When I look at the current situation in Hong Kong, with mass demonstrations against China and the new extradition law that allows the Communist party to extradite anyone they want to the mainland for whatever purposes the Chinese government thinks pertinent, I think it is very likely they are in danger of creating the same situations U.S. forces created in small Iraqi towns, where they won every battle, but radicalized so many people so fast that they basically lost.
The behavior of the state must appear legitimate. In order to appear legitimate, there must be some level of proportionality.
I am certainly aware that the same forces that created the color revolutions in Eastern Europe could be in Hong Kong. But it is a mistake to imagine the protests and the hunger strike is merely fodder for Western media. The protests and the government response can easily contribute to the view that the government is immoral. This is the overall problem with the color revolutions, the leftist funded migrations, and many other events apparently encouraged by- at the very least- Hillary Clinton's state department (among others). While they no doubt felt themselves immune to the modern state's fall as any sort of entity of morality, they were in fact weakening themselves.
The state seems weak, and continues to do so, since Trump seemingly can't get the offenders put in jail, and must instead protest the poor treatment he has been subjected to in tweets. The border continues to be wide open, and foolishness continues to reign.
But what does that have to do with Hong Kong? Or China?
Ultimately, it's going to come down to a similar view. They refuse to follow the liberal lies, but they hold fast to the Communist moniker. Xi's already president for life; it would be better to be emperor, and dethrone all the lies. Because, after all, it was the Communists who taught our people the 'useful' lie, where they put you in a struggle session and force you to assent to a lie so that they know they can control you. A very short term usefulness, but one that leads to dysfunction.
And in this case, Hong Kong is easily ruled indirectly. The business interests and Asian family ties are predictable. What is predictable is governable.
But if the response to the government in the aftermath of these clashes is radicalization, and it certainly can be, then it becomes unpredictable. And folks from Hong Kong are far smarter than Iraqis. It is a mistake to think the overwhelming power China can bring to bear on the situation would result in something the Chinese government wants. If power alone were the answer, American meddling in the Middle East would not have been such an awful, pointless waste.
Thursday, June 13, 2019
Tuesday, May 21, 2019
The Danger Of Thinking You Are Above The Fray
Justin Amash is parroting Judge Andrew Napolitano's arguments about whether or not Trump obstructed justice. But in doing so, they have also allowed themselves to engage in a false detachment. They want to pretend that what they believe in and want can exist outside of the current left/right structure.
But the reality it that the right is mostly defined by the left. There's less conformity on the right, more diversity of opinion. We are not conceptualizing ourselves, after all, as a collective, whereas the left does, and therefore they sort of police themselves with a bit more zeal and self-righteousness.
So it is a mistake, at least until the left is truly defeated, and some sort of nobility exists, that you can step out of the left/right line. The left/right line will exist as long as the bureaucratic model of government exists. It can only die when a class of owners once again basically own the machinery of government, and can hold bureaucrats accountable.
The appropriate way to point out the tiny little kernel of truth that these two are throwing out, is via a critique of our justice system. Look, at what they do. They threw Martha Stewart in jail, after all. They failed to make a case on insider trading, but busted her for supposedly lying to the F.B.I.
So you can throw this principle out there with great force- that obviously various elements of the F.B.I. were attempting to construct a similar case against Trump.
What you don't do is say this should be countenanced. You should be saying we should make this kind of shit impossible. We should stop the swamp from being able to pull this kind of sham.
But of course, Amash and the judge are fucking up. They are showing the glaring similarity between Austrian economics based libertarians and the larger right- the conservative tendency to self-sabotage is right here at the gate.
Unless these two took this gig on as a way to help Trump- which is possible but unlikely, their behavior is unfathomably stupid. Amash will likely lose his seat. He will certainly get no help from Democrats. No libertarian goals will be upheld here, and the rest of the right will be trained to think these types of thinkers are dangerous and cannot be trusted.
But the reality it that the right is mostly defined by the left. There's less conformity on the right, more diversity of opinion. We are not conceptualizing ourselves, after all, as a collective, whereas the left does, and therefore they sort of police themselves with a bit more zeal and self-righteousness.
So it is a mistake, at least until the left is truly defeated, and some sort of nobility exists, that you can step out of the left/right line. The left/right line will exist as long as the bureaucratic model of government exists. It can only die when a class of owners once again basically own the machinery of government, and can hold bureaucrats accountable.
The appropriate way to point out the tiny little kernel of truth that these two are throwing out, is via a critique of our justice system. Look, at what they do. They threw Martha Stewart in jail, after all. They failed to make a case on insider trading, but busted her for supposedly lying to the F.B.I.
So you can throw this principle out there with great force- that obviously various elements of the F.B.I. were attempting to construct a similar case against Trump.
What you don't do is say this should be countenanced. You should be saying we should make this kind of shit impossible. We should stop the swamp from being able to pull this kind of sham.
But of course, Amash and the judge are fucking up. They are showing the glaring similarity between Austrian economics based libertarians and the larger right- the conservative tendency to self-sabotage is right here at the gate.
Unless these two took this gig on as a way to help Trump- which is possible but unlikely, their behavior is unfathomably stupid. Amash will likely lose his seat. He will certainly get no help from Democrats. No libertarian goals will be upheld here, and the rest of the right will be trained to think these types of thinkers are dangerous and cannot be trusted.
Monday, May 20, 2019
Dog Whistles Are Not For Dogs
Recently, I came across someone decent in one particular domain of reality, but he doesn't understand politics at all.
Seems quite anti-Trump, and actually thought it was a good idea that Macron won, because, of course, the original Le Pen was an anti-semite and Marine is, at the very least, tainted with his name.
Of course, to me, this is lunacy. Not that Marine is particularly good, or even that Trump is, but that compared to what we've been dealing with these past decades, well, they are preferable.
I think it would have probably been better for the world if we had had a Ron Paul presidency. I don't know how well he would have done, but again, he was the best choice out of the pool at the time. But if you remember much of anything, you'd remember he too was tarred with this anti-semite brush. Racist, crazy, etc...
And now we've got Trump. A billionaire capable of jumping over all the barriers erected to avoid a Ron Paul ever again. Still a civic nationalist, still obviously not the racist the media makes him out to be.
But what if he is thwarted? Or, more importantly, what do the people do if they see their political will being thwarted? Hint- they aren't going to stop trying to change things. They can see the injustice done against themselves. It is preferable that we use peaceful means to solve these problems.
Anyway, we have a three groups of people- or perhaps three ways of looking at things. There are nomads. There are people who stay on the land and try to build something. And then there are bureaucrats. There are good and bad of every type, except for the last, because the good bureaucrat was left in the past, back when they were actually working for a particular noble and could be held immediately accountable for whatever bad decision they made. Now they pretend to work 'for the people'. And, even when they are trying to be good, they tend to insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions.
Additionally, the modern politician has learned to completely avoid any accountability democracy might have in it by taking from their citizens and catering to nomads. There are good nomads and bad ones- and I am sure this would be interpreted as a dog whistle. It is not- it is an attempt at explaining a point to the leftist. How the fuck will anything you build, any city, any culture, anything at all- survive this game? The politicians burn through what our forefathers gave us, and move new people in to replace us, and we can't even get infrastructure replaced properly. One must at least make a distinction between those who complement whatever it is the people are trying to do in a particular region and the nomads who would rape and pillage.
This is not just a problem for the right. A completely crazy left wing collective cannot survive what is being perpetrated upon us. None of the kibbutzim could survive. And yet every time someone tries to understand where you are coming from and tries to construct and argument that you might understand, you shut down dialog. Oh, that's a dog whistle. No it's not. Dogs are easier to communicate with. We don't need new language for dogs.
Seems quite anti-Trump, and actually thought it was a good idea that Macron won, because, of course, the original Le Pen was an anti-semite and Marine is, at the very least, tainted with his name.
Of course, to me, this is lunacy. Not that Marine is particularly good, or even that Trump is, but that compared to what we've been dealing with these past decades, well, they are preferable.
I think it would have probably been better for the world if we had had a Ron Paul presidency. I don't know how well he would have done, but again, he was the best choice out of the pool at the time. But if you remember much of anything, you'd remember he too was tarred with this anti-semite brush. Racist, crazy, etc...
And now we've got Trump. A billionaire capable of jumping over all the barriers erected to avoid a Ron Paul ever again. Still a civic nationalist, still obviously not the racist the media makes him out to be.
But what if he is thwarted? Or, more importantly, what do the people do if they see their political will being thwarted? Hint- they aren't going to stop trying to change things. They can see the injustice done against themselves. It is preferable that we use peaceful means to solve these problems.
Anyway, we have a three groups of people- or perhaps three ways of looking at things. There are nomads. There are people who stay on the land and try to build something. And then there are bureaucrats. There are good and bad of every type, except for the last, because the good bureaucrat was left in the past, back when they were actually working for a particular noble and could be held immediately accountable for whatever bad decision they made. Now they pretend to work 'for the people'. And, even when they are trying to be good, they tend to insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions.
Additionally, the modern politician has learned to completely avoid any accountability democracy might have in it by taking from their citizens and catering to nomads. There are good nomads and bad ones- and I am sure this would be interpreted as a dog whistle. It is not- it is an attempt at explaining a point to the leftist. How the fuck will anything you build, any city, any culture, anything at all- survive this game? The politicians burn through what our forefathers gave us, and move new people in to replace us, and we can't even get infrastructure replaced properly. One must at least make a distinction between those who complement whatever it is the people are trying to do in a particular region and the nomads who would rape and pillage.
This is not just a problem for the right. A completely crazy left wing collective cannot survive what is being perpetrated upon us. None of the kibbutzim could survive. And yet every time someone tries to understand where you are coming from and tries to construct and argument that you might understand, you shut down dialog. Oh, that's a dog whistle. No it's not. Dogs are easier to communicate with. We don't need new language for dogs.
Monday, April 8, 2019
Another biblical reference to debt.
In the morning, I was thinking about the currently insane economics of the world, and I thought about a biblical passage:
The weird thing is, in our crazy world, this is a few steps away from a business model. Old debt can be repackaged into new debt. And if these sociopathic finance guys could think long term, there is a value to finding and shepherding people with good credit through the minefields. There's a weird sort of pathway that people don't explain, where you get good personal credit, then you start a company and have good company credit- hopefully, at some point you have at least enough revenue to pretend its a legit business. But in ancient, more truly capitalist terms, none of this makes sense, because debt obliterates any price signal.
In what may be serendipity, I found out that Vox addressed some of this:
Apparently, while trying to figure out how debt is distorting the economy and what was historically done with debt to relieve some of those distortions, Vox keeps getting people popping up and saying all debt relief is socialist. Socialism is a relatively new phenomenon and debt has existed for all of known history, so we can be relatively sure these are uniformed comments.
Jesus told his disciples: “There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. 2 So he called him in and asked him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.’
3 “The manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I’m not strong enough to dig, and I’m ashamed to beg— 4 I know what I’ll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.’
5 “So he called in each one of his master’s debtors. He asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’
6 “‘Nine hundred gallons[a] of olive oil,’ he replied.
“The manager told him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred and fifty.’
7 “Then he asked the second, ‘And how much do you owe?’
“‘A thousand bushels[b] of wheat,’ he replied.
“He told him, ‘Take your bill and make it eight hundred.’
8 “The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. 9 I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.
The weird thing is, in our crazy world, this is a few steps away from a business model. Old debt can be repackaged into new debt. And if these sociopathic finance guys could think long term, there is a value to finding and shepherding people with good credit through the minefields. There's a weird sort of pathway that people don't explain, where you get good personal credit, then you start a company and have good company credit- hopefully, at some point you have at least enough revenue to pretend its a legit business. But in ancient, more truly capitalist terms, none of this makes sense, because debt obliterates any price signal.
In what may be serendipity, I found out that Vox addressed some of this:
Apparently, while trying to figure out how debt is distorting the economy and what was historically done with debt to relieve some of those distortions, Vox keeps getting people popping up and saying all debt relief is socialist. Socialism is a relatively new phenomenon and debt has existed for all of known history, so we can be relatively sure these are uniformed comments.
Friday, April 5, 2019
A Wayward Child of God
I've decided to stop paying attention to Bruce Charlton. It's kind of sad because I want content, but increasingly it seems obvious I should be making it instead, given the poor quality of what is out there. Not that it would necessarily be popular...
Anyway, as should be obvious to anyone with a bible, nowhere has Jesus asked you for a personal relationship. There are various formal relationships- and much like one particular formal relationship- marriage- one might assume something 'personal' may grow out of it.
But I gave proofs- mainly that the use of the term 'personal relationship with Jesus' has risen, and at the very same time, the number of people falling away from Christianity has also risen. These are two phenomena I believe are quite connected.
And Charlton could have delineated himself from this evangelistic craze- instead he suggested the evangelicals he met were good people. Well, sure- good people who fail at their stated purpose. Are they good people? Is this not an unbiblical statement as well?
They are certainly not an effective people for failing at their stated goals. Their goal is to evangelize and they have failed.(Christianity is falling to even keep its own children.) We cannot definitively state that they are good people, but we can figure that they made Charlton feel good.
And feels are at the root of this problem, because for every comment, I received these psychological projections- in the first, I am somehow imputing something, and in the last I am not understanding. In both instances the reality is ignored. Again, delineation from this 'personal relationship with Jesus' message should be very easy- even a helpful exercise, yet he did not bother.
This is spoken in nearly all churches- the bureaucrats seem happy with it. Not just those in charge of churches, but governments as well. They prefer your religion to be personal and private, and not something to be brought up at all when they want to force you to do something against your religion.
But Charlton is in love with his own ideas. This is where the emotion comes from. He has made many mistakes, and playing with Christianity like some genius child without an elder to guide him. Responds with emotion because he interprets an attack on an idea as an attack on him.
Anyway, as should be obvious to anyone with a bible, nowhere has Jesus asked you for a personal relationship. There are various formal relationships- and much like one particular formal relationship- marriage- one might assume something 'personal' may grow out of it.
But I gave proofs- mainly that the use of the term 'personal relationship with Jesus' has risen, and at the very same time, the number of people falling away from Christianity has also risen. These are two phenomena I believe are quite connected.
And Charlton could have delineated himself from this evangelistic craze- instead he suggested the evangelicals he met were good people. Well, sure- good people who fail at their stated purpose. Are they good people? Is this not an unbiblical statement as well?
They are certainly not an effective people for failing at their stated goals. Their goal is to evangelize and they have failed.(Christianity is falling to even keep its own children.) We cannot definitively state that they are good people, but we can figure that they made Charlton feel good.
And feels are at the root of this problem, because for every comment, I received these psychological projections- in the first, I am somehow imputing something, and in the last I am not understanding. In both instances the reality is ignored. Again, delineation from this 'personal relationship with Jesus' message should be very easy- even a helpful exercise, yet he did not bother.
This is spoken in nearly all churches- the bureaucrats seem happy with it. Not just those in charge of churches, but governments as well. They prefer your religion to be personal and private, and not something to be brought up at all when they want to force you to do something against your religion.
But Charlton is in love with his own ideas. This is where the emotion comes from. He has made many mistakes, and playing with Christianity like some genius child without an elder to guide him. Responds with emotion because he interprets an attack on an idea as an attack on him.
Friday, March 29, 2019
Import the Third World, Be the Third World
I can't remember where I heard this, but it was a story about rich people India. The type of people who take helicopters to work in order to avoid the horrid streets, where poor people defecate because they don't have much of a choice. They are just that poor.
Similar things are a foot, or underfoot, in San Francisco. They can't keep the streets clean, yet the price of real estate edges ever higher, and the rich companies have various schemes for getting their employees to work safely.
I don't know the state of the streets and sewage in Mexico or much of Latin America, but I know there's a small upper class, and then everybody else. I was getting close to being able to read the language, but I was presented with a problem, not much in the way of great content out there in Spanish. Which suggests most people don't read, and the people rich enough to do either learn English or get translations of popular English stuff.
Anyway, this is either the plan or a very acceptable side effect of the plan.
It seems to me those who cry about inequality protest too much. If you've got some sort of merit, and could rise, if given a real chance to, well screw you. The rich don't want the competition. Seems kind of dumb in this age of genetics, but the elites seem hell bent on producing dull children. And the only way for those children to be in charge is to dumb down everyone else. Maddening.
Similar things are a foot, or underfoot, in San Francisco. They can't keep the streets clean, yet the price of real estate edges ever higher, and the rich companies have various schemes for getting their employees to work safely.
I don't know the state of the streets and sewage in Mexico or much of Latin America, but I know there's a small upper class, and then everybody else. I was getting close to being able to read the language, but I was presented with a problem, not much in the way of great content out there in Spanish. Which suggests most people don't read, and the people rich enough to do either learn English or get translations of popular English stuff.
Anyway, this is either the plan or a very acceptable side effect of the plan.
It seems to me those who cry about inequality protest too much. If you've got some sort of merit, and could rise, if given a real chance to, well screw you. The rich don't want the competition. Seems kind of dumb in this age of genetics, but the elites seem hell bent on producing dull children. And the only way for those children to be in charge is to dumb down everyone else. Maddening.
Monday, March 18, 2019
Concept Gym In Japan
I came across an interesting video a few days ago. I thought I'd post it and put a few thoughts below:
Although I am not very social, I did like the concept- given that like 99% of the world is more driven by socialization than I am and they obviously need some sort of social help to make improvements. Otherwise, everyone I know would be healthier.
The things I'd do differently:
1: a stronger emphasis on muscle. Don't get me wrong, a Japanese person would still look very slim. But at 6'3, I once got down to 164lbs, which felt like quite an accomplishment after having been an obese 285lbs. But I came to realize I needed to be somewhere near 200lbs. Many modern causes of death are preceded by muscle loss. I want enough muscle to increase the chances I'll be around if I have to deal with any of that stuff, but not so much that the mere act of eating enough to maintain that muscle becomes a full time job.
2: I noticed in some of the photos, they were hanging out, having a beer. To me, if people have internalized and understand diet, they'd likely be having dry wine, sake, or liquor. So, I'd want to educate somewhere along this low-carb paleo-ish thing that helped me so well, but what I really want, and would be trying to create, is a situation in which the client understood his or herself well enough to understand what works for them. This is a huge disconnect in modern life.
3: And speaking of modern life- I would emphasize the importance of circadian rhythm. Sunlight in the morning, no blue light at night, getting to bed at a reasonable hour, etc...
4: The fashion part seemed to be something their clients enjoyed, but it also seemed more like them being dressed in costumes by someone else, rather than developing a personal style. This was probably the most complicated part of the concept, and included designers, shopping, and getting that card, which seemed to give you more exclusive access to people you would theoretically need less if you had actually learned anything. Admittedly, the clients seemed to have a desire for social inclusion- which I would not put a very high price on. So, although it is a bit bewildering, this is likely the thing that if I were to change, I'd change last- after watching it for a long time, trying to figure out where the objective measures are.
Although I am not very social, I did like the concept- given that like 99% of the world is more driven by socialization than I am and they obviously need some sort of social help to make improvements. Otherwise, everyone I know would be healthier.
The things I'd do differently:
1: a stronger emphasis on muscle. Don't get me wrong, a Japanese person would still look very slim. But at 6'3, I once got down to 164lbs, which felt like quite an accomplishment after having been an obese 285lbs. But I came to realize I needed to be somewhere near 200lbs. Many modern causes of death are preceded by muscle loss. I want enough muscle to increase the chances I'll be around if I have to deal with any of that stuff, but not so much that the mere act of eating enough to maintain that muscle becomes a full time job.
2: I noticed in some of the photos, they were hanging out, having a beer. To me, if people have internalized and understand diet, they'd likely be having dry wine, sake, or liquor. So, I'd want to educate somewhere along this low-carb paleo-ish thing that helped me so well, but what I really want, and would be trying to create, is a situation in which the client understood his or herself well enough to understand what works for them. This is a huge disconnect in modern life.
3: And speaking of modern life- I would emphasize the importance of circadian rhythm. Sunlight in the morning, no blue light at night, getting to bed at a reasonable hour, etc...
4: The fashion part seemed to be something their clients enjoyed, but it also seemed more like them being dressed in costumes by someone else, rather than developing a personal style. This was probably the most complicated part of the concept, and included designers, shopping, and getting that card, which seemed to give you more exclusive access to people you would theoretically need less if you had actually learned anything. Admittedly, the clients seemed to have a desire for social inclusion- which I would not put a very high price on. So, although it is a bit bewildering, this is likely the thing that if I were to change, I'd change last- after watching it for a long time, trying to figure out where the objective measures are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)