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: