Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Just Say No To Remakes

The Jeb is on the move, and making presidential noises, complete with the amnesiac's claim that ISIS is the result of our non-interference- as if a crew kitted out with American-made and/or bought gear appearing suddenly in lands the U.S. has been destabilizing for years isn't USG's fault.

A Bush/Clinton horse race in 2016 would be a test of the American people. Will they revolt? When will they revolt? The oligarchy may be like a little kid poking an ant hill with a stick, trying to see when and where the ants will swarm.

Surely it would not be too hard to write a script people could believe, rather than insist on the one that will reinforce the sense of disenfranchisement.

Feminist Critiques of Fiction Finally Good For Something

I gave the first season of Game of Thrones a shot- gave up when the Ned Stark character was killed. I was already not liking the sex and violence in the first season, but Stark was a sympathetic character, one with the potential to be heroic. So, I can take some of this crap that I don't like so much if we are establishing the opposing characters' evil ways and the like, but to drag me through all that and then I take away the one guy I can root for, well, I have other things to do with my time.

One of the things I find deeply concerning with SJW, feminist, and adolescent talk is how often it is centered on fiction. I remember coming across some nutcase dissecting a sci-fi film because a woman in the jungle had shaved armpits. Apparently she couldn't notice practically every ripped guy on film shaves his armpits too. It is doubtful the director is going to stop everything and force them to grow armpit hair for a more accurate portrayal of a dystopian future.

But perhaps these nonsensical critiques of fiction have finally brought something useful up- I stopped the violence long before the feminists did. I turned Game of Thrones off in 2011. The feminists, meanwhile, have enjoyed countless brutalities right up until recently.

So, presumably, if you want less violence, let me rule, and don't let feminists anywhere near the centers of power.

Monday, May 18, 2015


Matthew 5:22
But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca,’ shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, ‘Thou fool,’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

I wonder, sometimes, is there no way to hack the unfortunate.

Perhaps God gives us a chance here, since Raca is so unique. I am close enough to calling them fools already.

But can they think? Can they hear the word, remember the scripture, and reason backward from it, to understand what I mean?

Just today I've see two comments in various places from completely different people on different subjects- and it becomes so clear they don't have understanding of the words we are using to communicate to each other, much less are they capable of seeing my point, or the evidence to which I point them.

What is that?

Reason, children. Will I be condemned for calling you out, or not calling you out loudly enough?

Friday, May 15, 2015

This Week's Calculations

A very long time ago I came up with a number of 22,501 as a sort of upper limit for a local church, by which I meant one area with a bishop.

Now, following on my last calculations, it struck me that an area of forty thousand people, from that productivity angle, is probably a good one to be at, mainly because you have a one in four chance of actually being a productive member of society. When the odds are that good, you can generally delude yourself that you are, even if you aren't- and such a delusion is a good thing. One doesn't firebomb things one feels invested in.

Now, the church figure is based on the dunbar number and a view of confession as somewhat important to the spiritual growth to man- though I must confess confession has not done much for me, though I attribute that to the fact that most of my confessors had been imbued with thoroughly modern ideas, and the idea that there were too many of them, as well. I hypothesize that if you have one decent confessor for your whole life then perhaps there would actually be some spiritual direction and spiritual growth, rather than what happens today where you go to confession merely to list your sins and if you want spiritual direction you go talk to a communist nun- well, until you get wise to the nonsense.

Anyway, the church number is near enough to half of forty thousand, and it might be good to have two bishops in the same realm so as to keep them from getting pretentious, or, if they should get pretentious, let them do so against each other.

I like how the two numbers sort of dovetail. Productivity, a local economy- well, it is tricky because one can't always tell who is who, and principles of economics necessitate a hands off approach. I do, however, think more and more that although the general idea of free trade is well in good in theory, in practice a local economy is likely better because if you actually want to be free, you have to figure out how to keep your actions opaque to the tyrants.

There was a recent case in Kentucky about an off grid family getting torn apart by the CPS. I don't know if it is really as bad as was written, but it did seem to bring home to me again that we don't have mechanisms anymore for making people who don't understand things like the Consitution stop. They get power, they do what they want, and if a court rules against them, they keep doing what they want, but they just change the language of whatever it is they want to do.

In Louisiana, for instance, we have gaming, which looks exactly like gambling except that it can't be gambling because gambling is illegal whereas gaming is not. The situation is even worse in other areas, because how many people are actually capable of even putting on a multi-million dollar defense of themselves- and then there is no guarantee that the courts are going to reaffirm the previous ruling, either. They may accept the new language, especially if the new generation of judges are influenced by the degenerate times much as the CPS and cops must be.

Anyway, there ought to be someone to show up and make them stop, but we can't do that. We can't even put up a show like the progressives do, because we have actual jobs and responsibilities. I suppose we could call up the cultural Marxists and ask to hire their mobs for a couple of days, but they are likely to botch it up.

Friday, May 8, 2015

Crunching Productivity Numbers For America

Athrelon's post at More Right had me fooling around with the calculator again:

The hypothesis is that only a relatively small proportion of the population is actually causally responsible for economic growth. Unlike the original John Galt, I don’t think these people are so few in number they could hide a tiny village in Colorado. In fact I’m probably a little less extreme than Michael Vassar, who claims that about 1% of the population could run the entire economy. But it certainly seems that income inequality understates how much people vary in the ability to create value. Conservatively, one might estimate that a third of the population is necessary to run the economy.

Since I found that paper- Metcalfe's Law Is Wrong, and realized what was contained within it could be applied to real populations long ago, I suddenly realized I had an equation with which to evaluate this Weak Galt Hypothesis:

n * log(n)=319,000,000 (google currently places the American population at 318.9 million)

Unfortunately, there are huge gaps in my knowledge. Instead of simply and cleanly solving this equation, I had to do some ball park guessing and then hone in on an answer with my calculator program. If you know how to just solve this equation, please let me know in the comments. Anyway, I did come up with a number:


Or just about 15% of the American population.

Arguably the actual percentage of productive citizens in America may be lower, since the global dominance of the dollar and American finance tends to recruit all the productive people in the world to prop up our standard of living. There is a limitation to how far it can drop even with global support- we need productive people in proximity to us to actually provide us with stuff. I don't know if the shipyard strikes are still going on on the West Coast, but as far as I know, ships full of other people's products have been languishing upon the seas, and not getting to us, which provides some evidence that you need people at least functional enough to move the stuff.

What I find interesting about 15% is, although it is a low percentage, it would still be the same percentage if we were at the same population and doing quite well. Today, we can tell a huge chunk of us aren't the 15%, and a huge chunk of the 85% is downright destructive, but in a healthy society the 85% would be engaged in various forms of experimentation, and no doubt there would be a huge market in intangibles. Indeed, if one were to look to the past, and remember all the monasteries of the past, not as some means of oppression, but as providing certain intangible goods, one could begin to understand that the productive class may well stay small in relation to the overall population even in a healthy society.

So, if the larger, seemingly superfluous group innovates, then it becomes quite worth it to the smaller productive class, assuming those innovations provide improvements to one's quality of life. One can tell rioting does not provide much in the way of innovation. I do realize a lot of poorly educated people don't understand what the monks, or religion had to do with innovation, but if the historians of the future are honest, they draw a strong correlation between the loss of Christianity and the faltering of innovation, and strongly imply a causation.

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Home Production Superior To Protests

After watching Tales From The Green Valley, I found myself thinking about how, in our modern world, more home production means less tax money for the government. With the government doing massive amounts of stuff we don't want, whether we are right, left, or have fallen off the line, it seems to make sense that we'd have a moral imperative to produce more things for ourselves, away from the the tax structures. I have always been quite in agreement with the standard libertarian argument against the local movement, which is that transportation costs are only one among many, which is true, but increasingly irrelevant in this modern world. Transportation allows for the application of tax, and tax allows for the implementation of evil practices.

The flip side of all this is that the modern system rewards people who go into debt and make everything imminently taxable. People using cash may just have it stolen by the DEA, and if not, they continually experience the theft of valuation, as the Fed and the banking industry continually create more currency. The system rewards debt holders, not asset holders. Mark Shepard advocates using this system to build the businesses, and get to the point where you can actually buy a farm. I see this as a legitimate strategy, most likely the best one most of us have right now.

But I also see how, at a certain point, how you would want to go opaque. If you like your alcoholic beverages, well, it should not escape your notice that you pay a lot of taxes, not only sales tax, but the price reflects various and sundry taxes and fees the brewery had to absorb. If you eat meat, well, most meat is passed through a very government regulated- and therefore an obvious place to tax- slaughterhouse.

Sure, in some cases a locally or home produced product isn't going to be as good as something we could just buy, but if you don't like something your government is doing, maybe you can make do with the a lesser product. Besides, in many cases the local product will be superior, especially if it is made by some enthusiast rather than somebody drudging on an assembly line for wages.

What do protests do? Well, I think they play right into the hands of the elite in this country, and encourage most middling Americans to think the militarization of cops might be a good thing. Nothing changes, except the same people who had too much power yesterday get even more tomorrow.

To take away their power you have to stop plugging into what makes them powerful. All this said, admittedly it takes time and careful planning to make an exit. I am not sure how to get there myself. One of the problems is that the 40hr work week makes it tough do manage much more than cooking for yourself- once you realize you should cook for yourself.

Monday, April 27, 2015

A Clergyman Steps In The Right Direction

Byzantine, Texas has given me the news, that an Orthodox priest is no longer requiring or signing marriage licenses:

Because the State of Illinois, through its legislature and governor's office, has now re-defined marriage, marriage licenses issued by agencies of the State of Illinois will no longer be required (or signed) for weddings here at All Saints in Chicago," he wrote in the parish newsletter.

Father Patrick Henry Reardon wrote these words to his parishioners in the parish newsletter. This is good. I think it is somewhat unfortunate that it takes until now, that more clergy have not noticed the destructive purposes to which the state has put the marriage license, but it is something. I do hope others follow suit, and bishops begin agreeing with this as well.

There would need to be some legal advice as well- spouses would no doubt need power of attorney, at the very least, and perhaps a partnership through which to hold and develop assets for the children.

This is one of the many things sorely needed, because you can't fight the good fight when your own people expose you to injury.

A step in the right direction. Let's hope it is the beginning of a long walk, and not merely a step.