I was about to post a video of a conversation between Ryan Shea and Naval Ravikant, but decided that to anyone who doesn’t already understand the blockchain revolution, there wouldn’t be enough context to really understand it. So first I’ll post this to put the next post into context.
He calls them “tax farms”, but that’s an oversimplification. The real way the slavers profit off your sweat is by creating credit in such a way that YOU are on the hook to pay back. So ultimately you are a debt slave. Some of the debt is created on the government’s account, which you as a taxpayer are liable for, and some on private accounts. Either way, you pay it back, but never fast enough that the debt doesn’t keep accumulating until finally some of it is unpayable, which triggers a rapid chain-reaction of “cascading defaults”: A can’t pay B, so B can’t pay C, so C can’t pay D, and so on.
Your slavers have also set up the system so that when the unpayable debt implodes, you’re on the hook for taking a share of the losses, either by debasement of the currency, which decreases the spending power of your bank account, or, a new way called “bail-ins”, where some of your bank account or brokerage account is directly at risk of being defaulted on. Any way about it, the deck is stacked against you.
A fish doesn’t notice water. I don’t need to convince you; you’ll start noticing yourself once you’ve been primed to notice, and once you get access to some low-keyed information they don’t teach in school, or talk about on the corporate news-media. You can’t completely avoid getting shaken down, but once you understand what’s going on you can reduce your losses.
Here’s a book that explains how the money-making machine works for the slavers:
Here are some easy ways to protect your privacy and security, by upgrading from Google products and services:
Use https://duckduckgo.com for searching. Run it in Tor just to make sure. Duckduckgo is not smart enough to filter based on point-of-view, so it’s not censoring your search results like Google does. You can find banned research papers about taboo topics like gender differences between men and women, or global cooling due to an upcoming grand solar minimum, that you can’t find using Google.
Browse using Firefox and Tor. Tor has security features already built in; add features like automatic cookie cleanup & always trying to connect via https; install similar features as plugins to Firefox.
POSTSCRIPT: I’ve been using the Brave browser for a few weeks now–it’s SCREAMING fast!!
WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE USE GMAIL?! Why not just invite a voyeur to move in with you and follow you around and watch your most intimate moments? Use private email that you pay for, like https://startmail.com. If you seriously can’t afford to pay a small yearly fee, try https://fastmail.com
Android sucks. My television’s internet box stopped working after self-upgrading (without asking me). Bricked itself. It’s time to investigate the feasibility of Linux on mobile devices. Then you won’t have to go through Google app store anymore.
Here are some photos released by Interfax from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s vacation on a lake in Tyva Republic in Siberia:
The Russian media claimed that the foreign media expressed admiration for how healthy the old boy is. That’s not what I read. The American and British media have responded with anything thinly-veiled contempt to ridicule. A large fraction of the population of the USA and Europe are easily offended by photos like these, because they’ve been conditioned to hate…
masculinity, which is often qualified as “toxic”.
Russians, due to propaganda ultimately motivated by a desire to go to war with them
that cross dangling from a chain around his neck
any culture that isn’t post-Modern
Just to be clear, I’m not the least bit offended. I think it’s weird that so many other people are. Russians find them reassuring. “He’s just a regular guy. And in great shape for his age! A strong, manly, patriotic leader.” Americans would have thought the same thing through about the 1950s, though the changes we’ve been through since then were already in motion by then; it just took a while for them to spread from the avant-garde to the mainstream.
While I was looking for these specific photos I found more that are probably even a lot more triggering for certain personalities and mindsets. Russian media has far more photography of military equipment and personnel than US and western European. Also a lot of other macho imagery, like Siberian tigers and rugged-looking industrial-workers. But here is one that offends on so many counts (men, soldiers, nationalism, tradition, religious observation, all mixed together…) it’s over-the-top:
The photograph makes very clear one point that is still lost on a surprising number of British and Americans: Russia is not the Soviet Union. We are!
I’d like to do another blog post about this cultural clash, and specifically from the point of view of Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory. At the risk of putting words into his mouth (but one of his associates has already said exactly what I am going to claim he’d say), Wilber would probably claim that by “regressing” to Amber level values, they are guilty of a “pre-trans fallacy”, that is, thinking that they’ve solved the problem of Modernity by regressing to pre-Modernity instead of transcending it.
I counter-claim that regressing to functional Amber is preferable to the dysfunctional evolutionary dead-end of Green.
Once I heard a story in the news that still horrifies me many years later. A professor in New England beat his wife to death during an argument over a vacation to visit the wife’s relatives, that would result in them missing a few day of school.
He murdered the mother of his children over a few days of missed public school. Let that sink in.
A university professor. He’s supposed to be smart, and respectable.
How irrational is that? Does he really think that his daughters are going to be so hopelessly behind in class that they’ll never catch up, and end up on the streets because they missed a few days of high-quality public education?
Public education is worse than worthless: it wastes time that could have been allocated to learning competitive, marketable skills, and also, for that matter, a certain cultural sophistication; in other words it has negative value by displacing value. However, he would have expressed socially-approved opinions about “world-class education to be able to participate as a global citizen blah blah blah” without necessarily believing it.
I don’t know this professor personally, but I am painfully familiar with the psychological patterns that produce these kinds of outcomes:
gigantic, and fragile, sense-of-self (aka ego)
a hair-trigger reflex to become enraged if that sense-of-self isn’t validated
These are the same character flaws of a typical “SJW” (social justice warrior). It’s why they become “triggered” when someone else disagrees with them, even over matters that are unimportant, or none of their business.
Think of how bizarrely irrational this is. The point of anger is to get you ready for a fight. The point of a fight is to react to danger. Where was the danger? There wasn’t any real danger. He reacted as though lack of validation was a real threat, instead of just an affront to his sense-of-self.
I’m a responsible citizen! I’m a good father! (and husband too no doubt) I send my kids to public school to make sure it has an adequate funding base, to respect and support the teachers, to participate in my community, and to make sure my kids get the high-quality education in a diverse environment that they’ll need to participate in a global society blah blah blah…
None of these are real values; they’re meaningless generalities he heard once in a public service announcement. He seeks the approval of the high-status sponsor who paid for it. That was worth more to him than his wife’s life.
These are the kinds of people who add nothing but misery to my life, and I’m constantly struggling to avoid them as much as possible. Unfortunately, they are equally determined to impose themselves on me, to inform me that they know what’s good for me better than I do!
It’s like being accosted by an aggressive beggar, but instead of him admitting that he wants something from you, he pretends that he has something of great value to share with you. After all, the professor is nominally a high-status person. He has a piece of paper that says so, despite his glaring character flaws. He would tell me that I did something horribly wrong by homeschooling my kids.
Now look at the difference in outcomes:
My adult offspring are employed, despite high rates of unemployment among recent grads.
They all have higher-than-average incomes and stable jobs.
I’m starting a microbusiness for my 8 year-old. The business license will be in my name, but the company will effectively be hers. We’re going to sell home-grown merchandise. This will give her some business-sense that will be useful when I’m gone and she’s on her own.
She has a few skill sets in which she can outperform adults. She can do some arithmetic problems in her head that most adults can’t. She can quickly memorize long lists of random words, or digits, using mnemonic techniques not taught in school.
His daughters grew up without their parents. Their mother is dead and their father is probably still in prison.
They are probably psychologically traumatized for life by the murder of their mother by their father.
They are unlikely to have any special or specialized skills to make a living in a competitive, and shrinking, economy.
I have often been told how wonderful my kids are, oddly enough by busybodies whose own kids are in all sorts of trouble, who not only criticize me and my parenting, but take it upon themselves to try to “fix” my “mistakes”. There’s a total disconnect in their minds between cause and effect. It’s like they think “He doesn’t deserve such fine children, because he raised them all wrong! But I did all the right things, and they turned out all wrong. It’s not fair!”
Here are some things to think about:
Most people’s core values are a result of their psychological conditioning, and are not entirely rational. People hurt themselves and others acting on purely conditioned beliefs that ultimately are dysfunctional.
I can show you how to detect and eliminate those.
Do you ever lose your temper over things it doesn’t make sense to get angry about? Those triggers are quite common.
When you lose your temper, your highest self is no longer in control; you’re a puppet of your emotions.
If you get mad, but over-ride your impulses, that’s still a problem. The point is not to get angry at all in situations where the anger creates a problem, or makes an existing problem worse.
Those triggers are usually set early in life by experiences we have before we’ve learned better ways of responding to them.
Those toxic triggers are how people end up abusing, sometimes even killing, spouses and children.
It’s especially important for men to unlearn those triggers, because of their physical and psychological capacity to kill.
Men who don’t get angry when they’re not under real threat make better husbands and fathers.
If you are reasonably emotionally stable, but have a few of those toxic triggers, there are ways to fix them. I can tell you how.
I can also explain why and how to lose the ego. You might fight like a devil to preserve it, but you’re actually better off without it. Its value is illusory. When you let go of the ego, it’s like the weight of the world lifted from your shoulders.
Keep reading my blog. Soon you’ll be able to sign up for updates by email, and memberships.
Lately, Julian Assange has been re-posting numerous death threats against him by people associated with the political Left. He ridicules the concept of “tolerant liberals” who promote violence to achieve their goals.
There are plenty more, and I would guess that they are arriving daily, just like the tens of thousands of threats against President Trump.
While I sympathize with him, his complaints aren’t going to persuade anyone to leave him alone. First of all, now that the political Left is dominant, most Lefties no longer speak of tolerance; they speak of “punching Nazis”, and they’re calling everyone else Nazis these days, including the increasingly small and alienated faction of the Left that still thinks of tolerance as a virtue. Aside from that, once someone is considered “the enemy”, his words and logic don’t just fall on deaf ears, they actually encourage the intended audience to dig in all the deeper. “Well, of course he’d say that. He doesn’t want us to hold him responsible for his crimes!”
Mr. Assange hasn’t committed any crime aside from jumping bail after being arrested on falsified, politically-motivated charges that he should never have been exposed to in the first place. What he did was exposed other people’s crimes. Unfortunately for him, the people whose crimes he exposed have a cult-like following of dupes who believe that people like Hillary Clinton were going to solve all of their personal problems.
That would never work. Whether they’re willing to acknowledge the evidence or not, Hillary was more interested in collecting “donations” to her “foundation” than solving the problems of people who aren’t paying her money. She has been involved in numerous serious crimes and scandals. She has accepted gigantic payments from the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who are recruiting help to attack their neighbors. She helped start a civil war in Libya, and was involved in the shipment of arms from there to Syria , where they are being used by terrorists against Syrian civilians. She was planning to help her sponsors escalate existing wars, and to confront Iran and Russia to start WW3.
For the record, Julian Assange was never the only or even the primary source of evidence of Hillary’s wrong-doing. He only provided more evidence about what we already knew from other sources, and implicated most of her associates too. It’s doubtful that he influenced the election results, because most of Hillary’s voters didn’t care.
Hillary’s fans are vaguely aware of the evidence insofar as they’re out to punish Assange and others for disclosing it (instead of thanking him, which would make more sense). They won’t acknowledge the evidence because they won’t acknowledge their own complicity. They’re caught up in their own persona (the superficial image they project to the world) and their shadow issues (everything about themselves they won’t consciously acknowledge). “I’m a good person. I vote Democrat because I care about people”. Counter-evidence against their flattering beliefs about themselves is actively repressed.
But even to the extent that they are willing to pursue their own political objectives without concern about the harm to unseen people in some other part of the world, there’s still nothing it in for themselves, or for that matter, for the people they pretend to care about. All the social welfare benefits that they imagined they were going to get, would either never show up at all, or would have languished for funding and attention spent on other priorities. Public housing means Grenfell Towers. Public healthcare means dying on a waiting list.
Their response is predictably to demand more of the same, and blame failures on someone who’s not on-board the program.
But the problem is bigger than Hillary. A different politician with a different personality wouldn’t deliver utopia either. I don’t have any confidence in Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, or Gary Johnson to solve my problems either, because politics isn’t about solving average people’s problems.
A few points:
the video makes it sound like rulers want to be benevolent despots, but are forced to play by the rules of the game. Actually, they’ve been playing the game long enough that they go into it fully aware of what they’re getting themselves into. Political power doesn’t corrupt; it attracts people who are already corrupt.
No woman rules alone either. Women play the same political games as men.
The video is correct that democratic governments in advanced economies sponsor benefits like education and health-care for economic reasons, but this motivation does not imply that they are necessarily effective in terms of return-on-investment. The problem is that they too get bogged down in politics, to the point of new grads ending up almost unemployable after 12-16 years or so of government-funded education, or 99-year-olds dying on the operating table trying to save them with quadruple bypass surgery, while someone younger, with more productive potential, is left to die on a waiting list.
Arguably, politics is not even about solving the problems of the ruling class. Politics is about seizing power over others without their consent, which people only hope they can utilize for solving their problems.
That won’t work. No amount of political power will spare you from watching your loved ones die of cancer. No amount of public funding for cancer research will change that fact, and even if the high priests of technology came up with a cure for cancer, which they haven’t done, all that would happen is that instead of dying of one thing, your loved ones would die of something else, like accidents or suicide.
If you were really lucky, you’ll watch your loved ones pitifully malinger before finally succumbing to old age, while you feel yourself heading towards the same fate. Or maybe you can’t stand that, so you’ll speed it up with physician-assisted suicide.
No amount of political power or technology has ever resolved poverty either, contrary to promises. Unfortunately, that’s a touchy topic because many people insist that poverty is caused by wealth. First of all, political activity doesn’t generate any wealth; it actually impedes it. It also redistributes it, mostly by concentration into fewer, not more hands. Aside from this problem, poverty pre-dates wealth, which means that wealth isn’t causing poverty. A long time ago, the richest people on the planet had a standard of living lower than is currently common among the lowest classes in “first world” nations. Poverty is the default; everybody is poor until somebody creates wealth fast enough for it to accumulate.
The power to transfer problems to other people doesn’t resolve them; it makes them worse. The very machinery of brutality needed to enforce one person’s will over another’s makes the world a worse place for everyone.
The fundamental problem is that you’re fighting entropy. What people mistake for “progress” is the accumulation of infrastructure (“indoor plumbing”). But while infrastructure accumulates, it also becomes obsolete, and in any case, natural resources that feed into the infrastructure don’t accumulate. The same accumulation of infrastructure that allows us to live more comfortably than our distant ancestors is also accelerating the depletion of natural resources.
The problem is never the problem; the problem is lack of coming to terms with the problem. The whole point of any religious practice is to come to terms with suffering. The Buddha put the problem particularly succinctly in two of his three marks of existence (I’m taking some liberties with the meanings of these Pali words):
Anicca: Good things never last.
Dukkha: Things never turn out as satisfying as you hoped.
The third mark of existence is not quite like the others because it’s framed as a fact instead of as a problem. So let me restate it as a problem:
(an)Atta: Your big ego is the real source of your suffering.
People in many different times and place have been able to accept all sorts of pain and setbacks in life, and still find reasons to be happy. They did it using cultural practices that are now tainted with association to magical belief systems.
That could easily be fixed, and to some degree has been. Buddhism, for example, makes use of stories but doesn’t require or even encourage you to take them literally
A bigger obstacle is that Karl Marx, one of the founders of Modernity, thought it was a good idea to take away people’s “Opium”, that is, their means of coping with suffering. Either Marx, or more likely some of his followers, figured out that once people lost their means of coping with suffering, it would be easy to recruit them to look for meaning in political activism, or in other words, to recruit them as willing dupes to accomplish their political objectives. So the decline of religious practice is one thing fueling the current unhealthy obsession with politics. And rising unemployment rates are giving young adults more and more time to pursue political activism.
But political activism doesn’t resolve people’s personal problems or their suffering. So what happens is a problem familiar to therapists: if something doesn’t work, try doing more of it and see if that helps.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
―Narcotics Anonymous newsletter
Politics is like a drug: it keeps taking more and more of it to get the desired effect. It’s a vicious circle whereby political activists respond to their disappointments by becoming ever more radical. Also feeding into this vicious circle is the phenomenon that it takes ever more radicalism to grab attention from every other radical trying to get attention. That’s why we’re getting increasingly radical agendas showing up, some of them publicly acknowledged, some still waiting in the shadows for the public to be sufficiently primed for them, including:
lowering or eliminating age of consent for sexual relations; legalization of hebephilia and pedophilia.
decriminalization of maternal infanticide; already implemented in some jurisdictions and an unofficial policy in many others.
litigation (possibly criminal prosecution) for failure to use invented non-gendered and alternate-gendered pronouns as a “hate crime”.
a policy of removing children from their parents’ care if they raise them gendered (or in other words, mandatory non-gendered child-rearing).
prosecution of men for rape if a woman withdraws her consent for sex after the fact; this was the original basis for Assange’s arrest warrant in Sweden! It was agreed by both sides that the accusers changed their minds after the fact.
These might sound like over-the-top alarmist claims, but I keep stumbling into people or web-posts promoting them without actively looking for them. The pattern seems to be that anyone who brings them up is ridiculed right up until the point that they hit the mainstream, as happened with the sudden coup on opening up bathrooms and locker-rooms to trans-genders.
Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts.
The second thing that the Bill does is add the words “gender identity or expression” to two sections of the Criminal Code.
―Brenda Cossman, writing for the Mark S. Bonhem Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies, regarding Canadian bill C-16; Ms Cossman is an advocate for the bill
Here’s one about withdrawing consent for sex
…if Bob and Andy have sex, and Andy says, “Yes,” “Sure,” “Okay, fine, whatever,” or even, “Ooh baby, do it to me!” but still wakes up the next morning feeling like he was raped, that means Andy was raped.
―maymaym and unquietpirate, You can take it back; consent as a felt sense
I’ve also been informed by numerous feminists that if a father puts his arm around his daughter to comfort her, perhaps after a trauma or a bad day, without having asked her permission to touch her, that he has just raped her. I have seen dozens of expressions of this opinion on social media; it seems to be turning into a consensus in certain circles.
If political activists encounter evidence that their favorite politician is corrupt, or that their favorite ideology or policy doesn’t work, they’ll reject it out-of-hand just like they did the Wikileaks disclosures. When the inevitable consequences of their beliefs and their actions arrive, they’ll find someone else—like Julian Assange—to blame them on. They can never get out of this trap unless they are willing to change their beliefs and their behavior.
The kinds of people who make Julian Assange’s life miserable make their own lives miserable. They are hungry ghosts trapped in a hell of their own making. Some of them will start mixing up their personal problems with politics, and that’s how they get radicalized to the point of being willing to commit or condone acts of terrorism (like an assassination).
The only way to escape is to jump out of the vicious circle of hunger for power and subsequent disappointment when no amount of political power will overcome anicca and dukkha.
People who take responsibility for solving their own problems can take the next step: solving someone else’s. That’s how you earn wealth, by offering to solve someone else’s problems for an affordable fee they would gladly pay. It’s one way you really make the world a better place.
For the record, I have no personal connections to Mr. Assange, and we have very different personalities, cultures, and world-views, but I happen to think I should be fair and compassionate to everyone. Politically persecuting Mr. Assange is an intolerable abuse of state power just on the face of it. Unfortunately don’t know what to do for him; there’s no easy way out of his predicament. As it is even the status quo is precarious; there have already been attempts to pressure the Ecuadorian government to turn him out of the embassy. Obviously one could at least thank his hosts for their generosity:
Embassy of Ecuador
2535 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20009
Ecuadorian Embassy in London, United Kingdom
Flat 3b, 3 Hans Crescent
London SW1X OLS
President Trump should order the State Department to close their baseless “investigation” of him, and should negotiate with the British government to rescind the arrest warrant they have on him. Unfortunately he won’t until and unless it’s a “lame-duck” pardon at the end of his term(s), because he too is trapped in the “rules for rulers” game (see video). President Trump is missing several of the keys to power, and the holders of those keys are using them to harass him too. That said, it probably wouldn’t hurt for President Trump’s supporters to petition him on behalf of Mr. Assange, to increase the probability that he’ll eventually do the right thing.
At this point, it looks like Mr. Assange’s health is probably deteriorating. He’s younger than I am but looks older; the rapid aging is almost certainly a sign of declining health. He has also complained about his children growing up without personal contract from him. (Mr. Assange if you read this you are welcome to contact me for ideas for keeping your physical, mental, and spiritual health as optimal as possible under the circumstances. I’ve been thinking about it a lot lately because you’re not the only one in captivity whose well-being I’m concerned with these days).
As for my readers, what do you think about the situation? Do you have ideas for making it better?
During the presidential elections, I started noticing that certain amateur, independent reporters were providing much more accurate scoops on what was really going on behind the scenes than the mainstream media, and that Twitter was a good place to read their tips. So I signed up for an account.
One of the first people I started following was Edward Dowd. That was on a tip from Zero Hedge that Twitter was capping his following, which implied that there was something juicy they didn’t want me to know about. If they unfollowed me from him I would notice and stubbornly re-follow him, like I’ve done when other folks I follow have mysteriously dropped off.
Ed Dowd is an investment officer for a company that does private investment management. He used to work for Blackrock, the world’s largest asset manager. He is and has been responsible for huge amounts of money. A lot of ambitious young men follow him probably hoping for hot tips!
On rare occasions he does drop hints about what he thinks markets are going to do, but more often he makes one-line zingers about the news, including from the independent media.
Several items that attracted his attentions were about Marc Zuckerberg, one of the founders of Facebook. One was a photo-op of Zuckerberg worshiping in an Afroamerican church.
Mr. Zuckerberg is Jewish, and abundantly documented to be atheistic.
Another one was a series of photo ops at similarly unlikely locales in Iowa. Zuckerberg is of the class that refers to places like Iowa as the “flyover states”.
Mr. Dowd has expressed the opinion that these publicity plugs are designed to get the public familiar with a public persona they are creating for Mr. Zuckerberg, and make that persona seem friendly and familiar. He further speculates that this is part of a process for grooming him for a future run at the U.S. presidency. I suspect he’s right.
He compared the situation to the main character in the movie “Starman”: an alien learning what it is like to be human. That’s because Zuckerberg isn’t really much like most of us at all.
That comparison triggered a thought in my own head. This might be a good time to explain why the friendly alien theme keeps showing up in movies over and over again. If you’re not already aware, this will contribute to your sophistication about life and other people’s hidden agendas. You’ll have to take my word for it for now that Hollywood movies are not primarily entertainment as a product, but for product placements (low-budget movies), and social and political programming disguised as entertainment. Some time I might explain in more detail.
The typical pattern is this:
A benevolent alien from another planet shows up on earth. He is much more intelligent than a human, and has access to advanced technology (aka magic). He is friendly, and wants to solve all your problems for you. Often he’s a surrogate father figure for a fatherless boy. Often he uses his “technology” cum magic to restore a dead person (or in the case of Starman, a deer) to life, or at least to cure someone who is injured.
Unfortunately, he is being pursued by hostile humans who don’t understand him and won’t give him a chance. Sometimes the hostile humans hurt him or even kill him, but he either self-heals or is restored to life using the technology (magic), and then he makes a short speech and goes back up to the sky.
One of the first of these was the movie The day the earth stood still. Others have included Starman, E.T., and an animated movie called The Iron Giant. There are probably plenty of others that escape my memory or knowledge. Numerous television series have included episodes with the same theme.
A man named Uri Geller played this role in real life. When I was a boy, he had convinced millions of people that he had miraculous powers, and was in contact with an alien civilization and had a message to deliver to humanity. He pulled this off using nothing but common parlor tricks, some well-known magician techniques, a certain amount of chutzpah, and some media complicity. Any professional magician could have exposed him as a fraud, but the media wouldn’t give them a platform to do so. There was some sort of psy-op going on around him, quite possibly to test the limits of what they could get the public to fall for without involving an obvious government sponsor if it didn’t work.
In case it’s not obvious, the pattern comes from the story of Jesus. The “alien” however is not Jesus. The movie producer isn’t trying to bring you into a closer relationship to Jesus; he’s trying to hijack whatever deep-seated feelings you might have leftover from Sunday school for purely political purposes, for a living beneficiary. He has no qualms about doing that, because from his point of view religion serves no purpose except for occasional use to manipulate the masses.
The alien is actually a token for one or more power-elite figures:
You don’t know us, but we come in peace.
We want to help you. We want to solve your problems.
We are vastly smarter than you. You are incapable of understanding our ways; don’t even try, just have faith.
You must defend us from hostile and skeptical parties, or something dreadful will happen.
We love you. Won’t you love us?
The movie The day the earth stood still was specifically a vehicle to sell a message known as “One world or none”. It was a call for world government under the pretext for saving it from thermonuclear annihilation. The “one world or none” movement was lead precisely by Strangelovian types who were exactly the ones who helped design and build the nuclear weapons programs they were threatening the world with while pretending to want to save it! The exact message varies from generation to generation but typically it’s about uniting behind a power-elite persona (arguably, the Antichrist) to usher in the Messianic Age.
Marc Zuckerberg would be the quintessential type of person to be designated a beneficiary of this religious story hijacked for extremely secular and typically quite dark purposes. He’s the kind of person often referred to as “the gods who walk among us”, though apparently that underground expression has recently been hijacked for a totally unrelated book. You’re supposed to think of him as your powerful, benevolent friend. If you haven’t already heard more frank appraisals of what he’s really like, you might be curious enough to do a little digging.
What about bad aliens? Those are symbols too; they’re the designated “bad guy” of wars. The Martians of “War of the Worlds” were the Germans. This isn’t a conjecture on my part; it’s a fairly well-documented; the author H.G. Wells was a member of the Fabian Society, who were propagandists for the New World Order. The book and movie came out well before the target war was actually waged, because preparation for major wars takes about a decade or so. We’re seeing something similar unfold right now in today’s current events.
Can you figure out who are the real-life bogeymen portrayed by the bad aliens in the movie Independence Day? I’ll tell you in a future post. If you haven’t figured it out before then, it’ll blow your mind away. Keep reading my posts to develop some sophistication in life, that will help you spot duplicity and malice.
Happy Father’s Day! If you are a father, I hope you are enjoying the day with your kids.
All but one of my kids are grown-up, but not having started their own families yet, they still live with my wife and me. I’ve been informed that I’m getting taken out to lunch today. I’ll call my own dad, which is as much as I can do since he lives far away. I’ll send him photos of his grandkids by email.
A lot of men won’t enjoy today, because their kids were taken away from them, and/or their own dads were. If you’re one of them, you probably have some unresolved feelings about that. You might be conscious of those feelings or not; many men repress them. Either way, channel those feelings into action to heal yourself and spare the next generation.
For the same reasons farmers don’t usually allow their livestock to raise their own broods, the expandability of dads is so deeply-ingrained in western culture that it has broken the culture itself in many ways. It might be hard to tell for the same reasons that a fish doesn’t notice water. A lot of men don’t realize what’s missing, because they don’t have the right experiences to use as references. You can see the problem by contrast if you’ve ever been exposed to intact and functional traditional cultures (not all traditional cultures are intact or functional!).
One of the most heartwarming examples of fatherhood I’ve ever witnessed involved a surrogacy situation in a traditional fishing culture of an ethnic and religious (Christian) minority tribe living in Indonesia. A man there took in an orphan and raised him as his own son. They were probably at least somewhat related, and in any case, in tight-knit traditional communities like that, everybody knows everybody.
They had a closer and more functional relationship than most biological father-son relationships in western cultures. One of their interactions was the man painting the boy with war-paint for a tribal ceremony, both of them grinning broadly.
The boy in turn had a good relationship with his chums, which is a function of having had good relationships with their dads. Your relationship with your mother is in many ways a blueprint for how you will relate to women, and your relationship with your father is in many ways a blueprint for how you relate to other men. Men who are skilled at relating with other men tend to be more successful in business and career, and therefor life generally, than men who aren’t.
All of the boys were noticeably healthier psychologically than is typical of their western counterparts, being more competent within their environment, and lacking all the weird neurotic behaviors that are now ubiquitous among westerners. It might be hard to understand the difference until you see it for yourself, because most of us are so habituated to the latter.
I know what needs to change, but I can’t fix it by myself, and at this point it’s a matter of fighting the tide because the culture is working against us.
One thing that would help would be men’s fiction featuring good fatherly role models and good relationships with sons and daughters. The best fiction gives us vicarious experiences we can learn and grow from. All we have instead is an abundance of “lost father” themes like in Star Wars and Dune, or in other words, an unfulfilled longing.
Keep reading my blog. You can give me feedback in the comments. Let’s keep the conversation going, and then move from talk to action.
Catastrophes are hard to predict. If an undesirable event is predictable and gradual—like the exhaustion of the sun’s fuel reserves, or the eventual erosion of the earth’s atmosphere, then those aren’t usually thought of as “catastrophes”. A catastrophe is when a complex system suddenly changes state. The complexity of the system and the suddenness of the transition between states makes it hard to predict.
You might know that a certain bridge has been going without maintenance for some number of years, but it’s practically impossible to predict the very day or even the year that it’s going to collapse. The day before it collapsed, people crossed it without incident.
There is always something you don’t know about that impacts the system, like one of the trusses holding up the bridge being rusted through, and a particularly heavy load of trucks and buses that randomly converged on the bridge.
In the case of a stock market, if you expect it to crash, something might happen that you don’t know about, like a secret market intervention to keep it propped up. If you tried selling it short, you might end up with a loss when a stop hunting algorithm runs your stops, or worse, when you ended up with a margin call.
That’s why, according to risk-management expert Nassim Taleb, it makes more sense to evaluate your investment strategy’s vulnerabilities and address those to minimize the damage when the unexpected event happens. If you do a particularly good job of evaluating and planning for risk and reward, you might even end up with a profit due to “antifragility”.
So repeating other people’s warnings about the possibility of a significant financial event later this year or maybe next year must not to be construed as tradeable advice. It’s more analogous to reminding you to clear dry brush away from your house ahead of a long, hot, dry summer.
This post is ultimately not about when a major financial event will happen; it’s about whether you are prepared for one.
Asset markets are likely to plunge before a recession is officially called. Here is some of the same information, and more like it, from another source:
In the USA, it is the National Bureau of Economic Research that officially calls recessions, and they typically wait before calling one so as not to create a self-fulfilling prophesy. The official standard is two quarters of economic decline. Relatively short or moderate recessions tend not to be announced.
The next recession, however, is likely to be a big one due to the size of China’s credit contraction.
That headline sounds more sinister to me than it was probably intended. Judging from the context, my guess is that by people “disappearing” he means that even big, politically-connected financial companies like Bear-Stearns go bankrupt because when the crises hit, they happen too fast and too severely to organize bail-outs to save them all.
I am not a financial expert, but to the best of my knowledge, something like this happens: let’s say that without warning, some large entity in China defaults on a big payment. Financial companies tend to hedge their positions, so they tend to come in pairs. If one position becomes worthless, they have to close out the position they were hedging it with. Then the counterparty to that trade has to rebalance his own position, and so on. There is also the phenomenon of “cascading defaults”, whereby A can’t pay B, so B can’t pay C, so C can’t pay D, and so on. It’s a little like a nuclear reaction that goes critical. It tends to cause a lot of net selling of positions, and it happens faster than financial regulators can set up meetings to decide what to do about it.
Whereas stock markets and bond markets have “circuit breakers” in place to artificially slow down selling, the derivatives market is less regulated, and largely invisible to regulators. And the derivatives market is gigantic.
According to Jim Rickards, who experienced the LTCM debacle first-hand, the regulators are trying to gain control over one of these runaway financial meltdown scenarios by implementing a protocol he refers to as “Ice-nine”. It involves rapidly freezing up brokerage accounts of all kinds, bank accounts, credit cards, and ATM machines. The purpose is to save the system, not the individual, and it would be hard to ever un-freeze it. My guess is that if it were ever implemented, bank accounts would be worth a lot less by the time they were unfrozen.
Now let’s cut to the chase: if the predictions of a big financial event come to pass, sooner or later, what is the likely impact on a typical reader of my blog?
Unfortunately I don’t know the answer to that question any more accurately than I can predict the timing of the event in the first place! Again, it’s a matter of assessing vulnerabilities.
The most likely vulnerability is if you actively trade stocks, or if you have exposure to the stock market through a defined-contribution retirement plan such as a 401(k) or 403(b). Stocks would likely take a hit in an LTCM-type event.
Some people would lose their jobs as the result of a financial crisis and/or recession, and many would go insolvent. They might end up selling assets at losses, and defaulting on loan payments.
One reason a banking crisis is less likely than a crash in the stock and bond markets is because regulators realize how important banks are to the modern economy, and so make it a high priority to protect them. Banks are the remittance system for paying bills and collecting payments; if banks suddenly stop operating, then bread stops showing up at the store, because the baker, delivery company, and truck driver aren’t getting paid, and the retail customers wouldn’t be able to pay the store anyway.
That said, just because consequences are dire doesn’t mean something bad can’t happen.
The car has to stop, because if it doesn’t, it will hit me!
—what the deer in the headlights thinks
The Eurozone’s banking crisis has never been resolved. At the moment, at least two Spanish banks are in trouble, and they might get “bailed in”.
NB: not too long ago, I read some financial advice from someone who has a lot of followers on Twitter, suggesting that a “dollar cost averaging” investment plan is insurance against stock market crashes and bear markets. There are numerous personal circumstances and market scenarios that dollar-cost-averaging won’t protect you from, like if you already have a big nest egg in the market, and/or you keep pouring money into a long-term bear market (that’s called “throwing good money after bad”).
Someone should also tell him that investment advice is regulated in the USA, before he gets himself into trouble with regulators, or opens himself up to a lawsuit. For that reason, here is my own mandatory disclaimer:
This post is for informational purposes only. Nothing in this post should be construed as advice to buy or sell securities. Make your own financial decisions after consulting with a qualified financial professional.
As a female developer these are some things I want in a company before I decide to join, and once I’m a part of the team.
If you ran a business, what would you care more about, placating the demands of a prospective employee, or maintaining profitability and staying in business in a competitive environment?
If you did placate prospects like this one, do you think it would contribute to your success? When your customers are making a choice regarding which product or service to buy, or deciding whether they even need or not, would they care about, or even have any consciousness of, your company being a place where this young woman wants to work?
I want to see other women
Given that nowhere in the article does she express the least concern for the company’s success or profitability, I assume this is a personal need on her own part.
The first thing most people do before interviewing or even applying for a job is look at the company careers page. If it’s plastered with pictures of white guys in flannel with beards, that’s a red flag.
In the world I live in, company career pages in the USA and Europe feature stock photography, or cherry-picked actual photos, of mostly or nowadays often exclusively other-than-white-men.
If the exec team is all white men who look like they could be my father that’s another one [red flag].
And that’s a red flag for me. Guys, here is some friendly advice from an experienced older man: stay away from women who hate their fathers. The trans-gendered Oedipal complex means exactly what it seems like it should mean. I have never witnessed a case where a man “made it work”; she always divorces him and takes his kids and his money away from him. It’s easy for her because she never had genuinely loving feelings for him. He ends up broke, alone, and depressed. Don’t let that happen to you; find a woman who loves her father.
I don’t give a shit about your “amazing culture”
Everyone has great culture and you’re all best friends, I get it.
It’s important for me to know that these are people I’m going to work well and grow with, and that they want to do those things with me.
Kind of a hostile attitude towards someone offering you money for your time, don’t you think?
Notice that she assumes that her being able to get along with other people depends on them pleasing her instead of her pleasing them. It’s all about her.
These kinds of self-centered attitudes are more noticeable in women than in men, mostly because people tend to be more forgiving of them in women than in men, and because young women are groomed for it with a lot of approval-seeking attention and flattery.
They do occur in men, though, just more discretely. Men don’t usually give away that they would like to be treated like princesses, but then they’re disappointed that they’re not! One thing I am seeing more nowadays, though, is that as the masks come off and people are becoming more and more overtly “narcissistic”, even a lot of young men are showing the same symptoms, though not quite as extreme because they are less likely to get away with it.
Self-centered people are constantly frustrated in life, because they can’t get other people to serve their needs, at least, not long-term. Things often go fine at first, when other people are willing to curry their favor and try to build some goodwill, but after a while, they get tired of giving without getting.
Working relationships are more harmonious when at least one person is willing to consider and respect other people’s needs and feelings, and then they reciprocate.
It’s worth the effort, because it produces synergy.
But you can produce synergy without even all that much goodwill. I have had perfectly functional working relationships even with people who are fairly hostile towards me, as long as we can maintain a truce to pursue mutual benefits. In other words, successful people don’t have to like the people they work with to benefit from the relationship for other reasons.
You see this a lot among the super-rich and the super-powerful. Their relationships tend to be shallow and self-interested. But as long as the relationship is profitable, they’ll continue it without regard to lack of attachment to the other people in it. That’s how they stay rich and powerful.
You can accumulate wealth and influence without being quite so emotionally uninvested in your partners, by mastering your feelings for other people, so that you can pursue whatever working relationships are needed to get the job done, without being needy for other people to please your tastes.
Everyone knows about Imposter Syndrome these days and it’s something I suffer from…I’m incredibly hard on myself…
I have doubts about that assessment. Wikipedia defines Imposter Syndrome as “a concept describing high-achieving individuals who are marked by an inability to internalize their accomplishments and a persistent fear of being exposed as a ‘fraud’.”
If she’s a high-achieving individual, why is she demanding a job instead of offering one? If she knows so much about how to attract and retain highly skilled but undervalued women, why doesn’t she in her own company? A lot of other people have started companies completely from scratch, including through self-financing. What makes her a “high-achieving individual” if she hasn’t accomplished the same?
Ah, the world just doesn’t appreciate her greatness!
Imposter Syndrome is a symptom of a gigantic ego. She needs other people to constantly tell her how wonderful she is, and to make excuses for her failures or better yet, blame someone else.
Presumably the whole point of writing this list of demands is that she’s aware that companies are under pressure to give hiring preferences to “other than white males”, and she’s hoping to take advantage of that fact. Big corporations that have plenty of reserves can afford to do that—for a while—to make the government happy. The accumulation of dead-weight is what eventually does them in, regardless of theories of “efficiencies of scale”.
But what about small businesses operating on a shoe-string? They can’t afford any dead-weight; they need staff to whom they can apply the thumb-screws to perform profitably. Those are the ones whom you should be making an offer to solve their laundry-list of problems they want solved.
Many futurists are eager for—or dreading—the moment when computers start programming themselves. They call it “the singularity”. Runaway technology. Curiously, it doesn’t seem to have occurred to most of them that humans already have the capacity to program themselves, and some humans have been doing it for a while now. It’s called “transcendence”. It’s another milestone on the road to Enlightenment. Unlike runaway technology, it’s a good thing; it leads to more control over your life, not less.
You can rewire your own brain to take it to the next level. In this article, I’m going to explain one possible improvement to your brain’s performance. This is the first of several others I’ll explain. This particular one is a HUGE win.
Think of it from an evolutionary point of view. A reptile can only react to its experiences in about 6 different ways. You can remember them because the mnemonic code for all the active ones start with the letter “F”:
Food (it can eat something it finds)
Flight (it can run away from danger)
Freeze (it avoids drawing attention to itself)
“Fornicating” (wink, wink)
It can also Ignore things that are neither opportunities nor danger.
If a lizard has a problem, it can’t solve the problem unless the solution involves one of those responses. Those are the only possibilities. It can’t come up with a creative, novel solution. It’s like a non-intelligent robot that can only respond with hard-coded routines.
Mammals mostly have similar reactions, except that they are modulated by emotions: anger, fear, sadness, disgust, and happiness. Those are the basic emotions; other emotions are those basic emotions in specific contexts. Love, for example, is being happy when that special someone is around, afraid that you might lose that person, and sad when they are gone. Hate is anger that is triggered just by thinking about the thing you hate; they no longer even have to do anything to provoke it other than just exist. Jealousy is fear and anger of losing something that makes you happy to someone else.
Emotions channel into reptilian responses. Anger for example gets you ready for a fight. Fear prompts you to flee or freeze.
We need emotions and other strong impulses like our sex drive because they motivate us to live out our lives. Without them, we’d have “lobotomized” behavior. The problem is that they’re not enough to solve all of our problems in the best way possible. They’re mechanical rather than intelligent.
Mammals have some ability to come up with novel solutions to problems. How much depends on the species. Humans are on the high end of the scale. But most of the time, most people think like an animal. They react more than act, and act mostly on impulse and habit.
Strong emotions over-ride the creative, rational part of our brain. Think about a time when you really “lost it” with rage. Or panic. Now imagine that while you are so agitated, you have to solve some really hard math problems requiring a great deal of concentration. You probably couldn’t do it. Strong emotions shut down the most advanced parts of the brain. When we’re seized up with strong and especially negative emotions, we lose access to our higher cognitive abilities and revert to primitive instincts.
This is why professional fighting-men (I mean the ones hoping to live out a reasonable life-span, not cannon-fodder) often cultivate some form of emotional discipline. They have to be able to retain access to their training and discipline instead of reverting to primitive fighting instincts. Monks typically have even higher levels of emotional control. Of course, in some cultures monks are warriors; they cultivate martial arts to defend themselves. But you were not meant for a cloistered life; you were meant to strive against adversity, make love to women, and raise children. What I propose instead is the emotional discipline of the monk embodied in the warrior.
Reversion to reptilian levels of thinking happens with any strong or persistent negative emotion. If you’re terrified that your boss is thinking about firing you, you’re more likely to avoid him (flight and freeze) than schedule a friendly chat with him to negotiate a mutually-satisfactory resolution.
Persistent positive emotions can adversely impact our performance too, but that’s not usually much of a problem. It’s rare to be too happy; we don’t have a positivity bias. Just for the record, it’s worth noting that excessive happiness clouds judgment by triggering over-confidence. That’s why we have a negativity bias instead; better to tread cautiously than happy-go-lucky into an ambush by a tiger (or nowadays, a mugger).
These are natural reactions. It’s possible to change your own programming to have more optimal reactions:
If the emotion doesn’t help the situation, let go of it instantly, or avoid it altogether.
If the emotion is appropriate, keep reason in control.
Having discussed this in forums I realize that there is an obstacle to understanding what I mean: men tend to have a strong ability to hide emotions, and most of us have some capacity to over-ride our impulses to act on our hidden emotions. When I brought this up, that’s what all of them thought I was talking about. They think that emotional mastery means bottling up your emotions so that you don’t get into trouble, or other people use them against you. They couldn’t imagine any other possibility.
That’s NOT what I am talking about. I am talking about something 99.99% of men can’t do (yet), because it’s an ability that has to be developed; it’s analogous to the fact that humans aren’t born with an instinct to swim. Letting go of emotions or sometimes even avoiding them altogether by choice doesn’t come naturally. Maintaining reason over emotion is even harder, in fact impossible without extensive re-wiring of the brain. Your limbic system floods your brain with emotion-regulating hormones; they impact the whole thing.
Hiding emotions is purely cosmetic; you’re still tempted to act on them. One disadvantage with simply over-riding the impulse to act on an emotion is that your capacity to do so is quite limited. One really bad day, and you’ll get over-whelmed. That’s one way murders and suicides happen. Another disadvantage is that even to the extent that you don’t get into a fight, or run away from a problem, simply over-riding the reptilian impulses doesn’t resolve the problem; it’s still there, waiting to snare you again along with all the other unresolved problems accumulating in your life.
Imagine the following scenario:
You come home after a hard day at work, walk through the door, and say “Hi honey, I’m home!” Then you hear in response “Don’t you ‘hi honey’ me you no-good son of a bitch!” in a decidedly angry tone of voice.
Most men would start trembling with fear at that point. Maybe turn right around and hide until whatever it is blows over. That’s why their wives eventually divorce them out of the blue; they are unhappy due to years of built-up anger they never resolved.
Some men would respond with anger and start a shouting match. That will only trigger the divorce that much quicker. Or worse, he “snaps” and physically attacks her…maybe even kills her. To avoid that, most men just hold it in, trapped in the situation, not knowing how to resolve it.
Whether afraid or angry, a lot of men end up ashamed. They feel bad about themselves being treated like this.
Exceedingly few would stay calm and say “I see something’s bothering you. I’d like to help. Let’s talk about it after you cool off.” There’s no point trying to talk it over while her brain is still flooded with mood-regulating hormones. Of course she might be spoiling for an immediate confrontation, but she’ll give up if you don’t respond to her provocations. The more you can master your emotions, the more you can be the master of the household.
Your wife is not a saber-toothed tiger; flight or fight are not the best ways to resolve the problem. Resolving the problem requires communication to synchronize your mental models of reality, and negotiation.
Similarly with the dissatisfied boss. You’re not allowed to ambush him in the parking lot and beat him up; you’d get in really big trouble for that. So most men opt to flee (avoid him) or freeze (do nothing and hope it will blow over).
You might retain just enough fear of losing your job to be motivated to resolve the boss’s dissatisfaction, but you don’t want to just hide from him; you need to retain access to rational thought processes so that you can come up with a plan to solve the problem. Like the situation with the angry wife, it will involve communication and negotiation.
Negotiating any solution other than just firing you, with someone who holds all the cards, is going to have to involve some real creativity. You’re going to have to come up with an offer that’s compelling to him.
Now imagine this: you work in a high-level, high-intensity job where hostile people are coming at you all day. Maybe you’re a trial lawyer dealing with high-stakes patent claims. And it’s all nothing to you but an exhilarating challenge. You don’t dread it; you engage it. This is life! Of course you don’t have to engage that level of challenge, but the more you can handle, the more choices you have regarding what kind of life you do want to live, and the more satisfaction you can take from it.
Mastering your emotions helps you to deal more effectively with:
Angry or unhappy wife or girlfriend
Obstacles and setbacks to personal and professional goals
Another benefit is that men who master their emotions tend to be respected more than men whose emotions master them. It’s because needing emotional “energy” to face a problem implies being less in control of his own life, whereas not needing it implies being more in control of his own life. People unconsciously notice the difference, and treat you accordingly.
Learning to master emotions is a way to take your life to the next level:
More satisfying and resiliant relationships
More professional success
Do those sound like benefits you’re interested in?
Keep reading my posts. Soon you’ll be able to get them by email. Subscribers will have access to premium content where I explain exactly how to take your life to the next level by mastering your emotions.
ALL violence? Soooo…when a tiger chases down a deer and crushes its throat, that’s caused by nationalism, ethnocentrism, religious fundamentalism, and racism, which are human constructs? I’m pretty sure that violence pre-dates humans. And I’m also pretty sure that humans are animals.
The tiger killed the deer because it was hungry, not because of “speciescentrism”. The Soviets staged a bloody coup in Russia to seize control of vast mineral resources in Central Asia. The Nazi army invaded the Soviet Union trying to get to the Caucasus oil fields. The whole point of war is seizure of unearned resources; differences like race and religion are never other than pretexts to motivate the serfs to sacrifice their lives for their masters.
If you want peace, teach people to find contentment and meaning in something other than control over human and natural resources, or in other words, go the opposite direction and create 7.5 billion sovereign individuals respecting each other’s rights to life and property and organizing themselves voluntarily. Creating one big worldwide plantation slave-state is the opposite of that.
Even if the world were “united” under one single global empire, and the peoples of the world were forced to all assimilate to an artificial globalist culture, the killing wouldn’t end, because resources would still be limited. If anything, it will get worse as the globalists discover that they have reached the limits of their power and vainglory, and are still dissatisfied with life.
The Globalists are themselves are heirs of the biggest mass-murderers of all times. They were after the natural and human resources of Russia, China, and ultimately the whole world.
Communists used to commonly refer to themselves as “Internationalists”. They were Globalism 1.0. They were the original Globalists, and the modern Globalists are their direct heirs.
The original Globalists made big promises about peace and workers’ paradise that were supposed to occur once the world was united under one supposedly benevolent communist system (they claimed their dictatorship would go away once no longer “needed”).
That’s a wealthy, drug-addled English rock-star singing the promises of Communism. The visuals show him and his wife first strolling on his country estate, on an avenue lined with ancient Rhododendrons imported from British Imperial India, stopping at the door of their mansion, then mysteriously teleporting into the interior. It reminds me of billionaire globalist allies like J.K. Rowling encouraging Europeans to invite immigrants into their homes from the seclusion of her gated estate. Someone else’s cognitive dissonance is jarring to me.
This is what the original Globalists actually delivered:
The Red Terror under the Bolsheviks
The massacre of Christian religious orders
Genocide of peasants for “Kulakism”
The Katyn Forest Massacre (British propaganda ascribed to the Nazis; it was actually committed by the Cheka which is now openly acknowledged)
The Great (Soviet) Purge of 1937-38
The Genocide of the Baltic Peoples
Purges in Eastern Europe after Soviet takeover
The Mongolian Terror (Buddhists exterminated under orders from Soviet advisors)
The Communist Purge of China
The Maoist “land reform” mass executions
The “Great Leap Forward”, also known as the Great Famine
The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (numerous people killed to purge cultural legacies)
The Khmer Rouge Genocide
I’m sure there are many others that slip my mind at the moment. The original Globalists killed so many people it’s hard to keep track of all their mass-killings.
Total estimated body-count (so far): around 100,000,000.
Aside from the human casualties was systematic cultural destruction:
Artists, literati, philosophers, and scientists systematically purged, and replaced with communist pseudo-intellectuals.
Artistic, historical, and religious artifacts systematically destroyed.
Minority languages repressed & replaced with global languages.
Churches, temples, and monastaries systematically destroyed, shut down, or used for other purposes.
History systematically destroyed and re-written.
If you’re observant, you might notice the same phenomena going on again today.
The point of cultural destruction was to replace variety with an ugly, government-sponsored global sameness. Supposedly if the peasants have no cultural identity, then they won’t fight with each other, but I suspect it has more to do with the aesthetics of the ruling class. Actually, the peasants don’t fight with each other unless goaded into it.
One more interesting trait shared between Globalism 1.0 and Globalism 2.0: “science” is their substitute for religion. Communism used to be called “Scientific Socialism”. The expression was still widely in use when I was a boy. Globalism 2.0 spawned “Scientism”, or in other words the (ab)use of Science to promote political agendas.
Are there any significant differences between Globalism 1.0 and 2.0? I doubt it. It would seem that whereas Globalism 1.0 was blanket anti-religious, Globalism 2.0 is superficially Islamophilic, and tolerates westernized Buddhism. I suspect the first case is just a matter of utility over ideology; once Wahabist Muslims are done conquering Europe (Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc), they might be encouraged to secularize, unless their propensity for blind obedience to authority is deemed too useful to give up.
Buddhism is tolerated because it is an almost completely non-competitive religion, and in its modernized and westernized form, lacking in elements offensive to Globalists. Serious practitioners are expected to be celibate beggars; it’s perpetually in a state of helplessness and genetic suicide. Except in a few mutant variations like in Myanmar, it generally poses no political threat or even any relevance. And in its westernized version, it’s devoid of any cultural or mythical artifacts, and is generally considered to be non-theistic.
It’s worth pointing out that real Buddhism does include historical and cultural artifacts; it has a fairly extensive mythology of its own, plus local mythologies inherited when it assimilated tribal cultures as it spread.
It’s also worth pointing out, as many have, the Buddhist concept of Śūnyatā is effectively identical to the concept of Godhead in Christian mysticism, eg Meister Eckhardt, or for that matter, the Vedantic concept of Brahman. Buddhists simply discount a creator role for God because they assume that the world has always existed. So, even though Buddhism is considered non-theistic (which is not the same as atheistic; dentistry isn’t “atheistic” even though it isn’t thestic), it does contain elements that could potentially be considered distasteful by the Globalists.
Which is why the only form of Buddhism tolerated by the Globalists is the westernized, modernist version gutted of all of what Deepak Chopra would call its “cultural constructs”. It’s comparable to the Hindu practice of Hatha Yoga being modernized by being stripped of all its spiritual significance until nothing remains but a commercial exercise program for yuppies and rich old ladies.
What about body-count? Globalism 2.0 hasn’t racked up much lately, aside from genocide of ethnic and religious minorities in Syria and Iraq, and some terrorist attacks it secretly sponsors elsewhere. The argument I keep hearing is that nowadays they have more precisely-targeted weapons systems, and can therefor reduce body-count.
But do they want to? First of all, they’re planning a war with Russia, and another one with China. Those alone would be catastrophic.
The global population clock is currently at 7.5 billion, and the Georgia Guidestones (more New World Order than Globalist, but I think they have some common understandings) state that they want it under 500 million. My guess is population culling will happen through famines and, if necessary, bio-warfare. Hence the Globalist 2.0 obsession with seed vaults and vaccine programs, in order to maintain control of the culling.
My guess is that Globalism 2.0 will outdo Globalism 1.0, in horrible ways.
Don’t beg the one who put the contract on your head to save you.
First let me express my grief for the deaths and grievous injuries of mostly young people at the concert in Manchester, UK. My heart is with their family and friends.
Remembering British victims of terrorism does not imply lack of sympathy for victims of terrorism elsewhere, which I have been and will continue to be vocal about, so please enough of the vindictive accusations and unhelpful virtue-signaling.
Now let me be frank: no amount of expressing your desire that your government “do something” about terrorism and immigrant crime is going to help. The British government is a known sponsor of ISIS/Daesh/Islamic State. This is the worst-kept secret in the world, so I’m not going to attempt to prove it; you either accept the plain fact or not.
Americans see warfare as a finite undertaking, but conflicts of this nature can go on for many years. …our jihadist foes see the struggle as one that began centuries ago and that will continue until Judgment Day. Some in the United States warn of an unending war.
The “war on terror” is an “unending war” because it’s part of a long-term plan to effect dramatic change in our culture, legal system, wealth pyramid, and demographics. It’s scripted history, not a spontaneous event.
Other known state sponsors of ISIS include Saudi Arabia (where the president of the United States was just paying his respects), Qatar, Israel (where it is openly-admitted they have treated ISIS wounded in their hospitals), Turkey (where their supply lines run), France, and the United States.
Some Brits are calling on the spirit of Margaret Thatcher. The same woman who sent secret messages to her counterparts in the Soviet Union telling them to ignore her public denunciations of the “Evil Empire”, and to maintain their iron grip on eastern Europe. That Margaret Thatcher.
She was also involved in a cover-up of a pedophile ring in her own party. THAT Margaret Thatcher. Corrupt and devious, just like the rest of them.
People in Europe and North America need to come to terms with the fact that their ruling classes don’t love them. They love their country estates, the services of their immigrant domestic staff, their jet-set lifestyles, their hookers, catamites, sex-slaves, and blow.
Stop looking to your governments to protect you; they’re the ones you need protection from!
They secretly sponsor ISIS.
They snuck ISIS cells into your country, using your own sympathy for “refugees” who aren’t really refugees and aren’t really from Syria.
They’re eventually going to use ISIS against YOU.
They’re actively supressing dissent against their policies.
You need to take responsibility for your own defense. Be your own hero.
Obtain means of self-defense. Use your own good judgment to decide what that means.
Get self-defense training, including situational awareness.
Avoid discretionary travel through congested, high-visibility areas.
Avoid likely targets
START HAVING BABIES! How are you going to defend yourselves once you are hopelessly outnumbered?!
Unfortunately guns and ammo are no good against sneak bomb attacks, and they’re restricted in most of Europe and parts of the USA (to the police and military, who won’t defend you). Get gun training where guns are legal, and seek alternatives where they are not. I also suggest getting generic self-defense training. Just learning situational awareness can help especially in cases of one-on-one immigrant crime situations.
The second step is avoiding targeted places and events. Of course if you have to commute to work you can’t avoid buses and subways, but you can make a conscious decision to reduce discretionary travel especially through temptingly congested locations. Want to meet with your friends? Pick a low-key venue and get there on foot or by car.
Avoid big rock concerts. Why would anyone want to see Ariana Grande anyway? She has a potty mouth, says she hates Americans, and licks donuts she hasn’t paid for. As an aside, why doesn’t she just move to Venezuela? Why do America-haters think they can adopt the policies of a 3rd-world hellhole without the country turning into one?
I have a feeling it’s just a matter of time before sporting venues are hit. There’s already been a “credible threat” of an attack on a German soccer stadium. Sorry, but you’d better avoid big sporting events too.
No exotic vacations either, especially not to big cities in Europe and North America. One of the victims of the recent Times Square rampage was a young tourist from overseas.
I am well aware that the probability of dying in a terrorist attack is low. That’s not the point. The point is making a conscious choice to resist victimization. That brings up another sore point: right now our masters are encouraging us to go about as if nothing happened. That’s not resisting; that’s capitulation. Taking matters into your own hands gives you a feeling of control. The whole point of terrorism is to scare the sheep so that their emotions overwhelm their ability to think rationally and creatively.
Aside from safety issues, boycotting big-ticket discretionary spending will also keep more money in your own hands, and out of the hands of big business and big government, who are not your friends.
I’ll miss the sea, but a person needs new experiences. They jar something deep inside, allowing him to grow. Without change something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken.
Something that puzzled me for a long time was how I managed to be a low-status man.
I made good money, worked for a name-recognition company, owned our family home and some investment rental property free-and-clear.
I have a marketable degree from an admittedly 2nd-tier public university; it’s all I could have afforded. I have a sesquipedalian vocabulary, which implies I’m well-read, and what used to be considered genteel manners, though things have changed in modern times. Nowadays, especially in the coastal areas of the USA, manners are associated with staff in service occupations. “Yes, ma’am. No, sir”.
The problem is lack of “indicators of success”: I don’t live in a sufficiently exclusive neighborhood, drive the right car, wear suits and ties, and post photos from exotic vacations.
None of those things would bring me happiness. A lot of high-living, high-status celebrities get mixed up with drugs, booze, and sexual vices trying to change their moods, because they’re not happy. Furthermore, the long-term health of my bank account requires that I invest in income-producing assets, not “use assets”. I also have a family to support; a lot of my peers gave that up to afford a higher standard of living.
So it’s a choice I made. I’d rather have peace-of-mind than short-lived status.
Now here is another observation: the longer governments and economies last, the more socially and economically stratified they become, and the more rigid the class system. Consider that in a hunting-gathering society, the man with the highest status goes hunting with the man of lowest status. His hut is in the midst of everybody else’s hut, and his standard of living is only slightly higher. The man of highest status does not feel the need to isolate himself from men of lower status: there’s no such thing as “exclusivity” in his world.
It takes a threshold of civilized infrastructure and culture to create and maintain exclusivity. Even after it exists, you don’t get to just inherit high social status; you have to fight for it. In early civilizations, there’s frequent changeover at the top. Aside from assassinations, kings used to regularly die in battle, the last one in Europe being Charles XII of Sweden in 1718. While brute force is not exactly “merit”, at least it required some of what Nassim Taleb would call “skin in the game”.
Entrenched, rigid, anti-meritocratic class structures tend to get entrenched after long periods of economic stability. They tend to end when governments destabilize as the result of rapid economic change. A good example would be the fall of Europe’s aristocracies in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution: you had people who inherited titles of nobility reduced to fish-mongering for a living because they failed to adapt to a changing economy and government. Other people who had been skilled craftsmen became wealthy hiring cheap labor to start factories.
We’ve had a long period of relatively stable economy and government. As a result, we’ve gotten quite socially-stratified. You can really see it in the attitudes of high-status people in the coastal cities of the USA. Here are some candid remarks that the Dean of Pierson College at Yale University included among her Yelp reviews:
“To put it quite simply: If you are white trash, this is the perfect night out for you!”
(implication is that whites are too stupid to recognize or care about quality)
Excerpt from review of Koto Japanese restaurant
“These are not good and overpriced. They are ice cream mochi which are small in size and easily become freezer burned if not stored well … I guess if you were a white person who has clue what mochi is, this would be fine for you.”
Excerpt from review of The Mochi Store
“seriously I don’t care if you ‘lose your job.’ (I’m sure McDonalds would hire you.)”
Excerpt from review of Retro Fitness
These are just snippets from a few reviews; there were a lot more of the same before she deleted her account after it turned into a scandal. She refers to people who serve her as a customer as “morons” and “idiots”. Aside from the insults, she uses coarse language (not repeated here) freely for someone who calls other people “trash”. She also apparently gets into a lot of confrontations with the staff of various venues.
She got caught because it never occurred to her to hide her prejudices; that’s the way that people in her social circle refer to middle-class and working-class whites. She posted using her real name, and bragged about reaching a noteworthy threshold of reviews. Some curious students decided to look up her reviews, and were surprised by what they saw.
The meaning of “white trash” depends on who is using it. A lot of middle-class whites naively assume that it only refers to uneducated hillbillies living in squalor. Actually, in the dean’s world of ivory-tower exclusiveness, it is far more broadly-applied than that. It reaches right up through highly-skilled people like me who have to live simply to live sustainably in a highly-competitive local economy.
Aside from being cast broadly, it’s a loaded term: it assumes that poverty implies low value. I have met plenty of “hillbillies” who have fairly decent manners, and work hard. Some of them are perfectly intelligent, and simply got trapped in poverty for historical and geographic reasons. To tell the truth, I escaped poverty through sheer luck of being in the right place at the right time.
If college is truly a way up the ladder of social and economic success, there’s a gate at the base that they can’t get through, because they’re not welcome. College admissions policies block them completely from the 1st-tier universities, and financial barriers remain an obstacle at the lower tier universities. The situation has gotten worse in the last decade, with a high risk that money borrowed for college expenses won’t result in a job that pays enough to pay back the loan.
If they knew what they were doing, they could get quite a bit of credit relatively inexpensively, then transfer it to a degree-granting institution to get some credential, even if not particularly prestigious. I would suggest zooming in on specific training for specific marketable skills with a specific job or self-employment in mind. There’s still a boot-strapping problem but it can be done.
The current economic system is getting old, and is due for an upheaval. Globalization, resource-depletion, and automation will make it a challenge for anybody to stay employed at all. Most people will end up sliding DOWN, into the poverty-trap. I imagine that will include a lot of smug, stuck-up people, because they’re too complacent to see it coming.
Those of humbler origins who do see it coming have an opportunity to switch relative standing, mostly by not falling as far. If you want to be one of the winners, keep reading my blog.
I suggest losing the ego on the way. A big ego is a hungry ghost, never satisfied. Judging from her whiny complaints, my guess is that the Dean of Pierson College is not a happy person. How could she be? She’s surrounded by people she despises. From her point of view, the world is filled with “incompetent morons” who give her lousy service and serve up cruddy food. Her whole world is colored with reasons to be dissatisfied.
Don’t worry if people like her look down on you; your happiness does not depend on their approval unless you think it does. If you want to be a happy, soulful person, learn to see beauty wherever you are, and appreciate the people and things in your life.
I’ve mentioned a few times that I will discuss the concept of Enlightenment in some depth. That will require more than one post. Here’s the first one.
I don’t think of Enlightenment as an end-state; I think of it as a process of reaching higher and higher levels of awareness. I also tend to think of it in evolutionary terms: a human’s awareness is in some sense more expansive than a frog’s awareness. That’s not to say that anything is “bad” or “wrong” about the frog; frogs are fine just the way they are. It’s just an observation that the human has more of something than the frog.
When I say “evolution”, I mean it in a very broad sense that includes but is not limited to the Darwinian sense of the word. Someone who has gained a lot of wisdom from a life of interesting experiences is more “evolved” than someone who has not had those opportunities, even if they are at the same point of Darwinian evolution. That’s why the name of my website refers to “evolving”.
One of the first big milestones of personal evolution is growing out of something called “Naïve realism”: the assumption that our senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they “really” are.
Despite calling it “naïve”, naïve realism is openly endorsed by numerous modern philosophers and scientists. I’ve heard it passionately argued.
The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind — surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false? Had it not been exposed long ago as a fallacy? There was even a name for it, which he had forgotten. A faint smile twitched the corners of O’Brien’s mouth as he looked down at him.
‘I told you, Winston,’ he said, ‘that metaphysics is not your strong point. The word you are trying to think of is solipsism.
This is a counterintuitive exchange to have written given that in the real world, inner party members think the same way Winston Smith does. The fact that they sometimes impose “reality bubbles” on the rest of us does not imply that they think that there is not also some “objective reality” “outside” of our minds; in fact, sometimes they forget their own duplicity and get caught in their own reality bubbles, finding it difficult to maintain several different mental models of reality, one for themselves, and one for their dupes. Winston Smith, and by extension Eric Blair and a lot of other intellectuals, are not the only ones who don’t understand metaphysics:
It’s not a “belief” that nothing exists outside your own mind; it’s lack of any means to know one way or the other.
No one has ever come up with a way to demonstrate that anything inside our minds corresponds to anything outside of our minds.
No one has ever come up with a way to demonstrate that there is any “outside of our minds”.
Rene Descartes tried, and failed. “I think, therefor I am” is an invalid inference. What is this “I” and where did it come from? The correct inference is “Thinking is going on, therefor thinking is going on”. You can stop right there.
This has nothing to do with “metaphysics”.
What’s the problem with a solipsism?! You don’t have to assume that there is any reality “outside of your mind” in order to be perfectly functional and happy. Quite the opposite: you can become super-functional by subscribing to a purely pragmatic view of reality whereby success, including and in particular Darwinian biological success, rather than certainty, is the goal.
Most of the time, your experiences are reasonably close to what you expect them to be, at least, enough to be functional. Most of the time, your experiences sufficiently match your expectations that you’re able to live your life as well as you have up to now. Not knowing the nature of “ultimate reality” has not had any impact on your life at all. Solipsism is not a problem!
Prof. Donald Hoffman goes so far as to claim that evolutionary selective pressure favors not those minds with the most accurate representation of reality, but instead, those with the most successful representation of reality, which is probably a function of variables like efficiency. You can’t fit the complexity of the Kosmos into your brain, so you make a lot of functional over-simplifications. Some of them might be grossly inaccurate, but to the extent they get the job done, it’s pointless to care other than to be aware of the possibility in order to change or discard them when they stop working.
Prof. Hoffman uses the analogy of a software user interface: you drag the virtual folder to the virtual trash can. But there is no physical folder and no physical trash can; the software is all electronic circuits that don’t look like folders or garbage cans.
I have a feeling that religious mythology serves to create mental models that are more functional than the default, without regard to whether or not they correspond to anything “outside” of the practitioner’s mind. By “functional”, I mean that they help process experiences, typically the bad ones like conflict, suffering, and death. This is why Muslims would still be winning the “Clash of Civilizations” even without the help of our profoundly atheistic ruling class. It’s not so much that they’re winning as simply displacing a civilization that is dysfunctional and dying after discarding some critical “cultural technology”.
The problems start when your mental model doesn’t help you process your experiences, because your experiences take you completely by surprise, and usually an unpleasant one at that.
This happens commonly because of
translation errors in the process of interpreting what the data mean
The fact that our experiences do sometimes get out of synch with our mental models of reality seems to imply that something other than our own mental models is driving the process, but that assumption adds nothing to our knowledge regarding what that “something” might be. “There is this thing called a ‘hocnonest’. I don’t know what it looks like, sounds like, or anything at all about it, other than that it exists.” In other words, we’re still trapped in a solipsism. All we really know is how well our mental models have served us up to now. What we’re really measuring them against is our experiences, or “new data”.
Translation is the process of turning raw data into something meaningful to you, ultimately, qualia (that is, subjective conscious experiences, like red, or the sound of middle C on a piano). For example, if you look at an apple, you’re not experiencing the apple directly; you experience neurons reacting to a chain of events that started when photons were emitted by the apple and some of them reached your eyes. Then there is an extremely complex translation process from that into neural impulses. There are possibilities for mistakes and data loss along the way.
Someone might reasonably ask “ah…but how do you know that?” The answer is that I don’t; that’s my mental model of how the process works based on other people’s experiments. It’s not particularly accurate; a lot of details are missing, and I might have made some mistakes. It’s good enough to serve my purposes, until the day I get unexpected feedback.
Imagine trying to get home again using a defective map, while being absolutely 100% certain that the map is a perfect representation of the experiences you will have as you try to reach your destination. You keep running into the same obstacles and falling off the same cliffs, no matter how many times you retrace your path and try over again.
This is how people
make bad decisions that mess up their own and other people’s lives
never learn from their bad decisions, because they never understood what caused the problem
get stuck in their problems
develop personality disorders like borderline personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder
Ask yourself why people fall in love with their beliefs, or get angry when their beliefs are challenged.
If you assume that your mental model of reality IS reality, then it never occurs to you that it could be mistaken. So, whenever you find evidence that doesn’t fit your model, what do you do? You discard the evidence!
That’s called “confirmation bias”.
This is how you get people who have beliefs that aren’t based on any evidence at all. They might have formed a belief because of something a high-status person told them, or because of purely conditioned associations. When they experience contrary evidence, they discard the evidence, rather than the belief, out of hand: “facts don’t matter”. Some people never realize that their mental models of reality are defective because they don’t care.
I often hear them expressing sentiments like “I want this to be true”, after hearing a lurid and obviously fictional story that validates one of their political beliefs and offers them a pretext to do something violent. These are the ones who will go so far as to manufacture “evidence” in the form of hoaxes in order to try to “prove” what they already want to believe. I don’t quite understand the psychology of this phenomenon, but it seems to have something to do with “This is true. I can keep it true by creating evidence for it and making other people believe it too”.
I used to call this “magical thinking”, but I gave up on that expression because many people use that expression to mean something else, that I don’t want to confuse with my intended meaning.
This habit of cherry-picking data according to whether it validates cherished beliefs is how you get all sorts of irrational behaviors even without any symptoms of mental illness.
ignore evidence that the building you are in is burning down and you need to evacuate. Instead, wait for an authority figure to tell you so
be aware of evidence that a sexual predator is sexually abusing children, but do nothing about it, or even try to help hide the evidence, even without any personal stake in the situation
join a cult and if rationalize why the cult-leader’s prophesies never happen as predicted
remain in an abusive relationship with someone who has a personality disorder or is mentally ill, after buying into the same mind-space
be needy for the approval of others, especially high-status individuals
consciously or unconsciously rig an experiment or falsify the data
believe whatever the government and media claims without requiring confirmation by independently-obtained evidence, even with ready access to such evidence.
These are all common behaviors. It’s not uncommon for firemen to find the charred remains of patrons of nightclubs and dance-halls still positioned around tables next to their drinks, because nobody told them they needed to evacuate. It’s not unusual for investigations into child sexual exploitation to discover numerous people who were aware of what was going on, but either did nothing, or even took steps to cover it up. It’s not that they wanted children to be sexually abused; it’s that they literally think that if there is a discrepancy between what they believe to be reality, and evidence, that the evidence is wrong. It’s like if you drain the barometer of mercury, it will start raining. In cults, usually only one key central figure has a “dark triad” personality; most of the cult members have perfectly normal psychology.
Some professional scientists are among the worst offenders of all! They tend to be over-confident about themselves and their beliefs. They’ll go through all the motions of removing their own biases through double-blind experiments, then blatantly rig the experiment. Scientists are some of the favorite subjects for “mentalists”, who are entertainers who use cognitive illusions to mystify their audiences; the scientists assume they aren’t prone to cognitive illusions so they can’t figure out how the mentalist keeps tricking them over and over and over again.
Eduard Bernays had the idea of using scientific authority for promoting propaganda. And since scientists are not particularly resistant to cognitive illusions, they make perfect dupes to trick other dupes.
Sometimes the wisest thing you can say is “I don’t know”. Sometimes you get ahead by unlearning information and discarding beliefs.
Whenever you have a problem, there is a process you can go through to either resolve it quickly and efficiently, or realize that your time and attention would be better spent elsewhere, instead of getting stuck in it. It makes you more resourceful and more effective. It also makes you more persuasive and helpful within your social circle, because you can show them how to solve their own problems instead of telling them, and then they’re more likely to see it for themselves instead of rejecting your advice out-of-hand.
There’s another process that you can go through to start responding more to the evidence of your senses, and less to purely conditioned associations, so that you can let go of beliefs that keep resulting in unpleasant surprises. It takes a little more work than the other one, but accomplishing it is another milestone on the way to Enlightenment.
Subscribers will have a chance to learn how to perform these processes to increase their resourcefulness and ability to adapt to new situations.
An emergency has been declared on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Apparently a train tunnel containing radioactive materials has collapsed.
HANFORD EMERGENCY INFORMATION
Event Summary 5/9/2017
HANFORD SITE ALERT
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Richland Operations Office activated the Hanford Emergency Operations Center at 8:26 a.m., after an alert was declared at the 200 East Area. There are concerns about subsidence in the soil covering railroad tunnels near a former chemical processing facility. The tunnels contain contaminated materials.
Actions taken to protect site employees include:
Facility personnel have been evacuated
As a precaution, workers in potentially affected areas of the Hanford Site have gone indoors
Access to the 200 East Area of the Hanford Site, which is located in the center of the Hanford Site, has been restricted to protect employees
The public can request information regarding the event by calling (509) 376-8116. The media may call (509) 376-3322.
No reports of injuries or fatalities, and I hope that is the case.
Hazardous infrastructure will get MORE hazardous over time, as it decays without enough engineers, or a healthy economy, to maintain it. When Hanford was built, politicians, managers, and engineers used to assume that in the future, people would figure out ways to solve problems & reduce risks. They projected an expending economy and more powerful technology into the future, forever. They didn’t even consider the possibility of temporary peaks followed by declines.
Someone I used to know used to work at Hanford. I thought of him as a friend, and only later realized that was not really the case.
More often than not, a man’s career is an integral part of his identity, or at least it used to be in those days. Nowadays, a lot of young men don’t have careers and don’t even seem to be interested in having one. Of course, they also don’t have families to support. When he was faced with the prospect of losing that job, he went off the deep end, and blamed me.
I had nothing to do with the situation, other than helping him find another one. The damage was done, and even before those hard feelings, he was holding other things against me I had no idea about. Part of it was my own problem; I had lots of potential but little to show for it. I was deemed unworthy. The coup de grace was him getting caught up in a hostile 3rd party’s elaborate deceptions. And aside from sacrificing me as a friend, he paid a horrible price getting tangled with someone with borderline personality disorder.
Despite how it ended, I count him as a positive influence in my life. Some of his better personality traits are now part of me. Ironically, being told that I wasn’t good enough to be his friend was the shock I needed to motivate me to take my life to the next level. It was an unlikely series of events that could only have happened the way they did. Sometimes dark clouds really do have silver linings.
In the story of the Odyssey, Ulysses encounters the island of the Lotos-eaters. Depending on the version of the story, they eat Lotos fruits or flowers, which induce a sleepy, contented, apathetic stupor. Ulysses’ crew who ate the Lotos lost interest in returning home, or even back to their ship to report to him.
Nobody’s sure what a Lotos was because the word (and the latinized variation “Lotus”) are used for any of several different plants. My guess is that the story was inspired by several plants amalgamated into one: perhaps the blue waterlily of the Nile, Nymphaea caerulea, which contains psychotropic compounds, the sweet fruit of the Lote tree, and the fruit of Carob.
I don’t read the Guardian; no attention to spare for Trotskyite nonsense, but someone I do follow did the work of sorting through the rubbish to find this, which at least is relevant:
by 2050 a new class of people might emerge – the useless class. People who are not just unemployed, but unemployable.
The same technology that renders humans useless might also make it feasible to feed and support the unemployable masses through some scheme of universal basic income.
One answer might be computer games. Economically redundant people might spend increasing amounts of time within 3D virtual reality worlds, which would provide them with far more excitement and emotional engagement than the “real world” outside.
I don’t think it will take until 2050; we’ve already got a high ratio of unemployed and under-employed college graduates.
I am skeptical of the Universal Basic Income on all counts. It hasn’t shown up yet and I don’t know that it ever will. If it does, it will undoubtedly cause all sorts of problems. Lotos-eaters lost in virtual reality are the least of my worries; I’m more concerned about young adults with no life-purpose, no ethical training, and lots of time on their hands.
I am concerned about the prospects of proliferation of net consumers (versus net producers), that some of them are hostile as is already noticeable in North America and Europe, and that the parasites will turn violent when the handouts run out.
People who have to be taken care of having the right to vote is a moral hazard we already have, and maybe it will get much worse. Someone else suggested that a precondition for receiving UBI is to give up your right to vote. Whether or not they’ll be allowed to vote, they’d still presumably have plenty of free time to donate to political causes, or in other words, make trouble for the rest of us.
Yet one more concern is that those who continue working will feel unrewarded, even abused and taken for granted: they’ll have to work hard to stay employed, will probably be heavily taxed, and will be resented by the Useless Class.
Standards of living are falling even for highly-skilled professionals like computer programmers, engineers, and doctors. The Productive Class won’t enjoy much reward for being productive. But there has to be SOME differential between them and the Useless Class, in order to keep them motivated, so standards of living for the Useless Class will presumably be quite low.
The author missed a much more common option for those wanting to stay employed: a market for personal services. The rich would probably rather get a massage from a human masseur/masseuse than from a machine. Just because it’s possible to automate a task doesn’t always mean it will be automated; there’s a matter of aesthetics. Their gardens will have a maintenance crew even if equipment does most of the real work, because houses and gardens are not standardized enough for pure automation. The really rich might have a real master gardener…maybe one who also takes care of the kitchen-garden so they’re not forced to eat the same over-processed food commodities the Useless Class are fed.
A lot of skilled labor and security-services (specifically, body-guards) will remain in-demand due it being hard to automate tasks that occur in complex, unpredictable environments. Creativity is still hard to automate too.
I’d suggest being good-looking and charming on top of being willing to do the work, to give you an edge on the competition.
For thousands of years, billions of people have found meaning in playing virtual reality games. In the past, we have called these virtual reality games “religions”.
To the best of our scientific knowledge, human life has no meaning. The meaning of life is always a fictional story created by us humans.
The author is confirming what I have mentioned elsewhere about the assumptions of Modernism: Life has no meaning. Religion is a useless delusion. If it doesn’t have mass, it isn’t real. Science is the only way to know anything. Technology will solve all of your problems (even if you are unproductive dead weight).
Why would you try to determine meanings with “Science”? “Meaning” refers to a translation process, like a mathematical function: this maps to that. It takes a subjective observer—a meaning-making Being like a human—to make the mapping and care about it. How do you discover subjective judgments through a supposedly objective process? How do you do an experiment to decide what to have for supper tonight?
This is why Modernists are doomed.
The rest of us are too if we go along with them. Maintain your own functional mindset.
One more warning: it’s quite possible that none of this will ever come to pass. No Lotos-eaters. They might get culled along with anyone smart enough to resist serfdom. No Elysium orbiting earth. More likely, the whole economic system crashes. But, even if it does, you need to be prepared to live by your own wits in a system with high unemployment rates for one reason or the other. The days of someone taking care of you in exchange for obeying them are over.
Maintain multiple skill sets applicable to tasks that are hard to automate, and maintain high testosterone to maintain your drive to compete and to get things done. How precisely to do that is another question…keep reading my blogposts…
Wow, they must really be desperate, to be willing to hire Americans! The Bangor Daily News, which has reported on high local unemployment rates, is so blasé about the local hiring preference for non-Americans.
I keep seeing on social media where some guy will post photos of his ribs-and-booze supper, someone else will chime in warning him that his diet is unhealthy, and he insists that “no, no, food pyramid is all wrong, this is the way you’re supposed to eat. It’s paleo.”
The USDA food pyramid might very well be wrong, but so is the idea that prehistoric people ate “lots of meat and no carbs”. Exactly how they ate depended on where in the world they were; they ate what was available locally. Most of them would have eaten a high ratio of foraged wild vegetables.
It would have some carbs too—just not as high a ratio, not refined, not fried, and not necessarily year-round. Simple sugars—like the ones found in that barbeque sauce those ribs are drenched in—are worse than starches, because they hit the bloodstream so fast. In excess, they trigger insulin desensitization. The ratio of carbohydrates increased once humans were civilized, because carbohydrates are easy to store, and stored food is what makes predictable processes possible. Those were mostly starches; until historically fairly recently, refined sugar was a luxury reserved for the rich.
Carbs supported the calorie-intensive heavy-labor lifestyle associated with farming and construction. Carbs are not as calorie-dense as either fat or protein, but they burn more efficiently. Hunter-gatherers don’t do heavy labor; by definition they don’t do farming or heavy construction. They spend their work hours foraging and sneaking up on prey, and a lot of their time is spent resting and playing. As people living in urban and suburban areas have shifted into more sedentary lifestyles, their need for carbs has shifted back down again.
To put this into perspective, life is all about maintaining homeostasis, or in other word, a balance between deadly extremes. Too hot, and you die of heat-stroke. Too cold, and you die of hypothermia. Too wet and you drown. Too dry and you die of thirst. As soon as your diet starts getting extreme, suspect that you are getting too much of one thing and not enough of another. Our ancestors knew this, but fat Americans, and increasingly Europeans, are falling for food fads.
“Diet”, by the way, is a noun, not a verb. Diet is what you eat regularly, not something you do only after you get fat again. Eat sensibly all the time, instead of starving yourself or eating fake diet foods to compensate for an unhealthy diet or lifestyle.
Whatever else you eat, eat a high ratio of green veggies to slow down your digestion and clean out your guts.
That’s not a serving of veggies, it’s a garnish! Most Americans should eat about 2 or 3 times as much green veggies as they actually do.
Watery, quick-growing vegetables like cucumbers, zucchini, and lettuce are insubstantial. Eat hearty cruciferous vegetables like kale, cabbage or collards, Brussels sprouts, and broccoli, daily, every meal. Generous daily servings of bok choi (and fish) are how people in Hong Kong live so long despite extreme urban stress.
Green veggies, not corn or potatoes, both of which are loaded with carbs. You can eat carbs but don’t count them as your serving of veggies.
Avoid fried carbs. Some of them are carcinogenic. Avoid potato chips and french-fries (chips in UK).
Favor low-sugar fruits like blueberries, strawberries, grapefruit, and tomatoes over sugary fruits like grapes and pineapple.
Avoid processed foods and especially fast-food. Especially avoid sodas, even diet sodas.
Don’t eat preserved meat! It’s full of nitrates associated with heart disease and cancer. I’m looking at you, mein deutscher Junge! I’m aware that a lot of publicity has come out recently claiming that nitrates and nitrites are good for you, but I suspect that’s PR, not real science.
Don’t eat hydrogenated fats (“trans-fats”); your body’s mechanisms to get them out of your arteries can’t handle their broken structures. Not realizing that trans-fats were the real culprit was what triggered the anti-fat hysteria of the 1970s and 1980s. Fast foods are loaded with these; they’re created when oil is used for deep frying over and over again. Avoid deep-fried and breaded foods generally. Use coconut oil in lieu of shortening for baked goods; you’ll get used to and eventually start liking the flavor.
Polyunsaturated oils (like sunflower oil or safflower oil) are suspect; they go rancid easily and might be doing that in your body. Eat them in moderation and preferably in natural rather than refined forms. Use olive oil for salad dressing, and sauté in cold-pressed canola.
The problem with making generalities is that they obscure some important details. Diets are often grossly classified in terms of ideologies rather than in terms of optimal health.
With that qualification, “pescatarians” average the greatest longevity (all other factors being the same), followed by strict vegans. That makes sense, because pescaterians are getting more (preferably cold-water) fish oil, and therefor a more nearly optimal ratio of omega fatty acids. Eating a lot of fish is probably what contributes to Japanese longevity despite a lot of other bad habits. The vegans are probably getting more fiber, and they are probably more conscious of everything they eat; in other words, it’s probably not eschewing animal products altogether that contributes to their longevity; it’s all that brown rice, quinoa, and kale that they do eat.
If meat-eaters avoid preserved meats, the longevity gap between themselves and vegetarians narrows, which is why I am wary of preserved meats.
“Vegetarian” doesn’t mean much; it’s a diet defined by what is not eaten rather than what is. It’s a diet defined by ideology, not optimal health. It could be very healthy or unhealthy. I would guess that roughly the healthiest vegetarian diet on the planet would be that of southern India; that and the relative rarity of vices among Indians (drugs and booze less common than in Europe and the Americas; satellite porn usually the worst of it) are why southern Indians live longer than most people who live at same level of poverty, and even longer than many people who are more affluent but have unhealthy habits.
I’d post some cookbooks if I didn’t think they would probably be faddish, and the authors not lousy cooks. Maybe someone else can recommend one, and I’ll post it later. I think I eat healthy but my diet isn’t mainstream enough to recommend to a broad audience. You probably already know what is healthy; if you just do more of your own cooking, and stop eating processed foods and fast foods, that would be enough to get you back to the trimmer physiques of your recent ancestors.
This is worth reading to understand some of the mechanisms, even if you don’t have heart disease or cancer yet. It’s sort of like needing to buy insurance before your house burns down. It’s also worth mentioning that the author is a bit of a shady character, but that doesn’t bother me. He’s recommending a low-inflammation diet because he thinks it works, not because he’s trying to be a goody-goody.
May 1st, 2017
It’s COLD where I live. About 10F/5.6C degrees below average, which for a relatively stable climate is a lot. Before the commies appropriated it, May Day used to be the celebration of warmer weather come mid-Spring.
Much of central Europe and North America are getting crop damage from late frosts.
One data point does not make a trend, but the current cold weather at higher latitudes and elevations was predicted by numerous scientists in central and eastern Europe, based on the fact that a Grand Solar Minimum has begun.
According to a buddy of mine who grew up as a wheat farmer in Kansas, the damaged wheat plants will probably tiller out and make some smaller heads on shorter stalks. But the yield will be significantly reduced. That’s why wheat futures just shot up.
The effect of grand solar minima is not the same everywhere. The temperature decrease will be most noticeable above 45 degrees latitude (much of Europe!). Many parts of the world will turn drier, but a few, like mine, turn wetter. An overall colder and drier climate is harder to grow crops in.
I can’t grow a significant amount of food in my back-yard, but I do grow what I can so that I have fresh, viable seed on-hand that could be planted on more abundant ground elsewhere. This spring is so cold that I suspect that in future summers, it will be too cold for warm-season crops like corn and tomatoes to thrive. For that reason, I’m already switching to crops that have wide tolerances especially at the low end of the temperature scale.
One of them are potatoes that I am breeding for frost-tolerance. Potatoes are commonly grown as a summer crop at high latitudes, because they are quick to mature, and don’t mind cool summers. But normally they have no frost tolerance at all. Not surprising because, ironically, potatoes are actually native to the tropics. They come from the tropical Andes, below the frost zones of the high elevations. Some wild potatoes grow up higher, into the frost-zones, and these, when crossed to their domesticated cousins, can be bred into potatoes with frost resistance.
Not much; they only tolerate brief radiation frosts at night, but that’s enough to significantly reduce the risk of crop losses to spring or summer frosts.
I switched from warmer-growing Legumes to fava beans, which grow cooler than most “beans”.
More important than raising food is storing food. You can’t grow crops fast enough not to starve if you don’t have any food in storage.
I’m only endorsing the author’s statement of the problem, not his suggested political agendas. Politics is the problem, not the solution. The correct solution is to see to your own security; the government will not save you.