Sunday, October 2, 2022

Smells Like Anti-Christ

 I'm still a little irked at being told accepting some of this woke stuff would make me a better Christian.  There is the first obvious flaw- i.e. race is biblical, so if you are trying to make me a better Christian, please stop trying to get me to not believe things that are in the bible.

But then there's this:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.  Galatians 3:28

The oneness is in Christ.  The people who are promulgating wokeness are not in Christ.  Even if the individual is nominally Christian, the reality is the people pushing this stuff are pushing it for bureaucratic purposes- i.e. not acting in Christ.  Additionally, since these ideas are all easily traced back to Marxist plans for fomenting revolution, we already know this was coming from an atheistic place- possibly even from a worse place.

This might not be as noticeable as an anti-Christ coming along and proclaiming salvation comes from somewhere other than Christ, but it is extremely similar. Have you wondered why this particular pastiche of issues shows up as a package?  

It has been a century or more since they've started pounding away at our communities.  It is only now that they can deceive enough of us to think at least some of their accusations have standing.  They feel confident now, to say, for instance, that Christians on Sunday are an example of separateness.  This would not have flown in the ancient world, for even in the most cosmopolitan cities, there were ethnic enclaves. 

Additionally, each people had slightly different understanding and modes for worship, purification, etc..., so liturgies sprung up among specific peoples precisely because that's the scale at which there was a shared understanding.  Layer on the modern denominations, and a shared understanding with which to enact any sort of public worship is even more fractured.  

Even if a bunch of diverse people showed up and began a church together, they would quickly (in a few generations, but still -in relative terms- quickly) become an ethnicity themselves.  We have duties to our families that generally require living close to one another.  

Perhaps the strangest thing of all- in the ancient world, wouldn't diversity be more of a marker for slavery than freedom?  If you were free you would live and work with your extended family, but if you were a slave you would have to live in quarters provided by the one who bought you. 

They should seriously back off and stop making me think about these things.  It would not have occurred to me they were trying to claim something that can only happen in Christ unless they kept pushing this stuff on me, and then one of them said it might make me a better Christian.  Then my brain kicks in and spends too much time on this crap, and I figure out I'm dealing with a mini-me version of the anti-Christ.  Shut up, make this crap voluntary, and go have tea with the ladies who like having these conversations.



Sunday, September 18, 2022

Force a Bubble Economy, Until There's Nothing Left To Pop

Something has been bothering me since I heard to real-estate podcasters call themselves locusts on their show- even if a town or a city miraculously came down with a good administration, would it do any good in the long run?

Consider the positive side- your town is attracting people, so rents go up and this attracts the above-mentioned locusts.  They no longer just invest in their own backyard.  They follow trends, identify markets across the U.S., and are happy to do all this stuff long distance.  

If your town is attracting people, that may mean you've figured out how to run it a little better than most, but here comes the real estate bubble.  How do you keep the growth to an appropriate level?

Most cities don't do the proper research to proper up-keep.  They'll push for the flashy new development because it looks good, but they don't try and match it with what the expected tax results will be.

This because officials are like kids taking cookies out of the jar- not Grandma, who owns the jar and likes to keep it full.  

Since they don't have a long term ownership interest, the temptation is to spend today with disregard for tomorrow.  Maybe they worry a little bit as to whether or not they'll be around when their pensions inevitably get cut, but it doesn't not appear to be a big enough worry to stop the madness.

There's the negative side too, as we have noticed recently with Jackson, Mississippi.  Much has been made of it being an 80% black city, with various sides conveniently using that statistic to back up their biases.

But what that number represents is those that basically couldn't get out.  It wasn't just white flight- pretty much anyone with the means got out.  They are the ones left holding the bag.

Unfortunately, those who run the government are in the habit of doing what has been going on since the end of WWII.  They show no sign of wising up, and realizing the error of their ways.  Since the exploitative behavior started so long ago, the current generation of officials could think that this is just what they are supposed to do- within certain parameters, of course.  If they really did just turn off the water to milk the federal government for a billion dollars- well, that would be going pretty far.

But I have no doubt that they've turned their police department into a revenue generating operation, and are making their poor suffer.  That's what most places have done to keep the court industry running.

Should Jackson officials suddenly achieve enlightenment, they would want to act a lot like Singapore- think about how to attract talent and keep it there.  Despite being black, they would almost immediately be called white supremacists.  Protests about 'gentrification' would no doubt happen, and then there would be howling if anyone got wind of the rest of the reforms necessary to attract people with means to such a city.

As always, there are things that could be done, yet nearly every avenue via which to do it seems to get shut down.  They'd probably be calling Jane Jacobs far right if she was alive right now.

Saturday, September 10, 2022

The Self-Defeating Social Construct Artists

Allegedly, various things are social constructs, but what, pray tell are the things that we are told we should replace them with?

Social constructs!  In fact they are more reliant on a society than the original constructs.  A complex society, one big enough to give you your pills, your surgeries, and constant reinforcement of your new identity.  

Blackness is now defined as an identity, but not one based on race, because, according to these soothsayers, race doesn't really exist.  Nevermind the bible, genetics, and various medical issues we may suffer if we don't pay any attention to race.  

But doesn't that make it more of a social construct, not less?  Now, the identity is constructed almost entirely via interactions with other people, with nothing one can reference as solidly 'self'.

Now, of course, reality keeps leaking in, as, obviously, white people who identify as black are generally not accepted as black- unless they do a really good job with melanotan II, other cosmetic changes, and are good at faking their backgrounds.

It takes real social pressure for a lot of this stuff to even occur to people, and saner minds know it's probably a good idea for people not to know about it.  This is why we are having such fights around schools these days.  Your children could grow up not knowing about all this stuff, and have a normal life, but now we've got pronoun evangelists in the schools bent on making sure every kid is exposed to this nonsense.

The new lie must be promulgated, even if it eats into the old one, as feminists are finding out.  The transgender can achieve whatever it was feminists were fighting for by mere declaration.  Trounce them in sports.  Berate them in lesbian hook-up apps for not wanting to hook up with them.  Get them kicked out of a Pride parade.  

Is there no way we can stop having this 'conversation'?  Probably not.  I think the bureaucrats saw how Occupy Wall Street fell apart, and they've decided to push this junk as hard as they can.  It's easier to control us that way.

Friday, September 2, 2022

Missing the Forest for the Trees

 Grey Enlightment doesn't understand elite overproduction, so I'll show where his analysis is flawed:

1. The word ‘overproduction’ suggests an imbalance or surplus of college grads, but the ever-widening college wage premium suggests otherwise. Proponents of elite overproduction theory have to reconcile the data showing college grads have much higher earnings, with the notion of oversupply, which is inherently contradictory.

This isn't at all surprising, nor is it contradictory.  We live in a bureaucracy.  The bureaucracy allocates funds to it's own ends.  We do not have a free market in which a price signal could be normal.  Think about  how they hand out incentives for 'green' technology, which in turn make it appear these technologies are fully functional.  But we don't have the sort of electrical grid that can handle everyone getting electric cars- we will end up with a broken grid, and a lot of people unable to drive anywhere.

The overproduction of elites is similar, with regard to his point.  There would be a gap in earnings anyway, though not as large as it is now.


2. Most college grads do not aspire to highly-visible elite roles. Some of most popular majors are psychology, nursing, business, medicine/pre-med, accounting, engineering, and ‘sports psychology’. These are actionable, good-paying careers, but not necessarily elite-track professions. If you want to be elite, you probably want to get a humanities, law, economics, or Classics degree. As I said before, elites generally deal with abstractions or words, not people or things (the only possible exceptions being business elites or political elites), which is why law school tends to be the favored path for aspiring elites. They don’t want to be doing rectal exams or having to read expense reports.

The bureaucracy coalesces around people who actually do work.  This is perhaps most obvious in the medical industry where most of the money we've been spending since the Clinton years has been going into huge bureaucracies.  Most people are going to look for honest work.  They are not going to call a bureaucrat an elite, because they are technically not elites- they are usurpers.  But since the modern bureaucratic state was so successful in destroying the nobility, they do exist now as the elite under the current system.  Few people are going to see this until it directly hurts them- like when doctors tried to get good information out about COVID that contradicted the bureaucratic plan.  We usually just grumble about paperwork and go along with the program with the thought that it's just the way it is.

3. Elite overproduction, if it exists, is not societally destabilizing. It just means an angier, more cynical educated class, but it will not lead to unrest or the breakdown or society. Even with increased credentialization over the past 40 years, strong GDP growth, falling crime rates since the early 90s (although there was a spike in 2020-2021), record corporate profits, and record high US dollar, suggests that having a large educated class hasn’t yet had deleterious effects from a macro economic or social stability perspective.

Here it would be advantageous to actually read Peter Turchin, because he's not talking about some mere hypothesis about the current year.  He points out elite overproduction has happened before.  It has not happened at this scale though.  Just think about the comparison of creating elites through a royal family versus elites via a bureaucracy.  Families grow at a much slower rate. Even the bureaucratic state was growing much slower in previous iterations when there was some sanity.

But now that it has gone off the rails, what we see are our institutions failing us, making excuses for not doing what they should be doing, and claiming ever more authority despite losing credibility for not doing the things we gave them authority for in the first place. 

This is where the social destabilization comes in.  Your city can't provide water because they wasted your money on other things, rather than keeping the infrastructure up.  Ideally you could fire them all and find folks who know what they are doing, but no- the reason the infrastructure is screwed up is racism or climate change.  They proceed to demand more of you because they need to fight racism or climate change.  The infrastructure still needs to be fixed- the whole city needs to be put on a sustainable path, but they will then take the money and create more bureaucracy meant to combat racism and climate change.  The infrastructure will continue to degrade, and the bureaucracy will make sure to create the impression that racism and climate change exist and are pressing problems.  

This is an emergent property of complex systems- the bureaucracy defends itself, appearing intelligent in a perverse way, because you'd think the average bureaucrat (being human) would see this could end badly, perhaps even see that it could end for him personally in a very bad way, yet they continue to pursue these activities.  In large part, it's due to comfort and the fact that their pensions are tied up with the existing system.  

Under these conditions, violence breaks out, and society destabilizes.  Instead of letting Unite the Right speak in Charlottsville- which would result in us laughing at them if they were just a bunch of racists- they let Antifa take over the streets and then pushed the Unite the Right people into them.  Then they proceeded to spend hours letting craziness take over their streets- a sign they were obviously hoping for/fomenting violence.  I believe there was one (very leftist) journalist who still wants to know why the first responders were stopped from providing care to the one victim, who got hit by a car, but died of a heart attack.

As you may be able to tell, I think they were hoping for blood shed.  They were probably sad that they only one got one death, considering what the ensuing media/marketing circus was afterward.

Most of what has appeared on TV since then have similar suspicious qualities.  Whatever the feelings of the people involved, there's a scripted quality.  One demographic comes away with the idea they are being hunted by the police.  Another demographic comes away with the message that we need to militarize the police more, apparently never worrying that the military gear might be used against them.

4. The ability of political elites to impart drastic change is possibly overstated. Democratic elites seem to have have mixed success at policy. ‘Defund the police’ was DOA, same for the ‘George Floyd Justice in Policing Act,’ which got zero Republican votes. AOC is regarded as one of the least effective congresspeople. It was Manchin who stole the show. A case can be made that elites were more effective generations ago, such as during the Civil Rights era, compared to today, before they became overproduced. More elites means more competition within elites, like conservative vs. liberal elites.

They are all a part of the same bureaucracy.  The competition is invalid because the bureaucracy filters good people out.  You can't move up in the hierarchy with out accepting lies as 'training'.  You are going to get people dumb enough to believe it, or sociopaths who don't believe it but impose it anyway.  The conservatives don't even have an ideology- they are just nostalgic.  All they do is occasionally improve the economic situation, which makes things a little better for us, but also allows the bureaucracy to continue.  They entire left/right charade in the mainstream can be consider a type of internal stabilization for the bureaucracy. 

 Grey Enlightenment continued on with more examples, but frankly, it feels like elite overproduction is just something he saw on a blog somewhere, and he never really bothered to figure out what it was.  Additionally, the blind spot most people have, where they don't think about bureaucracy much at all, seems present here.  I suppose this is why the bureaucrats have been so successful with the term 'systematic racism'.  It shuts down real discussion about the system because it blames every failure on racism.  

Violence and social destabilization under these conditions can occur anywhere.  There does not need to be a bureaucracy involved.  The conditions are already here- the electrical grid, the water supply, roads, food, brainwashed people who think you are doing or thinking something wrong- it doesn't take much to put us into a flashpoint situation.  But if you aren't aware of how the bureaucracy caused these conditions, they'll just keep happening over and over.  They prefer us to be out here, squabbling with each other, rather than correctly identifying who is responsible and figuring out some way of removing them from power.




Thursday, September 1, 2022

Clean Out Institutions By Holding Them To Their Purpose

Briefly, the bureaucrats gain power via institutions.  Institutions have a stated purpose often found in a charter or founding documents.  As the bureaucracy grows, it begins to violate the original purpose.  They hold onto their authority and paychecks for as long as they can, but at some point, even the water stops running, as folks in Mississippi are learning.

We may very well have to let things fail.  In some cases we may have to destroy it ourselves.  But it's difficult to get voters or customers on the same page.  We could simply remove funding in certain cases- or just leave and try to start over somewhere else.

But it's worth noting we'd have to build new institutions, and we'd have to prevent the nonsense that has happened from happening again.

So wherever possible, it seems helpful to fix some institutions.  This is not easy.  

Basically, you have to make any deviation from the purpose criminal.  Well, it is criminal, in many cases.  With the deplatforming issues we've seen in the last few years- that's only allowed because it's wanted by people in power.  I think it violates the entire premise (and probably the law as well) of how those companies were structured.  It certainly violates the promise they gave the public.

But even in other institutions- it has purpose X.  Someone shows up and starts talking about diversity, inclusion, equity, helping the homeless, etc...  Pretty soon, you have little to no X, and it's going to get worse until there's no X at all.  

We won't get any of the stated good intentions either.  It is, after all, contrary to the policy of bureaucratic growth, to actually fix a problem.  

In many ways, what we actually need is an owner.  An owner knows what he wanted to do in the first place and is quick to notice when money gets allocated to things that are not what he wanted to do. He would then, of course, be quick to get the criminal brought up on charges.

I believe I first though of this back when ESPN started destroying itself.  It seemed obvious to me their original purpose was pretty clear, and would be written down somewhere.  While their descent into hell may not be expressly forbidden by the founding documents, it was very obvious that it was taking away from actually doing the job they had formed to do.  

ESPN is corporate- people have ownership of stock, but it's obviously not truly owned.  No one could stop the nonsense, as the decision makers are bureaucrats.  So a state or federal government would have had to step in, which again, in our society doesn't happen because those are bureaucrats too.  

In any case, if we want to fix any of these institutions, it needs to become obvious deviations from the purpose will not be tolerated.  This would also be the quickest way to sift through the mess, should you suddenly find yourself with enough power to put a particular region back together again.

Saturday, August 27, 2022


One of the ways to end a lot of bureaucratic foolishness is to change to a task-based work place, rather than what most of us have- where we are stuck with time and some type of position description that bureaucrats can ignore or aggravate you with, depending on their inclination.

There are, of course, tasks that are very time sensitive- if you are going to open at 9am, you have to be there at 9am, opening the doors.  Often this requires being there even earlier for preparations prior to opening.

In other cases, the time is determined by deliveries or couriers who will pick up whatever it is you are working on.  It is usually relatively easy to determine what tasks to do first, based on what is going out first.  And, if you are good- you are good, and you don't necessarily need to be there for 40hrs to get the stuff done.  

What tends to happen now is that if you are good, you may well find yourself doing 3 peoples jobs for some idiotic bureaucracy that refuses to fill positions or handle sick/unable employees' situations properly.  And that same bureaucracy may be punishing you, telling you you are racist, etc- while not paying you the three paychecks they ought to be paying you.

But with a task-based focus, the workplace would look a lot different.  Who did what is easier to figure out, since you have to log in to this or that system in order to get the stuff done.  

I would anticipate certain bureaucrats would try to game the system- by trying to get certain 'tasks' identified as really important and/or more lucrative than normal tasks.  First, I hope any institution that attempts a task-based focus would have already addressed the evils of bureaucracy and kicked bad actors out.  Second, you'll find these 'tasks' not directly germane to the purpose of the institution.

This is one of the reasons HR is so rife with nonsensical people- they pretend this is somehow outside the ken of normal people- yet it is painfully obvious you could get a better outcome by getting your engineers to interview engineers, your doctors to interview other doctors, and your library people to interview prospective library people.  Why?  They tend to have their own culture/language in a sense.  You can have two engineers from very different ethnic, religious, and even socio-economic backgrounds, but when they come together (assuming they both know their stuff) they can talk to each other about the stuff that they can't talk about to their loved ones, their fellow ethnics, their fellow religious believers.

And what two engineers from different backgrounds would talk about is very likely to be relevant to the reason you are hiring an engineer in the first place.  So, many of the duties of HR are tasks that could easily be done (better than HR) by other staff.  In a workplace focused on tasks, staff would want to do interviews (and other HR stuff) because that would likely increase their pay.  Do more tasks=higher pay.  

Another arena, related to HR, is training.  Training in a bureaucratic organization is currently abysmal.  Most of it is an insult to one's intelligence- some of it is an insult to morality.  First, Clarence Thomas should sue everyone who uses his name in vain in any of these sexual harassment trainings. Second, there's no standard of behavior- everything has gotten to the point where nothing you did or didn't do matters- what matters is whatever the accusers says.  Third, even with something really mundane, like how to use the fire extinguishers- there's a brief explanation about how to use them (easily forgotten) and then the insanity of today's world, in which they basically tell you you are better off from a liability standpoint to never pick up a fire extinguisher and extinguish a fire.  

Seriously- they were basically telling me I should leave the building (and potentially co-workers) to burn rather than incur the risk of being sued.

And anyone who drives a vehicle for one of these organizations runs a risk too- the second anything happens, go pee in a cup.  In theory these things apply to everyone, but in practice the bureaucrat could very easily spend all his days high as a kite, while the average worker is at risk from accidental exposure to somebody's CBD lotion.

But if the work-place is task-based, the training is demand driven.  You want to know how to do the tasks so you can do them if they come up, or if there's time to do them.  In fact, the training itself would likely be dissociated from an 'expert' trainer, and instead the institution would be paying that one guy they've been depending on for the last twenty years to do 'that one thing' how to do 'that one thing'.

This would solve yet another issue in these large institutions- the loss of knowledge.  Oh, boy does this happen.  Too often you end up with one old fart who still remembers how to do X, but you piss of old fart because, I don't know, HR seems hell bent on pissing off old farts- like they get extra perks for upsetting the old man who is just toddling around the place still because he doesn't want to retire and die suddenly.  I don't want to say it's just the old folks either; you often end up with stuff nearly everyone can do, but a decade or two later, you find there's one guy who is doing it, and nobody else knows how, even though it would make sense from the institutional perspective if at least twenty people (in different places) knew it.

Anyway, the old fart finally gets sick of the place and quits, or the not so old doer of that one task keels over from a heart attack because he is afraid of his own shadow- and suddenly nobody knows anything.  They currently solve this by hiring more people- none of whom know how to do anything.  And then they find some way of outsourcing the problem, which almost never works out as well as keeping the original old fart around.

But in a task-based workplace, learning that institutional knowledge would be extremely important to the newer employees, because it would be how you learn to complete more tasks, and consequently, get more compensation.

Tuesday, August 23, 2022

Our Institutions Suffer From A Lack Of Owners

 A good way to analyze an institution is to think about what it was like (or what it would be like) when it was owned by one person.  Of course, you can do this with other things, like ice cream.  Families and small businesses made ice cream with real ingredients- it took large corporations to come up with gums, fillers, questionable oil, etc...

Libraries, schools, hospitals, governments- all our institutions suffer with similar issues.  When these institutions were private and owned/funded by individuals or families, those owners required a certain level of quality and scope that kept the institution functioning as it was intended, through time.

Unfortunately, the bureaucracy does none of these things.  A bureaucrat has access to the resources of the institution as long as he is there, so he won't think very much further than his retirement.  Indeed, many of these 'professionals' can make their CVs look good at the expense of the institution, in the hopes of moving on to some other unsuspecting institution.  The multimillion dollar project the director presided over may look wonderful on paper when he goes on to interview at another place, but it's really a tragic mistake the institution will have to suffer from for years.

The owner has a longer time preference- one focused on the original purpose of the institution, and then creating the conditions through which the institution can continue to persist through time.  This is actually one of the key aspects of leadership, but instead of teaching this, they'll teach garbage ultimately designed to favor cheap charisma and/or demagoguery.  We are taught to think that the characteristics of an exploiter are leadership.  They try to make us fear and suspect anyone who does display real leadership capability.  

We arrive at a point where a product like healthcare is just as adulterated and bad for you as some soy-based soft serve they want to foist off on you as ice cream.  It's just not what it was.  Hospitals used to have enough beds to weather something like COVID- now they don't and the primary reason is that the resources used to keep those beds available are now going to a gigantic bureaucracy we never needed.  In Canada, it has gotten even worse- they are pushing euthanasia on people.  It has become more convenient to kill patients rather than treat patients.  

'We the people' largely fails, especially if it is expressed as any sort of ownership strategy.