I've been wanting to got back to talking about economics for a while now, but wasn't sure if I had anything interesting to say on the subject. And I've absolutely been wanting to return to the notion of energy-backed currency, but every time I start it doesn't go anywhere fruitful. Luckily some recent discussions I've had on a cryptocurrency forum have spurred fodder for a couple more posts, and hopefully more will spin out of that.
The cryptocurrency community is almost like a religion with competing sects. Each sect believes its particular form of currency is the one true currency, and the belief that its value will soon rise enormously is sacrosanct. Go on the Ripple subreddit and question the enormous valuation of the company, and you will be met with downvotes and responses like "market capitalization doesn't matter for cryptocurrencies." These communities contain an irrational belief system coupled with a demand for uniformity. They fit the criteria for a cult, at least as far as this blog has defined the term.
It's probably not fair to pick on the cryptocult too much in this regard. Most of what passes for investment these days is just adopting a belief system. Nearly everyone is invested through their retirement plans, which just amounts to a belief that the stock market will grow in value. Why will it grown in value? Because other people will keep buying stock! The fact that nearly all retirement programs are now private market investments means we can trust money will keep pouring in. We aren't investing in the underlying companies so much as we are investing in the belief that other people will keep investing. To invest wisely means not to judge the material worth of an asset, but to predict other peoples' belief in its worth.
The same holds for cryptocurrencies, but even more so, because they have no underlying value. When you invest in a company, you are taking part ownership of a firm with physical assets. When you invest in a normal fiat currency, your investment has value because some government will accept it for settlement of tax debts. Cryptocurrencies have no intrinsic value. Yes, they are guaranteed to be scare, but that is not enough in itself to confer value. That requires belief. When you think about it, it's not surprising that the cryptocurrency forums feels like a den of believers. The whole industry is dependent on belief, and belief alone.
A veritable cottage industry has grown up around the success of Bitcoin. The best route out there today to get filthy rich is to create a new cryptocurrency that gets popular. But how do you get popular? Bitcoin is big because they were first. There are a few others like Litecoin and Etheryum, but there is only really room for very limited number of cryptocurrencies that bear no intrinsic value. Entrepreneurs are now trying to create market forces that give their currencies value, or at least the appearance of value. The biggest one is Ripple, who made big headlines last week after their cryptocurrency soared in value. Ripple aims to disrupt the market for settling international monetary transfers. It's a lofty pursuit in itself, but where the owners are really making bank is with the cryptocurrency. They are now billionaires, on paper at least. The currency is highly valued because people are buying it, because they want to be holding on to the next big thing. (Disclaimer: I'm one of those people.) The financial success of the Ripple's creators has less to do with the value they're providing to the world, and more with their ability to enrich themselves from a belief system. It's inspiring, in a way, but also appalling because the whole thing is like a can of condensed greed.
There's another belief out there amongst the cryptocult, that cryptocurrencies will solve the problems of sovereign fiat currencies, and will (or at least should) replace them one day. They say that fiat currencies are inherently inflationary, so cryptocurrencies will be inherently more sound. But that belief is double wrong. Fiat currencies aren't inherently inflationary. Fiat currencies aren't inherently anything. The government decides how much money is spent into existence. It can inflate and deflate the currency at will. Now, governments do tend to inflate the money supply, and in fact all mainstream economists and the Fed themselves are quite open about their goal of light inflation. Why governments want inflation is a topic will save for tomorrow's post, but certainly they do. That's not a problem inherent to the currency, but government control of the currency. Okay, so maybe they say the solution is that cryptocurrencies prevent the government from being able to abuse their powers of inflation. But the problem with that is cryptocurrencies are inherently deflationary. There are only a finite number of Bitcoins. It's not much different than gold in that regard. But it doesn't seem rational to replace a currency that can be driven to inflation by governments with one that is guaranteed to be deflationary. (Unless the economy shrinks, that is.)
There's a lot of money to be made out there in cryptocurrencies right now. But realize they mostly amount to belief bubbles. You want to get in and cash out smartly, and not be left holding the bag when the belief bubble pops.
Sunday, January 7, 2018
Friday, January 5, 2018
Liberal Inc
It hasn't been all that long since liberals were the anti corporates. Remember that? The movie Team America poked fun at them for their sloppy anti-corporate rhetoric, and that was only about a decade and a half ago. The lefty/corporate switcharoo came after that. 9 years ago, if we had to really peg it down. Alex Jones predicted it. Or he came close at least. (I used to listen to a lot of Alex Jones in the Bush era.) He predicted that, despite running as an anti-war candidate, the Obama tenure would be even more dangerously imperial than Bush's, because under Bush at least there was strong resistance, but the anti-war left would give Obama free license. He was, of course, proven correct. We can generalize his prediction: all establishment action the left protested under Bush would be permitted under Obama. Look, for example, at Haliburton. Was there anything that they complained about more bitterly than Bush's government granting no-bid contracts to Cheney's former company? And then Obama went around and granted the same no-bid contracts! Not a peep from the left about it.
The reasonable prediction to make for the next administration would have been: the left will resume its old stances if a Republican is elected. We would expect the left to become, again, anti-war, anti-corporate, anti-establishment. But that hasn't happened. Instead, the left is thoroughly entrenched as pro-estasblishment and pro-corporate. Look at the recent net neutrality battle. On one side we had the left, and all the corporations! It was fantastic. Here the left were telling us the regulation change would empower evil corporations, who were their allies! If you're in the middle of a divisive political struggle, that's where you want your opponent to be. Making a stance that is inherently absurd. If you think back, when is the last time the left energized around an issue that put them in opposition to the corporate interests? The closest recent one I can think of is TPP, which would have empowered global corporations at the expense of state sovereignty, and which Bernie Sanders vehemently opposed. But then again, Trump killed TPP, and the left gave no credit. That is, their opposition to TPP ended when Trump adopted the same opinion, so we can't really count that one, not fully at least. I think you really have to go back to the bailouts, which occurred early in Obama's presidency. That must be the last time the left squared off against the establishment. Since then liberals have been their dutiful puppets.
It amuses me to no end when liberals put on airs that they are highly individualistic, rebellious free thinkers. It must be mere coincidence that their independent thoughts just happen to be exactly the same ones they are hearing from the corporate media. From their college professors. From the teachers unions. From their corporate employers. Is it really so progressive and brave to promote diversity or anti-racism when that is also the stance of every single Fortune 500 company? When it's the the promoted ethos of every television show and Hollywood movie? "Just because my every belief just happens to coincide with the liberal agenda I've been exposed to my entire life doesn't mean I didn't adopt those beliefs independently!" That would be the best argument those free thinkers would be able to come with, if they even bothered making arguments anymore. (Now they just find ways to call you some form of hater.)
There are two major reasons that the left hasn't returned to anti-establishment rhetoric with the new Republican president. The first is that liberal ideology has so captured the establishment. Perhaps media and academia have been infected for a long time, but now the corporate and government spheres are also crawling with lefties. Look at what's happening at Google, or in the FBI or at State. These are what Vox Day would call converged institutions. That is when an institution is so controlled by ideology that it can no longer properly execute its original function. Before, we never saw the left protest the media or academia, because those were leftist-owned. We would expect the left to protest corporations and the government, like normal, but now those are lefty organizations too. So they aren't protested. The only thing left to protest is fictional Nazis.
The second reason is Trump. He is anti-establishement. The left doesn't know what to do. Trump is their enemy. The establishment is their enemy. (How can the left be the left is they aren't anti-establishment?) But Trump isn't just an enemy. He's been branded as Hitler times Satan. So they side with the establishment to oppose Trump. Suddenly the left just loves John McCain and George W. Bush. Isn't that fantastic?
This is an existential crisis for the left. Trump deserves our praise, but I think it was bound to happen. Eventually there had to be an alt-right, a rising of anti-establishment conservatives and reactionaries. We talked about this years ago. How would the left react to an anti-establishment right? We saw that the Ron Paul wing of the Republicans and the Dennis Kucinich types of the left were naturally aligned, and wondered if some type of cross-aisle alliance would rise. Wow, nothing could be further from the truth! Were we naive? Or should we really have expected that the anti-establishment conservative candidate would be effectively branded as Hitler-Satan, that the mainstream left would derail into manic conspiracy theory, and the establishment deep-state would seek to remove an elected President with the Democrats cheering them on the whole way? Surely our hope for an anti-establishment left/right partnership sounds adorable now, but man it still seems more likely than what has happened. The left, practically defined as being anti-establishment, is now the establishment movement. (Does "establishment movement" even makes sense?)
Here's why I'm optimistic. We know the left doesn't engage in debate anymore. They can't. They can't be anti-war after cheerleading Obama. They can't be pro-democracy after supporting a coup against the elected president. They can't be anti-corruption after rallying around Clinton. And so on. They don't have any arguments they can make. Instead, they are entirely fueled by lies and hatred. Those are powerful fuels, don't underestimate them. Still, we have to look to the ancient wisdom of Sun Tzu. He who knows himself and his enemy will prevail. Our enemy has boxed himself into a position where he must flee reality at every turn. A lot of things look bad for us. We've lost mightily in the culture wars and in the institutions. Still, when you look at things from the highest strategic level, we are in the ideal position. Our eyes are open, theirs are shut. We must have faith that the inevitable will come to pass.
The reasonable prediction to make for the next administration would have been: the left will resume its old stances if a Republican is elected. We would expect the left to become, again, anti-war, anti-corporate, anti-establishment. But that hasn't happened. Instead, the left is thoroughly entrenched as pro-estasblishment and pro-corporate. Look at the recent net neutrality battle. On one side we had the left, and all the corporations! It was fantastic. Here the left were telling us the regulation change would empower evil corporations, who were their allies! If you're in the middle of a divisive political struggle, that's where you want your opponent to be. Making a stance that is inherently absurd. If you think back, when is the last time the left energized around an issue that put them in opposition to the corporate interests? The closest recent one I can think of is TPP, which would have empowered global corporations at the expense of state sovereignty, and which Bernie Sanders vehemently opposed. But then again, Trump killed TPP, and the left gave no credit. That is, their opposition to TPP ended when Trump adopted the same opinion, so we can't really count that one, not fully at least. I think you really have to go back to the bailouts, which occurred early in Obama's presidency. That must be the last time the left squared off against the establishment. Since then liberals have been their dutiful puppets.
It amuses me to no end when liberals put on airs that they are highly individualistic, rebellious free thinkers. It must be mere coincidence that their independent thoughts just happen to be exactly the same ones they are hearing from the corporate media. From their college professors. From the teachers unions. From their corporate employers. Is it really so progressive and brave to promote diversity or anti-racism when that is also the stance of every single Fortune 500 company? When it's the the promoted ethos of every television show and Hollywood movie? "Just because my every belief just happens to coincide with the liberal agenda I've been exposed to my entire life doesn't mean I didn't adopt those beliefs independently!" That would be the best argument those free thinkers would be able to come with, if they even bothered making arguments anymore. (Now they just find ways to call you some form of hater.)
There are two major reasons that the left hasn't returned to anti-establishment rhetoric with the new Republican president. The first is that liberal ideology has so captured the establishment. Perhaps media and academia have been infected for a long time, but now the corporate and government spheres are also crawling with lefties. Look at what's happening at Google, or in the FBI or at State. These are what Vox Day would call converged institutions. That is when an institution is so controlled by ideology that it can no longer properly execute its original function. Before, we never saw the left protest the media or academia, because those were leftist-owned. We would expect the left to protest corporations and the government, like normal, but now those are lefty organizations too. So they aren't protested. The only thing left to protest is fictional Nazis.
The second reason is Trump. He is anti-establishement. The left doesn't know what to do. Trump is their enemy. The establishment is their enemy. (How can the left be the left is they aren't anti-establishment?) But Trump isn't just an enemy. He's been branded as Hitler times Satan. So they side with the establishment to oppose Trump. Suddenly the left just loves John McCain and George W. Bush. Isn't that fantastic?
This is an existential crisis for the left. Trump deserves our praise, but I think it was bound to happen. Eventually there had to be an alt-right, a rising of anti-establishment conservatives and reactionaries. We talked about this years ago. How would the left react to an anti-establishment right? We saw that the Ron Paul wing of the Republicans and the Dennis Kucinich types of the left were naturally aligned, and wondered if some type of cross-aisle alliance would rise. Wow, nothing could be further from the truth! Were we naive? Or should we really have expected that the anti-establishment conservative candidate would be effectively branded as Hitler-Satan, that the mainstream left would derail into manic conspiracy theory, and the establishment deep-state would seek to remove an elected President with the Democrats cheering them on the whole way? Surely our hope for an anti-establishment left/right partnership sounds adorable now, but man it still seems more likely than what has happened. The left, practically defined as being anti-establishment, is now the establishment movement. (Does "establishment movement" even makes sense?)
Here's why I'm optimistic. We know the left doesn't engage in debate anymore. They can't. They can't be anti-war after cheerleading Obama. They can't be pro-democracy after supporting a coup against the elected president. They can't be anti-corruption after rallying around Clinton. And so on. They don't have any arguments they can make. Instead, they are entirely fueled by lies and hatred. Those are powerful fuels, don't underestimate them. Still, we have to look to the ancient wisdom of Sun Tzu. He who knows himself and his enemy will prevail. Our enemy has boxed himself into a position where he must flee reality at every turn. A lot of things look bad for us. We've lost mightily in the culture wars and in the institutions. Still, when you look at things from the highest strategic level, we are in the ideal position. Our eyes are open, theirs are shut. We must have faith that the inevitable will come to pass.
Wednesday, January 3, 2018
No, it is not inherently hypocritical to criticize Bill Nye while supporting Mike Rowe
Here is an argument/meme/viral rant I saw on social media. (What do you really call an image of paragraph of text?) I typed up a counter-argument because I believed it was an original argument from a Facebook friend. It wasn't until I finished I realized it was just a shared image. (Rule of thumb, never engage in rational debate with something so effortless as a shared meme. Even if you win, you still lose.)
Anyway, I'm sharing it here, so that maybe my effort wasn't entirely in vain. :)
Anyway, I'm sharing it here, so that maybe my effort wasn't entirely in vain. :)
You're making a claim of hypocrisy where it doesn't really exist. We can agree that both Nye and Rowe are entertainers turned activists. Their credentials are similar in that regard. No one really makes the claim (no one thoughtful & honest anyway) that either are disqualified to hold their public opinions or to engage in their particular forms of activism. The issue that so many have with the Nye (myself included) is the perception of exceptional credentials. He is treated by many as an authority where it is not warranted. It's not his credentials we disdain, but the undeserved esteem they are given by so many people.To that end, every blog linked in the sidebar here is a unique voice. They all provide their own theories or explanations that are supported with arguments and evidence. I could describe any of them in a couple sentences. That is why I was drawn to the dissident right in the first place. The writers are profound and thought-provoking. That is not the case from the left, where they mostly engage in enforcing ideological uniformity. If their arguments were compelling, well I'd probably be leftist too.
The same does not apply to Rowe. No one subscribes to his form of activism because of some impeccable blue collar street cred. Everyone knows he got big because of his show. He makes routine references to his background as a theater performer from San Francisco. It's clear that his success as an advocate for the trades is in spite of his background, not because of it. No one believes he is some sort of credentialed authority of his domain. There isn't the false impression that he's some sort of roughneck who worked his way up through the trade unions, as you suggest.
The major difference between the two is that Rowe gained traction because he is a unique voice. Are there any other celebrities who adopted the cause of the tradesman? Can you think of any off-hand? I can't. Compare that to Nye. Supposedly he's a smart scientific intellectual. Any maybe that's true! But then, where is his body of intellectual thought? What original message does he deliver? What profound arguments is he making? Surely you should be able to describe his unique social and scientific theories in a couple sentences. From my observations, he just makes the normal claims about climate change and other liberal stances. There are hundreds of other famous liberals on Twitter saying the same thing, and there's not much that can't be found in the most recent official platform of the Democrat party. The only thing that sets him apart is he wears a lab coat, and many people seem to believe that gives him scientific authority.
It's entirely possible that my exposure to Nye's work is inadequate and unfair, because I mostly just see what people share on Facebook and the like. If I'm missing some compelling arguments he is making, please share. On the other hand, those Facebook-shared opinions are the ones getting all the attention from his fans. That is his public message. And it's vanilla liberal activism wrapped in a lab coat.
Friday, December 29, 2017
Fauxahontas: High Priestess
Here is the text of a recent by Elizabeth Warren:
Let's look at the tweet bit by bit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)