The rectification of names part one

August 29th, 2014

Bigot, bigoted:  Originally meant a sanctimonious person, someone holier than thou, someone who uses his purported holiness to gain advantage over other people.

Now, anyone who uses the word is a sanctimonious person who is holier than thou and uses his purported holiness to gain advantage over other people.

Racist, racism:  Never had any coherent original meaning.  Now is a hate word for white, frequently used preparatory to murder and assault.  Thus for example if a black man enters a white woman’s house, hits the baby with a jack handle and throws the woman down the stairs, it is because of racism – because she and the baby are racist.

Prejudiced.  Originally meant pre judgment, meant believing ideology over eyesight.  Now means believing eyesight over ideology.

Covetousness:  Originally meant desiring what someone else has rightly earned or rightly owns.  Now means desiring to rightly earn things, rather than take what is another’s through the political process – I don’t think that intent of present day Christians is to use the words that old type Christians used to use in the new meaning so much as to prevent anyone from using them in the old meaning.  see also “prophetic“.  The intent of using words associated with old type Christianity is to end the use of the words.  Once the official hierarchy gets everyone in the church using words in the new meaning, they then shut down the church, thereby ending the use of words associated with old type Christianity in either the old or new meanings.

Hypocrisy, hypocrite:  Originally meant someone who proclaims one code of action while acting differently, close in meaning to “bigot” and “bigoted”.  Now means a non progressive who fails to act according to progressive rules.  Progressives, therefore cannot be hypocrites, any more than blacks can be racists, even when blacks are playing the knockout game.   Thus if, for example, someone says that a disproportionate number of blacks are dangerous, and since one cannot predict which ones are dangerous, it is necessary to treat them all as potentially dangerous at first, is not only supposedly bigoted, but also supposedly hypocritical if he does in fact treat them all as potentially dangerous.

Because progressives demand that people behave in suicidal ways, they always make unprincipled exceptions for themselves.  Because progressives are always struggling for power with each other, they always call each other out over these unprincipled exceptions.  But, when calling each other out over these unprincipled exceptions, they would seldom make the faux pas of using “hypocrite” in the old sense.  Progressives can never be hypocrites.  Progressives failing to act in a progressive manner are not hypocrites.  Only non progressives failing to act in a progressive manner are hypocrites.

Marriage:  Originally, within the lives of older married people, an irrevocable commitment to live together and raise the resulting children.  Now the point of marriage is divorce, the legal authority of the wife over a husband on pain of confiscation of his assets and income.  Some people attempt to use Church and social pressure to enforce old type marriage, but hard to find an old type church.  Because “gay marriage” means a pair of gays cruising together to pick up boys, an effort is under way to redefine marriage yet again as a pair of people of either sex cruising for pickups but it is probably that this redefinition will fail, because it is hard to get a good wingwoman.  Therefore, probably will continue to mean matrilineality and female headship.  The feminists and the gays are fighting over this one.  Feminists want “marriage” to refer to the female headed family, while gays want it to refer to cruising for pickups.

People continue to have Church weddings in the hope of getting Church backing for the old meaning, but they get stabbed in the back by the Church with the feminist meaning, where the purpose of marriage is to ensure female headship through divorce. Gay meaning soon to follow.

Because of the difference between men and women, if the gays beat the feminists for the meaning of marriage, it will work out even worse for married heterosexual males.  Even though television today tells you that the latest meaning of marriage means that your wife should be your wingwoman when you go cruising for a threesome, which would be great, it will in practice mean that you sleep on the couch and clean up the love stains on the double bed when your wife’s lover comes over to slap her around and take her money.

Muslim predation in Rotheram

August 27th, 2014

In the not very large Yorkshire town of Rotheram, population two hundred fifty thousand, about fourteen hundred girls, almost all of them non Muslims, were subjected to “appalling sexual exploitation” by Muslims.  It seems likely this problem exists at similar levels throughout much of England.

Reading the report, it seems that slutty children, and the slutty families of slutty children (typically single and divorced women) were subject to extreme coercion and frequent deadly threats by Islam and individual Muslims to force them to sexually service Muslims.  The authorities were unwilling to protect them.

Chaste girls belonging to intact Christian families were not.

Again and again in the report, we read that abduction notices were issued, but no one was convicted, implying that a very large number of girls were abducted, and these abductions went unpunished and generally uninvestigated, presumably because the authorities were scared of Muslims.

In two cases of the sixty six cases that were sampled of fourteen hundred cases:

fathers tracked down their daughters and tried to remove them from houses where they were being abused, only to be arrested themselves when police were called to the scene.

Assuming the sample of sixty six is representative, that means that in about forty cases in Rotheram fathers attempted to protect their daughters, and were arrested.

We are not told whether these fathers had already been removed from their families, but given the highly selective nature of Muslim predation depicted in the report, seems likely.

It looks that Muslims in Rotheram are, like Boko Haram, upholding the social order that progressives are destroying, but upholding it in a way that advantages Muslims and disadvantages non Muslims by predating on Christians.

Moravec’s paradox, RNA, and uploads.

August 25th, 2014

Moravec’s paradox is the hard problems are easy and the easy problems are hard. A computer can beat the world’s greatest chess player at chess, but it cannot beat a spider at getting around. If humans have been working on a problem for a thousand years, you can program a computer to do it. If evolution has been working on a problem for a hundred million years, not so easy.

It turns out that the vast majority of the functional human genome is information processing.  A small proportion of the human genome codes for proteins, but most of the important genes, most of what matters, does not code for proteins.  It is RNA world data processing, RNA genes, RNA generated primarily to process RNA.

Given  that twelve to sixty percent of the human genome is data processing, is software, is programming, that is a lot of information processing – seven hundred megabytes to four gigabytes of software. A lot of this software is instructions on how to build a human being – where and when to express the proteins of which a human is made.

If, however, you have a massive system for processing data, seems likely that the brain is going to use it.

Particular RNA genes are expressed in particular kinds of neurones, often a particular RNA gene being expressed in few hundred or a few thousand very specific neurones in the entire brain,  Protein expression is considerably less specific.

Most of the genetic complexity of the brain consists of very large numbers of very specific RNA genes being expressed in very specific neurons.  Protein enzymes for editing RNAs are most highly expressed in the brain, and a disproportionate number of RNA genes are expressed only in the brain, and only in very specific neurons in the brain.

The human brain does thirty five times as much RNA editing per unit mass as the mouse brain.  The smarter the animal, the more RNA data processing in neurons.  Smarter animals not only have bigger brains with more neurons, they have substantially more RNA software expressed and running in each neuron. This is the missing complexity.  Humans have about the same number of protein coding genes as a sponge or a flatworm.  They have substantially more RNA genes, a large proportion of which are expressed only in quite specific neurons in the brain.

This suggests that neurons process data at the RNA level – that a large part of the evolution towards intelligence occurred in RNA world creating smarter individual free living cells, before cells got smart enough to gang up for attack and defense, and likely before they developed protein synthesis.

If brain data is processed in complex ways in RNA, there is no way that this can be emulated in silicon.  Likely we have software that evolved over billions of years, which software is designed to run on RNA molecules in water solution and can only be efficiently run on RNA molecules in water solution.

So, if RNA world data processing, no possibility of emulating the human mind in silicon.  Silicon consciousness would have to be built from scratch, rather than by copying existing software, which looks to me like a very hard project..

Marriage is gay

August 24th, 2014

When two gays “marry”, the point is not to have sex with each other, but rather to go cruising together for pickups, as wingmen.  Predictably, gay style marriage is now being promoted to heterosexuals.

Because otherwise, discrimination.

Supposedly black Egypt

August 22nd, 2014

Lately a lot of progressive blacks have complained that Ridley Scott’s movie “Exodus” is racist for depicting Egyptians as Egyptian and Hebrews as white.  They want them all to be depicted black.

Ancient Egyptians in their art depict themselves as yellowish brown, somewhat arab looking, pretty similar to the way pharaoh is depicted in Ridley Scott’s movie.  They depict blacks as black, with exaggerated negro features, and show them in demeaning roles as criminals, slaves, and servants, pretty much as they are depicted in Ridley Scotts movie, and they depict whites as white, and as wearing costumes somewhat similar to those worn by the Hebrews in Ridley Scott’s movie.

Egyptian art depicts Egyptians on the one hand and Nubians and other blacks on the other hand with distinctly different ethnic characteristics and depicted this abundantly and often aggressively. The Egyptians accurately, arrogantly and aggressively made national and ethnic distinctions from a very early date in their art and literature

In Egyptian art and writing from around the time that the Hebrews are said to have left Egypt, blacks are slaves, servants, and criminals, whites are invaders and colonialists.

They viewed people who originate from the middle east, from west asia as the Hebrews did, as white and aryan, like the Hyksos, which fits with various records that back in those days, towards the end of the bronze age, west asia was full of aryan whites.  The Iranians and the Kurds were originally Aryan, are today browner than the Jews.  The Kurds recall their ancestors as fair skinned and fair haired, so likely the Hebrews were fair skinned and red headed.

Ridley Scott’s casting and costumes are largely lifted from ancient Egyptian art depicting themselves – a yellowish brown people very different from negroes, but nonetheless not exactly white either.

It is a historical fact that Egypt at the time that Moses is believed to have lived was racially much as it is now – a generally upper class white minority, a poor and frequently criminal black minority underclass, and a brownish majority that have and had  approximately modern Egyptian skin color, despise blacks, and were suspicious of whites.

From time to time Egypt gets conquered by whites. From time to time those whites import black slaves. And so, most of the time, Egypt is brownish with a white minority and a black minority, as it is today.

For example we see in an ancient Egyptian painting three black criminals or runaway slaves who have just been arrested and subdued by three white, or possibly light brown, cops.

And that is the way Ridley Scott depicts Egypt.

At the time of Joseph, Egypt had been conquered by the Hyksos, who were fair skinned, red headed, very possibly Aryans, and possibly Hebrews, and most likely a people closely related to Hebrews, which suggests that the Hebrews of that time were fair skinned, frequently red headed, and very possibly Aryans.

So, assuming Joseph was a real person, or based on a real person, the pharaoh that favored Joseph was white, quite likely Aryan, and so, quite likely, similarly Joseph.

So, entirely reasonable, on the basis of history and historical descriptions of the Hyksos, and on the basis of Egyptian art, to depict the Hebrews as whites.

The Egyptians perceived people who came from the east (west Asia, the middle east) and lived in tents as the same race as the Hyksos, so presumably perceived Joseph and Moses as white and Aryan, as Moses is depicted in the movie.

At the time of Moses, Hyksos rule had collapsed, bronze age civilization was in severe decline, and Egypt was ruled, as depicted in Ridley Scott’s movie “Exodus”, by brownish people with approximately modern Egyptian skin color – the pharaoh that “Knew not Joseph”.

Egypt was, if we believe the “Admonitions of Ipuwer”, at the time suffering from leftism, high levels of violence, lack of secure property rights, severe social decline, rioting, arson, severe family breakdown, female emancipation, and disastrous levels of political correctness. If we believe the Pentateuch it was also suffering from socialism. In short, not so different from Egypt today and the Arab world today, though with considerably worse family values, the then fall of the Hyksos paralleling today’s recent retreat of colonialism.

We have archaeological evidence of the collapse of Bronze age civilization not long after Ipuwer’s time, so I am inclined to interpret Ipuwer as describing real and contemporary events, as he claims to be doing, though some people argue he is just telling a morally improving story about long long ago and far far far away.

Ipuwer reports that foreign trade had collapsed.  We have archaeological evidence that foreign trade did indeed collapse at about that time, so Ipuwer is probably reporting real events.

Due to infanticide and “barrenness” (which I conjecture was the result of contraception, abortion, and non reproductive sex) Egyptians were, according to Ipuwer, failing to reproduce. If we believe the Pentateuch, the Hebrews on the other hand had strong family values, with women and children being property, hence infanticide was for them unimaginable, unintelligible, and absurd. Thus their population would have been growing as the Egyptian population was, according to Ipuwer, collapsing.

Human nature being what it is, the Hebrews would probably be blamed for the social decay that they were not suffering.

There are several parallels between the Pentateuch and the Admonitions of Ipuwer. Assuming Ipuwer’s Admonitions to be true, then the Pentateuch is myth based on real people and real events.

For example the Admonitions and the Pentateuch both say that the river turned to blood.

The Pentateuch says:

17 Thus saith the LORD, In this thou shalt know that I am the LORD: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood.

18 And the fish that is in the river shall die, and the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall lothe to drink of the water of the river.

Ipuwer also tells us that the river turned to blood and Egyptians were unwilling to drink the water. But in Ipuwer’s telling the Nile only turned metaphorically and spiritually into blood, because of the vast numbers of wrongfully slain Egyptians dumped in the river, and the many Egyptians who committed suicide in the river, not literally into blood.

According to Ipuwer, the Nile was physically and spiritually polluted by the vast numbers of unburied dead in the river, and was thus unclean in the sense that wrongfully spilt blood is spiritually unclean. The Nile was spiritually turned to blood by natural causes, not literally turned to blood by supernatural causes.  The Pentateuch depicts a miracle, Ipuwer reports social breakdown and civil disorder.

Assuming that the Hebrews had the strong family values depicted in the Pentateuch, the angel of death would have passed over the Hebrews and failed to take their children, not because of any miracle, but because Hebrews, unlike Egyptians, were disinclined to murder their own children.

Similarly, Ipuwer and the Pentateuch both depict a storm of fire over Egypt, but in the context of Ipuwer’s Admonitions, the fire presumably comes from the rioting mob of lower class looters and revolting slaves, not from heaven.

If you really want to, you could read Ipuwer as reporting the Nile literally and miraculously turned to blood, and fire literally and miraculously from heaven, but there is no way to read his report on the death of the children as anything other than entirely unmiraculous social decay and female emancipation. If the death of the children was leftism rather than wrath of God, then the river of blood and the fire was leftism rather than wrath of God.

Or if you really want to you could argue it was all wrath of God punishing the Egyptians for oppressing the Hebrews and for social decay, and Ipuwer is giving a naturalistic non miraculous rationalization of miraculous events, but I find Ipuwer’s account of these events more believable than the Pentateuch version.

And, according to Ipuwer’s Admonitions, people from West Asia who lived in tents were a big problem, undermining social cohesion. Sounds familiar.

So, I conjecture that they would have been blamed for all these happenings. The brownish rulers would have attempted to appease the brownish mob by punishing the white outsiders who lived in tents.  The white outsiders would have made endless concessions, but no concession would suffice, for no concessions would have any effect on the social decay suffered by the brown Egyptians, now incompetently ruling themselves when formerly they had been competently ruled by the white Hyksos, who had now become unwilling and unable to rule. (Bronze age civilization, which is to say white civilization, was suffering general decay.  The Egyptians survived it better than the purer whites.)

Ipuwer calls on Pharoah to expel the foreigners.

And the white outsiders would flee. A familiar story, much repeated since then.

Finding themselves pursued by an Egyptian army the white outsiders would need an leader with complete authority. Likely they would choose a white member of the Egyptian ruling class to lead them, and invent for him the correct ancestry. All that is conjecture of course, but it fits the known facts quite well.  The Pharaoh of the Pentateuch did what Ipuwer in his “Admonitions”called on the Pharaoh to do.  Those whitish outsiders were subverting brownish Egyptian society with the result that Egyptians were doing bad things to each other.

We know that Ridley Scott is correct to depict the pharaoh as brownish Egyptian upper class, and what little we know about the times is consistent with Moses being white Egyptian upper class, as depicted by Ridley Scott in the movie Exodus.

Ferguson chimp out

August 17th, 2014

Short recap of the Ferguson story:

Michael Brown, a huge black man helped himself to some tobacco in a shop, then strong armed the shopkeeper rather than paying.  He then walked down the street, expecting traffic to get out of his way.  When a policeman told him to stop jaywalking, he attacked the policeman, forced his way into the policeman’s car, and attempted to take the cops gun. The cop shot him.

According to heavily tattooed gang members wearing clothes intended to intimidate, after being shot, Michael Brown ran with his hands in the air, and the policeman shot Michael Brown again while he was holding his arms in the air and running.

This might well nonetheless be true, at least the part about him being shot while running, though not the part about his hands in the air, for if Michael Brown attacked me I might well do the same thing.  He is big, scary, violent, thuggish, and crazy.  Yeah, it would be the wrong thing to do, but when a big crazy guy attacks one out of the blue, one is apt to do the wrong thing.

The blacks proceeded to loot and burn.  The local police, facing collective criminal conduct, responded militarily, engaging in collective violence to crush collective violence – a military style response.

This “military”, which is to say collective, violence of course horrified the press, who blamed the police, and in particular the white cop in charge.  So a black cop was put in charge, and a huge round of news stories proceeded about peaceful protests and how everything was wonderful in peaceful civilized harmony, blithely ignoring events running contrary to story, blithely ignoring that the blacks were taking out one cop after another by collective violence, which the individual violence of the cops was ineffectual in preventing.  And then, contrary to story, the black cop had to resort to collective military style violence to keep his cops alive.

This is analogous to events in Gaza.  One might well believe that Israel blockades Gaza because they are evil racists, but when Egypt blockades Gaza, people of the same race and religion as themselves, it’s pretty obvious that the problem is terrorists operating out of Gaza, not Gaza’s neighbors.  And, similarly, the problem in Ferguson is individual and collective black violence, which collective violence has to be met by collective violence.

The larger story is that blacks destroyed Saint Louis, then, fleeing their own destruction of the city and each other’s violence, proceeded to move into a white suburb, which they are now in the process of destroying in turn.

This is a reason that the cost of housing is so high.  If wealthy people got to live where they chose, and poorer people got to live in the less desirable places, the inner city would be full of rich people, and poor black thugs would live in the exurbs.  The city would be safe and orderly, while slums far away from the center, places that no one ever goes to or cares much about, were dangerous and disorderly.  If, however, we look at where people live, it is clear that black collective violence trumps money, which forces up the cost of housing as white people bid up the small and shrinking pool of safe housing, which is usually located in places inconveniently far from the city center, forcing them to perform long commutes.

The white man buys a house.  To support his crushing mortgage he makes a long commute every day, along a highway with big wall to protect it from black people living much closer to his workplace than he does.  And then some section eight women and her nine kids by nine different thugs is plonked beside his house, and while he is at work, the section eight woman terrorizes his wife, breaking one of his windows and threatening to force entry.

This makes it hard for white men to reproduce, that white men are not able, not allowed, to protect their wives and children, in part because blacks can engage in collective violence against white people, and white people are not allowed to collectively defend themselves.   To have a safe place for one’s wife and children, it has to be possible to run bad people out of that place.

That blacks live close to where white people work, while white people are forced to live far from where they work, tells us that blacks have the upper hand over whites.  Slavery worked.  Jim Crow sort of worked.  Civil rights has been a disaster.

 

The Spandrellian trichotomy

August 13th, 2014

trichotomy

Technology capitalism: libertarianism

As the left gets ever lefter, it gets every crazier.  Since the libertarian tries to make a separate peace with the left on behalf of capitalism, its craziness necessarily flows into libertarianism.

Libertarians notice that capitalism, in particular the joint stock corporation based on double entry accounting, provides a great, humane, and highly productive system for creating wealth, advancing technological progress, and maximizing liberty. They therefore propose to accept the entire left wing program, only without its anti capitalist elements.  Supposedly the non aggression principle supports all left wing conclusions, except anti capitalism.

Thus a libertarian believes that people should be able to make binding contracts. So a young and naive woman can bind herself to an enormous debt for a PhD in hating dead white males and capitalism, a debt which cannot be expunged by bankruptcy

However, because leftists believe that female sexual autonomy is sacred, therefore has infinite utilitarian weight, absolutely trumping all other human, moral, and utilitarian considerations, a libertarian also believes that that same woman cannot bind herself to always be sexually available to one man, and never to any other, to submit to him, and to bear his children, in return for him protecting her, loving her, looking after her, supervising her, and fathering his children by her.

But it turns out that without the capacity to make a binding contract, it is mighty difficult to reproduce.  It also turns out that the reproductive contract has to be unequal.  A ship cannot have two captains, and neither can a household. Read the rest of this entry »

Arab Spring

August 13th, 2014

The Cathedral, believing itself to be the holiest of them all, unleashed a power struggle in the middle east to be the holiest of them all.

arab spring

At present, their religion is worse than ours, but the appointment of a Caliph, elected for life, may stabilize them, while we continue to drift to ever greater heights of holiness.

Secularization

August 11th, 2014

Eric Kraufman argues that the religious are inheriting the earth.  The religious are reproducing faster, and despite the fact that many of their children are captured by progressivism, the number of people who say they are religious is increasing.  According to Kraufman the number of people who adhere to moderate religions is decreasing, and shows every sign of altogether vanishing.  The proportion of the religious, and the absolute number of religious people who adhere to fundamentalist religions is increasing.

But he ignores the fact that “fundamentalist” religions are rapidly being captured by progressivism.

In 1960 or so, all Anglicans believed, or purported to believe that divorce was shocking, and that a divorced woman should never remarry.  They believed that in marriage, the wife promised to honor and obey, and failure to do so was disgraceful.  Today, hard to find “fundamentalists” so fundamentalist as to believe in such old fashioned idea.

Moderate religions are disappearing because no one can tell the difference between adhering to a moderate religion and progressivism.  Pretty soon the only Roman Catholics will be sedevacantist rebels, as the Vatican becomes a museum and left wing book store – but the ultra orthodox will be celebrating gay marriage with leather, chains, and giant condoms.

The sedevacantists’ priest shall say:

I now declare you husband and husband.  You may now insert these giant vibrators up each other’s asses.

The great silence

August 9th, 2014

There seem to be no great obstacles to intelligent life devouring the galaxy.  So why are we here.

If life on earth arose on earth , and produced humans in a few billion years, why not on some other planet ten billion years ago?

Simplest and most likely explanation is that life is unlikely – requiring a stupendously improbable assemblage of molecules to form.

No one has constructed a plausible high probability origin of life.

Indeed, it looks to me that water based life just cannot form spontaneously. The minimum complexity of life in water is just far too high.  RNA based life just does not work without DNA and cell membranes, and you don’t get RNA and DNA spontaneously forming in water.

Here is what I think happened:

There is some environment, perhaps a mixture of liquid cyanide, liquid formamide, and polyphosphoric acid with star tar dissolved in it, in which life can form spontaneously.

Cold temperature origins seem most likely, since cold temperature life can easily spread from planet to planet, because cold temperature planets with liquids are smaller and lower gravity than warm planets with liquids.  Volcanic eruptions etc can easily spit rocks into space.

This low temperature, non water based, life evolved, over ten billion years or so, to adapt to environments increasingly alien to its origins, eventually becoming water based life living in hot deep rocks on asteroids.

From which it infected earth. To produce complex life, you need an oxygen environment so that cells will gang together for defense and attack.  For an oxygen environment, you need a water environment.  We are the first, because it just took that long.  And, in due course we, or some other earth species if we fail, will devour the galaxy.