Lord of the Rings would be, but it's been over 15 years since that franchise started. Much has changed since 2001. Back then white did not equal racist. The rule has pretty well held for the last five years or so, and I predict we'll see no sort of "Moana for white people" for a long, long time, if ever. Not at the mega-blockbuster level, anyway.

One counter-example that might be offered is Frozen, the girl-power mega hit that preceded Moana, which, quite surprisingly, featured an all-white cast. But Frozen isn't a heroic epic. Elsa is certainly flawed, but she isn't a hero. She does nothing for the better good, and in fact she doesn't really ever overcome her flaws. Her lack of self control just vanishes after Anna's sacrifice, but it was nothing Elsa achieved. Anna is also not a tragic hero, as she was never particularly flawed. She always had a good heart. Frozen is all about Elsa's narcissism, so powerful it nearly destroys her own nation! Surely that's a vastly different story than Moana, a girl without flaw who delivers her people from tragedy.

Even the children's heroic epics of the last couple decades had much stronger K themes than were permitted in Moana, where there is never direct resource competition. Mulan, a heroic epic where the protagonist saved her people from doom, was a resource struggle between the Chinese nation and the evil Huns. The Lion King, a fantastic heroic epic, pitted lions again hyenas in a battle for resources. Simba is drawn into a listless life of abundant resources, but his fate compels him to return to jump into the resources struggle and take top spot in the hierarchy. It was a story of K winning over r. Oh, how things have changed in a couple decades!

One other thing you can't help but notice watching the movie is the extreme sexual dimorphism. The princess is portrayed as usual by Disney, described by Stefan Molyneux in his analysis of Frozen as neoteny. Massive eyes, subdued chin, and tiny little noses. Here's a look at Frozen. 



Anna and Elsa were both extremely overdone, Elsa looked like an alien to me, but the male lead has nearly normal eyes, a large nose, and protruding chin. They certainly didn't make Christoph a wimp, but his demeanor is fairly passive, and bumbling around women. His masculinity was kept in check. There's a hilarious scene at the end where the bad guy is exposed. Christoph takes after him, fists clenched, ready to unload some pain. Anna stops him, and instead punches the baddie herself, sending him flying off the ship into the water. They can't have male aggression! But just look at her tiny little wrists.

Counter to that, here are the Moana characters.


They couldn't display more sexual dimorphism if they tried. (I don't believe Moana is quite so muscular in the film.) She retains the normal princess features. The male is gargantuan, with biceps the size of her waist, beady eyes, a wide nose, and an enormous chin that is nearly as large as her whole head. Now, it might be that he's a demigod, so he has to be portrayed bigger than puny mortals, but Moana's father is also massive. What's interesting is that dimorphism is a K trait. K environments prefer strong fathers and nurturing mothers who can protect the child until they are able to face the harsh, competitive world. r strategy is to reproduce early and often, so their is no driving force for highly masculine men. Those women tend toward "bad boys" who exhibit r traits. Look at all the women who swooned over the recently deceased Charles Manson, who oozed r-selection but was very diminutive, barely five feet in height.

The question that arises is, is sexual dimorphism more acceptable when the characters are ethnic? It sure seems like it. Disney also showed a great divergence between Mulan and her army captain. It would sure fit the trend. Liberals complain endlessly about toxic masculinity and rape culture on college campuses, which is nonsense, yet defend it in the Muslim world. The left is before anything, even before being feminist, opposed to western culture and the white race. It's hard to imagine a caricature of masculinity like Maui being depicted for a white character. The character may have drawn extra masculinity because he is voiced by The Rock, a hyper masculine fellow who has recently said some pretty lefty things. Mortal sins like toxic masculinity can always be ignored for those who pledge allegiance to The Cult. I'd also note that the primary songwriter for the movie was lefty hero Lin-Manuel Miranda, the same guy who berated Vice President Pence at a showing of Hamilton for...being there, I guess. But this just goes to show you who's involved in the movie. The only two I'm familiar with are noted lefties. In a move praising r-selection. Go figure.

There is nothing that makes the movie unfit for consumption. Just keep in mind that it is largely centered around r values. Your kid isn't going to be forever converted to leftism because she watched Moana. Still, it's a sign of the mindsets of the people who make children's movies these days, and it's good to know about the subtle signals kids are receiving. My daughter loves Moana, but not nearly as much as the Lion King. I'll take that. There's nothing wrong with a movie praising Polynesian culture. This blog has already shown remorse at the destruction of the Hawaiian nation by global capitalism and democracy. They certainly deserve their own Disney movie, at the least. Still we must be mindful of the cultural signals being sent out to our littles, so that we may counter them. In this case, the Polynesian culture has been co-opted to deliver a lesson in favor of r-selection, even though their nation was destroyed because other people envied their resources. Moana was a story for r-selection, but reality a lesson against it.