Friday, November 17, 2017

The Left Are Biological Heretics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, November 6, 2017

More On The 'Belief' Test

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

Hubris can be fed, if nothing else...

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

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

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

Thursday, November 2, 2017

Can Bitcoin Survive Nuclear War?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Post 2008 Suspicions

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

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

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

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



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

Monday, October 23, 2017

The "Me Too" Crowd Are Not Brave

There were rules once. Feminists have been trying to change the rules forever. This is one of the reasons they always want our 'health insurance' to cover costs that can be avoided.

A lot of men say no to your rule changes. And you know what? A lot of us pay a price. Upfront. Inability to smile and pretend the lie is okay means often means little chance for advancement. And then there are the chances of actually finding a good woman to have children with.

And gossip, rumor, accusation, etc... bad things could happen.

Then there are the Harvey types. They say yes to all your rule changes. Because the old rules meant fewer chances at his stupid behavior, so obviously he's going to be for your rule changes. Secondly, they love funding your political stuff, because they can generally keep themselves safe from you by having the politicians in their pocket.

But now the Harvey has fallen, as has much of Hollywood- although how many names are really being named? But I say Hollywood has fallen because the implied pay off- that Harvey or anyone else in Hollywood can deliver you a nice career on the silver screen is less plausible every day.

So Harvey is a poor bet who has apparently never thought of trying to make himself a bit more attractive to women. A little creative HRT, lift weights, don't do that needy/whiny thing, assuming that being faithful to his wife is just out of the question...

But anyway, the 'Me Too' crowd- someone else has slain the dragon, and what seems like thousands are running out and slapping the corpse and then running back to cover again.

There are real dragons still out there, but so far it's merely the icky who are being fingered, not those with power, not the more attractive- the ones you know are probably up for statutory rape at the very least.

So, your politicians want to change the rules again, as is evident since Hilary likes misrepresent Trump every time she talks about Harvey. No Hilary, police your own men. Stop messing with everyone else. You can't conceive of better men, but that is because better men will have nothing to do with you.

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

The Tragedy Of Badly Conceived Enemies

The sequel to Blade Runner should be best conceived of as some form of modern art. Imagery suborns the plot. Most obvious, of course, is killing unnecessary to the plot. Expensive, pointless killings- excepting as some sort of sick sacrifice to the visual. One murder and a few bombings actually sort of made sense- few other things did.

Perhaps this is a side effect of the American foreign policy trend to demonize everyone we don't like. Inevitably some evil dictator inexplicably kills children, often with military weaponry, at a time when they need military weaponry for actual military targets.

They try to deliver some sort of evil capitalist, but really, they deliver a blind and foolish version of Che.

This guy wouldn't have gotten humanity to nine worlds.

The subtext, which I doubt was thought through very much, reinforced the ideas of r/K and fourth generation warfare. Naturally, no one in Hollywood meant to do this, but their rabbitry leaked all over this movie.

And the destruction of state authority, concomitant with the rise of a cause as more important tracks well with fourth generation warfare. Civilization shall be dispensed with in the name of something or other- all things that will seem very important to the zealots, but the grandchildren of the zealot's generation will wistfully remember tales of air conditioning and indoor plumbing- should these morons get out of hand.

Monday, October 2, 2017

Surveillance: Is it inevitable?

If we have some sort of choice, and we can get rid of the massive surveillance systems, then it's probably a good idea. Certainly it accords more appropriately with my libertarian mode of thinking.

Now obviously, government has a 'king of the hill' aspect to it. In order to materially reduce it's size and scope, you have to beat it in some way, and in some material/symbolic way you have to be 'the king' and keep humiliating all the bad actors who will desperately show up to try to use government. I think we see this a little bit in America right now with Trump's presidency apparently triggering people to become extra especially nutty.

Like why do you kneel? I can imagine, should some overlord show up to subjugate us, he would not bother to check if you were kneeling in protest, he'd just want you to kneel.

But I digress, and all evidence points to much more dangerous responses happening. They will happen for a while, probably.

But ultimately, the idea is that the only way to de-politicize things is to hold the line until everyone learns charging up the hill is pointless. Then everybody goes home and actually invests in doing non-political stuff, and then maybe we can quietly take down the hill.

I have begun to think maybe surveillance is a hill unto itself. That it is already out there in force, and the only way to get it under control is take it and use it. The trickiest part, of course, is that in order to reform it, you have to remove the people who love it, and put people into place that are fundamentally opposed to it- which is a contradiction I don't know how many people can live with. And then the people you remove would likely just start doing it on their own, so maybe you can't just shut them down...

It is a very troubling thing. One upside though, is that good surveillance can help with governance. The downside is that it may corrupt.