Thursday, November 30, 2017

Political Word Association

The progressives try to associate Alt-Right with Nazi, but what does it really track with?

Anti-war.

There are those who get called alt-right and don't like it.
There are those who identify as alt-right and are probably genuinely right in a true political sense.
Then there are those whose ideas are mostly left, but are pro-white and/or nationalist. They identify as alt-right and they are also most likely to Seig Heil on camera.

But they are all anti-war, making even the supposed Nazis massively less Nazi than the Nazis.

So, perhaps the response to an accusatory 'Are you alt-right?' should be 'Are you pro-war?' and immediately go on to suggest the accuser is participating in the cover up of the largest anti-war movement in the history of man. Because they are, whether they intend to or not.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

A Weapon Formed Against Bitcoin

Last Saturday, Tyler Cowen posted his Saturday assorted links and this one was bothering me to go back and look at it:

The Bitcoin futures contract on the CME will have cash settlement, not Bitcoin settlement.

Tyler asks, "What should you infer from that?"

Well, apparently my mind has been cogitating on this one. Matt Levine sets it up in the article this way:

Ha, it's true. If you buy an oil futures contract on the CME, and you hold it when it expires, then someone hands you 1,000 barrels of oil, and you have to find a place to put them. If you buy a bitcoin futures contract, and you hold it when it expires, nobody hands you the 5 bitcoins underlying the contract. Instead, CME computes a daily "Bitcoin Reference Rate," "which aggregates the trade flow of major bitcoin spot exchanges during a calculation window into the U.S. Dollar price of one bitcoin as of 4:00 p.m. London time," and if the Bitcoin Reference Rate at the expiry of your futures contract is higher than the Bitcoin Reference Rate when you opened the contract, you get paid the difference (times 5), and vice versa. In dollars. You get exposure to bitcoin without ever actually handling bitcoins.

So, these futures contracts aren't futures contracts at all, but tools for global finance to fight back against bitcoin. In other words, they don't have to buy bitcoin while attempting to manipulate the bitcoin price.

I vaguely remember various speculations about financial and/or state action in particular markets- especially gold, oil- markets taken as indicators of general economic health- meant to prop up the current system. Well, these new bitcoin futures are arguably not futures at all, but tools actually designed to push bitcoin lower.

I wonder if these guys are just going to try and take it down, or will they attempt to drop the price, and then buy bitcoins when they are cheap.

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Time Is Less Real Than River

Time is less real than a river. This has to do with the fact that a river is bounded by other things. Indeed, a river must have water, but it must have water under particular conditions. And there are river banks made up of (not-river) soil, trees, grasses, etc...

So, time is basically a word that refers to our experience of movement. All things exist in relation to one another- some, being much bigger than others, exert a stronger force. Day, night, month, year- the influences of larger bodies on our own. But if you want to think about time in general, something becomes clear- there is no boundary- at least, not one like the riverbank.

Because, for instance, God cannot be analogous to the riverbank. He is everpresent, thus He is ever-present to both the river and the river bank- and all the actual things in time. There's simply no reason to assume He also has to be present to them in the aggregate as 'time', nor is there any evidence that there is anything to time apart from its parts.

Spatially bounded concepts seem more real, but this is because a place like France is more than just the space, but the things in it (as well as their relationships to one another). If you somehow removed everything, it would no longer be France. Similar things are true with a river.

I don't know if any of this is useful. After all, it is like a fish not only trying to describe water, but the fishbowl too. But I recently saw something disappointing on this topic, not least of which was that I and others had commented on a previous post about it, but it seemed not one of us had made an impression.

Friday, November 17, 2017

The Left Are Biological Heretics

The lies made in the attempt to derail Roy Moore's election are annoying in many ways. They shouldn't try to destroy a man like that. Additionally, if you pay attention, they lie about his dating life before he got married, and then call him a pedophile, even though their lies are not about children.

But an overall problem is the anti-biological assumptions. This is part of what, frankly, make these accusations sound wrong. We know this guy was dating with a view towards marriage, because he eventually got married. Plus, tended to ask parents if it was okay to date their daughters.

So, one can reasonable assume he was doing it right in terms of God and biology.

A young woman of childbearing age who actually gets a long with her own family, and shows signs of being able to do the sorts of things wives and mothers need to do- that is what men need. They do not need someone their own age. They do not need someone with a master's degree. They don't need anyone who has gone off and 'found themselves'.

Now, yes, there are obviously men who don't want what they need, and prefer instead to do various and sundry things, up to and including doing inappropriate things with teenagers.

But those are leftists, whether or not they have an ideology, because they are trying to avoid having to deal with consequences personally.

Well, we are dealing with consequences collectively. America gets dumber. People continue to make poor choices. This is confused with progress, but the very words via which our society is slowly being destroyed betrays that lie. We could do analysis of various and sundry rulings since the beginning of the U.S. until now- and I am sure the grammar, vocabulary, etc...- will suggest the trend is towards dumb rather than away from it.

Spandrell's Biological Leninism explains what's gong on:

The point again is, that you can’t run a tight, cohesive ruling class with white men. They don’t need to be loyal. They’ll do ok anyway. A much easier way to run an obedient, loyal party is to recruit everyone else. Women. Blacks. Gays. Muslims. Transexuals. Pedophiles.

But, in the long run, nobody does ok anyway. Because redistribution of status screws things up. It leads to assets being wasted on stupid things. It is dysgenic. It leads to less and less innovation.

And then, eventually, you run out of people who can make things work.

Monday, November 6, 2017

More On The 'Belief' Test

People don't understand how similar science and religion are. Before this bureaucratic age, there was a similar process, just different domains. Where did the scientific process come from? From theology. People would have various and sundry mystical experiences. They were generally encouraged not to be too attached to these experiences- not to believe them but to wait. Did it conform with tradition (which includes scripture, a point that should be obvious, but is not in this age)? And is there truth to it- what is it's fruit? One has to be extra especially careful about this because sometimes even the truth can be used to ill effect.

Hubris can be fed, if nothing else...

But as I was driving home a few days ago, I thought about vaccines, and this unfortunate modern need for everybody to 'believe' this or that so we can all settle out on either side of an issue. Of course, this is retarded, and vaccines are a product. And I bet like many products that go into our bodies, an 'organic' product would probably sell well.

Because, in real life, the people aren't worried about their beliefs. They are worried about their children. It's the people who want to control us who care about whether or not we believe stuff.

These are similar processes, but now they are both being messed up. The scientific process and the theological one are now subsumed by this addiction to belief first.

Thursday, November 2, 2017

Can Bitcoin Survive Nuclear War?

Technically, it could, so I guess the more appropriate question is, is anyone making sure it could?

The internet itself was meant to be robust from attack, and then businesses got a hold if it- now it isn't even clear how robust various parts of the internet are. There have been shutdowns, sometimes of whole countries, when this or that cable gets cut- accidentally or otherwise. The original idea was something more decentralized, and if one cable got cut, there'd be other ways to route the traffic. It is much less of a net than it was supposed to be.

So, bitcoin exists on top of this less robust than ideal internet, and then it follows the distribution of those actually interested enough to download the full ledger.

Turns out someone is trying to track this with a map.

I don't know if they've thought about the survival aspect of it. Their map does show the sort of clustering susceptible to nuclear attack.

If you view this from a network value perspective, and should we assume it just continues to climb higher, there should be an impetus to have full nodes in more out of the way places. There should also be more basic internet infrastructure work done, to remove chokepoints, and create the robust, decentralized structure that was intended. It will be interesting to see if how this is handled, or if it is actually handled at all, as Bitcoin continues to increase in value.

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Post 2008 Suspicions

I will readily admit this is a jump to major conclusions type of deal. I am not even saying any of the people I reference have any clue.
But heres the deal- 2008 the world learns about "Too big to fail." Corporations already knew about lobbying tending to be more lucrative than whatever one's original business was.
Many also already knew they could, as large businesses, accept regulatory (and other costs) demands imposed by the governement, and in return they would be safe from competitive pressure. But "too big to fail" is another level.

And I am convinced that somehow, many businesses- very probably these large social media companies with valuations that make no sense from any economic perspective- are shaping American politics explicitly to gain a "too big to fail" status.

Most of the alternatives political positions that have sprouted since 2008 are sympathetic to large socialist government action, such as socialized healthcare and ideas like the universal basic income. Additionally, there's this recurring issue of people being shut down by various social media outlets, which in turn, leads to calls for social media companies to be regulated. A regulated Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc...- being treated as a utility means they would basically have a monopoly and be relatively immune to competitive from smaller, more innovative competitors. Additionally, since these guys are basically communications for a planet, that means they can figure out who to persuade to make them TBTF, and suddenly the American people will pay for the bad risks that they take, much like we pay for the financier's bad risks.

Below is commentary on an interview of Richard Spencer done by Bombard's body language. It is very interesting; she feels the whole thing is basically improvisational acting. Of course, my question is why? There's not much there except a European identity, which, frankly, doesn't even work in Europe because European identity is based on much smaller regions- as we can see with the Catalans, Venetians, Scottish, etc...



I have always noticed that this identity stuff should be met with a admission that our rights are violated and we need private property and freedom of association back. But this is seldom mentioned. Instead we have people who accept a high level of socialism on 'both sides.' If this is an artificial discussion created and paid for by wealthy people who want to use government to defend, maintain, and improve the position they are already in, well, then this starts to make more sense.