Recently I was listening to a podcast- abortion came up. This guy usually doesn't talk about it, but I guess he felt he had to since he was asked. And it was the person who wrote in who cast his own opinion as personal. But since it's a straight up propaganda meme paid for by the globalist bureaucrats, this is how it went down. The podcaster talked about, if, hypothetically, he was the ruler, he'd get a bunch of experts together to come up with a cut off point for abortion. Somebody kind of did this already.
Steve Jacobs writes a Quillette about what thousands of biologists answered.
The answer, of course, is exactly what this 'personal belief' was. Life begins at conception. They want us to pretend this is just something Christians dreamed up- we were always against abortion, but we didn't know when life began until we had biology. Now that we have biology, gee, it turns out our ancestors were right.
There are a few allusions in the bible, but I don't think that's necessarily where the dislike of abortion came from. We seem to forget that Christians actually governed, and would have come across women who tried to have abortions. They would find some girl who had taken a poison, suffering from liver failure. Or maybe a woman bleeding to death from some botched attempt at surgery. How often was there even evidence of a child?
So, a sensible leader says, hey don't do this. I haven't bothered to check into what the punishment was, but since the consequences were so dire in the first place- well, you try to do what keeps the maximum number of people from trying it.
The bureaucracy doesn't want anyone realizing that you, personally, might actually know the truth. That what you believe could actually be based on evidence, research, and even the religion of you ancestors- which demonstrably isn't founded on air, but on a lot of history, in which people governed and learned. This is what they apply this term 'personal belief' to, not the latest ravings of whatever is cool in the cult of SJW. Tradition is not something to be laughed at. Nor is science, literally an outgrowth of Christianity- that began to be practiced in the monasteries and later universities founded first for theology- something contrary to the civilization that birthed her.
A committee holds its meetings and makes its decisions, but even should each individual see the poor outcomes of the collective decision, they do not feel personally responsible. Have we seen any company, once going SJW and losing money because of some stupid campaign, repent?
I suppose we are lucky that Jacobs asked all these biologists individually, because they could say what they knew individually, rather than be tempted by the god of bureaucracy.
Friday, October 18, 2019
Friday, October 11, 2019
Identity Is Mostly Just Annoying
Every so often there's some editorial or whatever about not understanding why this or that transgendered person can't find a date. What is obvious to most humans is lost on those obsessively trying to impose an identity on themselves.
I am also reminded of the old, fat me, who did not have much of a clue of what I would look like now. I wonder what would have happened if I had embraced Richard Spencer's juvenile 'become who we are' type mentality? I'm sure he'd say he didn't mean it in the way I just used it, but its dumb anyway.
The best option, in my opinion, is the Christian one- we do not know what we will be like, but we know we will be like Him.
Mostly because that's most in line with reality, except you do have to keep trying to be like Him. Or at least less like everybody else, because we do not know what we will be like, but every year we will gain a little more fat, and lose a little more muscle, unless we are really serious about not letting it happen.
I also notice that in China, Xi is basically a force for good. This is because, in China, corrupt bureaucrats tend to adopt Western talking points. Of course, most of the Western bureaucrats are corrupt- for who ever supports both democracy and open borders is a liar. Especially when the wealth comes from the people who already exist there.
Outside of China, though, China's policies tend to reinforce the iniquities that already exist. There are two reasons- first, people can continue to play that game where they try to unify 'us' in defense of a common enemy- China. It doesn't actually make much sense, especially when our existing governments are corrupt and more dangerous to us than China is- yet it is an easy and common thing to do. Secondly, China is generally going to fund groups amenable to communism with Chinese characteristics.
In other words, their foreign policy is heavily identity dependent. Hong Kong problems are mostly problems caused by themselves. China is a convenient excuse, much like 'democracy' a false and fleeting savior. You live on a high-priced island with limited space for real estate. Democracy isn't going to raise more land from the sea.
Nor is the hate of the mainlanders for HKers, and vice-versa. All this feeds is an identity.
Of course, identity attacks are highly annoying- as most while males in America can tell you. It has not been fun seeing systematic discrimination against your race, gender, and ability. I likely should be doing research somewhere. Or writing. Instead I get to see the blue checks on Twitter display their cognitive limitations while likely getting paid more than me.
I am also reminded of the old, fat me, who did not have much of a clue of what I would look like now. I wonder what would have happened if I had embraced Richard Spencer's juvenile 'become who we are' type mentality? I'm sure he'd say he didn't mean it in the way I just used it, but its dumb anyway.
The best option, in my opinion, is the Christian one- we do not know what we will be like, but we know we will be like Him.
Mostly because that's most in line with reality, except you do have to keep trying to be like Him. Or at least less like everybody else, because we do not know what we will be like, but every year we will gain a little more fat, and lose a little more muscle, unless we are really serious about not letting it happen.
I also notice that in China, Xi is basically a force for good. This is because, in China, corrupt bureaucrats tend to adopt Western talking points. Of course, most of the Western bureaucrats are corrupt- for who ever supports both democracy and open borders is a liar. Especially when the wealth comes from the people who already exist there.
Outside of China, though, China's policies tend to reinforce the iniquities that already exist. There are two reasons- first, people can continue to play that game where they try to unify 'us' in defense of a common enemy- China. It doesn't actually make much sense, especially when our existing governments are corrupt and more dangerous to us than China is- yet it is an easy and common thing to do. Secondly, China is generally going to fund groups amenable to communism with Chinese characteristics.
In other words, their foreign policy is heavily identity dependent. Hong Kong problems are mostly problems caused by themselves. China is a convenient excuse, much like 'democracy' a false and fleeting savior. You live on a high-priced island with limited space for real estate. Democracy isn't going to raise more land from the sea.
Nor is the hate of the mainlanders for HKers, and vice-versa. All this feeds is an identity.
Of course, identity attacks are highly annoying- as most while males in America can tell you. It has not been fun seeing systematic discrimination against your race, gender, and ability. I likely should be doing research somewhere. Or writing. Instead I get to see the blue checks on Twitter display their cognitive limitations while likely getting paid more than me.
Monday, September 16, 2019
Anime Bureaucracy
Since I am trying to learn Japanese, I end up watching anime. The most recent for me was Psycho-Pass. The lead character is a young woman, Tsunemori, who is presented as a 'good' person, and at least on the surface, her decisions are 'good'. But the story doesn't make sense from that angle- indeed, watching from that perspective means the entire plot devolves into absurdity.
But the way to watch this while maintaining some sort of logic to the story is that Tsunemori is the archetype bureaucrat. In the first episode she errs badly, potentially putting everyone in danger. The one put in most danger, Kogami, is a man with a goal- to kill a man that definitely needs killing. So, instead of being angry with Tsunemori he sees instead a means to an end, a way to use her and her dingbat sense of morality to his own ends.
But the other character using Tsunemori to its own ends is the Sibyl system itself- the ultimate system of bureaucracy. Just as we see with our own bureaucracies, the exceptional psychopaths rise to the top, while the little people are often medicated out of their own minds. And it is rather obvious from moment one, with Tsunemori's co-workers and friends tending to die around her, the system doesn't protect the people very well.
Unfortunately, Tsunemori doesn't see it that way. Despite learning the truth about the system, she accepts it as preferable- as stabilizing force. Somehow, she presumes there would actually be more death and destruction than what is already at hand all around her.
Kogami reminds me of American special forces- these types are the type that are increasingly relied on, and increasingly broken, by our stifling bureaucracy. The physical and mental skills required of the special forces tend to keep the bureaucrat types out. But they cannot solve the bureaucracy, but instead get used by the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy has stultified the normal military to the point where they really can't do what would traditionally be their job. Instead, it's desk jobs and elective transgender surgery for most, and these tiny corps of actual warriors. And the warriors know much is wrong, but they don't know how to fix it, and what they want most is a clear objective and the ability to limit communication with the meddling bureaucrats.
Tsunemori, meanwhile, often looks like walking death, with terrible pallor and questionable haircut. Yet she always passes the psych tests, and the only way to see this is that she is always in congruence with what the system wants. She has internalized the system's morality to the point where she can't question it, even when the bodies are dropping around her and she becomes aware of the insanity that comprises the system.
Much like Blomkamp's movies, there's no hint of a solution to the central problem in Psycho-Pass, just a series of unfolding events that continuously highlight the deeply unfortunate state of affairs.
But the way to watch this while maintaining some sort of logic to the story is that Tsunemori is the archetype bureaucrat. In the first episode she errs badly, potentially putting everyone in danger. The one put in most danger, Kogami, is a man with a goal- to kill a man that definitely needs killing. So, instead of being angry with Tsunemori he sees instead a means to an end, a way to use her and her dingbat sense of morality to his own ends.
But the other character using Tsunemori to its own ends is the Sibyl system itself- the ultimate system of bureaucracy. Just as we see with our own bureaucracies, the exceptional psychopaths rise to the top, while the little people are often medicated out of their own minds. And it is rather obvious from moment one, with Tsunemori's co-workers and friends tending to die around her, the system doesn't protect the people very well.
Unfortunately, Tsunemori doesn't see it that way. Despite learning the truth about the system, she accepts it as preferable- as stabilizing force. Somehow, she presumes there would actually be more death and destruction than what is already at hand all around her.
Kogami reminds me of American special forces- these types are the type that are increasingly relied on, and increasingly broken, by our stifling bureaucracy. The physical and mental skills required of the special forces tend to keep the bureaucrat types out. But they cannot solve the bureaucracy, but instead get used by the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy has stultified the normal military to the point where they really can't do what would traditionally be their job. Instead, it's desk jobs and elective transgender surgery for most, and these tiny corps of actual warriors. And the warriors know much is wrong, but they don't know how to fix it, and what they want most is a clear objective and the ability to limit communication with the meddling bureaucrats.
Tsunemori, meanwhile, often looks like walking death, with terrible pallor and questionable haircut. Yet she always passes the psych tests, and the only way to see this is that she is always in congruence with what the system wants. She has internalized the system's morality to the point where she can't question it, even when the bodies are dropping around her and she becomes aware of the insanity that comprises the system.
Much like Blomkamp's movies, there's no hint of a solution to the central problem in Psycho-Pass, just a series of unfolding events that continuously highlight the deeply unfortunate state of affairs.
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
Most Paths To Military Fitness Have Already Been Tried
Recently, Mark Rippetoe put out a video about baseline strength for military.
The testing itself isn't bad, although in the real world no one is likely to need to pick up a bar. Sandbags would better mimic real world activity a soldier may find himself dealing with. But you can see Rippetoe naturally assumes more weight on the person means better overall performance. He suggests someone 165lb would benefit from bulking up to 200lb.
Take a look at the height and weight pdf here. That's from Visintin Success Solutions, one of the guys I heard Carl Lanore interview about military fitness. It turns out there are still enough guys out there in the military with the testosterone necessary to actually go get huge in the gym, and then go out in the field, and learn the hard way that bigger is not always better.
As an example, I am 6'3, and that chart tells me I my max weight should be 198lb. This is piddling for bros. Sure, if you are just guarding an embassy, or you can drive your humvee to a location and then not have to sprint more than fifty meters- maybe getting huge is helpful. You'll look good anyway. Maybe scare the enemy into behaving themselves.
But I notice on the occasions when I go out for long walks, my shoulders start to get sore- kind like maybe my arms are too heavy. Imagine having to walk the whole day- several days perhaps- like some of these special forces units have to do. Every bit of extra bulk becomes an issue.
And in the military at large, the bulk are the bureaucrats. We have desk jockeys who are likely as not to take Rippetoe's advice, and do well for it, since they won't be walking much farther than the trek from the parking lot to the office. We have a massive logistics/administrative scene, where women and weak men can easily manage to get into leadership positions, and this the largest problem in the military.
I think the military would have solved fitness by now if the warriors were actually in charge. I am going to link to one of Carl's interviews here- Training for Special Ops. These interviews are worth digging out of that website, even though search currently seems to be quite hellish, because they know what they are talking about.
Update: I found a podcast specifically on body composition with regard to military.
The testing itself isn't bad, although in the real world no one is likely to need to pick up a bar. Sandbags would better mimic real world activity a soldier may find himself dealing with. But you can see Rippetoe naturally assumes more weight on the person means better overall performance. He suggests someone 165lb would benefit from bulking up to 200lb.
Take a look at the height and weight pdf here. That's from Visintin Success Solutions, one of the guys I heard Carl Lanore interview about military fitness. It turns out there are still enough guys out there in the military with the testosterone necessary to actually go get huge in the gym, and then go out in the field, and learn the hard way that bigger is not always better.
As an example, I am 6'3, and that chart tells me I my max weight should be 198lb. This is piddling for bros. Sure, if you are just guarding an embassy, or you can drive your humvee to a location and then not have to sprint more than fifty meters- maybe getting huge is helpful. You'll look good anyway. Maybe scare the enemy into behaving themselves.
But I notice on the occasions when I go out for long walks, my shoulders start to get sore- kind like maybe my arms are too heavy. Imagine having to walk the whole day- several days perhaps- like some of these special forces units have to do. Every bit of extra bulk becomes an issue.
And in the military at large, the bulk are the bureaucrats. We have desk jockeys who are likely as not to take Rippetoe's advice, and do well for it, since they won't be walking much farther than the trek from the parking lot to the office. We have a massive logistics/administrative scene, where women and weak men can easily manage to get into leadership positions, and this the largest problem in the military.
I think the military would have solved fitness by now if the warriors were actually in charge. I am going to link to one of Carl's interviews here- Training for Special Ops. These interviews are worth digging out of that website, even though search currently seems to be quite hellish, because they know what they are talking about.
Update: I found a podcast specifically on body composition with regard to military.
Tuesday, July 2, 2019
The Brands Will Kill Youtube
Its worth listening to the recent episode of NoAgenda, Brand Purpose. Be patient and wait for Adam Curry to adopt his annoyed teacher voice, and begin to pontificate about marketing. It's worth it, because he was in the business and knows what he is talking about.
He also found a clip of a CEO, responsible for 8 billion dollars of ad revenue, talking about making the platforms brandsafe.
Brand safe means the advertisers want to avoid having their brands associated with controversial content, but it is clear from what the CEO said that part two of the plan is to remove all controversial content from the platform entirely.
This is going to kill youtube, as it will no longer be about 'you'- about the people making and putting up videos. Sure, maybe you get away with your cat videos, make up videos, a few product review videos- as long as you are sufficiently positive about whatever product it is you are reviewing, and it doesn't compete with whatever product that the advertisers are trying to sell ads for.
Youtube will die under this regime because that's not what keeps people on youtube. We go there looking for answers for our problems. Advertisers want to sell us stuff- for instance, I see way too many ads for something called Cosentix. I have no idea what the hell it is for, because, like most ads, it is low information, insult my intelligence, have people dancing around- anything but telling me what the fuck it is actually for. And what would I do if I actually had the problem it was for? I'd search for people who had the problem and solved it naturally, or with less side effects than Cosentix has. For certainly, whatever this crap is, you can be sure it has side effects.
And this will be the ultimate end of youtube- Right now, it's 'right wing content' including, apparently, actual history. But this slide never ends, and they will be demanding more suppression. Do you think Ford is going to be happy with the youtube video that teaches you how to fix something that would costs $500 dollars at the dealership with a $3 part? Hell no.
Either it's owners figure this game out, and stop this, or youtube will surely die. They currently don't see the problem, because they live in SJW land and it seems okay to suppress content they disagree with, but a few years from now, they won't have anything interesting left on their platform. That doesn't mean it won't be out there, but it probably means we will have to find ways to operate outside of google's reach.
He also found a clip of a CEO, responsible for 8 billion dollars of ad revenue, talking about making the platforms brandsafe.
Brand safe means the advertisers want to avoid having their brands associated with controversial content, but it is clear from what the CEO said that part two of the plan is to remove all controversial content from the platform entirely.
This is going to kill youtube, as it will no longer be about 'you'- about the people making and putting up videos. Sure, maybe you get away with your cat videos, make up videos, a few product review videos- as long as you are sufficiently positive about whatever product it is you are reviewing, and it doesn't compete with whatever product that the advertisers are trying to sell ads for.
Youtube will die under this regime because that's not what keeps people on youtube. We go there looking for answers for our problems. Advertisers want to sell us stuff- for instance, I see way too many ads for something called Cosentix. I have no idea what the hell it is for, because, like most ads, it is low information, insult my intelligence, have people dancing around- anything but telling me what the fuck it is actually for. And what would I do if I actually had the problem it was for? I'd search for people who had the problem and solved it naturally, or with less side effects than Cosentix has. For certainly, whatever this crap is, you can be sure it has side effects.
And this will be the ultimate end of youtube- Right now, it's 'right wing content' including, apparently, actual history. But this slide never ends, and they will be demanding more suppression. Do you think Ford is going to be happy with the youtube video that teaches you how to fix something that would costs $500 dollars at the dealership with a $3 part? Hell no.
Either it's owners figure this game out, and stop this, or youtube will surely die. They currently don't see the problem, because they live in SJW land and it seems okay to suppress content they disagree with, but a few years from now, they won't have anything interesting left on their platform. That doesn't mean it won't be out there, but it probably means we will have to find ways to operate outside of google's reach.
Thursday, June 13, 2019
Legitimizing Your State
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)