Free men are not equal, equal men are not free.

Friday, August 18, 2017

Girl Friday

Enjoy the weekend, and get some sun before it goes away on Monday (if only for a little while)






Thursday, August 17, 2017

On Rallies

Free Northerner examines political rallies, with some of the pretty euphemisms torn off.
Voting is a display of legitimacy. Voting is the statement: ‘I believe the person I vote for has legitimate authority over me.” This is why naked dictators have hold elections where they win with 120% of the vote. It reinforces their legitimacy. 
It is also a display of power. It is a ritualistic counting of heads; who would outnumber whom if political disputes needed to be resolved by violence. ‘I have 65 million people who believe I have legitimate authority and who would fight for me if violence began. You have fewer and would lose. Surrender peacefully’
Food for thought, at least.

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Axes and the Axis

A few more things tumbled out after the fallout from Charlottesville and my previous post

Namely, the far right.

Unfortunately, Vox already did an excellent post following up on a point he made during a darkstream. 
The most common error is to postulate a Communist left-wing extreme opposed by an extreme Nazi right wing. Not only does this leave out a substantial body of political and philosophical thought, but the construction falls apart the moment the two socialist ideologies are compared. Any reasonable comparison inevitably forces the confused advocates of such a definition to assert that the spectrum is actually a circle, in which case the terms left and right, much less left-wing and right-wing, are wholly nonsensical.
This is one of Vox's dialectic posts - we're not going to convince anyone that Dems R the real Nazis, or Nazis are really Dems (though ragging on how Antifa and commies hate Nazis because only killing 20 million makes them posers is fun...)

The funny part is that no matter how you define left-right by modern standards - either by nationalism vs globalism, or by authoritarianism vs not, we are, indeed, the far right.

Sure, multi-axis charts have been done before, but I believe it was Col. Kratman who noted that if you plotted most philosophical leanings on said charts, you'd end up with a very stretched ovoid distribution with a few outliers skewed diagonally through the chart.

And if one considers that the inherent decentralization of nationalism vs globalism requires less authoritarianism to some small degree, if only in total scope of humanity rather than how perniciously it extends through any subjects life, even that axis maps, roughly, to a very small part of the state-individual axis.

As I alluded to in discussing moderates, the commie big lie of the far right is that it posits the Nazis as the rightmost anchor, and totalitarianism and socialism (but I repeat myself) as a given.

That is a ground assumption that can be challenged, as well as the kindness of socialism. "One hundred million isn't enough, we need to aim for two?"

Or not - I'm not a good rhetorician, though I've gotten better.

In either case, it doesn't matter if you use the european axis the left likes to use, or the US one, we are, indeed, the far right. 

Well beyond it in fact.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Miscellaney

First - not the first time it's been observed, most notably perhaps by Orwell, who's 1984 the left appears to have embraced as an operating manual rather than a warning, but still, the left loves to erase them some history
“New Orleans is tearing down its Confederate monuments, but the South has plenty of others” 
Look at that title. The whole purpose is to eradicate the South’s identity. A people without a past cease to be a people. The Marxist can put in their own statues and claim only Marxist heroes have done anything. 
It’s already starting. As real American historical figures are pulled down, the Marxists are defending a Lenin statue. 
“Sure, Lenin the Man endorsed the use of mass terror against his enemies, created the Soviet Union’s secret police, and implemented policies that caused millions of peasant farmers to starve to death. But Lenin the Public Artwork is a beautifully crafted sculpture, and a catalyst for healthy discourse.” 
Got that, plebes? One of the greatest murders of all time, his statue is a catalyst for healthy discourse.
Over at Superversive, they take a look at Passengers:
The ship design is breathtaking. This is the ship I’d want to take to the stars. The ship is not just a colony ship. It’s a luxury liner with a huge swimming pool, plenty of recreation facilities, sports and entertainment, bars and restaurants, and luxury suites. I can’t tell you how refreshing this was. Personally, I’m done with stories where humans are living in squalor, wallowing in their own filth because while we retain the technology to travel between stars or planets we must show humans as victims of science and technology who’ve lost the ability to fix the plumbing or take out the garbage. 
Some of the people on the Avalon are passengers who’ve paid full fares. Others are people with valued skill-sets (blue-collar people like mechanics, gardeners, and midwives) who are getting a discounted trip in exchange for a percentage of their future earnings. Most of these people are going on a one-way trip. They are true pioneers seeking adventure, open spaces, and the opportunity to do things like build a home with their own hands. I loved this “unique” concept of competent, hard-working people willing to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get to work. 
This movie showed, rather well, that you don’t have to have a post-apocalyptic setting, the worst elements of human nature, wars, or refugees to tell a good science fiction story.
Okay, it drove me nuts when the ship stopped spinning when the drive shut down, but overall, I think the movie doesn't deserve much of the hate directed at it, even if I'm not a fan of whats-her-name.

And Peter Grant takes a look at "glamping."

OK, it aint camping, but I've been "guilty" of renting a cabin for a few days near a national park so I could avoid hotels, tourist traps, and restaurants, while being near enough to hike, etc.

Finally, Taleb rakes Mary Beard over the coals for defending the BBC's stupidity, and doubling down.
Background: The BBC cartoon showed a subsaharan African as part of a “typical” Roman Brit in the name of diversity. The UK “bien pensant” establishment now has a binary classification“white” and “other” that is, “nonwhite”, whatever that means, a classification that encompasses anything that is not Northern European and, if Mediterranean, comes from a “diversity country”, that is from a non EU-member. One nonwhite can substitute for another. If that’s not racial supremacism, what is?



Monday, August 14, 2017

Who Are You, and What Do You Want?

One of my favorite all-time SF TV shows is not Star Trek, and hasn't been for years (Wrath of Khan is a movie). Instead, it is an odd, often nearly-canceled series about a space station that is at a crossroads between empires, Babylon 5.

Yes, it was idealistic - the station was supposed to provide "diplomatic" solutions. Yet Michael J Straczynski was far too clever to write anything anywhere near as utopian as Rodenberry wished for, and got in ST:NG.

Leaving aside the utter awesomeness of the space battles in episodes like Severed Dreams where Earth attempts to retake a seceding station, and many other great moments that rely on the well-played characters, the show was unique in having an ongoing story arc with a beginning, middle, and end. Events in season 2, for example, had an impact in seasons three and four.

One of the main themes in the show though was the two warring elder races. From infogalactic:
The conflict between two unimaginably powerful older races, the Vorlons and the Shadows, is represented as a battle between two competing ideologies, each seeking to turn the humans and the other younger races to their beliefs. The Vorlons represent an authoritarian philosophy: you will do what we tell you to, because we tell you to do it. The Vorlon question, "Who are you?" focuses on identity as a catalyst for shaping personal goals; the intention is not to solicit a "correct" answer, but to "tear down the artifices we construct around ourselves until we're left facing ourselves, not our roles." The Shadows represent another authoritarian philosophy cloaked in a disguise of evolution through fire (as shown in the episode in which Sheridan goes to Z'ha'dum and when he refuses to cooperate, Justin tells him: "But we do what we're told... and so will you!"), of sowing the seeds of conflict in order to engender progress. The question the Shadows ask is "What do you want?" In contrast to the Vorlons, they place personal desire and ambition first, using it to shape identity, encouraging conflict between groups who choose to serve their own glory or profit. The representation of order and chaos was informed by the Babylonian myth that the universe was born in the conflict between both. 
Anyone familiar with Jordan Peterson's work, especially anyone who's listened to or watched his Maps of Meaning lectures, will find the above damned familiar. They also would not be surprised to discover that, per Strazynski, the theme is played out such that neither question is sufficient.

This makes sense. Both are authoritarian. One is order, and awareness of what one is in and of themselves, the other is chaos, and desire. Incidentally, the traits are actually two different axes.

How order leads to authoritarianism is easy to figure out. How chaos does - well - ever dealt with an addict? Their life is chaos, and inflicts the same on everyone around them. With nothing to channel that chaos, they are slaves to their desires. The shadows offer people the illusion of choice, getting what they want, until, drunk with power, compromised, they cannot give it up, and serve their masters.

I find the other dichotomy more interesting. Knowing oneself is great, but if one desires nothing, has no ambitions, wants nothing, one will never act - and the Vorlons rarely, if ever, acted. Our wants though, I already mentioned addiction. If we follow the whim of the moment without order and logos imposed on it, without discipline, we never build anything.

It also relates to the framing problem. Purpose and goals are necessary to act, to even be able to classify the things in our environment. A yardstick can also be a convenient thing-to-get-stuff-out-I-dropped-behind-the-desk, depending on your needs and wants of the moment.

Knowing who you are helps guide those needs - do they really serve your goals, and are they in tune with who you are?

I'll have to go back and watch the damn series over again, now that I've caught up on Peterson.

Update: You can see some of what I'm talking about just in this compilation of intros. Yes, Bruce "Tron" Boxleitner took over as the captain in season two, while the first season's captain made later, separate appearances. The also rushed the original 5-year arc to a close at season four out of cancellation fears, resulting in season 5 being somewhat disjointed - I've never bothered finishing it.







Things Have Gotten Real, Things Have Gotten Serious, Alt-Reichtards

In the recent periscope by Vox Day discussing the fallout from the rally in Virginia, he focused again on the stupidity of Nazi imagery, the Alt-Reich, and issues of "are we just cucking" in not embracing Nazi imagery.

So - if they're calling us Nazis anyway, why not, right?

Right?

OK. Are we Nazis? I'm not. I'm certainly not German, I'm certainly not a German supremacist much less a white one, I have no desire to rule the world, and I want no part of a leftist, collectivist ideology even if it's dressed up in nationalist colors.

If they insist on thinking of themselves as Nazis, then the alt-reichtards are "right" in the same way that Nazis were - because of the communist big lie, and because they, like most of Europe, fell for the delusion that the problem with National Socialism was the nationalism they shared with everyone else.

And if they want to adopt the ideology (edit- LR) of a failed bunch of leftist collectivists with delusions of imperial grandeur, they are not of the right.

So - the left, antifa, the media, the cluckservatives will all call me Nazi anyway?

So what? We. Don't. Care.

The point of "they'll call you a Nazi anyway" is that I should not be scared to do what I see is right, should not stop doing what I intend to do, because someone calls me a Nazi.

The point is not that I should go ahead and put on the uniform and the armbands, become a Nazi, much less LARP as one like a poser, since they'll apply the label.

Because I'm not a fucking socialist. I'm not a progressive. I'm not a fascist. I'm not a communist, a Trotskyite, or anything else like that.

And since that is not what I am, I sure as hell won't start acting like it just to placate some ignorant morons, or give the left the optics they wish.

If you insist that being part of the right means we should LARP as Nazis, then I agree with Vox - you're not interested in saving western civilization.

You also are more interested in playing dress-up games than winning.

Thursday, August 10, 2017

More Being Evil

Two interviews with Damore - one with Peterson, one with Molyneux

He seems smart, sincere, and like he expected some trouble but, not having understood the evils of socialism, communism, and having watched it play out as post-modern thought, feminism, etc., he had no idea the level of irrational hate there was.

Moly had to restrain himself a bit to keep from stepping all over him, Peterson gave him some very good advice regarding not apologizing.



Also


Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Google - Be Evil Edition

A few memes and other stuff for your pleasure, related to the latest google issues:
















Monday, August 7, 2017

On Body Language and Hatefacts

Recently read and finished The Definitive Book of Body Language by Alan and Barbara Pease.

For what it's worth, it's a worthwhile and useful read, with a lot of solid info. But this isn't a review.

This is also not a rant about the blatant usage of republicans/conservatives for the "dumb" illustrations, and Clintons, leftists, etc. for the "smart" ones.

Instead, given the recent kerfluffle at Google, it's an observation of the book as a time capsule, in that I am sure one day it will be on the SJW hatefact list for even noticing differences between men and women, and worse, while not actively promoting them as inborn, not ascribing them to socialization either.

Which is funny, because along with the not terribly Hillary and Bill pedastalization, the numerous differences between men and women and how they tend to behave are almost always skewed to say "women are better at".

Thursday, August 3, 2017

Moderates and the Truth

Often enough one hears from moderates and those who think they are wise, that the truth is always somewhere in between.

Bullshit.

It's an attempt to sound clever, to sound like maybe they don't have everything right, but you certainly don't either.

The simple answer: the truth is.

Now.

The truth is often far more complex than we can process with many facets, value judgements, and factors that interact in many ways. The truth of poverty is that there are those who, due to advances in technology and changes in manufacturing, or sickness, or something, are screwed, and will need, through no fault of their own, charity of some form. There are also those who are lazy, who given the opportunity to work, will not. One example is asking a street corner beggar if he's willing to work for a meal instead of begging for change. The ones scamming you, getting a few bucks for booze or doing far better than they present themselves, will tell you to fuck off. The ones in need who are willing to do their share will say yes, and will be grateful because you let them do something to earn the charity.

This is much like the arguments of post-modernism that there are an infinite number of ways to look at something, so they then further conflate it with the claim that none of them are privileged, or better than the others.

Bullshit.

I've discussed elsewhere that categories for things, like "music", "fantasy", or "science fiction" can be fuzzy, such that two things can legitimately claim that label and share few if any common points.

Yet, a book is not an ocean liner. The things we call "books", unless we arbitrarily label anything and everything a "book" because we do not care to communicate ideas to people without developing a new vocabulary, share a set of features readily and quickly discernable from those shared by boats, ships, or ocean liners.


Thus with truth. Sometimes, both parties are completely wrong. But if you drew a Venn diagram, the truth won't necessarily be between the two circles. It may be, much like the left-right definition used by the political left where Nazis - creatures of the left -  are on the right, and libertarians are outside the bounds of their political scale. Or it may be completely tangental.

Or it may be that one side is, within a reasonable approximation, correct.

Moderates like to say this bullshit a lot, and like to believe that by being in between, at neither extreme, that they are more correct (and smarter than everyone else).

The world doesn't care. A book is not a ship. Or an airplane.

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Even More Dunkirk, and Molyneux

As always, Stefan has some interesting thoughts, though this is less a review than a discussion of some of the meta-politics.


Tuesday, August 1, 2017

Commitment, and Computers

Stefan Molyneux recently posted on commitment, which turned a common paradign, one that I've intermittently laughed at, on it's head.


Give it a listen. I'll be back later with some more thoughts on it.

Also worth watching, on a completely different tack:


Monday, July 31, 2017

A Little Bit of Jeffro

Since Jeffro often posts odd thoughts to Google+ and not just to his own (less and less frequently posted) blog or the Castalia House blog, so odd bits of wisdom often slip in that don't show up elsewhere.

That's fine, but one thing came up that should be seen by other people, so...

Jeffro, after looking back at the last month of his working on fitness:
* My fitness philosophy: get your butt to the gym... three days a week... for 45 minute workouts... even if it's just to sit on the curb to smoke a cigarette during that time. Just do that much and everything else will take care of itself.

* There a lot of noise to sift through on this topic, a lot of well meaning people will steer you towards injury so take responsibility for everything, go slow, and pay attention to your body. My first instinct was to do three sets of ten as hard as I could stand it. I am certain that would have eventually wrecked me had I stuck to it. I dialed back to 2 sets of twenty set at right where I could handle it... and that kept me on the weight machines without noticeable risk (for the moment.) I tried changing it up to 2 sets of twenty, 1 set of 10, 1 set of 3... increasing the weights each time. But for my frame, my age, and my level of unfitness, this "get in there and max out" mentality just doesn't seem to be an option.

* The idea that I am "training" as opposed to "dieting" is a significant reframe. For one... dieting is for women and for womanly reasons. Training is inherently more comprehensive and more visionary. An entirely different tone overtakes the conversation when you open with "no thank you, I'm training" than when you say "no thank you, I'm on a diet." The former person is going after something. The latter... he was put under time out because he couldn't behave.

* My mental models of what is happening and why develop as I continue. Eating right is part of the workout. Resting is part of the workout. Taking time to go to the doctor is part of the workout. Brainstorming about fitness with people is part of the workout.

* One month of working out has had enough noticable impact on my appearance that continuing the habit is a no-brainer. I am not beach body ready, but having a more defined physique makes me look better in a t-shirt. No, there are plenty of athletic guys that I will never catch up to. But when I see lanky guys slouching on the bus, that defeated posture, that vibe that the give off of having let themselves go...? It's a stark contrast. I give off a much more active vibe. I feel better. I go out more, talk to more people, do more things. It's like... I'm in some kind of arena that these other guys won't touch. No one will tell them what they're missing out on and how easy it would be for them to have it.

* That said... I know why I didn't do this earlier. Injuries put an end to every fitness kick I've gone on previously. I went further and did more this time than any time previously, but I still needed solid direction and sound medical support in order to maintain this round. So you've got a gym membership, you're looking at buying a new bike, you're paying for red meat and spending time cooking, and then you want to throw doctor's bills into the mix, too...? The much vaunted "humility" that so many people want to lay at my door would exert itself strenuously against this. "Look, focusing on appearance is vanity." "Why go to the gym when I could just dig a few post holes?" "Oh, look... I'm not worth the expense. Here... you all take this slice of the budget and go do that other thing instead."

* What is the mindset at the root of that? Well that's where it gets scary, because I see it now for what it is. It is this reflexive tendency to insist on sitting in the back of the bus. To let everyone else go ahead of me, not out of a sense of chivalry but out of some kind of shame. It's a weird attempt to make a virtue of sitting out of the game of life rather than jumping into it and making a play. That's why success at fitness now makes me so angry. It's just not that hard. The payoffs are immediate and fun and energizing. But the thing that was holding me back for decades...? It was something in my head. Nice sounding lies. I don't know who to blame for it, really. But I absolutely hate it. The waste makes me furious.

* And yes, when I think of all the young guys struggling with any sort of strain of depression... it does make me angry that they will be handed some kind of drugs without ever being told to go invest in themselves. Such a disaster. Such a waste. 
Among other things, I think the focus on "training" vs "dieting" is, shile seemingly small and subtle, trivial even, nevertheless profound.

One is working toward something, the other is denying yourself. It goes hand in hand with what Jordan Peterson has said about establishing a narrative or purpose that makes the suffering worthwhile.

On a smaller note, our successors are getting red-pilled:
My son got a report on this from someone that was there. Kid says Trump said the media would lie about he was going to say. He comes back home, checks the news and... boom. Kid's mind is blown. Everything Trump said came true. This event red pilled a lot of young kids who were (for the Left) the worst group of people that could possibly be red pilled. This will bear fruit. A good chunk of these kids know that "Fake News" is absolutely an accurate characterization of the media.
Related to this:


Friday, July 28, 2017

No Spoilers?

Bradford Walker discusses using spoilers as a method to avoid wasting time on crap.
In many cases, the summaries are sufficiently thorough that I can discuss the work in question with people who've consumed it and not miss a beat. (This is a reliable tell regarding the work in question, and often of its fandom.) Letting others talk has done far more to tell me that I was right to go with the spoiler and skip it than to convince me otherwise. Using spoilers as a screen allows me to avoid most of the crap.

At first I was surprised by the title, but realized that dammit, I do the same thing, almost.

I don't go out of my way to find spoilers unless the trailers and marketing have social justice/message fic "tells", but I certainly don't go out of my way to avoid them. Good movies, stories, and shows bear rereading or watching (say, The Usual Suspects) even after you know the "surprise" twist. "Twists" in social justice crap almost always involve exactly what one would think even if the exact method or lines of dialog are open to different verbiage.

As Walker implied, the works in question aren't really that imaginative, and the stories and themes are far more repetitive than anything Ms Grundy or the church ladies would impose.

The most egregious example being an episode of L&O:SJW (more commonly known as the longest running fantasy series "SVU") where on seeing the trailer I predicted a) this would be the one time a guy was falsely accused of rape (because he's black), they wouldn't punish the women, and the old white guy who was his manager / whatever would somehow turn out to be the bad guy. How did I know? Repeat after me... because if there's a straight white guy he's somehow responsible for everything, and if it looks like there's a black bad guy, he's not.

But I'd argue that Dune, while Excellent, is overrated, and I'd instead put Mote in Gods Eye (I know, I know, YMMV)

Girl Friday

Time for the weekend.





















Thursday, July 27, 2017

Based Shatner

William Shatner of Star Trek fame has, in addition to his work on Star Trek, his Star Trek work after the show, his other TV shows, one of the most memorable Twilight Zone characters, and a few reasonably OK Sci Fi novels, has also shown a willingness to stand up to PC nonsense that other cast members notably have not.

So recently he’s punched back against the idiots ruining the already smoking wreckage of Star Wars.
Yes, he punched back at Chuck Wendig. That's not the only SJW doing work for Star Wars that's punched at Shatner, and Shatner--showing that he knows the Internet better than younger folks young enough to be his grandchildren--reveals that he's based by his response. (Oh, and apparently he knows the Three Laws of SJWs by heart also.)
I’m buying shares in popcorn.

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Cars


Peter Grant has published two pieces the auto industry, and the issues it's likely to see in the near future.

From "Proof the US Auto Industry is in Serious Trouble":
We've already seen how the US auto industry (and Europe's, too, for that matter) is threatened by a tidal wave of vehicles coming off lease over the next few years, as well as technological obsolescence.  Used car prices are predicted to drop by as much as 50% over the next few years, which will undoubtedly force new car prices to decrease as well - otherwise few will be willing to pay them, since the new-to-used differential will be so great. 
There's another reason why vehicle prices are going to have to drop.  It looks as if many of us are struggling to afford them at any cost.
He then follows that up with more evidence - including pictures of used car inventory parked in overflow lots like airport runways, etc.

I can speak first hand to some of this as my three cars now are as follows: a 98, a 2000, and a 2008. In large part because the two older ones still work and so why replace them, and well...

Had a 2002 car with 140k miles that got sandwiched in an accident. No worries, found a used 2000 of the same basice body style and less miles for less than the insurance company paid me. Then the previous 2000 car, a fairly nice luxury model of german make cleared 200k miles and finally, finally, a couple years back, gave up the ghost so hard on the transmission that it would literally cost more to fix the car than the blue book value to purchase it - if one could be found.

Unlike the previous totaled car, no such luck. Also, still recovering from the double whammy of clients closing their doors after the 2008 collapse, and kids medical bills, didn't have cash on hand for something we could trust. So went for a reliable Japanese make from the late 2000's, and will be getting the loan for that cleared within the next year as I've overpaid it every month.

In the meantime, I've observed:
  • Better gas mileage from V6 cars from the mid 90's than modern, "efficient" four cylinders. A lot of the blame here is on weight - all of the extra airbags and safety equipment - despite the better efficiency and horsepower for the engine size.
  • Used car prices go up, and new car prices go up far, far faster. Thanks to cash for clunkers killing the available pool the prices have been driven up on anything remotely reliable. Even if I wanted a new car vice a recent model used, it will be a while before I see the point in spending that kind of money for the latest gadgets. 
  • Used car places - especially the more reputable, new-dealer style ones like Carmax -  are selling cars like hotcakes, with financing, because poeple don't want to have a clunker, but end up in debt for 4-5 years on a car that is often out of warranty, and needs repairs on systems, no matter how reliable the brand, before it's even paid off.
  • Frankly, the market for $2-4000 vehicles is at best a crapshoot, with poor maintenance, falling off body parts, failed accessories, etc. being the norm.
  • While we're on failed accessories - one other reason I hate new cars. Sure, the gadgets are cool, and so are power locks, but I've tolerated one flaky door lock on the 200k car that finally died for it's last few years (hey, got 15 out of it), and seen power windows, locks, radios, climate controls, and other electronics and motor-related things go out on cars. The more parts or complexity you add, the more things there are to go wrong. Thank god consistency of manufacture has kept the failure rate fairly low.
  • Repairs have gotten hideously expensive. The V6 I specifically drove was a friend's Intrepid from the mid/late 90's. Comfortable, adequate power, handled well, and better mileage than many early 2000's economy cars. That said, Chrysler learned the wrong lesson from its then -merger with Daimler-Benz. One of the two cooling fans went out. They were no longer manufactured as separate fans but a combined unit, and the cheapest I could find for a replacement fan set was $500. By comparison, a '92 Saturn cost me all of $150 parts and labor to replace the fan.
  • Stupid design choices. I'm specifically looking at Dodge and Chevy here. I've climbed into smaller Kia's that felt less claustrophobic, and Dodge's have developed a knack for placing sharp angles right where my knees rest.

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Be Afraid. aka The Children Are the Future

The elft is going nuts over the boy scouts, 40k strong, cheering the president on at the national jamboree:
Trump could barely make it through his prepared speech as it was regularly interrupted by shouts from the audience. One scout yelling “I love you” to the president sent the crowd into the aforementioned chant. Trump applauded their efforts and asked, “Did President Obama ever come to a Jamboree?” 
The crowd jeered loudly and Trump promised to come back again.
They're terrified. That's 40 thousand kids, many of whom will grow up not being leftists and good little progs. Some hilights of the speech below:



As an aside, remember when "the children are the future" (teach them well, etc..) - odd, in retrospect, from a crowd that uniformly seems to believe that children are an inconvenience, and that hedonism, feminism, and promoting gay and hedonistic lifestyles, all without kids, is the order of the day.

Monday, July 24, 2017

Dunkirk, and Other Things

First, saw Dunkirk on Friday, because Nolan. Not much to add to the commentary I'll link to, but it is an excellent movie. Nolan not only explores his fascinationwith time and playing with it, but immerses us in a tight, visceral story of men trying to survive, and if not drawing victory from the jaws of defeat, then salvation and hope from the jaws of utter annihilation.

I'm becoming convinced between the Batman movies, Interstellar, and Dunkirk, that, while Nolan has certainly avoided signaling "I'm not a liberal" (hey, look at the people in his movies and some of them are still welcome on Colbert to promote his stuff), he nevertheless unabashedly stands for western civilization and its virtues.

Castalia house discusses it, as well as the Chicago Boys. Daddy Warpig also discusses it (and why, sadly, Valerian is best avoided) in the latest geek gab (below):


Long and the short for Valerian is don't.

Castalia's also discusses Office Space.

Walker discusses how Harmony Gold is being a bunch of greedy dicks:
The time for a Robotech feature-film was, oh, 1989. Not 2017, 2018, or whatever. Harmony Gold tried thrice to keep this ball rolling: Robotech: The Movie (where the Megazone 23 stuff got added), Robotech II: The Sentinels (it could've been good), and Robotech: The Shadow Chronicles (failed pilot). The problem is always the same: the original fanbase found the original series and transfered fandom loyalties to them, so they didn't care about the new stuff.

The music of the original series is superior. The stories of the original series are superior. The sequels for the one original series that actually took off, globally, are far superior. The only reason that the current tabletop RPG has any fans is due to the ease of using the product line as a defacto TRPG for those original series; the new stuff gets used only as fodder for those really into Genesis Climber MOSPEADA. (Or as fodder for RIFTS.)

In short, there's no "there" there anymore. No one who's come into anime since the boom of the 1990s will give a shit about this live-action adaptation. No one overseas will care either, so there's no market for it. This isn't a film project; this is a tax write-off that allows some folks to collect a check and discharge a contract. We just get a film as collateral damage.
I liked the Mospeada segment, but Southern Cross was, frankly, forgettable. Megazone 23 was nifty though, both parts 1 and 2.

Last, but not least, the Didact discusses gym etiquitte and the people you may meet there, with video.
To be as fair as possible, just about every serious lifter started out as one of those clowns in the beginning. That, in and of itself, is fine. We all started out somewhere, we all made mistakes. We learned from them, adapted, and overcame. That is how things should be in the gym.

For those gym newbies who are just starting out and honestly do want to improve and gain strength and mass and power, I have nothing but sympathy and respect.

However, that respect is contingent upon your attempts to improve your form, your lifts, and your general approach to fitness. Continue making the same stupid mistakes with regard to form and etiquette, or continue to disobey the Commandments of the Lord of Iron, and do not be surprised if the rest of us simply respond with scorn and derision.

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Hammers and Sickles

Standing behind a banner with a hammer and sickle is no better nor any different than standing behind a banner with the swastika.
- Jordan Peterson
The other day I was walking through a parking lot near a client's office when I stumbled into an older car that caught my eye (because I have one, so of course I noticed it) and as I walked past, I saw a familiar logo stickered onto the dashboard.

Turns out this southeastern state does indeedy have an Antifa organization.

So I started doing some digging. Soon enough I dug up the respective facebook page and a few other associated sites, and what was rapidly obvious from teh social media presence was that roughly half of the members displayed a hammer and sickle in their profile name or image.

Yeah, I know, if it weren't so fucked up that a bunch of communists dare to lecture others on their moral failings given the blood on communism's hands, it would be funny to see people so ignorant or arrogant. I'm sure they believe they'll get it right. This time. Really.

Just in time for this, Sargon takes a look at an attempt to enlist blue collar working class people into the communist cause (and how they lie about being from all ideologies including conservative and libertarian).


Wednesday, July 19, 2017

One Soul at a Time

The Didact writes on how taking the red pill has saved souls and lives, and may yet save civilization.
Perhaps the most severe consequence of "taking the red pill", or "waking up", or whatever you prefer to call it, is that you usually undergoes a deep personal crisis in which just about every core belief that you have ever held comes into question.

I've written about this before; as with everything else in life, choices have consequences, and the consequences can be deeply unpleasant at first.

You will lose friends. You will alienate family members. You will antagonise your colleagues and coworkers. You will find that your patience for the stupid shit that everyone around you says and does goes straight out the window. You will realise that women are, fundamentally, seekers of resources and security, and this will colour your views of them from that day forward.

You will start to see the massive con job that has been perpetuated for decades at your own expense. You will realise that everything that you were taught about how society is supposed to work is simply wrong.

You will realise that school didn't teach you very much of value. You will find that your university-stamped diploma is almost surely worth less than the paper it was printed on. Most of you will begin to comprehend that the long, slow, grinding climb up the corporate ladder will destroy your soul, and that you are nothing much more than a number and a warm body sitting in a seat to the bean-counters upstairs.
I know it was painful to me. There are aspects I'm still taking in, and my largest regret was not finding it sooner, taking it sooner.


Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

I first heard about this despicable practice when the author Dean Koontz detailed it in Dark Rivers of the Heart. Peter Grant on asset forfeiture:
The whole problem with civil asset forfeiture is that it requires the citizen to prove a negative - i.e. to prove that the asset(s) in question are not the result of criminal activity.  Trouble is, in courts of law, the normal standard is that the prosecution has to prove its claims.  It's not up to the defendant to disprove them - rather, the defendant has only to show that the prosecution's claims are impossible, or untrue, or unprovable due to alternative explanations of fact.  The prosecution can't simply claim, "You're a thief/murderer/whatever", and expect the defendant to prove them wrong.  However, that's precisely the logic behind civil asset forfeiture.  The State makes the claim, and then - without having to prove it - proceeds to confiscate the asset(s) that it alleges were financed through the claimed illegal activity.  Their owner must then prove that the State is wrong before he or she can reclaim the asset(s) - at his or her expense.  Many can't afford that expense. 
This is immoral on a fundamental level.  

Monday, July 17, 2017

Surviving a Single Mom

Excellent article at Men of the West.
My mother began a pattern of expelling and eliminating people from her life. In this she had form with her own family. Friends, co-workers, neighbors, it didn’t matter who it was. Eventually they would all do something to “betray her” and then they were cast out of her life, never to be spoken of again except to belittle and humiliate them. 
Looking back I am convinced that she had equal parts bipolar disorder and chronic narcissism. The nadair for me occurred when I was 11, when my parents were still together. I was being badly bullied at school and my parents had not provided me with the skills to deal with the situation. Somehow my mother found out and all hell broke loose. She marched into the school the next day, a private Catholic boys school, and she set it on fire in a figuritative sense. The school went into blind panic mode while I watched on helplessly as my world crumbled around me. Back at home she was triumphant at how brilliant she had been, at how she had “given them what for”. She would extol her brilliance in this matter for years to come.
You don't even need as rabid a single mom as this example to have a complete high-anxiety mess on the verge of BPD or NPD.

Friday, July 14, 2017

Taking Joy in Petty Hurts

There is a lot of material to mine regarding the reactions on the left to the latest "Muh Russia" kerfluffle. Feel free to take a look at what Stefan Molyneux, and Scott Adams, among others have had to say.


What I want to talk about is something else. Stefan alludes to it. It's something I've seen when looking at the latest Colbert episodes to gauge the mood and talking points (dishonest, one-sided, hypocritical, etc. as always). It's something I've seen in others around (I've mentioned that I'm in a pretty blue area of an otherwise red state).

I wouldn't call it joy.

Why?

There's something small and petty about it.

Think to the scene in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe where Aslan was killed.

They didn't just kill him. They tried to humilate him. They tormented him in small and petty ways while taking joy and pleasure in the downfall. They went out of their way to add to the pain. It was nothing new to human nature of course - as the same aspect of humanity has been observed since at least biblical days.

The left of course believe Trump is evil and incompetent, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary (I'm amazed they can still keep that movie running in parallel but then they buy into socialism. Homeschool or die). So perhaps they take it as deserved schadenfreude, but, especially in the case of Colbert, it's not just joy that something embarassing happened to Trump or his associates, he's piling on, getting in a few kicks for good measure. The more I watch the more convinced I am that he's a small, petty, snake, and not simply a dishonest hack.

It's not enough that someone failed - or is perceived to fail.

No, he's gotta give them a little extra push when they're already falling.

And I realize that there are people I considered at least friendly acquaintances that lap this shit up. And laugh.

He's not funny.

No, it's not just the politics. That snortable chocolate stuff? he made fun of that. No, it's not the fact he made fun of it (or tried) - if there was ever a product or its promoter destined to be mocked, that was it - it's that the jokes were painful, predictable, exactly the same kind of crap he says about politics.

He had a font of endless humor handed to him on a silver platter, and pulled the equivalent of striking out in tee ball.

He's a small man, and nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is.


Was it Right?

Vox Day commented on a recent Darkstream that one should always be willing to use the uncivilized tactics of a leftist or SJW against them. This is of course straight out of game theory - tit for tat. Something that I've discussed in the past fits into the Christian version of the golden rule, that you can take how other people treat you as a sign of what they consider acceptable behavior, and that if you tolerate abuse and being taken advantage of, that is what you declare as acceptable.

Stefan Molyneux recently released a video on Pinochet and Chile. As usual, it's excellent. I'd forgotten that his takeover was nearly unique in that the parliament literally voted to have him take over to put down Allende and teh communists that had run the country into the ground.


One of the points that ends up being covered, of course, are the abuses byPinochet of human rights - secret arrests and helicopter rides, and the question is brought up as to whether or not it was right. Stefan of course brings up that while it was wrong to do these things, the stark difference between the body counts of any socialist takeover, and that of Pinochet, especially when combined with the knowledge that the communists were planning on killing far more, and the praise that the left has for mass murderers like Che and Castro, are stunning.

I'd like to present a different view.

Like Stefan, I agree that it is wrong to murder someone in cold blood.

But was it cold blood?

Let's leave aside the relative body counts. I 'm not going to argue how much better only killing 2000 people is than 200,000, or two million, or 20 million.

Communism, marxism, socialism, progressivism, are evil, are all death cults. Post modernism is their offspring and completes the process of killing the mind and the soul.

It's been noted that post-modernists only care about power and value nothing else. It's been noted that leftists only care about rights when they can use them against others, as they value no such thing in and of itself. The Weather underground in all seriousness discussed having to put a quarter of teh US population in death camps, and communist governments regularly kill off their own people in "peacetime" to the tune of doube digits.

I'd argue that simply being a marxist, a progressive, a socialist, marks you as either a well meaning but ignorant believer of platitudes, or a broken person perfectly happy to excuse a hundred million or more "broken eggs."

The die hard ones are, of course, always revolutionaries, trying to colonize and subvert everything they can.

So when you end up having to go to de-facto war to throw out communist revolutionaries who are perfectly happy to rob banks, kill politicians, beat and intimidate and even butcher their neighbors, and have no concern for your rights, all for their cause, then they've declared the same rules apply to them.

If they don't like it, tough.

No, it's not a step taken lightly, but one must remember reprisals exist in the laws of war for a reason. Not all choices are between good and bad, but between which is the greater evil, and if one will allow petty tyrants to slaughter and oppress them and their loved ones.

And yes, one should take steps that you don't catch the innocent and "disappear" them as well.

Pinochet was at war with people who'd already made clear their disdain for niceties as human rights, no matter what the converged media, academia, and news here say.

The hard choice, the ugly choice, may have very well been the only moral choice.

Girl Friday

Another Friday, another posting. Have a good weekend guys.