The blog where I rant about things that should be obvious to everyone

As a man with a 4 year degree in computer science, and a mediocre job doing web development I'm not really qualified to comment on politics, religion, or anything else, but I'll be damned if that stops me.

Monday, September 26, 2016

Libertarians, the good the bad and the ugly

I used to consider myself a libertarian.  Not in that I'd ever registered with the party or donated to them or anything like that.  But the base beliefs resonated with me, and I got caught up in the Ron Paul campaigns in both 2008 and 2012.  And I still think it's tragic that he was not able to beat the system and get the Republican nomination.

Ron Paul may not be the most gifted politician.  To evaluate a politician's performance in something like a debate, you really have to strip the information content out of things, and instead look at stage presence, state control, and the reactions of others to them.  Do that and he's pretty underwhelming.  But if you look beyond the rhetoric, I don't think that there's another candidate I've ever heard who radiated knowledge and wisdom as he did.  Here was a man who not only subscribed to libertarianism, but had read and understood the founding thinkers such as Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard.  And not only did he have that deep understanding, but he'd applied it to his entire career as a congressman.  He both understood and lived his beliefs.

It would have been interesting to see how things played out, if he'd made it to the White House.

But while I believe that libertarianism is a belief system that has a lot of good things to say, it also is fatally flawed.  This is because it fails to see people as anything but individuals.  While it's true that people are individuals, they are also part of groups, and those groups have a very real and separate existence.  We can see this very clearly if we look at other species.  Take ants for example.  Ants exist as individual creatures.  But it makes a lot of sense to look at an entire ant colony as it's own single organism.  Ant colonies are capable of solving path finding problems that are beyond even human intelligence, yet a single ant does not have an IQ to speak of.  And ant colonies are distinct.  If you take an ant from one colony and place it in another, unless they are very close colonies the local ants will kill it, same as your body would reject an organ from a donor that has a different blood type.

As humans, we are like ants, and nations are like ant colonies.  Ants take group action through use of scents and hormones, we do this with money, social customs, politics... and scents and hormones.  And so a nation really can be thought of as a super organism.  Libertarianism is flawed because it does not account for these super organisms.

Even more importantly, libertarianism is flawed because it doesn't work.  We had two runs with a candidate that was pretty much the Platonic Form of a Libertarian, from his platform, to his record, to the way he ran his campaign.  And he was crushed.  Twice.

What's ugly is what is now left of the Libertarian party and the political ideology.  There has been a pretty large shift of Libertarians moving to the Alt-Right.  Even the proprietor of came out and endorsed Trump.  And when I go and look at pictures of the Libertarian Party convention, what it looks almost the same as the pedofest known as World Con.  It's filled with ugly, misshapen, self mutilating people.  And that's aside from the disgustingly overweight man who used his time on stage to dance around in a tux speedo.  In other words, these people don't appear to want to be free, but to be free to be degenerate.

And then there's Gary Johnson.  For starters his entire campaign seems to be based on lying about his fiscal track record as governor. For every year he governed, both spending and debt increased.  And then there is his general impression.  Whereas Ron Paul, if you strip the information content, doesn't give much of an impression at all, Gary Johnson gives the impression that he should not be left alone with small children.  And if you do consider the information content, he sounds like a man whose education comes from some libertarian forums, and occasionally says something crazy and has to be corrected by his handlers.  Even if you ignore the fact that he lies about his record, his physical presence is of a man who's very sorry and unsure about what he's saying, and that if you actually listen to what he says he sounds like an idiot, his actual advertised policy positions are awful.  He believes in forced vaccinations, forcing business to serve clients that would violate their conscience, supports black lives matter, and supports TTP.

That is why I find it odd when I see conservatives supporting Gary Johnson.  He is a man who is more awkward and autistic than Jeb Bush.  And if anything he's to the left of Jeb.  Jeb is a candidate that these same conservatives would refuse to vote for.  So why they would vote for someone even worse as a protest vote is something I find very odd.

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Conservatives and Imigration

So much has been said about how a failure of conservatism is to not recognize the existence of nations, or how they tend to treat people as economic units instead of members of nations.  So I feel no need to add my voice to that.  But what I do think is interesting is that if you take the process of Californication, which most conservatives do, and then apply that principle to immigration in general, Conservatives have even more reason to be against immigration than the Alt-Right.

The Alt-Right believes that nation and race are tied together, and that people from some races that form very different nations will have difficulty assimilating.  And so they fear that importing large groups of people from nations that don't assimilate well will ultimately destroy the american white nation.  Preservation of this nation, is their goal.  And so when it comes to immigration from somewhere like the U.K., the Alt-Right isn't too worried about it.

Conservatives on the other hand believe that traditions are important, and conserving their way of life is their goal.  So if take the principle of Californication, which is that people take their politics with them when they move, how many immigrants are going to be conservatives?  If a man values his countries traditions and wishes to preserve them, why would he leave?  By the very nature of the fact that they are immigrants, immigrants are not going to be Conservative, regardless of where they come from.

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

The Problem With Education

To start out, I’m not a teacher.  I don’t have any basis of saying what does work in regards to schooling or what sort of system should replace what we currently have.  I’m merely able to look back on my experiences in high school and college and see things that gall me and things that are completely missing.  

After obtaining a high school degree and then a bachelor's, and then interacting with genuinely educated individuals, I’ve found that outside of the area of my major, I’m almost entirely uneducated.  I’m living in Western Civilization, but for some reason my education didn’t include a single one of the philosophers or historians whose ideas served as pillars of this civilization.  If I’ve ever read Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Machiavelli, Aquinas, or any others, it’s because I’ve done so on my own.  I’m sure that list that I came up with off the top of my head should be longer, but honestly I wouldn’t have even named those that I did without any self education.  

I learned nothing at all of philosophy, only the briefest outline of history, and read something like 3 books of any literary note.  Which I could forgive if it were not for the way time was spent instead of reading great literary works, philosophy, and more history.  Instead of doing those things, we read short story fluff, learned how write research papers (which would be fine if the focus had been research rather than an autistic obsession with proper formatting), and the oh so importing history of African tribes.  Remember, just because their history doesn’t matter doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter.  

After high school I decided I would like to be a man with a well rounded education, so I went to get a 4 year degree in computer science.  Yet still, I finished it without reading a single book by a single foundational philosopher, historian, or even novelist in western thought.  Not one.  I did have a class that taught how good people communicate using I language because that avoids conflict though.  So there’s that.  

I don’t have children.  But if I ever do, they will never set foot in any of the education institutions we have now.  And hopefully by the time I have them, I will be far enough along in my self remedial education to know how and what to teach them.

Monday, August 29, 2016

The Cuck Mindset

All of us use frameworks when dealing with information about the world.  It’s simply not possible to deal with every piece of information we come across in a completely open minded honest way.  We simply don’t have the mental horsepower and time for that.  So we put together a bunch of rules in our mind that allows us to filter information as being worthy of our time or not.  So for example, if you were to tell me that half of married women will at some point have a bone broken by their husbands, I’d assume you are a liar or are quoting a liar, because feminists lie all the time.  My rule of thumb is that studies that support feminist narratives are either made up or manipulated to achieve a specific result.  I didn’t always think that.  But after seeing it so many times, I don’t even bother to research such claims anymore.

A good mental framework is a very useful thing.  It helps you cut through the crap and find the truth much faster.  And as I said before, we all need one to a lesser or greater extent.  But the problem is that all frameworks are flawed.  By their nature, frameworks are abstractions which is a form of a simplification.  So all frameworks are too simple to accurately describe reality.  

To prove the point, consider a framework that is far more accurate than any political framework we will ever develop, the base 10 number system.  For those not familiar with the term, the base 10 number system refers to the fact that we only use 10 digits for our number system.  That is to say that if you have a number greater than 9, instead of making up new digits you simply use combinations of the digits you already have.  It works great because by doing this and memorizing addition and subtraction with the 10 digits you have, you can extrapolate that out to numbers of any size without any more memorization.  The problem is that the base 10 system is full of holes.  Consider the problem if 22 divided by 7.  If you calculate that out you get something close to pi.  And like pi, you’ll never finish calculating the number because the decimal goes on forever.  However, if you express the problem in base 7, it’s no problem.  In base seven 22 comes out to 31, and 7 comes out to 10.  In base 7 the number is 3.1, no infinite decimal.  So you can see that a number system that reuses digits as a means of convenience is flawed.  And given that our brains need to rely on a flawed system for something as simple and objective as division, how much more must all of our frameworks be flawed when dealing with something as complex and subjective as politics.  

This is the problem with cuckservatives.  They have a framework that they have developed in response to political situations of the past, and it’s no longer serving them.  This is the danger with political frameworks.  If you are not sensitive to them, instead of updating and revising your thinking when you get conflicting information, you just stick the new information wherever it fits best in your current framework, regardless of whether it makes any sense.  

This is what most cucks are doing.  They have their framework for evaluating politics, and the alt-right has no place in it.  So for example, in looking for what went wrong with the GWB presidency, one thing that caused it to fail was a lack of principles.  GWB was just governing by the seat of his pants, and largely making it up as he went, doing what was popular more than doing what was right.  So in the cuck mind, not having principles means chasing popularity and power.  So when they correctly see that Trump and the alt right are not principled, they put us in that box.  And because they have been burned in the past, they won’t be swayed.  So it doesn’t matter that Trump already has popularity and power, or that he regularly takes unpopular stances.  They are not going to budge.  

The problems that we face today are not the same as the problems Regan faced.  The Cold War is over, and today we are the nation that is overthrowing governments and forcing our way of life on unwilling subjects.  Our news media is the ministry of truth.  Our currency is the means by which some members of society are more equal than others.  Russia on the other hand is talking about returning to the gold standard, is promoting families and children, keeps homosexual out of jobs where they could easily abuse children, has strong rights for the unborn, and openly supports and promotes the Christian Church.  This does not matter to the cuck though, because the U.S.S.R. is evil.  

And it doesn’t end there.  The conservative framework had flaws all along, that at the start seemed small, but we can now see are fatal.  The biggest thing being that conservatives ignored culture.  The thought was always that if you pursued principled politics and economics that culture would work itself out.  But history has shown that to be wrong.  As Andrew Breitbart said, politics is downstream from culture.  

And so the cuck will continue to let their framework do their thinking for them, being either too afraid or too lazy to abandon it.

Friday, August 26, 2016

And the winner of Hillary's alt-right speech is...

Milo Yiannopoulos!

Alex Jones will get some new followers, Nigel Farage probably won't find his life changed much one way or the other.  Pepe got a shout out.  But Milo actually got Hillary to say "Would you rather your child had feminism or cancer", which was followed by all 30 audience members audibly clutching their pearls.

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Men, Honor, and Competition

One of the key differences between men and women seems to be that women do not have an innate sense of honor in the way men do.  This is not to say that men are innately more virtuous, moral, or decent than women.  But simply that honor seems to be a part of them in a way that it is not with women.  To explain what I mean, I should point out that if I were to list the most dishonorable people I’ve ever met, at least the top 5 would be men.  But here is the difference.  The men I know who are such, are in general weak and lacking virtue.  They don’t have a great deal of self control, fortitude, or prudence.  And when they are caught in their dishonor, they show shame.  

Most women I know, on the other hand, have engaged in some act I found shockingly dishonorable, but did so without the slightest bit of shame.  And what’s more, they are otherwise not lacking in self control, fortitude, or prudence.  I’m sure most male readers here can think of at least one such example themselves.

So why is that?  Why is there this difference between men and women?  After thinking about it, I believe that I have at least a partial answer.  And it lies in competition.

One of the reasons men compete is to sort themselves into hierarchies.  That way, even as kids, they all know who’s the fastest, who can lift the most, etc.  Within the context of group action, this knowledge is important.  If you need someone to run fast, it’s best to know who the fastest runner is.  And of course this scales to normal adult activity as well, i.e. it’s important to know who the best guy is on a construction crew at putting up sheet rock, and who is the best database designer at a software development company, etc.  

This relates to the subject of honor because part of honor is finding your place in the hierarchy correctly.  To either cheat or purposely underperform is dishonorable.  And that is because doing so robs the world of accurate information, and thus makes the world a worse place.  So if you win a race by putting glue on the starting blocks of the other racers, you’ll get the accolades of being the best, but if the world actually needs the best runner for something they’ll wrongly think it’s you, when they could do better.  

So dishonor is to make the world a worse place in order to secure a better place in it.  

And this all comes back to women, because they don’t particularly seem to compete and sort themselves into hierarchies the way men do.  They may simulate the way men compete, but you only have to watch any WNBA highlight reel to see that they aren’t REALLY trying.  They simply are not built for fighting and building.  So when it comes to honor, at least the part of it that is tied up in competition, it’s simply not something that applies.

Monday, August 15, 2016

The logical case against equality

In addition to the cult of equality being anti Biblical and anti beauty, it’s also anti reason.  The idea that if we could make it so that there were no disparities between the different people groups we’d have equality is simply wrong.  To prove this, consider an impossible hypothetical.  Let’s say that we structured society so that every single person was a famous doctor.  Nevermind that such a society would shortly die of starvation, or the fact that not everyone can be famous.  At first glance, it may seem that in this hypothetical equality may have been achieved.  But then you have to consider that not everyone equally wants to be a famous doctor.  Some people may find the weight of having a life in their hands to be completely unbearable, whereas others are so fulfilled that they would gladly do the work for free.  Could you call both groups equal?  Hardly.

So you can see that to have true equality, you cannot force people into a particular box.  Each person must be allowed to pursue what is valuable to them personally, in order for equality to be possible.  But the problems don’t end there.  Not every person's personal sense of value is equal.  For example, say you have one man whose life’s work and sense of fulfillment comes from leaving a legacy to his children, and another whose life’s work and sense of fulfillment comes from driving a bus.  The first man must work his whole life in order to realize his life's work.  The other has to wait till he’s 18, and then must take a fairly easy test.  Can these men be said to be equal?  Is there any way to make them equal?  And that’s not even factoring in men with self contradictory desires, such as leading a quiet life and being rich and famous.  

So you can see that equality is simply not possible with a significantly varied population.  And in the first case, where everyone is superficially the same, it’s not even desirable.  It’s a twilight zone kind of hell.