Thursday, February 11, 2016

Fighting The Last War

Alasdair MacLeod put up an article called Shorting the Yuan is Dangerous. Not only does he explain the situation, but he provides a link to PLA Strategist: The U.S. Uses Its Dollar to Dominate the World. Both are worth reading, the latter particularly so because it indicates the way in which China views recent history, and suggests it's recent actions in the market are not the silly anti-market communist moves our media suggests, but an attempt at self defense.

The PLA strategist associates a pattern of history with the rise and fall of the dollar. These correspond with periods of foreign investment, followed by a flight of capital back to America, usually associated with some sort of regional disturbance. Basically, in period one, we get plenty of goods (because most of the manufacturing is in foreign lands now) and in period two we get a strong dollar. After a cycle of this type, the assets still in these foreign lands become very cheap, so there is always a potential for a repeat of the same project.

In practice, this is mostly right. I don't know how coherent the elites in America are- do they plan this stuff or is it the resultant of the ebb and flow of power to different individuals over time? In any case, the cause for true free trade is severely weakened, because USG describes free trade as whatever happens to be in their interests. The Chinese see the dollar game as integral to the rise of America as a superpower, and they would like to imitate it, so that they too can rise.

The unquestionable game ender will be getting off the fiat currencies. Gold is a known, Bitcoin a bit riskier, but both better than a fiat currency. If there really as many Chinese bitcoin holders behind the Great Firewall of China as the recent dust up about bitcoin implies, then China may be in a unique position to benefit if Bitcoin becomes more viable.

But this is the last war.

The greatly devalued thing, since the dawn of the revolutionary movements, has been intelligent people. I have heard the Chinese are on top of this, doing some serious research into geniuses. Unfortunately, I suspect their scientists- as many scientists do- think that the future is in things like gene splicing: basically genetically engineering new geniuses. In addition to being geniuses, I suspect many assume they will be able to edit out undesirable traits.

Which isn't going to happen.

The engineering part will lead to too many errors. Most of the dna research needs to be verified, since more and more people appear to be relying on computer modeling instead of actually testing, which is far more expensive. Additionally, intelligence comes with traits that some may attempt to edit out, but which should be handled via environment. So, to be blunt, someone has to start providing incentives for intelligent people to breed, and pay some attention to making a decent environment for these people. A decent environment, generally speaking, is one that makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint.

A few years ago I was at stoplight near a college when an Asian guy suddenly opened my driver's side door. He was in the middle of the street, freaking out. I drove to the grocery store (where I was going anyway) and told the police officer there about the guy in the street. He asked her to shoot him when she went out there to confront him. They brought him to the hospital, I am pretty sure, for the ambulance came before I got out of the store.

Probably a smart guy dealing with the evolutionary mismatch. It is almost like being a piece of technology yourself, that the people around you just sort of forgot how to use or take care of. A miracle more of us don't go nuts. Or maybe not, there probably aren't that many anymore. All of the incentives are to not have children if you are smart, and to have plenty and sign up for food stamps if you aren't. It's been like this for a while.

China has a head start, to some extent here too. IQ is apparently pretty high in Hong Kong.

Anyway, it will become more apparent in America, especially as more infrastructure starts falling apart. We need engineers who can rebuild bridges a lot more than we need these ersatz geniuses who have mastered the art of jacking up the stock price of some stupid social media company.

Friday, January 29, 2016

Where Dynasty Has Gone

It clicked when I was listening to Ascending the Tower, and they started talking about how much money is now wasted trying to eke a few more months of low quality existence from tail end of life. Now I understand why old folks don't act like Tobit, Jethro- nor would our modern elders be recognizable, except perhaps to the few drinking mercury laced potions in an effort to live forever. But the potion drinkers of the Orient still attended to dynastic concerns.

Essentially, our modern elders are trading dynasty for staying on, just a little longer. In some ways, I suppose I should count myself lucky, because, with the baby boomers looking everywhere for ways of increasing their lifespan and staying younger, maybe I can take advantage of this and still manage to have a family at some point in the future. Of course, I should not have to employ the strategy of outliving the stupid.

Interesting too, how the spiritual has been disinterred from the biological. There was some understanding in Christendom that the rich would give to the poor, and that the poor, in turn, would pray for their benefactors. And, naturally, a family would remember and pray for its ancestors, especially the one or ones that got them out of the poor house.

Now, great ancestors are maligned as robbers or thieves. Giving is often done in the most community destroying way possible- giving to people inimical to our way of life, propping up completely dysgenic and unsustainable modern ideologies.

They tell you do this, do that- whether it be church, school, parents, a supposed community, -whatever. I was amenable, but you get to the end where its obvious it is no longer what it purports to be, and we are used up for the lame revolutionary dreams of old fools.

A large part of the religions of the past was biological. People knew God was the God of the living, and that this was not something you could just abstract out to any living, but that you had a responsibility to your own. I know a lot of Protestants have problems with praying for the dead, but how I wish this mattered to these baby boomers. Can you imagine what would happen if they started thinking that was more important than all these other things?

It should be more important than many of these things. End of life care sucks. I'd prefer to be home, or in a forest somewhere, for my last remaining days.

I want to point out here, should this be mysterious to anyone, that most- at least, most above a certain IQ, tried for dynasty. I am not talking about everyone trying to vie for control over a country. Families all had different concerns, different ways of making a living, and different assets that they passed down to descendants over the generations, but the similarity was a view towards maintaining and improving the family's situation in the world.

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

The Future Is War

Proof that my bubble is a big bubble: Baseline Scenario's The Future Of the Democrat Party:

A lot of liberals like me spend our time wondering what the conservatives have done right—and why we can’t do it ourselves. The financial crisis and Great Recession should have debunked the ideology of deregulation, reinforced growing feelings of economic insecurity, and made people recognize the importance of the social safety net. Instead, we got the Tea Party and the most conservative Congress in living memory.

These people are living on a different planet, but they have similar issues as the average America conservative:

Voting for Hillary Clinton is doing the same thing one more time and hoping for a different outcome. Voting for Bernie Sanders is a way to show that liberals will stand up for their principles—while increasing the chances that the other side will control the White House for four years. That’s the choice we face. Conservatives in our position would go with principles. What will we do?

A vote for Bernie is a vote for honesty. Since these guys are on a different planet, they seem unable to realize most Republicans will serve them just as well as Hilary, probably better, since she's made a lot of enemies (many on her own side) who will seek to thwart her regardless.

But, what is crystal clear, is that they are upset they don't get more, when they should be amazed they've got away with what they have.

And that's why I suspect the future is war.

Being on the winning side is far from certain, especially since the right's idea of when to fight back appears to be never.

But nothing will stop these people. They don't blink at the constitution or anything else. They don't really care about anything but whatever is next on the progressive agenda.

Maybe I should change the title to, the future is wanton murder, since that is more likely. There may be battles, but it is likely to be brawls between two different Democrat constituencies- as they get ever more, they'll start to squabble over whose portion is 'fair.' Those armed in this country, are likely just to be demonized until the Feds feel they can shoot them in broad daylight, or maybe they'll just do a S.W.A.T. raid after dark, quietly surrounding your house with more arms than even the most ardent paramilitary type could hope to match.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

We Are Our Own Problem

I'm going to use the Koch brothers as an example, because they have money and are supposedly right wing libertarians or whatever. Suppose they gave up on politics. Just stopped sending the checks to D.C.

And then they did a little searching for an ideal place for a city. Doesn't have to be here necessarily. They want low profile- most people who learn about it are already into the stuff the Koch brothers are into. They'd also probably want it to be easily defensible- but they are the Koch brothers, they could probably buy the local government off and have some mercenary outfit providing a defense that's practically invisible.

So they get infrastructure going and get people there. As a practical matter, you need some local economic stuff, to go along with whatever global economic stuff.

My guess is the Koch's could achieve more, far more than they ever did dumping money into D.C. They aren't perfect, but their libertarian mindset would likely mean economic growth- assuming they aren't so vain as to think they can turn a city full of 70IQ people into an economic miracle. So, assuming they pick people who have enough agency to self-govern, it ought to work.

So, I suspect a lot of the types who tell me we need to 'engage society' or whatever are actually people who are propping up the things they claim they don't like. Incidentally, Trump has disproven the Koch brother's power in D.C.- they don't like Trump, but their machinations, at least so far, have been unable to influence anything.

To build a city, even just to start- it takes resources, but it takes more than that. You have to walk away from the old to establish the new. Your assets need to go to the new. How long could you handle having to send tax to two jurisdictions? Even if you don't have tax in the new, still, that's money going away from the new to prop up the old. For the sake of peace, you may go on paying the tax to the old, but one of the goals would be to get strong. You want to be able to stop- preferably peaceably as well, and being obviously able to defend yourself certainly helps.

Anyway, did anyone actually take the Benedict Option? I doubt it. Our comfort is still derived from this society, not the one we haven't made yet.

An interesting possibility is in real estate development. Maybe if it is already there- already looking good, people would take the plunge. I have noticed while looking at permaculture stuff, as well as those who like locally produced products, that there are the people who can actually do those things, and then everybody else with modern jobs and stuff who mostly just dream, like me. Although I like to think I can do, I have been blessed with the ability to doubt myself, as well as plenty of evidence before my eyes that many people can't do. Additionally, I have noticed fewer and fewer people actually want to own anything, given insurance, taxes, possibly legal issues, etc... I think, especially with those interested in locally produced stuff, one could create a development to attract them. Many of them have good jobs and a lot of money, and they appear very interested in driving a local economy- which provides the locality with a bit more resilience than, say, the average American city, which will supposedly be out of food if the trains and trucks stop going for three days.

# Of course, I say 'we' with much ambivalence. Is it no wonder we have such words as cuckservative and churchian to distinguish ourselves from the noisemakers who seem to be making similar noises?

Monday, January 25, 2016

A Bad Environmental Assumption That Both the Left and Right Have

Over the weekend I was listening to something, I think put out by CATO, on GMOs. They had some Monsanto guy on there and then some woman who talked entirely to much about constructing a regulatory system that would include people's 'voice.'

So, yeah, it sucked. No talk about how pernicious the patenting system with regard to these things are, or how they modify so that the crop can sit in more of their chemicals. Like all scientific techniques, one can see how it could be used for good, and for ill, but- especially in big ag- the incentives are not good.

One of the underlying issues that seem to be assumed by most on the spectrum of American politics is that land taken out of production is good. The left seems to imagine it being returned to some primordial forest. I am not sure what the right imagines, but it does seem like they like wildlife, parks, hunting, etc...
and they appear to be especially quick to point out that they expect to be able to provide more food with less land in production with modern technology.

I no longer think this is a good model for a healthy environment. Take the prairie lands, for instance. Most of what the U.S. government has placed under its protection has ended up a desertified mess. The prairie lands were ecologically functional when wild ruminant herds roamed through them. These herds were constantly under predatory threat, so they acted in certain ways. They kept themselves bunched up together and moved more often. It turns out the grasses need these wild ruminant herds in order to grow optimally, so it also turns out the way to make that biome sound is to put ruminant animals on that land and graze them in a way that mimics wild animals.

There are many biomes. The premise is the same in all of them- figure out how to mimic what worked. In some cases, this will look like an actual farm, but in others it could be a minimally managed wildlife system. It would be 'in production' because there would be some form of harvest available.

With this model, not only do you have more food for the people, you have more things for the people to do. Much of the mainstream talk on this seems to center around crowding us into tiny areas, and having our food grown on ever smaller acreage- just bad thinking which will probably result in soylent green (the people variety).

The appropriate approach is people, on the land, with a coherent understanding of how to keep their environment working.

Friday, January 22, 2016

Standing Against, Rather Than Standing For

David Boaz at Cato joins the National Review cuckservatives against Trump:

The National Review symposium was posted last night at 10 p.m., and I took note of it on Facebook and Twitter. It drew a lot of reaction. And I must say, I was surprised by how many of the responses, especially on Twitter, were openly racist and anti-Semitic.

You shouldn't be- here's why. You are allegedly a libertarian. You should have some understanding of the need for just behavior. So, we see several decades of open, systematic discrimination against whites. We see constant attacks on all rights, but in this particular case we see the right to freedom of association and private property have been consistently broken by this government. So, when you see openly racist and anti-Semitic crap, you should realize this is part and parcel of the injustice these people feel.

Which leads me to the crux of the title. The conservatives have spent absolutely no time actually standing for their people. The libertarian may occasionally defend freedom of association and private property, but more often he is defending open borders in a country that continually infringes on freedom of associate and private property, so the injustices simply increase, and neither citizen or immigrant can make free transactions. The government and a tiny elite class benefit from the immigration problem, while the rest of us suffer.

Additionally, there appears to be this inability to notice that Democrats are happily importing people who will vote for them, rather than going quietly into the night, like they should have.

I don't plan to vote for Trump because I know he doesn't hold my principles, but I don't stand against him. I don't vote for anyone. We have not had a legitimate nominee in quite sometime- the parties seem to insist on nominating people who cheerfully promise to violate the Constitution.
I don't stand against Trump because there is no way you can tell me he would be worse than any of them on either side of the aisle. He may not do well, but on practically any issue I tune in on, he actually provides something that sounds sensible- at least in the short term. One could reasonably assume he would kill the fewest people, given that his foreign policy statements seem much less warlike than what the rest of the Republican candidates (and Hilary) have said.

But, instead of being honest about it, you play this negative card. You stand against. You have nothing to stand for. Nor do you or any of the candidates have any record to stand on, which is another reason why Trump can make so much hay. You have to take care of your people. If you don't, you lose. You can't make convenient excuses to yourself about how this or that person is racist, or even just a man, like Tucker Carlson did, and it doesn't really matter. I didn't see it coming either, but now that is it here, it seems obvious- the left has been propagandizing identity politics for years; they just tried to pretend white identity was off limits. So, you get guys rejecting the left, but not necessarily able to do deprogramming on themselves.

You are probably done, now, already. The cake is already baking. If you are not done, if you can save your careers- the way lies in taking care of your people. Maybe this thought comes easier to me because I am an elder brother, and have notice this is a role elder brother used to have, back when we weren't all a bunch of egalitarian idiots. Some of these guys are going to need their freedom of association and private property so that they can go off and have their all white community. Nothing else is going to heal them.

But what is also going to be funny, is all the black and latinos who vote for Trump too. The democrats who are just as fed up at the rank and file level anyone else. I can't imagine any of the democrat guys I know voting for Hilary, and Sanders only appeals to the hipsters.

No, I think this stand against Trump is likely a pretext for shenanigans. They will all circle their wagons and pretend they are right. Then they will betray the American people again. The concept of repentance is lost on these men.

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Ending The Constitutional Charade

Eric Raymond recently pointed out that while amending the Consitution is possible, reducing or removing the freedoms of which it speaks is impossible:

An underappreciated fact about U.S. Constitutional law is that it recognizes sources of authority prior to the U.S. Constitution itself. It is settled law that the Bill of Rights, in particular, does not confer rights, it only recognizes “natural rights” which pre-exist the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and which – this is the key point – cannot be abolished by amending the Constitution.

Well, yes, but something I have not really thought of, mainly because I figure the idiots will just do whatever it is they want to do.

Amendment of the Constitution cannot abolish a right that was not granted by the Constitution in the first place.

Okay. So, I can follow this. The big question is, how many Americans can? If there are enough Americans who can follow it, then lets call that second Convention as fast as possible. Whatever the delegates do, the Federal government will no longer be able to incrementally creep forward on destroying our freedoms.

To my mind anything that did not solidify our freedoms would solidify the opposition, and destablize the existing order. One hopes for peaceful decentralization, but barring that, a clear understanding of what is going on among as many people as possible would be helpful.