A NOTE FOR VISITORS

This is mostly a library for myself. Here, I drop stories for future reference. Topics include but are not limited to:

Political Theory, Libertarianism, War, Constitution, Central Banking, Middle East, Cultural Marxism, Oppression, Lies, Justice

I entertain conspiracy theories, and yes, I’ve gone down some rabbit holes during my journey. Some profoundly shifted my sense of the world, others were nonsense. I have not gone back and vetted these stories for accuracy.

(more about me)

Poverty out, Inequality in (a rant)

A bit of advice for all my leftist friends (if any of you still read my FB wall):

If you’re serious about being a leftist, you should get with the program — poverty is out, because it’s just too RIDICULOUS, and equality is in. Your peers made this pivot long ago and you should too.

Signal your moral superiority regarding inequality and you’ll still get a few suckers to admire you. Signal your moral superiority with “poverty”, and you’ll just look stupid.

I know what poverty looks like. I’ve seen it in Afghanistan and Tanzania. And I live in Ukraine which is far poorer than ANY american demographic. Officially, among the people designated as “poor” in the US —

76 percent have air conditioning.
66 percent have more than two rooms of living space per person.
97 percent own at least one color television.
62 percent have either cable or satellite television.
Almost 75 percent of households own a car (30 percent own two or more).
73 percent own microwave ovens.
More than 50 percent have stereos.
33 percent have automatic dishwashers.
99 percent have refrigerators.
Virtually none lack running water or flushing toilets.
46 percent own their own home, the average of which is a three bedroom house with 1.5 baths

This is why the LYING left has abandoned the poverty argument. The left murdered millions of people in their defense of the poor, and then capitalism solved poverty. Your messiah has come. But the lying, power-hungry left, has no use for a messiah who actually shows up.

So, poverty is out. Inequality is in. Inequality is better because it has been around among humans for 50,000 years, and eradicating it is impossible — so you can have your “permanent revolution” as Lenin advised.

Good luck.

Jordan Peterson on the Left’s Lying

If academics were intellectually honest, they would have fallen prey to their own logic long ago.

“Is your pain real? This is a question for people who think there is no such thing as meaning. You try to argue yourself out of pain and see how far you get. You might think ‘well that’s not the sort of meaning I meant.’ But you know, a negative meaning is a place to start. If there is something negative and it’s real that does imply there is something positive that’s real. It might be harder to get ahold of. At least it’s not pain.” – Jordan Peterson

So much wrong about Global Warming predictions

Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016 – they were wrong

Scientists such as Prof Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Prof Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, have regularly forecast the loss of ice by 2016, which has been widely reported by the BBC and other media outlets.

Prof Wadhams, a leading expert on Arctic sea ice loss, has recently published a book entitled A Farewell To Ice in which he repeats the assertion that the polar region would free of ice in the middle of this decade.

As late as this summer, he was still predicting an ice-free September.

Yet, when figures were released for the yearly minimum on September 10, they showed that there was still 1.6 million square miles of sea ice (4.14 square kilometres), which was 21 per cent more than the lowest point in 2012.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/07/experts-said-arctic-sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/

***

The Most Comprehensive Assault On ‘Global Warming’ Ever

1. Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today’s temperatures are unusual.

2. Satellite temperature data does not support the assumption that temperatures are rising rapidly:

3. Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980’s, but for many parts of the world the 1980’s was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years:

4. The world experienced a significant cooling trend between 1940 and 1980:

5. Urban heat island effect skews the temperature data of a significant number of weather stations:

6. There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels:

7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes:

8. There have been many periods during our recent history that a warmer climate was prevalent long before the industrial revolution:

9. Glaciers have been melting for more than 150 years

10. “Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-van-biezen

Why the left needs Big Government? (because parasitism is their strategy)

I’ve been puzzled by how the left, even faced with a perceived anti-christ as president, never considers that states’ rights, and limited government are virtues. Why don’t they get this?

I think I’ve figured it out. Their survival strategy is parasitism. They can’t allow their potential hosts to flee place themselves out of reach or flee to other jurisdictions.

They correctly sense that a gigantic centralized apparatus is the enabler of their parasitism. So there’s no “live and let live” for the left.

They need BOTH a powerful centralized government AND control. They are deaf and blind to the fairly obvious risk of the powerful apparatus they build falling into the hands of someone they despise.

I am tired of pointing out leftist hypocrisy.

I am tired of pointing out leftist hypocrisy. It’s too easy. My new interest is underlying causes. Here are a few theories, and after writing them, they all seem like restatements of the same theory:

1. Thomas Sowell’s paradigm that conservatives see the world in terms of trade offs, while the left sees it in terms of good vs evil. If you believe yourself to be fighting evil, lies are more acceptable.

2. Haidt’s morality chart showing Harm-Care and Fairness as the ONLY positive dimensions of morality for radical leftists. (Sanctity, Authority, Loyalty are not only less important, but in fact, negatives.) Perhaps they are on one hand, desperate to exercise Harm-Care, and on the other indignant toward the “Sanctity” and “Authority” of the rules of debate: truth telling, consistency, precise meaning.

3. Evolutionary biology as the consilient field of all social sciences: The left is intuitively female, the right is intuitively male. If you’re exercising the moral instincts that evolved with childrearing, it makes perfect sense that you treat every impulse and whim as if it were a universal principle. We want mothers to care for babies and families in such a devoted, uncompromising way. But this moral intuition cannot be allowed to govern all of society because it’s so inconsistent and impulsive. It needs limits. The male moral intuition evolved to solve the prisoners dilemma of facing danger as a group (duty, honor, courage), and therefore, much more readily embraces “no matter what” type rules and principles.

on Sam Harris

My first time listening to Sam Harris.

It would be difficult, honest, and helpful for Sam Harris to identify and compare moral frameworks.

Instead he does what is easy, dishonest, and damaging.

1. Rely on emotional arguments and analogy
2. address the most literal interpretation of scripture (shooting fish in a barrel)
3. completely ignore the role of tradition and sanctity in society’s survival
4. conclude with a blatant lie: “if there is a less moral, moral framework, I have not heard it.”

Has he not heard of atheistic communism which is not only indifferent to the suffering of the unfortunate (the charge for which he condemns Christianity), but actively creates and justifies such suffering???

That thing at the end is the slight of hand you often see. You get hooked on the emotional arguments he feeds you, and then boom, the subject changes. All of sudden it isn’t that literal religion does correspond to our moral intuition, but rather, religion is the WORST THING EVER. Study Haidt for the role of sanctity and tradition in a society’s survival.

***

So I had to eventually listen to this Sam Harris – Jonathan Haidt discussion:

https://soundcloud.com/samharrisorg/evolving-minds-a-conversation-with-jonathan-haidt

(It starts at 27:00.) If anyone has already read some of Haidt’s work, this discussion reveals more about the participants than the subject.

Harris seemed out of his depth. His shtick seems too much like Frankfurt School “deconstruction” — using partial explanations to ridicule and condemn a whole social framework while applying no scrutiny whatsoever to the vague plan you have for improvement.

I think he’d do great work if he did comparisons instead of criticisms.

Harris gets no traction with his usual emotional appeals and analogies, and a couple of times, when Haidt introduced new ideas, it seemed like he responded with “word salads” — basically saying, “Look! I know things too! I’m relevant!”

In the end, Harris does the gentlemanly thing and relegates himself to the role of interview.

The term Racism has been Rendered Meaningless

My left-leaning friends may not accept hearing this from me. Just as economic Marxists apriori dismissed arguments by people of the wrong economic class (via dialectical materialism), today’s cultural Marxists apriori dismiss arguments of the wrong ethnic/gender class (via all the invisible flavors of racism).

So here is a person from one the “good” classes making the same argument:

81cf111cae3f64169e7df07c6ec680a2

WHERE PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT POLITICAL VIEWS SHOULD START

WHERE PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT POLITICAL VIEWS SHOULD START

The cat’s been out of bag on Haidt’s morality research for a while, but it deserves a reminder. It could not be more timely.

People with different political views should start by identifying where they and they’re adversary lie on Haidt’s chart.

It’s the best (only?) language I know for discussing politics scientifically, freeing us from the “good/bad” language typically used to shroud the intuition embedded in our genes.

Our intuition makes us sensitive to different types of problem. We’re all blind and biased. Start here.

viewer