Tuesday, October 6, 2015

The False Allure Of the Unprincipled

Principles do not sell well with the unprincipled. People can get confused about this, for the unprincipled do not have poor reactions to what they perceive as new things, while the principled will fight tooth and nail if they think a principle new to them interferes with one they picked up earlier. I think libertines often give libertarians an initial positive response- especially if the libertarian limits his remarks. But the libertine wants to maintain his current edge upon the rest of the world. He wants his costs externalized as much as possible, and he (and most definitely she: notice that abortion, birth control, etc... are all called 'health care' by these narcissists) shall insist on government for that reason.

The principled, meanwhile, come with all sorts of principles, and all sorts of priorities.

If a principle is to be adhered to widely, you must figure out how to get principled people to add it to their collection.

A vast amount of resources are wasted in this world attempting to get the unprincipled to adopt one. This is, usually, deeply unfair to the principle, because they have no earthly idea how to properly care for it. It is also unfair to the principled, because they- through slow growth and having a proper position in society can actually manage some semblance of a principled culture even among the unprincipled, assuming we are allowed proper governance rather than the obscenity we have now.

Monday, October 5, 2015

Normalization of Deviancy Continues

Well, the long march continues. Meanwhile, most Christians continue a long march of their own- a false evangelism. An exercise in futility.

Can any of you really continue to be so delusional, and think you are helping? If you were effecting the culture in any positive way, this wouldn't be happening.

Thanks to Tex for the link to this rather solid primer on this great sadness.

Friday, October 2, 2015

Couldn't The Kessler Syndrome Be A Weapon?

Charles Stross is worried about the effects of the commercial development of space:

Kessler Syndrome, or collisional cascading, is a nightmare scenario for space activity. Proposed by NASA scientist Donald Kessler in 1978, it proposes that at a certain critical density, orbiting debris shed by satellites and launch vehicles will begin to impact on and shatter other satellites, producing a cascade of more debris, so that the probability of any given satellite being hit rises, leading to a chain reaction that effectively renders access to low earth orbit unacceptably hazardous.

And, of course, Stross asks a question most interesting to me:

So, suppose that with the exception of already-on-orbit GPS clusters and high altitude comsats, we can't launch anything else for a century. What effect does it have on society and geopolitics when the sky goes dark?

Let me add another supposition: What if someone, tired of the current American hegemony, decides to hasten the Kessler Syndrome? Could a payload of ball bearings, for instance, be delivered to start the cascade, and potentially even take out the existing GPS & comsats? How much debris is needed?

This has the potential to significantly shift power, while, presumably, not causing death like a nuclear detonation would. Some folks may even take the view that it could be the moral choice, as it can be viewed as defense of sovereignty and/or in some cases, even private property.

Much depends on how fed up people are with the current system, versus how much they like the convenience of what the satellites provide.

Friday, September 25, 2015

Family vs Nation

We can see now a sort of pernicious, exploitative aspect of governmental and corporate activities such that they tend to lure men and women away from creating families and towards various hobbies, entertainment, etc...
I think this exploitation began with nationalism. Seems rather transparent that nationalists began a program of militarization and war, and sacrificed the people to it.

What is needed is for the family to once again become more important than the bureaucrat. This is true even for the supposed nationalist wishing for a strong nation, because a strong nation is a byproduct of strong families, and not the by-product of, say, Bismarck. The nationalist project led rather directly to war, and war is dysgenic, especially in our era of modern weapons. Additionally, subsequent levels of entitlements and/or government programs are dysgenic as well.

So, if you can somehow return some of these functions that the government has appropriated back to families and extended families, the people will begin to make better choices.

At the very basic family unit level, this would mean more families and less otaku.

At an abstract, societal level, this would mean the eventual adoption of a currency that held value and/or appreciated in value. It is the bureaucrat's incentive to use as much as he can now, while he has some access to funds, but it is to the families' incentive to save and improve what the family has.

This is why there is a fundamental, though often overlooked, difference between the facist mode of government and the monarchist one. Admittedly, those who dabbled in absolutist philosophies did come nearer the fascist mark, and set up the conditions for the rise of bureaucracy, but for most of history monarchy can be viewed as a family business, with the family claiming some sort of property right over a particular realm.

Tradition is helpful, but I cannot advocate for any sort of direct approach 'back' because I know it wouldn't work. Often people think they are reaching for tradition, but they are instead reaching for last year's 'progress'. Additionally, current generations are hopelessly mired in misinformation. They often think what is bad for them is good for them and vice versa.

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

White Nationalist Logo, From the Future

My source for progressive propaganda dressed up as Science! has provided me with the new open borders logo:

If it weren't for the words, it could be a white nationalist logo. Maybe it is a white nationalist logo, from the future, when everyone from the global South has moved north, whites are a minority and at risk. Well, considering South Africa, shouldn't it say 'no murder'? Oh, wait, that circle is a target, isn't it? It doesn't have cross hairs, but it does contain, rather poignantly, what is being methodically destroyed.

Derision, thou dost deserve it so.

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

The Real Deal On Identity

A healthy understanding of self comes about via few means.

The first, and likely most primary, is via negativa- we learn who we are by learning who we are not. Babies come into the world with a certain amount of awareness, but they have to grow into consciousness, and while they are doing so, they learn to perceive their bodies, and this is also a via negativa process. Babies learn how to move, and what they can move, and they begin to perceive the borders of their own bodies.

The second is observation. This ties in with the first, obviously, since being able to perceive what we are not requires being able to observe. What is probably most useful to point out is that race, gender, body type & size, and even IQ is both observable and either pre-existent or concurrent with consciousness.

The third is relationships. We learn who we are via our mother, father, sister, brother, etc- as well as relationships in the larger community.

The fourth is the struggle for perfection, unless you are a SJW, and then you are struggling to get your proclivities recognized as right and wonderful by society. For most people the struggle for perfection only feels like the struggle to be a little bit better than yesterday, or at least keeping entropy at bay. Attempts at various forms of asceticism, religion, arduous tasks, certain types of risk taking- all of these feedback into observation and allow us to perceive ourselves. Secular people who really need something like this run marathons, which is not very good for people, but does provide a sensation of being tested. So, assuming they manage to cross the finish line, they generally feel like they achieved something.

The need here is to have an identity that fits the person, like we need a map that fits the territory. Modern identity politics is designed to provide a false map, one that allows a bureaucratic elite to set up shop as arbiters between those imagined to be oppressed and oppressors. The struggle for perfection is replaced with a constant struggle to rid the world of oppression, and as long as this game goes on, people generally lose to ease and entropy. Those who struggle for perfection are cast as the oppressor and are hamstrung by society until there is no productivity, while those who are able to proclaim the most intricate and outré forms of victimhood are raised and given society's largess. Neither the persons or the society fare well under the circumstances.

When thinking about these ideas, it is best to view a human being as a process, and as a whole- not positing a soul or identity as the essence, but accepting we cannot fathom essences in our current state, but only experience the whole, over time. From an evolutionary point of view, it is best to consider ourselves as once being nothing, then being something, and trying over time to become more. That we inevitably fail is one of the primary drivers for religion, and despite modern ignorance, there are some mystical answers out there that are advantageous in this space.

It follows, logically, that the modern pop-psych idea of finding yourself is foolishness. Since the bulk of self-knowledge comes via observation and via negativa, the bulk of any inquiry into self transpires right along side any number of other inquiries.

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

What is your gender when you are alone in a forest and society isn't around to construct it?

While there are social constructs out there- like this insane idea that we all should enjoy getting together in huge crowds, which is a very novel thing to do from an evolutionary standpoint- the far more likely point of departure from reality out there is something taught to you, personally, that puts your identity (your conception of self) at odds with yourself.

In other words, if I am alone in a forest, I am still male, just as reliably male, as the tree falling in the forest makes a sound. Since we now know what sound is, we know the sound waves would be there. We know anatomy too. Identity is the construct, not gender.

I do not think hierarchy is a social construct. If it were a social construct, we'd have got rid of it by now- most of our leaders are failing us badly, and I am not talking about mere left/right dichotomy. There are progressives angry with Obama, and despite the fact that I'd never vote for him, we might actually be worse off if he wasn't there. What would the others have done? Would we be in an official war with Syria? Iran? They never mention the U.S. is giving Iran its own money back, and that our acts against them were basically acts of war. Kerry sometimes comes across this with this message in a muddled sort of way by saying if the treaty doesn't pass the other option is war- what he doesn't say is that was probably the plan, but the failure to launch in Syria, the subsequent proxy war against Assad with what turned into ISIS, and the ensuing chaos led to the realization they couldn't sweep across the Middle East the way they were hoping to.

And then Obama lifted the sanctions on Cuba, so I've got a couple of good turn outs from this guy being in office, versus the near certainty of the neoconservatives doubling and even tripling down on war during a McCain or Romney administration. McCain is nuts, and Romney did a version of Obamacare in whatever state it was he came from, so I don't see much in the way of potential mitigating factors.

So we have a sick hierarchy- how could it be considered otherwise given the poor choices we have- in need of fixing. One of the fastest ways of fixing it is to admit it is actually there- that egalitarian America is shot through with hierarchy. Pretending to be egalitarian in a hyper-legislative environment ends up meaning real things, like the less intelligent in poor urban areas being shoved through a revolving door of tickets, misdemeanors, and the like to generate revenue for cities. A very long time ago, in a less egalitarian environment, police officers would often see someone violating the law in some stupid but non-violent way and they go warn the person to stop it. No seizing property. No entrapment.

It seems to me all attempts at actually getting rid of hierarchy has failed. Since we have mostly gone progressive, the narrative becomes that of an oppressor/oppressed, and the solution inevitably is that we must hired bureaucrats who supposedly will impartially repair whatever damage done. Administrators with a false moral narrative, and no owners to keep them in line very quickly become a problem.

Pure egalitarianism is a social construct. It fails way as soon as you are alone in a forest. Either you've got skills or you don't. Either you've got intelligence or you don't. The forest is a test.

We are encouraged to identities that don't pass the forest test.