Monday, May 16, 2022

The Feminine Form of Fascism

 I remember being at a wedding reception where some young woman was talking about the special school she was working at.  She had this example of what the lady the school was on about that went something like this:

When closing the door, boys often slam the door, but they don't actually want to slam the door. The boy's actions and his will are at odds with each other.  

Since the first word I would have said if I had said something was bullshit, and this was a Christian setting, I think I failed to get much out of my mouth.  Meanwhile, some dude sort of half-heartedly threw out the concept of agency, but I don't think any of this registered with the woman.

If you are not, or have never been a boy- slamming a door is often quite satisfying.  Not only that, in many cases closing a door with enough emphasis such that you hear an audible click serves as a way to know that, yes, you have actually succeeded in shutting the door.

Moms have been trying to get kids not to slam doors since the existence of doors, and this is probably a good thing, since the baby may be sleeping, or your door manufacture is just not building a robust enough product for regular door slamming.  

But what the young lady was describing goes beyond the behavior, into a sort of feminist fascism, where whatever the mom wants (and/or the educator) is supposedly the will of the of the child too.

I think this sort of thinking shows up in bureaucracies everywhere too, and is assumed in many situations among adults- but since adults can articulate what they want, well you end up with crap like what Trudeau did with the Canadian truckers.  They dehumanize you since their definition of a human includes only people who agree with them.

These people are dangerous- both the powerful and the school teachers.  

Monday, February 28, 2022

The One Real Argument for Freedom

 We have to accept a particular reality- in much of the world, an American arguing for freedom is seen as a self-serving bastard.  The State Department is much to blame here, since they bring up freedom- or the lack of it- whenever they want to interfere with other nations.

There's also this whole arena of Western 'freedom' which is pushed.  Sexual deviancy, drug abuse, making up the latest identity and then browbeating everyone who doesn't want to be bothered by it- all this stuff has been labelled as 'freedom', yet it's pretty obvious it is not.  People end up with poorer, sadder lives because of it, and it wrecks families, institutions, even nations.

But at the core of any sane argument for freedom, which for governments would probably translate as having as few laws as possible is this:


That's it really, although, obviously, you'd want to include re-iteration, because that's the whole point.  As much as possible, let people work through their own problems, and keep trying to improve.  Improvement often comes incrementally over time.  As far as possible, it's best not to weigh the person down with extra penalties or problems, because it's too easy to discourage improvement- especially if the marginal return on the latest attempt at improvement is completely overshadowed by whatever penalty the government visits upon the person.

I'm sure many want something more idealistic, hyperbolic- whatever- but look, the CCP isn't going to buy your fairy tales, and maybe you really want to convince them of something rather than just trying to make them look bad.  

This is more like an engineering argument.  Perhaps best understood by people trying to create something.  Now, our government seems to be hell bent on destroying everything, but I don't think every nation is that way.  Some people are actually trying to do some decent governing, and they may well be the sort of nations that the media yell the loudest about.  

Thursday, December 2, 2021

The Plot Has Been Infected

 The Blade of the Immortal is a movie about a Samurai who can't die.  He ends up killing some people, including his sister's husband.  His sister goes crazy, so instead of committing seppuku, he runs away with her and tries to keep her alive.  But she gets killed by some bounty hunters after him.  He manages to kill them, but is terribly wounded himself and expects to die, but some mysterious old woman infects him with blood worms that knit his body back together.

Now, what I think would happen under such circumstances and what happened in the movie diverge considerably.  

If he got married and had children, there would, of course, be sadness at the death of loved ones- but there would always be loved ones living.  Always another generation- more descendants to shepherd through life.

The movie wasn't like that at all.  Instead he was living in a shack outside of town and wasn't doing much in the way of human interaction until the mysterious old lady told a girl who looked like his sister to go hire him as a bodyguard.  A lot of crazy fight scenes ensue. And his will to live is basically revived in the sense that he is determined to live for the girl and keep her from harm.

It was a fun movie, but the missing pieces, and many of the assumptions just remind me of what's been stolen from us.  We live in a bureaucratic age.  If we save money, central banks allow the value of what we save leak away from us, so we are screwed unless we come up with some sophisticated plan.  The effects of this broken, modern world led to many of the assumptions made in the movie.  

I think the impulse to build something that would last through the generations would become very strong in anyone who knew they were going to live for a very long time- potentially forever.  When an old man plants a tree, he can only imagine what it will be like when it is fully grown.  Wouldn't the impulse become stronger if you knew you'd likely be there to see it?

Wednesday, November 10, 2021

Kenosha reminds me of a pattern

I am noticing this Kenosha thing as a sort of evidentiary process against the notion that we just go online and get fooled, start conspiracy theories, or whatever the delusional say nowadays.

Despite Twitter being onboard with the narrative program, here I am seeing folks tweet directly about the trial as they watch it.  Meanwhile, the mainstream throws out a bunch of lies that are easily contradicted by the trail itself.  

I don't even need to watch it myself.  I could.  I could follow links people post.  

Generally though, I don't.  I know I don't have to.  This is a very obvious pattern.  

It's difficult to deal with people who don't see the pattern, especially if they happen to have some power over your life.  They may be liars, sociopaths, or they may be nice people still deluded by this stuff.  Regardless, they are threats.  They want us to assent to the lie.  They make decisions based on these lies, and these decisions are extremely unfair- often criminal.  

Nor can they recognize you are justifiably angry.  Logic doesn't work with them.  Perhaps the best advice I have heard is to treat them a little like a mentally ill family member.  But I forget sometimes.  I assume people would be happier knowing the truth, that perhaps some simple logic would help them not make really stupid mistakes.

But that all comes to naught, and tends to put me more on edge, because now they have identified me as not of their kind.  

Sure, I guess some of the folks on Twitter are just not following the same sorts of people I'm following.  But you'd think they'd have seen a mainstream lie get destroyed in about 12 minutes by now- even if it's something relatively non-political.  Even before social media, one of the chief indications of either poor or false information came from pilots about stories involving aircraft.  The pilots know stuff the journalists don't know, and they would often find inaccuracies.  The argument about whether or not it just meant the journalist didn't know what he was doing or if there was some sort of cover-up going on in a particular case is moot.  The point is, when the pilots spoke up, we knew the original story was wrong.

Facts, statistics, how things work versus the movie version of how they work, various research papers (and the people smart enough to blog coherently about them)- none of this is conspiracy theory.  Emergent phenomenon- especially behavior coming from bureaucracies- well it's not even a theory, it is an observation.  

As you might guess, I am getting quite tired of this.  

Tuesday, September 28, 2021

Could We Fix A Small City?

 I've long had ideas for small communities- ones that would hopeful grow to a small city size.  One of them is that teenagers benefit greatly by farming- not just the daily chores, but learning the planning necessary to plant, harvest, and produce a usable product.

This fits right in with another little project small communities should have- food stores.  Communities can't be completely self-sufficient, but as we can see right now as various supply chain issues empty store shelves, it is nice to have some local supply on hand when things happen.

So, I figured a small community would want enough calories (protein, fat, carbs, alcohol) on hand to get through some amount of time- five years is what the commies like to plan for.  Meanwhile, there are various products- especially wine and cheese- that tend to increase in value from 'ageing'.  These sort of products are good to look at for this kind of project, because remember- we are not trying for pure self-sufficiency.  We are trying to be resilient, so we want a store of food we can eat, but if we don't need to eat them, and they turn into high value products we can sell- great.

This morning, for the first time, I started to wonder if this idea could be grafted into an existing city.  Surely more and more people are worrying about the empty grocery shelves.   Additionally, more and more institutions that we usually depend are making absolute fools of themselves, so to whatever extent we can stop funding them we should.

There usually are some local farms and producers around, and they could ramp up to some extent.  More can be encouraged.  The expenses and infrastructure to make the final products, as well as the storage, could be shared and centralized.  

We would, of course, have to figure out how not to be derailed by the woke.  

One possible way of dealing with this is to take advantage of the fact that the people the woke don't like generally tend to plan ahead themselves- thus they may not need whatever is reserved for them during times of distress.  But should they not need it, they should be credited with the value of the finished, 'aged' products.  

The entire leftist project depends on these various supply chains that they are destroying.  They can't really help it, since the bureaucratic class has this cancerous tendency to refuse any restraint to their growth.  As the supply chains shut down, their ability to screw things up will begin to wane, much like tumors start to weaken if they lose access to the blood supply.  They will then want to flail around and find your blood supply, but the chances are high that we can fend them off at that point.   

It would be nice to reach the point where we can just put criminals and people who advocate for criminality via false moralizations in jail, and we may get there if we can introduce some sort of order that people would come to find important and perhaps vital to their life.

Wednesday, September 22, 2021

Training Targets

There's an issue people have when working out- they need a clear goal- otherwise they can get pulled around by various things that they hear and not really get anywhere.  

I've noticed this tendency myself, as I read or listen to a variety of different people.  

But I've also come to see there are commonalities, trade-offs- certain parameters everyone needs to reach, which would lend itself well to developing targets for the general population.

The first place I started to get this idea was with some interviews Carl Lanore did with some ex-military guys a few years back.  Basically, these guys went to Afghanistan, and would try to get jacked when not doing missions.  When they did do missions, they would suffer under the excess muscle they had.  They were running up against one of these trade offs.  

So, when they looked into training other people who wanted to get into peak condition for these types of operations, they found some research pointing to where the trade off was.  This seems to be mainly from statistical analysis from a bunch of athletes.

For my height, for instance, based on these statistics, my target weight is supposed to be 198lb.  And this would include what is likely 30lb of muscle that the normal population wouldn't have.  But no one goes into the gym (especially not at my height) thinking 198lb is the target. It seems much too low.

Additionally, there's interesting research on various things- like the strength differences between the hamstrings and quads, for instance, that could also help us have a picture of what an individual needs to work on.  There's the purely aesthetic stuff based off the golden ratio too- proportionality- a principle that could save a few instagram models.  

Finally, having recently been experimenting with Doug Brignole's methods of training, I realized there are ways of drastically reducing the chances of injury while actually loading the muscle you are trying to train much more effectively.

All of this gives me a sense that there is something here, which may be difficult to market, but would no doubt be extremely effective.  For the average human, hit that target and then maintain it over time.  For athletes, even ones that move past that target, well they still need to keep the body balanced, don't they?  Julien Pineau became famous, in part, for pointing out how poor lat development was contributing to the injuries Crossfit athletes were having.  

Of course, once someone reaches this target (and has the right body composition) then, obviously, if they wanted to make the trade-off, so be it.  Bodybuilders, powerlifters- all want to be bigger.  Long distance runners may want to be smaller, or at least emphasize leg development over upper body.  

But for most of us, it's daily life and the trials we may encounter within it that we want to be prepared for.  

Wednesday, August 4, 2021

It's the Bureaucracy, Not The Capitalism

Capitalists, it seems to me, seldom believe in capitalism as any sort of ideology.  Even if the origin stories about companies coming out of garages are true, once they are big, they get into the lobbying business.  Arguably, they have to do it, whether they want to or not- once the bureaucrats smell profit, you either play the game or they come and screw you.

Socialists, on the other hand, believe in socialism.  They believe in it so much that when something doesn't work, they blame the rest of us.  

So, it's annoying when I hear people blame capitalism for, well, whatever.  It isn't the capitalism, it's the bureaucracy- the same bureaucracy that tries to implement socialism.  

I doubt politics is ever going to work at all, but one of the big issues is that the non-left refuses to admit to reality.  It's pointless to meet a progressive talking point with words like 'freedom' or 'free markets'.  We already don't have it- and they carefully advertise and shape public opinion to the point where they are likely to get what they want.

But there's one way to short circuit this stuff- figure out what the left is marketing to the public- and then provide it with one very important change- take the bureaucracy out of it, or if possible, nuke a few existing bureaucracies.

One example would be nuking the fed and giving everyone a 'universal basic income.'  Create the currency, send it to the people rather than creating all these moral hazards at the top of the financial food chain.  Banks would actually have to cater to people again, and financial institutions wouldn't be able to run around, buying up single family homes.   So, obviously, one aspect to this is to think critically about the concept, and find a way to target the outcomes we want rather than whatever it is the left wants.

Another example is cancelling student debt- but why the hell should the taxpayer pay for it?  We've all noticed these graduates don't know anything real and have had their heads filled with garbage.  Higher education is, therefore, fraud.  You make those who committed fraud pay.  Include damages- don't just cancel the debt, but have some chunk of money there for the taking, so that odiously elitist barista with her communist English degree will come in and admit (at least on paper) that she was defrauded, that she actually doesn't know anything.   This would destroy the bureaucratic parasites in these universities, and force said barista to disavow her position in the bureaucratic class.  

Of course, if you have fewer bureaucrats,  socialism becomes less dangerous, because you have to have someone somewhere with some nominal authority to act on the principles of an ideology.  With capitalism- you just need anyone willing to save up some money and buy a capital good or two to go into production.  And if that capitalist looks around and sees there's no bureaucrat to bribe or scheme with, well, he might just stick to capitalism rather than get up to these shenanigans people seem to blame capitalism for.