Saturday, November 08, 2008

Advice to Realists Dismayed By Recent Elections

Saw this goodie and thought I'd pass it on:

Yeah, people here are liberals. That's what happened to metal post-1995, and consequently the music sucks, with a few exceptions (Skepticism).

Liberalism is groupthink, conformity and the death of a society.

Doesn't mean it should ruin your day. These are good people in the grips of a bad meme. It doesn't change my estimation for them, any more than I'd actually suddenly decide they were worthless if they bought Macs (fags) or started liking the new Cynic.

Liberalism is death, true, but the path is to keep being a good person who shows others the right way. When other people have more experience in life, they often change their ways.

In my experience, most of the people who are over 28 voting for Obama are arrested development cases wishing they were still in college, and the rest of Obama's white voters were college students.

Time changes how they'll view life.

The rest of the white people voted for McCain because although he is boring as hell, he's consistent and not connected to massive corruption like Obama.

Obama pitched a good-sounding message at a time when American voters were having a tantrum over the economy and, because their favorite entertainment found it horrific, the Iraq war (even though most active service people don't seem to find it so awful). The voters had a hissy fit and voted in whatever wasn't current.

On the good side, this has brought the truth out of the closet: liberals represent a psychology that results in their ideological viewpoint and not the other way around, and normal white people are realizing that the goal of liberalism is to replace them so neurosis can take over.

Is it any different than the revolutions in France and Russia? No, it's not... including consequences, though we haven't had time to see those yet. That's in the future.

Every society goes through calcification of this nature. With nothing positive to do, its energy goes into earning money and buying shit and comparing it to what others have, and the result is a vapid culture that turns on itself in a spasm of existential angst.

From that, you get this neurotic meme, and it takes out good people periodically. Are they any different than teenagers who do really stupid shit and expect their parents to sort it out? Those who are realists -- I describe myself as realist more than rightist -- need to get organized, explain themselves, and demonstrate what is correct.

They also need to plan for the middle part of the country to withdraw from the rest, and let the east and west coasts be Brazil/Mexico/Iraq if they want to. Let them face the consequences of their decisions while the realistic people avoid the kind of decay that ends in third world status (happens to every nation exactly the same way, including cosmopolitanism -- Toynbee/Spengler/Plato agree.)

In the meantime, they can be friends and people you care about without you having to agree on their politics -- or follow them down the murky path of neurosis.

Return to the Pit

All Human Groups Disintegrate The Same Way

What a sorry, damp joke Celtic Frost had become behind the scenes during the last few months of the band's existence. It was impossible to continue, surrounded by one whose perpetual preposterous boasts and insolent tirades bore an ever decreasing relation to reality and one who could no longer be bothered and ultimately belied the commitment he had frequently confirmed to me since we began working together again. But then, I had predicted exactly that to his face on more than one occasion.

There was no remnant anymore of what once was an extremely professional and determined group. Music was no longer even a topic. In the end, determination was met with hatred, literally, on one hand and apathy on the other. I became the only one who truly intended to continue on the course as we set it. Absurdly, I could only do so by leaving.

What a disgrace. What a disappointment, when we should have - and could have - done it better. What a betrayal of the work we ourselves had put into the band for so many years and the commitment our audiences had granted us so unconditionally. We all shall never again experience anything like it.

Tom G. Warrior

All human groups fall apart the same way.

People lose consensus to achieve something positive, to make something, and fall to bickering about dividing up what is. Power becomes control, a weaker form. Ambition becomes a desire to see one's name in lights. They lose sight of a transcendent goal.

Transcendent goals are hard to define. They're abstract, but they correlate to the rules of planet earth and our universe. They're realistic, but at the same time, concern something that does not yet exist.

If you want to make great art, or a great society, you need to have such a goal. For the Romans it was dominion over the known world, which required a compelling culture as well as the best military force on earth. For the ancient Greeks, it was a sense of excellence in all things, which resulting in their culture dominating the known world.

When Celtic Frost was healthiest, its members were united in consensus on creating something of a positive yet not currently existing nature. It was not negativity like "we want to avoid this" and "we hate society," but an offering of their worldview as translated into an artistic experience, a hybrid adventure/poem.

Our society parallels this decline, as do all human groups, because the origin of this decline is not inherent to an age or a species, but to intelligent minds divided into individuals. It is the mathematics of collaboration.

Dream Long Dead

The American Dream is dead because the country killed itself with unrealistic, emotional thinking.

Pluralism doesn't work.

Democracy doesn't work.

Multiculturalism doesn't work.

But that's socially unacceptable to say, and so instead we usher ourselves out the usual way...

Albinism Tied to Nervous System Development

This little guy is what’s known as a piebald squirrel — the term piebald applies to any animal displaying depigmented white fur.

The condition is genetically tied in to the development of the animal’s nervous system. According to some sources, it’s most common in horses but does affect other species.

The Record

That is one tasty tidbit of random science there. Visit the links for a picture of the cutest skunk-colored squirrel you've ever seen, etc.

Friday, November 07, 2008

The Multiverse

On the outskirts of creation, unknown, unseen "structures" are tugging on our universe like cosmic magnets, a controversial new study says.

Everything in the known universe is said to be racing toward the massive clumps of matter at more than 2 million miles (3.2 million kilometers) an hour—a movement the researchers have dubbed dark flow.

The presence of the extra-universal matter suggests that our universe is part of something bigger—a multiverse—and that whatever is out there is very different from the universe we know, according to study leader Alexander Kashlinsky, an astrophysicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.

National Geographic

I imagine a linked ring of universes, each a geometric permutation of the balance between matter and idea. Cool stuff.

Gather All the Easily-Deceived And Give Them A Name

We're sorry for rolling our eyes at you all these years. We apologize for scoffing at your earnestness, your lack of self-deprecation, your tendency to take yourselves a little too seriously.

{ snip }

And look, we really did stand for something, underneath all the eye-rolling. We're feminists, we care about the environment, we want to improve race relations, we volunteer. We're just low-key about it. We never wanted to do it the way you did it: So unselfconscious, so optimistic, guilelessly throwing yourself behind Team Liberal. We didn't get that. We aren't joiners. We don't like carrying signs. We tend to disagree, if only on principle.

But when we watched Barack Obama's victory speech on Tuesday night, we looked into the eyes of a real leader, and decades of cynicism about politics and grass-roots movements and community melted away in a single moment. We heard the voice of a man who can inspire with his words, who's unashamed of his own intelligence, who's willing to treat the citizens of this country like smart, capable people, worthy of respect. For the first time in some of our lifetimes, we believed.


We have found a way to be self-important, too!

Where formerly we hid behind cynicism, we've found a new identity: True Liberalism.

We think this may give our generation status which its lack of performance, like yours Boomers, does not.

Now we are going to form a cloying ueber-clique and make fun of those who aren't so weak-willed they bow to us.

It's what you did, and what the French Revolutionists did, and what the Russian Octoberists did, and... well, history repeats itself. Not that the TV/Wikipedia generation knows! LOL!

Thursday, November 06, 2008

What Class Warfare and Revenge Look Like

Some fired gunshots, a felon accused cops of arresting him “because a black man won for president” and a teenager standing with throngs of passionate revelers used the opportunity to slap a police officer, Cook County prosecutors said.

“White bitches. F--- McCain. You white police can’t do nothing,” 19-year-old Celita Hart taunted officers as she stood with a throng of Obama supporters in the 6900 block of South Western Avenue, Assistant State’s Attorney Lorraine Scaduto said in a court Wednesday. At some point, authorities said, Hart left the crowd, which had been chanting “Obama, Obama,” walked up to a squad car, and smacked a male officer in the face.

{ snip }

While Kenneth Smith, a 24-year- old felon, never stated why he fired three rounds at his residence, in the 6700 block of South Ada Street, he complained that officers only arrested him “because a black man won for president,” Scaduto said.

Sun Times

If you feel you have no power, you hate those who you perceive do have power, ignoring what they and their ancestors sacrificed to have it.

To colonize a new land, and set up a thriving country there, you can't have your Xbox. You can't have your fast food. You can't have your latest movies and TV.

Instead, you get a long arduous ride through various forms of transportation, a chance to build yourself a home, defend it, learn to farm and manufacture, and then a slow struggle to get really good at those things.

People who are unwilling to do that will always be negative about those who have, because they simply can't compete. "I deserve this" is always weaker than "I created this."

How Conservatives Hosed Election 2008

You always do a postmortem on any failed project.

While election 2008 was a failure for republicans, it was a failure of only 7 million votes out of 109 million, based on estimates. That's not a huge gap. What explains it?

First, most voters are moderates, and many of those are reacting with outrage to a recession that isn't the fault of our sitting president. They are being irrational. This is a failing of democracy.

Second, conservatives lacked a clear identity as to what they stood for and why it was important.

Third, liberals -- those who deconstruct, and operate by an ethic of convenience and status inflation through altruism -- always have a simpler message, and simpler is faster = better = wins.

Finally... the Republicans ran a dumb, lazy and disorganized campaign.

Data also shows that the country remains conservative, but lacks a
populist conservative party, a brand the GOP has shed in the last two
cycles. Unless the Republican Party returns to the across the board
conservative agenda that wins elections, it will remain a minority party.

National Review

Shake any moderate, and if that person has or wants a family and has or wants a leadership position of any kind, they will most likely be conservative. Those in non-leadership positions -- entertainers, drones, welfare families -- will obviously be anti-conservative.

To appeal to these people, however, conservatism needs to be explained in simple terms. I will detail those terms in an upcoming article.

Ann Coulter gives us a populist middle-right vision:

How many times do we have to run this experiment before Republican primary voters learn that "moderate," "independent," "maverick" Republicans never win, and right-wing Republicans never lose?

Indeed, the only good thing about McCain is that he gave us a genuine conservative, Sarah Palin. He's like one of those insects that lives just long enough to reproduce so that the species can survive.

Ann Coulter

She speaks partial truth. Sarah Palin stood for something: a clear values system, an aggressive way of implementing it, and no tolerance for fools.

Liberals, on the other hand, justify their existence by saying "we're not unkind to fools." Their appeal is social. They are the social party, for those who want to feel safe around others through mutual non-destruction pledges called "altruism." It never works, but they have short memories because they're busy socializing.

If Republicans are going to win anything again, they need to:

  • Come up with a clear, simple, forceful message.

  • Stop trying to pander to liberal moderates; address moderates as a group.

  • Run an organized campaign that attacks substantive issues with clear memes.

  • Avoid scandals involving bathroom sex, corruption, and so on.

A party that takes the moral lead has to rise above its opposition. But that's not enough.

It has to prevail through domination of hearts, minds, media and memes.

The Republicans have failed, and it has given us a costly defeat that also bodes ill for the country.

Sexualizing Children Means They Never Grow Up

What on earth is wrong with the world? Since when did we think it was sensible to encourage our little girls to regard themselves as sexual objects - desperate to be slim and with faces slathered in make-up?

So I was shocked but, sadly, not surprised to read that a recent survey had found that as many as one third of ten-year-old girls are worried about their body image. By the time they reach the age of 14, that figure rises to almost half.

I am convinced that we are forcing our children - particularly our girls - to grow up far too quickly. And the effects could be catastrophic.

Rather than enjoying their childhood, we are encouraging our daughters to become sexualised far too early.

Daily Mail

When people grow up before their time, they never complete the process, because they got the signal that growing up happened before the actual growing up did.

So you will have semi-infantile sexual behavior into their 40s because they never quite figured it out.

Here's a great example:

I also realise I would be heartbroken if my husband slept with someone else, and yet I am being unfaithful to him. Nothing about having an affair is rational. What shocks me most about all this is that I'm usually a sensible, rational person. Friends come to me for advice when their love lives are in a mess, not the other way around.

I've started having nightmares about Steve finding out about my affair...But I know there isn't anything I could ever say that would make it all right again. Nothing would ever be the same between us, I know. But then it isn't already.

Recently Steve has started to notice how preoccupied I am and has been asking if there's anything wrong at work. I said there wasn't. But I am getting increasingly jumpy and nervy around the house.

My daughter, too, has been asking 'What's wrong, Mummy?' making me feel more guilty than I do already.

Daily Mail

How totally neurotic.

Obama Voters Made Anti-Gay Marriage Bill Pass

Around 70 per cent of the African-American voters who overwhelmingly backed Mr Obama also approved Proposition 8, helping pass the controversial ballot measure despite a small majority of whites voting against the ban on same-sex unions. Hispanic and Asian voters were split on the issue.

The state's black turnout jumped to 10 per cent of the electorate, up from 6 per cent in 2004, as voters inspired by Mr Obama flocked to the polls for the first time. The Democratic candidate took the state with 61 per cent of the popular vote.

Although the president-elect opposed the gay marriage ban, it appears his supporters may have helped pass the measure that was vociferously opposed by many white Democrats.

The Telegraph

I thought the Left instructed them to vote along "Progressive" lines?

The Left instructs its disciples to view minorities as pets. You care for them, you defend their legal rights, and you clean up their poop, but you still own them. You get the moral buddy points for being a good person who helps small animals and minorities, and you also get what you really wanted, which was an attack force against the demographics of conservatives.

But then, sometimes, your pets do unexpected things. This should create LOL in the future.

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Why Liberals Support Multiculturalism

I've found that in most situations, there's a preacher-type person who talks a good game and pleases everyone with his altruism and kindness.

Usually, this is the most corrupt person, because no one says out loud what they are actually thinking. Good people talk in abstractions about what has worked in the past, and they don't tell you things to make you think they're good. Tyrants fool you.

I now understand why liberals in America and Europe support multiculturalism: to smash the ruling demographic of white people, who apparently are either aware of preacher-types or have such commonsense conservative values that they are immune to them.

Vote by Sex and Race




Other/No Answer

White Men (36%)




White Women (39%)




Black Men (5%)




Black Women (7%)





Whites, except a few drones who live in the cities, want conservative candidates. That's because if you want to have a family and a position of responsibility in society, you start to think like a conservative.

Liberals, outnumbered and feeling self-righteous for themselves being a minority, have essentially imported an electorate and stuffed them in the cities with white failures -- people who are not headed toward positions of responsibility, but will always follow someone else's orders -- to outnumber and overwhelm the conservatives.

Indeed, Obama won in all regions of the country but the Deep South, piling up big wins in the perennial Democratic bulwarks on both coasts and making deep inroads into New South states, the industrial and agricultural heartland and the fast-growing Rocky Mountain West.

But perhaps most spectacularly, he found victory with a multiracial coalition that has the makings of a formidable political base of power.

If his was the first 21st century campaign, his victory was powered by a new face of America: comprised of all ethnicities, hailing mostly from cities and suburbs, largely under 40 years old, and among all income classes.


Obama won the presidency with the support of 63 million voters, but he must now win the confidence of the other 56 million who thought McCain was the better candidate.


This time, it seems to have worked.

Tom Clancy on the American Left

As myself a devotee of J. S. Bach rather than Elvis, and of "I, Claudius" rather than "Dallas," permit me to observe that cultural imperialism is at best a misnomer, and at worst yet another case of thet favorite activity of the American political left--self-hatred. If American "art" spreads aboard (my books sell rather well over there, by the way) it is because people free choose to support it, not because nasty imperialist American impose it on others.

I visited England for the first time immediately after the Libyan bombing mission. I asked virtually everyone I met for an opinion, and the replies were uniformly as follows: "Do it right the next time. If you're going to bomb the bahstahd [the Brits give that word such dignity!], finish the job." Which struck me as entirely sensible, and which is why the French did not allow us to overfly their country." Brits DO complain about the seemingly absurd barriers we place at out borders, but the truth of the matter is that any American who's reentered our country can testify that the federal agencies involved treat everyone poorly. I was astounded how easy it was to enter U.K. at Heathrow.

By the way, if people dislike our government so much, why do so many line up to become citizens.


Self-hatred is a sign of neurosis, itself a sign of civilization decline.

Greens Cross Party Lines And Mention Overpopulation

Whether we like to admit it or not, our very own rapidly multiplying presence on this planet is the biggest environmental problem there is, and it’s getting bigger by the minute. We voraciously consume resources, pollute the air and water, tear down natural habitats, introduce species into areas where they don’t belong and destroy ecosystems to the point of causing millions of species to become endangered and, all too often, go extinct.

It took nearly all of human history – from the first days of man on earth until the early 1800’s – to reach a global population of 1 billion. In just 200 years, we’ve managed to reach 6.5 billion. That means the population has grown more since 1950 than in the previous four million years. We’re adding roughly 74 million people to the planet every year, a scary figure that will probably continue to increase. All of those mouths will need to be fed. All of those bodies will need clean water and a place to sleep. All of the new communities created to house those people will continue to encroach upon the natural world.


While the deluded celebrate the victory of their multinational-corporation-supported candidate whose amorphous plan for Hope/Change seems to mainly involve the same old Democratic policies, the future-sighted are watching the real issues.

* Environmental decay
* Class revolt dumbing down the nation
* Nuclear proliferation
* Religious warfare

One of the first of these is Earth First, who above point out the obvious: the fundamental environmental problem is too many people.

You can't buy a hybrid, buy fluorescent bulbs, buy green appliances, and recycle condoms to keep this at bay.

Plato -- one of the smartest people to ever live -- pointed out that in democracies, people get dramatic and try to prove their uniqueness and differentness by acting against what they see as the dominant tradition.

In doing so, they create a chaos that requires a cruelly manipulative tyrant to unite them, usually around some simple illusion -- bread and circuses, as the Romans later found out -- which masks an ugly underlying power grab.

The Russians discovered this when class warfare gained the upper hand -- and whether it's communist, capitalist or other, class warfare always behaves the same way -- and threw their country into 70 years of beating up the smarter so that the dumber felt better.

While it's not a big deal if the USA chooses to turn itself into Brazil, for humanity as a whole -- itself in the grips of class warfare -- the bigger problems are just beginning to reveal themselves.

Why Do Corporations Support Multiculturalism?

Our national demographic has metamorphosed into a darker-hued population, which is changing how America plans for the future. The cultural dialogue and language are changing. Political parties, churches and corporations must rethink how we go forward and with whose needs in mind. Without question, Obama's Administration will reshape the good-ole-boys' club we have seen for centuries, altering the political terrain, and it may very well spawn new hope for the disenfranchised.

According to recent reports, some white Democrats said they couldn't vote for Obama because he was black. And yes, a few blacks may have voted for him solely because he was black. But most blacks have not been blinded by race. Though proud of his blackness, those who did vote for him were far more thoughtful in making the decision and based their vote on promises that he now must keep. To think that this election was a shoo-in for him among blacks because of our affinity for our own people is disingenuous at best and at worst insults our intelligence. And it ignores the fact that many other blacks have run for President and walked away without winning a primary, much less the presidency.


Well, the corporate elites seem to be eating this one up.

I wonder how they think the racial divide will be healed, since one or another has to be on top, unless we all become blended -- and join successful blended nations like Brazil, India, Iraq and Mexico.

This election was about retribution against the perceived ruling demographic, and a bratty electorate that howled in protest at a falling economy -- the result itself of a democratic administration.

So the future is fairly sickening as this downward spiral continues.

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Why People Vote for Obama: Revenge Against the Powerful

As millions of voters decided between Obama or John McCain, the world was abuzz with the sense of bearing witness to a moment of history that would reverberate well beyond American borders.

"Like many French people, I would like Obama to win because it would really be a sign of change," said Vanessa Doubine, shopping Tuesday on the Champs-Elysees. "I deeply hope for America's image that it will be Obama."

{ snip }

"It's obviously a prank, but I have no idea who did it," said Lindqvist, who is not involved in U.S. politics in any way. "If I had been able to vote in the American election I would doubtless have chosen a young black man instead of an old white man."

{ snip }

"I hope Obama wins (because) of the need of the world to see the U.S. represent a more cosmopolitan or universal political attitude," said Rais Yatim, the foreign minister of mostly Muslim Malaysia.

{ snip }

And other Europeans made much of Obama's ethnicity. "It's a sort of pardon of America for its slave past," said Alain Barret, a bank teller in Paris. "It lets America turn an important page in its history."

"It would be fantastic to have a non-white president," added Letisha Brown, a Londoner.


People are voting for Obama because he's black.

While liberals complained race might be an issue, it turns out to be their issue... their only issue.

Invert the social order. Undo the power. Vote for the underdog.

And as an subtext: Take revenge on the powerful.

Revenge is for people who have already lost, especially if they're losing because they lack the traits to save themselves.

Here's an even clearer vision:


Vote for the one that stands out. The unique one. Be different, be dramatic.

The modern world will make itself sick of itself.

This Man Speaks the Truth: The truth is unpleasant and therefore unpopular

On internet forums, you have one change to summarize your beliefs and worldview and tag every opinion you post with it. It's called your signature file, and they're generally 250 characters or less to make a synopsis of everything you believe in.

One gent used this:

"The truth is unpleasant and therefore unpopular."


The core idea of this blog has always been this:

(1) Understanding what we should do as individuals or a group requires we look at the future and predict how many different forces interact.
(2) What we will see suggests that we must work hard, take risks and casualties, and build a future instead of deluding ourselves with pleasantries.
(3) Most people would rather hear about how sitting on the couch is good, how they should do nothing but pursue pleasure and wealth, and how spending up to half our tax money on social welfare programs is a plausible excuse for having "done something."

The truth is never popular.

The truth is more complex than emotional summaries. The truth is not about individuals alone. In reality, humans are not gods who define the universe; we are creatures who live in it, subject to its laws.

That alone pisses most people off, because they hate their own mortality and their powerlessness, and instead of doing what's hard -- working realistically to make things better that they can change -- they withdraw from the moral questions of life itself.

Facing truth is a moral choice. As in warfare, the moral choice does not involve simplifications like "good" or "evil," because frequently you must do evil (kill, destroy, maim) to achieve good.

And most people simply back away. Any political system that gives people the vote just for being human will be dominated by their desire to withdraw, will ignore reality and will consequently fail.

This blog is about seeing truth so those of us with moral strength can rebuild as the ashes fall around us.

Bycatch: More "We Didn't Mean To" Ecocide

This practice occurs when boats decide to dispose of fish which they catch but cannot land or derive income from, or when they have caught more fish than they are allowed to land, or they discard the less valuable fish in order to make more space for more valuable fish.

For example, the report cites the situation with Dover sole, for which six kilos of sea creatures are caught incidentally and discarded for every kilo found in the fishmonger. Similarly, catching one kilo of Norwegian lobster or scampi results in five kilos of bycatch.

The European Union recently declared that 88 per cent of the fisheries stocks of the EU are overfished, compared with 25 per cent on average globally. Bycatch is a major contributor to overfishing, providing even more impetus to address this unsustainable and illogical practice


If I were nature's CEO, I'd be cooking up some airborne AIDS. Humanity is a plague in large numbers.

What people don't want to face is that for us to avoid these bycatches, we need to reform or reject industrial fishing and pick the old ways instead. That means no cheap fish. That means an end to the illusion that we can all do whatever we wanna do whenever we wanna do it.

But if we don't grow up and face that reality, we genocide nature. It's a more complicated decision than voting for an entitlement president, but it's one we have to face.

I know how I'll vote.

The Coming Water Shortage, And We're In Denial

Conservationists at the British Nihilist Underground Society bring us another gem, this time on the coming water shortage, and why people just aren't thinking about it:

Most of us at times have had to cut back on our water use, perhaps installing a toilet that has a half-flush function, using a shower rather than bath, or throwing out water used for washing dishes into the garden, careful to avoid hitting grandma in the deckchair, when it hasn't rained in a while. But it was a shock to me when I realised how much water goes into making so many things, from food to clothes, and all objects resulting from industry. The little we conserve from our personal attempts is as insignificant to the environment as a nation turning to eco lightbulbs while building a new runway at Stanstead Airport. In other words: spitting into the wind.

It is remarkable to learn that it takes 13 litres to grow just one tomato, and 1000 litres to produce a litre of milk. 8000 litres are needed to produce a pair of leather shoes, and clothes manufacturing is particularly wasteful with one cotton t-shirt requiring 2000 litres of water (and heck knows how many thousands of litres of toxic chemicals).

Many of these products are produced in countries that suffer from worse water shortages than westerners do, so we are effectively using up their water supplies. You may dryly dismiss that as being just their problem, and not worth crying a river over, but it has implications for manufacturing in the long-term because something has got to give. Producing goods at such a price cannot continue much longer. As water's cost rises so will the cost of nearly everything else.


People have this insane linear mindset: if I don't see it as the step immediately before what I need, it isn't necessary.

Shoes require a factory, but ultimately, our thinking is that they require $40. We assume that money, like God, transcends the need to interact with the multiple forces that create our world.

It is this mindset that explains not only our ignorance, but our arrogance, in denying that we must address these issues: we think we have in our wallets a new God which saves us from the tedium of having to address reality as a whole, so now we can only look at the good parts.

Smart. Very smart.

Monday, November 03, 2008

Bad Input: Video Games and TV Cause Violence, Sex

Researchers at the nonprofit organization found that adolescents with a high level of exposure to television shows with sexual content are twice as likely to get pregnant or impregnate someone as those who saw fewer programs of this kind over a period of three years. It is the first study to demonstrate this association, RAND said.

"We know that parents are busy, but sitting down and watching shows together with their teen, talking about the character portrayals, talking about what they just witnessed, and really using it as a teachable moment is really, I think, a good recommendation from this research," Chandra said.


Monkey see, monkey do, especially if -- as the researchers attempt to explain -- parents do not clearly differentiate between reality and fantasy, especially in the individual impulses of the teen. Teaching realistic thinking is always taboo but it is especially taboo as the crowd finds it repulsive, because they'd each like to imagine themselves emperors on their own imaginary islands.

About 90 percent of U.S. kids ages 8 to 16 play video games, and they spend about 13 hours a week doing so (more if you're a boy). Now a new study suggests virtual violence in these games may make kids more aggressive in real life.
Kids shouldn't play games where hunting down and killing people is the goal, says one expert.

Kids in both the U.S. and Japan who reported playing lots of violent video games had more aggressive behavior months later than their peers who did not, according to the study, which appears in the November issue of the journal Pediatrics.


If you wallpapered your room in images of extreme violence without cause, you might start to see violence as normal and thus expect it as a solution.

Violence, like guns and death and inequality, isn't bad or good. It just is. It is a tool, a means to an end, like all attributes of our physical presence (the end is the experience and results of life, and the body decays away far too rapidly for my taste). If we condition kids to see violence in the proper context, meaning as an appropriate response to a threat but not enjoyable for its own sake out of context, they may learn this delicate balance.

Otherwise, like the loud angry music they hear, the outraged/offended politicians on TV, the parents screaming for them to shut up, it becomes more background noise that conditions them toward oblivion.

On political blogs, the invective flies. Posters respond to the latest celebrity gossip with mockery or worse. Sports fans set up Web sites with names that begin with "fire," hoping coaches, athletic directors and sportscasters lose their jobs.

And though there are any number of bloggers and commenters who attempt to keep their postings and responses on a civil level, all too often interactive Web sites descend into ad hominem attacks, insults and plain old name-calling.

{ snip }

"A lot of times, real anger is an attempt to get control over a situation where the person doesn't usually have it," he said. In that respect, comments to blog posts are attempts to strike back.

Those power games are innately grasped by children and teens, with schools serving as a perennial social laboratory.


The root of anger is power: many people want it, and none have it, so they are busy smashing each other to feel a brief sense of control of their own lives. And as problems proliferate, they have good reason to be angry even if their lives are pretty good by the standards of the time. After all, society as a whole is on a decline... how good can a piece of a rotting pie be?

What's interesting is that each of these three articles states the blindly obvious, yet our society is so drugged on the power of the individual to deny reality in favor of unchallenging, comfortable, stateless pursuit of pleasure that it cannot recognize them.

The Elites Love Obama

Other sources, however, indicate that wealthy neighbourhoods show a preference for Obama.

According to campaign finance details, it was Obama who raised the most funds on Wall Street.

{ snip }

In Silicon Valley there is a similar dynamic: Big players support Obama. Apple and Google want to see him as president. Apple founder Steve Jobs appears to be honouring a political tradition, while Google CEO Eric Schmidt announced his support for the Democrat just recently, and even planned to go on the campaign trail for him.

In the San Francisco Bay area, Obama visited the mansions of several multi-millionaires - Sara and Sohaib Abbasi, Nancy and Bob Farese, and Ann and Gordon Getty - in April. The wealthy organized fundraisers for $2,300 per person.

{ snip }

Like the founder of software giant Microsoft, Buffett - the richest man in the world, worth some $58 billion and who is also an advisor to the Democratic candidate - donated $4,600 to Obama's campaign, the maximum amount allowed by law.

"(McCain) has too many ideas that are different than I do, particular in terms of what I would call social justice," Buffett noted.


The elites seem to like him.

The Consequences of the Desacralization of Slavery

Then came Soulja Boy Tell Em. I asked him, "What historical figure do you most hate?" He was stumped. I said, "Others have said Hitler, bin Laden, the slave masters..." He said, "Oh wait! Hold up! Shout out to the slave masters! Without them we'd still be in Africa."

My jaw, at this point, was on the ground."We wouldn't be here," he continued, having no idea how far in it he'd stepped, "to get this ice and tattoos."


When slavery was sacralized, "slave" was a caste role which had a sacred purpose. If you or your tribe were incapable of self-rule, and were dominated in battle or traded your people off as slaves, you became a laborer who was unpaid. In consequence, you were taken care of -- food, medical, housing -- for life. Seeing how most poor people don't even get that with their "freedom" to earn little and then figure out how to pay for what they need, it was a decent alternative to extreme poverty. Since it was like other caste roles part of the sacred order of a civilization, slaves were -- with the exception of true psychopathic masters -- treated well and seen as part of the household.

But once idiots started making moral judgments about slavery, it became purely a question of economics -- pragmatics. That is where the abuses came from. So Soulja Boy Tell Em has both a point, and a point that will get lost in the greater question of whether we can again make a society that views its position as sacred.

Barack Obama Will Be Worse For the Environment

While I normally like reading the stuff over at Green Blog, such as the excellent find of Climate Code Red: The Case For Emergency Action by David Spratt and Phillip Sutton (Scribe, Melbourne, 2008), I think he makes the same mistake most greens make: They assume they are leftists/liberals, and try to adopt the left's platform and somehow make it green.

Let me suggest something radical. Any party based on equality is soon going to be the party of entitlement. After that, it will become the party of never saying no to anyone's random desires. Why is that? Because ideas decay into simpler forms over generations. If you start out with something unrealistic, the hole will widen, just like how kids playing a game of Secret tell a secret at one end of a room and at the other end, it's almost a completely different text. Entropy exists!

The dogma of the left, which exists on a spectrum from anarchy to Communism to Socialism to modern American Democrats, is based on the idea of individual empowerment, based on the delusion that we're all equal. It naturally decays into entitlement.

When it comes to environmental, energy and climate issues, only Obama stands out as the strong and aggressive candidate with a detailed and comprehensive plan to tackle these problems.

While both candidates support a cap-and-trade system in the U.S. only Obama would enforce it properly. Obama wants to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050 compared to McCain’s 60%. Obama also intends to auction off all emission credits, making the polluters pay for the right to pollute. McCain says he instead would give away many of the credit and not make the polluters pay until further “down the line“.

Obama would require 10% of the electricity in USA to come from renewable energy sources by 2012, and 25% by 2025. McCain says he supports renewable energy but hasn’t offered any specific targets or plans. McCain has also been absent when the Senate has been voting to support renewable energy tax credits - four times.

Green Blog

Here we see where most greens fall down. The solution to our problem must be more compact fluorescent lightbulbs, caps on pollution, and renewable energy, right?

No, because you're talking about the smallest sources of pollution. The problem is overpopulation and it always will be. The "developing world," where they burn their trash and equipment, is as big a polluter if not more than the developed world.

In economics, the Jevons Paradox (sometimes called the Jevons effect) is the proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used, tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource. It is historically called the Jevons Paradox as it ran counter to popular intuition. However, the situation is well understood in modern economics. In addition to reducing the amount needed for a given output, improved efficiency lowers the relative cost of using a resource – which increases demand.


(I am not the first to point this out, and as soon as I can retrieve the link to another blog discussing this from my crashed Opera, I'll post it.)

The problem is too many people and not enough space for nature.

The more efficient we get, the more we use.

The more we civilize, the more we support parasites among us, until the dogma of equality (not quality) overcomes our common sense and we deny the environmental reality:

We need fewer humans, and more untouched land reserved for nature.

But that's unpopular -- and the truth is never popular.

The Races of Europe, by Carleton Coon (1939) -- Know the difference between your Nordids, Falids, Dinarids and Lappinoids.

You can now find Carleton Coon's The Races of Europe (1939) online, replacing the version originally hosted at

If you're not familiar with this work, it traces the emergence of Europeans from stone-age people and the different traits and abilities of the groups that became modern Europeans.

It is not "racist" -- a made-up word meaning one who does not bend over to service racial/class inequality in multicultural disaster republics -- meaning that it does not pass judgment, nor does it deal with non-European races except Asians and Semites, who are described in their mixed state.

If it is not seen as "scientific," that is because our scientists now are very scared of offending our official neo-Stalinist denial of reality dogma of equality.

Social inequality implies inherent physical equality

Economic inequality refers to disparities in the distribution of economic assets and income. The term typically refers to inequality among individuals and groups within a society, but can also refer to inequality among nations. Economic Inequality generally refers to equality of outcome, and is related to the idea of equality of opportunity. It is a contested issue whether economic inequality is a positive or negative phenomenon, both on utilitarian and moral grounds.


For equality of outcome and equality of opportunity to correlate, we are assuming that all people are equal in physical ability to do the intervening work.

I see no evidence of that, within races, within castes/classes, or within random groups of individuals. Obviously, there is also no evidence of it between races or between ethnicities.

Like accepting death, it's hard for us -- raised on political propaganda, Hollywood emotions and well-intentioned social conditioning toward "fairness" to "keep the peace" -- to accept this. But it's best to accept it, and move on.

Multiculturalism won't work. Neither does leftism/liberalism. These are thinly veiled attempts at waging war against a demographic majority, viewed as "more favorable" because "we're all equal," using anarchy and demographic shift as weapons. They are revenge warfare and end up destroying the host nation, even while the people responsible congratulate themselves for predominance in fantasy areas like being Progressive, egalitarian, liberal and "fair."

Life is about making things work and overcoming adversity. It's not about fairness so we can avoid adversity. Some of the population is mature enough to accept that, and they are unpopular -- because the truth is always unpopular.

Sunday, November 02, 2008

Is Democracy Self-Defeating?

The internet is too complex for the average person, not just as technology but as a culture.

I'll take it further: I don't want these average morons voting. The people who should be voting are educated, homeowning family people who have proven competence in any discipline.

We don't need more wage slave entertainment drones screwing up the electorate.


When you think about the people you interact with in stores, or drive around on the roads, you realize that you probably think many of them are morons; some are harmless morons, who drive a bit too slowly but mean no harm, and others are active morons, doing things that are not only dangerous but offer no value to anyone.

They vote.


Is this why all democracies end up picking bread and circuses, and so usher themselves into history's list of forgotten failed states?

Is the great ugly secret of the West that we recognize ancient Rome and Greece were superior cultures, but that they died out the same way we have been for centuries?

Long, slow decay, based in the "preferences" of the individual -- which conflict with reality.

First They Came for the Amphibians, and I Said Nothing, Because I Was Not an Amphibian

[N]ew evidence shows that the herbicide atrazine—widely sprayed on crop fields throughout the region—is killing the frogs by helping parasitic worms that feast on them.

That may explain why amphibians are on the decline worldwide. As many as one third of the nearly 6,000 known amphibian species—frogs, toads, salamanders, even wormlike caecilians—are threatened with extinction, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Such herbicides are present in 57 percent of U.S. streams, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, and it is that water pollution—not inbreeding—that is the prime suspect in the high rate of deformity in U.S. amphibian populations, according to new research from Purdue University.

But national parks and other areas protected from pollution and development are providing no refuge. The frogs and salamanders of Yellowstone National Park have been declining since the 1980s, according to a Stanford University study, as global warming dries out seasonal ponds, leaving dried salamander corpses in their wake. Since the 1970s, nearly 75 percent of the frogs and other amphibians of La Selva Biological Station in Braulio Carrillo National Park in the Caribbean lowlands of Costa Rica have died, perhaps due to global warming.

But the really bad news is that amphibians may be just the first sign of other species in trouble. Biologists at the University of California, San Diego, have shown that amphibians are the first to respond to environmental changes, thanks to their sensitivity to both air and water. What goes for amphibians may soon be true of other classes of animal, including mammals.

Scientific American

If they were human, we would call it genocide.

It's not global warming -- it's human change of the earth on a wholesale scale. We have introduced new chemicals into air and water and earth; we have divided up ecosystems with roads and fences; we have changed the climate; we have exploited "resources" that starve the rest of their ecosystems.

It's wholesale war. If these amphibians were just from a minority group -- a human minority group, that is -- we could feel pity.

But instead, it's just a consequence of our lifestyle as we move toward universal progressive freedom equality wealth entertainment religion whatever.

Our Emotions Led Us to a False Paradise

As I drive to work every day in my fully paid for 2002 CRV with 110,000 miles, I have plenty of time to observe my surroundings. Sitting in traffic on the Schuylkill Expressway, I have noticed that the number of luxury Mercedes, BMW, Cadillac and Lexus vehicles seems out of proportion to the number of wealthy people in the Philadelphia population.

When I see an older gentleman, wearing a suit, driving one of these automobiles, I assume that he is a wealthy executive who has put in his time and rewarded himself with a luxury vehicle. But, most of these vehicles are being driven by Joe the Plumber types. As I take a shortcut through some of the more depressed areas of West Philadelphia, I see people talking on their Apple (AAPL) iPhones, Direct TV satellite dishes attached to dilapidated row homes, and Cadillac Escalades & Mercedes parked on the mean streets. This is not exactly the world that Henry Fonda’s character, Tom Joad, described in The Grapes of Wrath.

When I see “poor” people appearing to live a more luxurious life than myself, I don’t feel jealous. The thought that goes through my head is: Which banks or finance companies were foolish enough to loan these people the money to live this lifestyle?

Seeking Alpha

It's always easier to blame an institution for a basic tendency of humanity that our society has let get out of control: we want to pander to everyone, to please everyone, to get votes and be popular, instead of taking a stand for what is realistic and a pragmatic moral response to it.

After all, people who are not smart enough to be able to predict how reality will react several steps down the line are not going to see why what they're doing is stupid and unnecessary. Dumber people don't understand what smarter people are talking about. Also, since dumber people can't understand smarter people, dumber people assume dumber people are smarter.

This is why most great civilizations have been based on the smart oppressing the dumb.

Our society is based on the opposite principle, which is the collective mass oppressing the potentially intelligent individual -- because the mass designs its solutions for the lowest common denominator, and therefore the smarter people don't fit well into its plans.

All of the bloviation about libertarianism, freedom, etc. was originally designed to counter this problem. But then the crowd surged in and took over those ideas too, making them "safe" by reducing them to the principle: tell no one they cannot do whatever it is they think they want to do. That's how you build a mob, a cult.

And so the problem continues, and people shrug as if they're helpless, which is a sad lie in itself: the situation can be easily changed, but it requires some of us agree on what it is.

Monks and Knaves

Election 2008 is important like every piece of history is, because the next piece is built on the last.

This one will be important for a major reason: it divided the monks from the knaves.

Imagine a small medieval valley with a small town in it -- maybe 2,000 people.

In this town, the movers and shakers are two groups: monks and knaves.

  • Monks

    Monks have seen enough of life to realize that nothing in itself is all that important -- it's how you put material to use, and the resulting life you can lead, that matters, not whether you like it or not or whether it's all that exciting.

    Monks are serious but playful, have a firm grip on reality, and work hard to produce results that others had not seen the value in. Monks work in scholarship, defense, religion and trade.

  • Knaves

    Knaves are newer to life and want to enjoy life. They are more interested in comparing the shiny new things they own, talking about how much fun they had at the pub, and getting ahead in status with their friend group.

    They know they will always be knaves or something like it, so they have social advancement to fall back on, and as a result they spend their time on entertainment. Knaves are ironic but not playful -- it endangers social standing to be too flippant.

    They don't care much about reality because it doesn't impact their social standing, and work when compelled, but spend most of their time enjoying life. Knaves work as advertisers, marketers, salespeople, writers and artists.

In the same way, America is divided. We have public leaders, but these are often more like figureheads.

However, in every community, there are leaders who are distinguished by actually getting things done, or using their powers to change situations into better ones. These people are CEOs, small business owners, religious leaders, scholars and military personnel. They lead by the principle of doing what others cannot: focusing on the reality of a situation and doing what is necessary to make it better.

Around them there are the opinion workers and support staff. These people create nothing but fulfill roles necessary for things to happen; however, they have never held leadership positions and know nothing about it. They are paralegals, administrative assistants, salespeople, tech support reps, waiters, journalists, art directors and frequently have artistic projects in the evening.

The first group get a lot of scorn. When something is going wrong, like the economy falling apart, they get blamed. Why? They are the sitting leaders. Even more, we like to make fun of them because they're so boring, with their monkish devotion to work and physical outcome. They don't care what we intended, or what our feelings were. They're all about the bottom line. Heartless, cold, soulless abandonment!

The second group, among themselves and the people who sell them products, get almost no scorn. They're progressive: finding new ways to be society. They're creative, ironic and unique. They're hip and in touch with the new, and they're very socially advanced and know trendy phrases and media memes. Anyone else in comparison looks old, boring, slavish. On the other hand, while these people pursue their knavish desire for personal pleasure, they tend to be useless when disaster arises and frequently waste their income on trivial pleasures and then need subsidies from the rest.

The division between these two groups -- both servants of society, although the monks take on a leadership role -- is apparent. The first wants a political system that works. The second wants a political system that mimicks their social system, because that will make them feel empowered. The two needs are incompatible.

With election 2008, we're seeing a fundamental truth of reality: more than by race, people vote by demographic. If they're knaves, they vote for a knave -- a candidate who promises entitlement, makes bad florid speeches filled with uplifting imagery, and suggests he will keep the peace so socialization can continue. If they're monks, they want someone with a proven track record, even if boring and uncreative, because they know that life itself doesn't care what our intentions or emotions were -- it responds to cold, hard logic.

Unfortunately for the monks, they're outnumbered by the knaves. And so the monks are now looking at ways to disenfranchise those knaves, because otherwise we will be stuck in the cycle of the last four elections -- progressive wonderboy who makes promises he cannot fulfill, versus a hard working ugly-truth-facer who will fix problems but get blamed for the economic cycles he inherits from his wonderboy predecessor -- until the nation collapses.