Monday, July 27, 2015

Crimes Motivated By Love

That Dylan Storm Roof guy was indicted on a federal level largely for the 'hate.' The confederate flag is stated to be a symbol of hate. And any sort of christian morality passed down from parent to child is considered hate, especially among the transgendered/gay movements.

In more sane times, people were aware of the fact that parents generally told their children what to do because they loved their children.

It occurs to me there are more crimes now, more worrying crimes, happening because of love now. If those who love you are so misinformed, then their crimes are visited upon you with out the early warning system that hate provides.

Rather high on the list is mothers who send their children to psychiatrists and psychologists. The drugs the psychiatrists provide alter neurochemistry and tend to create a less than favorable metabolic environment, rendering children even more likely to be fat, unhappy, and likely to get detached enough from other people to do things a normal biological level of empathy tend to keep in check. Additionally, counselling is the progressive version of confession, although, instead of confessing sins, they generally encourage them. A while back I watched a bunch of crap with Slavoj Žižek and some of his fellow philosphers in it, and they use counselling as part of their religious practice- and believe me this is a religious practice. It is an article of faith among them that all families are dysfunctional. Continuous therapy is necessary to maintain whatever passes for equilibrium in the progressive mind. Otherwise something entirely akin to repentance might set in.

Recently Vox Day posted about Moira Greyland, in which she appears to confirm a similar mentality among the rainbow crazies- basically that everything will be wonderful if children are habituated to deviancy, and it is only the horrible old family unit holding everyone back from a sexual utopia.

Recently, I was considering something else- namely how many people I know who are Christian, appear to love Jesus, and yet think/say He is a revolutionary. This is, at the very least, blasphemy. Heresy too, but hey, we are in multi-denominational land here, and we've got to discriminate a little bit between the mostly idiotic masses and the few genuine thinkers who might be honored with and/or actually deserve the label of heresy.

Anyway, it is an objective blasphemy, yet this blasphemy is often spoken in love. Most people are vaguely aware that things should be different, and can't imagine a massive change happening on such a scale not being a revolution. The net effect is highly damaging to Christianity; whatever last year's progressive got pushed through societal institutions tend to be defended as part of Christianity.

Wherever you see the word hate in modern discourse, you see a progressive propagandistic statement. DSR's crimes are what they are, whether he hated, loved, or was indifferent. Additionally, the continued mantra about hate is an attempt to push all progressives along- including so-called Christians. Who else could this be for? People who actually hate don't care. It's people who don't hate and don't want to be associated with hate who care, and those people are precisely this great wobbly mass of people who love Jesus but apparently don't know Him well enough to understand revolutionaries are against Him, not for Him.

In this day and age, you almost have to worry more about what's done in love. It won't be too long until killing under certain circumstances will be considered loving. Progressives don't have to get rid of Christianity- they just have to tweak it a little, and they already have gnostic thought to draw on.

Friday, July 24, 2015

Discrimination & Differentiation

As people are noticing, if you believe marriage is what it is despite what the government says you are now cast out amongst the racists.

Discrimination is critical to differentiation and differentiation is critical to life. Stem cells are basically free, it appears they decide things autonomously- but they decide based on what is around them. This is why your eye doesn't end up in your foot.

Modern law, especially the anti-discrimination kind, is akin the sort of stuff cancer does. Cancer cells don't differentiate very well. They just like to grow, and they'll do stuff like encourage blood vessel growth because they want nutrition. This would be good to remember next time you see government/society doing something good- maybe it is genuinely a good thing, maybe it's snaking a few more blood vessels through the dying host to redirect a little bit more stuff their way.

Most of these issues are based on an underlying assumption that fairness is a goal that is worth pursuing. Perhaps it is, but you have to be, in some sense, unfair in order to pursue it. There are a few people- like me- who can think abstractly enough to imagine a fair construct and then pursue it. There will not be equal outcomes, but there could be a genuine and logical attempt to keep all equal before my court. I was going to say 'before the law' but that opens up a need to explain more stuff since it certainly wouldn't be the law I just said was wrong and probably not law as most people are familiar with.

The masses, however, consistently emote. Especially among feminist and minority advocates. What actually happened matter significantly less than what they feel. Otherwise, how can you explain the 'black lives matter' movement, which appears to appeal for the sort of things that will increase death?

I am beginning to think that it doesn't mean what a person who wants to keep people alive would think it means, but instead it means the sort of thing Che Guevara might say, that they matter in service to the revolution. Che was always happy to kill another person for the revolution. He certainly thought it mattered. I suppose if he thought it didn't matter he might not shoot, but then again, he was a bloodthirsty bastard with a crap ideology, so he'd shoot anyway.

But the freedom we need, the demilitarization of the police, stopping these stupid wars, ending the tragedy of public school, and I could just keep adding clauses to this sentence to the end of time- none of these are spoken of by the progressives. What use is the grant of a right if, in granting that right, the government accrues to itself power it should never have? What shall be mis-defined next? Should love be redefined such that the poor, the sick, the suffering shoot be put out of their misery? Should, along with the confederate flag, wanting your down syndrome kid to live now be considered hate?




An Idea For A Credit Card Company

Arguably, the most attractive asset a credit card company has are customers with high credit ratings. Well, the also, apparently, need to be using the card regularly, which is a bit counterintuitive- those that can achieve and maintain a high credit ratings tend to be precisely the sort of people who get fed up with debt, pay everything off, and close the account.

I have seen this in my own life. I don't like to be in debt, and I tend to value paying off debt more than I value certain creature comforts. Meanwhile, I have found other people's behavior in this realm inexplicable. It is relatively easy to find people who will just pay the minimum, happy to let it ride, with nary any sense of psychological harm.

But anyway, one of the things to do for a credit card company would be to find out what screws people up- I am not talking about people in general, but folks who used to have decent credit. So you try and market to good credit risks- I don't know if it can be done, but it might be especially good to market to people who have reduced their credit and/or mortgage- people who are evidently following an anti-credit lifestyle- and market a particular credit card as the anti-credit credit card. You laugh, but there are transactions- like renting a car- for which you practically need a credit card, and more of these transactions are likely to come into existence over time. Additionally, there's a war on cash, with governments and big businesses trying to end it so they can gain more control over people- so they are going to create more inconvenience too.

Once you get people with good credit ratings, and you've analyzed what is likely to make them drop off the good credit radar, you can look at which of these risks are the sort you can insure against. An example that bounces around in my mind is that most of us don't know what we would do if we were arrested. Who would we call? I don't know how likely it is for someone with decent credit risk to get arrested. Obviously, this is not an item you market to people in order to get them to sign up- because few are going to perceive themselves as under threat for arrest- but instead you'd have some sort of 'peace of mind' number or app, that you would encourage existing customers to call.

Another issue I have heard that comes up is healthcare related bills. Again, such things need to be analyzed, but I could also see a credit card company having special negotiators for their clients. Hospitals overcharge routinely, and insurance companies will suddenly decide someone who appears to be in-network is out. It is in the best interests for a credit card company for it's clients to get the right care and for that client to get a good price.

A third issue that can often be related to both of the above is job loss.

So, my point is that a credit card company might do pretty well finding good credit risks and then keeping them good credit risks- not necessarily by issuing them more credit, but by handling the sort of things those of us in the lower classes can't handle as well as upper class citizens can. Most of us don't have a lawyer on retainer, nor do we know how to navigate the corporate maze that much of the American system has become. Paying bills on time is comparatively easy.

One of the greatly missed things in this world is loyalty. It is hard to estimate how necessary it is, but it seems very telling to me that men tend to be more successful when they have good relationships. A company can't replace that, but in this extremely artificial world of debt-as-money, there are no doubt other ways credit card companies and their customers could collaborate- ways that are probably more apparent to a sociopath than to me. In a world where there is such a thing as 'too big to fail' your best bet is having as many 'friends' who are that big. Nor does it have to be Goldman Sachs big either- there are little bail outs and deal making going on all the time. One of the reasons Trump is rich is because he knows how to play this game.

But again, starting with what is beneficial to both the company and the customer, and then figuring things out from there. There's the obvious pitfalls people can inadvertently fall into, but there are also potential deals the more corporate types would be more familiar with than I am, if they are willing to think about them.

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Are Even Reasonable Laws Not Working Anymore?

A while back some old lady hit me in a parking lot. I even wrote a blog post about it because I was angry, but I took it down because I also felt bad. I don't know what happened with her. I can easily imagine I am wrong, and man, do people take advantage of that these days. But, when she yelled at me I said she must have come through there pretty fast. Of course, since she had the right of way and I didn't see her, the insurance company decided in her favor.

But the insurance company would have decided in her favor even if I did see her.

I know this because a different person did something that must have been similar. I had parked on the street and later wanted to pull into my driveway. In order to do so, I had to back up and get away from the curb, meaning I needed to get out into the street more, so I could actually turn into the driveway without hitting the curb. While I was doing this a guy turns onto me street and speeds up, right at me. All I could do was brake. I did not think there was enough space, but luckily he made it by me. Maybe it was my imagination, but I am pretty sure he accelerated right past the twenty five mile speed limit.

I realized the insurance company probably would have paid him too.

This type of thing bothers me, especially the original one with the old lady, because I didn't see her, and I actually hold myself to a freaking standard, so I care about why I didn't see her, and whether or not there was something I could have done. I care about whether or not it was my fault.

Now, I just saw a man take a serious risk with a pretty nice car. The old lady didn't quite make it past me, and now my insurance rates are higher to pay for her Mercedes bumper. What if it isn't my fault? I've just seen how it could be done, with what the man did, plus the fact that it was a busy parking lot. I saw the way was clear in the direction she came from and was paying attention to walking people and other cars. If she acted like the man, she could have easily caused the accident. I didn't expect the man to act that stupidly, and stupid appears to be contagious.

It is so crazy, that I doubt police reports actually reflect facts anymore. You think the police can fathom, anymore than I, the fact that someone with an expensive car will speed up when seeing an obstacle before them? I remember the police officer from the incident with the old lady giving me an extremely strange look. Her eyes actually bugged out at me- a truly rare expression I can't remember seeing anyone else doing.

But if my suspicions are right, maybe it is just that certain people are behaving in ways we just can't believe, and so it is simpler just to think I made a mistake. The insurance companies are doing this all the time, and it may well be the end of them. There's already willful fraud. Then there's ever increasing cell phone use, yet companies have not yet even bothered to start checking- much less mandate people stay off their phones while driving. And now, apparently, people are developing perverse driving habits that have turned right-of-way laws into an external tax on everyone else.

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Pro-Individual Does Not Necessarily Mean Liberty

Many libertarians are liking the new government defined marriage situation, sadly. Reason, and possibly Cato, though I am not sure about the last one, and a few others. Libertarians make a big deal about the individual- generally speaking, so do I. Unfortunately, some of my fellow liberty minded people don't see how this is working- the state, using individual rights as pretext, subjugates and interferes with all social sub-units to it.

So, what does this cause in practice? The individual, alone, subject to the whim of the state- or perhaps more specifically, whichever bureaucrat might be in charge on that particular day. Gay marriage leads to gay divorce, and yet another individual's wealth being redistributed by court edict.

There was once, and should be, opacity. Paradoxically, the means of freedom for the individual are the organic relationships of local self-governance. These are boundaries, parameters in which the individual can operate. The modern state uses the fact that these organic relationships can sometimes be oppressive to institute systematic oppression, and the systematic oppression is to destroy all forms of local self-governance, in favor of creating this direct system of interference, with the lowly individual versus the almighty state.

One of the places where you can see the state inertia in this is the proliferation of laws. We are all criminals by default; we can't keep up with the laws they are writing. The Constitution is entirely contradicted in various places in federal and state law. In many cases they write laws they can't even enforce.

They do not intend to enforce them, but on occasion they do intend to 'make an example,' which means spending an inordinate amount of money and time persecuting an individual.

Thus the individual very much needs his family, church, local polity, etc- to be a barrier. The state simply should not be able to enter into the realm of the individual. To effect this change an individual's freedom to discriminate needs to be affirmed. You can see this in various ethnic/religious groups, where local relgious or ethnic affiliations are a stronger determinant of whether you get hired than what you see in mainstream America.

Anti-discrimination laws had a large effect on community solidarity over time. They might as well be designed to stop inter-generational thinking and the creation of coherent instances of local governance. If you can't favor your kids, your co-religionists, even your ethnicity- well, things are going to get bad and you should not blame the next generation for not being good enough. They are just going to respond to the fact that you artificially made them compete against all these random people by shoving you into an old folks home with a bunch of random people. Oh, and not showing up for any of the things you think are important.

But anyway, we are not going to have very much liberty if we continue to fall into the modern state's trap, and continue to define all these individual rights, wherein the state turns around and demands total surveillance. Instead, our natural alliances should be opaque to the state. We wouldn't have to argue about something like a V.A.T. tax, for instance, if the state didn't have entirely too much information in the first place.

Friday, July 17, 2015

I'm Pretty Sure I Could Make Reddit Profitable

I occasionally see these apologies for Pao, suggesting she was only doing what she was doing to try and get to the point where Reddit could be monetized.

I don't even fool with reddit, but I've seen a similar thing elsewhere- a generally unregulated and often confrontational space is good for hypotheses generation. Hypotheses generation is the start of experimentation, which can lead both to new discoveries and new products. Why not start a research and development department? That whole rapid prototype thing, keep the price low, etc...

Now, the apologetics imply that Pao was not implementing progressive morality for herself, but so that other corporations could see Reddit as a safe place to advertise, or something. The valley must be an echo chamber. Meanwhile there is the rest of the country, where we like the former Mozilla CEO more than we like any Mozilla product. There used to be coders there; now there are rainbows.

I suppose I should just take it as evidence for the existence of the devil, that all these corporate types are too moronic to realize at least a few of them ought to get off the progressive morality train wreck. In any case, if you are Reddit, why not at least argue this? Seek out smaller corporations that aren't as afraid of improper SJW signalling? Actually suggest that making games gamers like rather than caving into whiny little brats with no talent, who mysteriously get paid to whine, is a good idea. Man, we could have a whole anti-progressive fashion show, where there are none of those comical looking hipster pants.

Funny, that last thought made me look up Benetton. I was wondering if they still existed, being, as they were, on of the first to push the whole multi-cult thing. Turns out they are, and they still have that 'united colors' thing, but
everybody on their front page looks pretty white. Do we have a clear sociological arc on corporate branding? Is Bennetton in a quiescent purgatory phase? There seems to be some indication Bennetton had to grow up along with it's clientele.

The silicon valley often doesn't get as far as Bennetton did, because the real name of the game is credit and start up money. Viable products aren't what they are looking for.

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Deconstructing the 'Engaging the Culture' Meme

I know an old lady with a pace-maker. She's given up driving because the repair to her car is too expensive, and she's taken to riding around on the bus and going to various public places in order to avoid having to run her air condition at home. She's trying to make her fixed income last as long as possible, so that she can live free as long as possible. Or maybe I should say freer; because the nursing home is significantly less free than what she has now.

She's a part of a 'community.' The same community I ultimately decided was bullshit. I think it is pretty telling that they want to play at community, yet they can't take care of this lady. Frankly, I don't even understand people these days- they are not only not ashamed, they don't know what to hide. When I first ran into these people, the local chapter had about $100,000 or so, and would talk from time to time about buying a building. But the revolutionaries, who may have been in charge the whole time for all I know, soon manipulated the local chapter into giving it to them, so that America could have a few more Christian branded vacations, where young men and women can go forth and pretend to be missionaries for two weeks.

They are facing demographic death like the churches are. I think, if the Holy Spirit does communicate, there's been a lot of communication about building a real Christian community, and then a lot of deviltry about evangelism and 'engaging the culture.'

Here is an interesting way of changing that tune: Think this thought: the culture is mine. On a more abstract level, we know that the culture was Christian. We did not 'engage' so much as create, improve, etc... I do not think we even defended culture, not until it was too late and not really very Christian anymore.

But on a personal level, if you were just to say, the the culture is mine, do you see how that kind of turns 'engaging the culture' into gibberish?

And that's where we should be. Venice had it's own culture. It had an easily defendable position, took to trade as a national past-time, and probably looked after little old ladies a lot better than wanna-be communities ever will.