Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

Another test of the power of the purse

Saturday, June 21st, 2014

During reign of Obama, attempts by the house of reps to exercise the power of the purse have been universally condemned as ultra extreme far right wing rightingery, and these attempts have invariably failed, rendering the house of reps similar in legal status to the Oklahoma University Student Debating society.

The NSA has been spying on Americans in massive and flagrant violation of the spirit of the fourth amendment, the letter of the fourth amendment, and recent legal interpretation of the fourth amendment by the Supremes. The overwhelming majority of Americans oppose this, so the house of reps has attempted to use the power of the purse to reign in the NSA in various ways, among them

barred the N.S.A. and the Central Intelligence Agency from using funds in the bill to “request or mandate” that an American corporation alter a product to permit surveillance of it.

Often the NSA has perfectly reasonable and compelling grounds to spy on a particular individual who is using a service of American corporation. The NSA then demands all information about everyone who has ever used this service, but, hey, promises that after all the information has been handed over, will only look at that particular individual for whom they have legitimate grounds and will piously close their eyes to all the other information that they have demanded. Scout’s Honor!

What makes this legislation less impressive is that this is the second time the reps have passed it. Perhaps they going to pass it a third time and add “But this time we really mean it!”

Bitcoin failure

Sunday, June 15th, 2014

For bitcoin to work politically, authority over the currency needs to be distributed over a large group of peers. If power is concentrated at a single point, the state can dominate that point, whoever controls that point can steal other people’s currency and do a variety of bad things.

Bitcoin was designed so that “voting” depended on computing power and network connection. Initially, almost everyone who had a client was a miner, there were a huge number of miners, everyone who used bitcoin had roughly equal influence because they contributed roughly equal computing power to the block chain.

Today, bitcoin is controlled by by a single miner., which was a predictable consequence of bitcoin’s scaling problems.

What we need is a crypto currency which is controlled by the top one hundred or so owners of the currency that are well connected to the net and have adequate computing power, with influence over the currency proportional to the amount of currency that they own, rather than the number of cycles that they burn.

In principle it should be possible to do this using bilinear maps, but the details are a bit tricky, because we have to make sure that manageable number of votes reflects an infinitely divisible currency whose ownership changes continually. So the shares (private and public keys in groups with a bilinear map) have to be reissued frequently, while ownership of the infinitely divisible currency is given value by the fact that if you own a lot of it, you get shares proportional to the amount you own. Since shareholders are people who own a lot of currency, they have an incentive to not misbehave, to continue to reissue shares according to currency ownership and validate transactions according to the rules, since to do otherwise would destroy the value of the currency that they own.

The number of shares remains manageably small, however many people use the currency and however many transactions take place. The shares underlie the value of the currency – and absolutely nothing underlies the value of the shares. Of course we still have other scaling problems, to which I have not figured out a solution except in alarmingly vague outline.

The best of slavery, and the worst of abolitionism

Sunday, June 8th, 2014

Let us compare the best of slavery with the worst of abolitionism.

In the West Indies, free blacks were apt to be re-enslaved: If found with no visible means of support, would be sent to the workhouse, on the assumption that otherwise they would be stealing or starving or very likely both.

The workhouse would then attempt to find owners for them, but often these were blacks with problems. The workhouse would find if they had a former owner, and twist his arm to take them back. If no one suitable wanted them, the workhouse would support them indefinitely on public and private charity.

So the workhouses in the West Indies, or at least some of them, were operating like a no kill pet shelter. Obviously the people operating these believed they were doing good, and had plausible reason to believe they were doing good. The benefactors could see their beneficiaries and look them in the eye. They might well wind up owning a couple of their beneficiaries, as someone operating a no kill pet shelter often winds up with more than his fair share of problem pets.

Let us compare with the holier than thou abolitionists who caused a civil war that killed a large part of the white male population, burned cities to the ground, and created artificial famine.

After the slaves were freed, a significant proportion died, being generally incompetent to look after themselves. The abolitionists, having denied that blacks needed a paternalistic welfare state, were disinclined to provide one, even as the death rate among their supposed beneficiaries rose to quite alarming levels.

After the civil war and abolition, black productivity as freemen was markedly lower than black productivity as slaves, leading to markedly lower material living standards. In part this must have been because of “slave driving” – that slaves were forced to work considerably harder than they would have otherwise been inclined to work, but in part it was because the employer could not trust a black employee to behave well, whereas he could make sure a slave behaved well.

The Christian right – is left.

Thursday, June 5th, 2014

There are few good Christians, darkly enlightened, neoreactionary: Among them are Dalrock and Sunshine Mary. I really am not aware of many others that blog, or used to blog.

If a Christian is to the left of Saint Paul on female subordination or slavery, he is holier than Saint Paul. If holier than Saint Paul, no friends to the right, no enemies to the left.

An atheist reactionary could have a position to the left of Saint Paul on women and slaves and still be an OK person.

A orthodox Jewish reactionary could have a position to the left of Saint Paul on women and slaves and still be an OK person.

But if a Christian right winger has a position to the left of Saint Paul on women and slaves, then chances are he has no friends to the right and no enemies to the left, which means all his friends are his enemies, and all his enemies are his friends.

And if no friends to the right, no enemies to the left, can be relied upon to throw his friends to the crocodile in the hope of being last to be eaten.

It is not so much entryism, as that if he disowns Saint Paul, he will disown you also. (more…)

Official Reactionary Position

Sunday, June 1st, 2014

If I meet a tranny in person or on video disguised as a woman, I am apt to vomit. This does not mean that I refrain from text or audio conversation with a tranny. I do, however, refer to trannys as “he” or “him”, and when I hear someone using the other term, it puts me off my food.

A someone who has frequently been nominated for the as yet nonexistent post of Grand Inquisitor of the Neoreaction, I, naturally, endorse the Official Neoreactionary Position.

  1. Talking to, being friends with, showing normal human kindness to a disordered person is not tantamount to:

    a) approving all the free choices that person has made; or
    b) favoring social and/or legal norms that support the person’s disorder; or
    c) joining them in their organization (should it exist); or
    d) inviting them into your organization (should it exist)

  2. If someone wants to purge someone else then show up with an Institution and your name at the top of it, and then there’ll be something to talk about. Until then, all future such attempts to purge are moot, null, damaging, extremely embarrassing, and in very poor taste. This shall be construed as the Official Neoreactionary Position.
  3. I shall be the judge of who I can have a drink with. This should henceforth be construed as the Official Neoreactionary Position on this matter.
  4. Men shit-test men all the time. It may or may not be a good and proper thing to do. But who is the worse: the one who constructs the shit-test, or the one who fails it?
  5. It is the Official Neoreactionary Position that falling prey to hysterical over-reaction to a perceived personal attack is a disqualifying defect in a man who would lead other men.

Words that are lies

Saturday, May 31st, 2014

A word should refer to an essence, a natural kind, and normal words do.

Suppose we had a word that referred to roast pork and fried chicken, but not to other foods. This would imply that roast pork and chicken were the same essence, the same natural kind, which of course they are not. So when you have a word that does not refer to a natural kind, that word is a lie – and the lie is usually a lot more hurtful than claiming that pigs are chickens.

For example, a “sweatshop” is entrepreneurship, capital, and low paid labor. Which is no more an essence than entrepreneurship, capital, and tuesdays.

If communists work people to death in the hot sun in twenty hour shifts, seven days a week, and no food, not a sweatshop by definition. If a capitalist builds an air conditioned factory in the third world, and has eight hour shifts, five days a week, but inadequate bathroom breaks, is a sweatshop. This is used to imply that capital, investment, and entrepreneurship makes people worse off, even though it is glaringly obvious that it makes people better off.

This is the lie that kept much of the third world poor for a long time. By definition, capital, investment, and entrepreneurship supposedly makes people poor.

Similarly, with “racism”. Supposedly this means injustice motivated by race, which not a natural kind, nor is it a definition, but rather a hateful smear against white people, accusing white people of being responsible for the underperformance of black people.

Unjust acts motivated by X are not a natural kind, any more than unjust acts on tuesdays are a natural kind. We don’t have a word for unjust acts motivated by sexual jealousy. When someone murders another person to steal his shoes, we do not call the killer “greedy”. An unjust act committed for reasons of race is not a natural kind any more than unjust act committed on a tuesday is a natural kind. We did not have a word that supposedly stands for unjust acts committed for reasons of race until the twentieth century, and we still do not have words for unjust acts committed for reasons of covetousness, or unjust acts committed on a tuesday.

So in practice, no one is ever going to use the words “racism” and “racist” in accordance with the supposed definition, at least not if he hopes to be understood. Rather, it is a hateful word for members of high functioning groups. The supposed definition is merely a hateful smear against members of those groups, in particular and especially against white people, and against certain political beliefs.

The supposed definition is not a definition, but rather a claim that Donald Sterling, by thinking bad thoughts about blacks, caused the bad behavior of which he was thinking, that his thoughts were hurtful and unjust acts. Similarly, the genocide of the Tutsi was supposedly caused by Tutsi racism, not Hutu racism.

Improbable caring as an indicator of evil

Sunday, May 18th, 2014

No one cares about far away strangers, still less about far away strangers very different from themselves. Claims to do so are lies or self deception.

People near one are always the big threat. So if one wants to destroy everyone near one, one justifies it by piously announcing love for those far away.

Of course there are other possible motives for such pious declarations. If the highest status people want to destroy all the people near them in status, which is to say, destroy me and everyone like me, they will announce deep caring for far away strangers, whereupon going through the motions of deep caring for far away strangers becomes high status.

However, just as the cautious thing to do is to assume every black man is a murderous thug, even though most of them are not, the cautious thing to do is to assume that everyone who piously proclaims deep love of far away strangers is planning the democide of those of his own class and race.

But how accurate is this cautious approximation?  Most blacks are not, in fact, planning to murder the nearest white man.  Are most do gooders planning democide?

Empirically, actions taken to benefit far away strangers very different from oneself are usually performed terrifyingly poorly, perhaps always performed terrifying poorly. For example African AIDS turns out not to be heterosexual AIDS, but do gooder AIDS. It is spread by clinics, which have financial incentive to use contaminated needles, in that the more of their clients they make sick, the more money they get.

Similarly, remember “We are the world, we are the children”. All the good and the great got together to raise money to help the victims of the Ethiopian famine.

But the primary cause of the Ethiopian famine was not drought, but forced collectivization, government confiscation of crops, government destruction of the crops of rebellious populations, and civil war, in other words socialism. Being good progressives, did not want to admit the role of socialism, so wound up paying for the cattle trucks to take the peasants to death camps.

And, very recently the Cathedral was funding and arming the Army of the Congo to vaginally impale Tutsi women with very large objects.

Thus near 100% intent to commit democide fits available data better than near 50% intent to commit democide.

Observe the total non reaction among do gooders to complicity in crimes against the Tutsi in the Congo, and the total non reaction among do gooders to the ongoing AIDS scandal in Africa. This behavior fits the assumption that all do gooders, as near all of them as makes no difference, are aiming at war against near, and contradicts the assumption that many of them or most of them intend to benefit far.

If status competition was driving the purported caring about far, we would expect to see more monitoring of each other’s performance “Hey, your caring for far is producing horribly bad outcomes, which I, your holier and more moral superior will now correct.” So, the data compelling fits the theory that concern for far away people of other races is a lie driven primarily by monstrous and horrifying goals, and fails to fit even the relatively innocent explanation of competition to be holier than thou.

Racism is an anti concept

Friday, May 16th, 2014

We do not have a word “deskism” for someone who thinks differences between kinds of desk matter, and who has strong preferences in favor of some kinds of desks and against other kinds of desk.

No one can be racist against white people, and all whites are racists. That is why it is not racism when a bunch of blacks beat up a white man who happens to be passing by. When they do that, they are being anti racist. When you try to give “racism” some meaning other than “Beat the daylights out of honkeys”, you are trying to push muck uphill.

“Racism” never had the meaning that some reactionaries and extreme right wingers are trying to give it. And it never will, because there is no need for a word with the meaning Zippy is trying to give “racist”. It is like gays trying to force us to pretend that the word gay still has the meanings cheerful and happy, rather than filthy, disgusting, weak and depraved.  It is not in the nature of words to work like that.  If there was a place in the language for a word that means what Zippy wants “racist” to mean, we would have had that word a thousand years ago.

The word “racist” was invented at the start of the twentieth century  invented by Trotsky for the purpose of destroying western civilization.  It has never meant what reactionaries and right wingers would like it to mean, and it never will mean that.  Words mean what they are used to mean, not what people claim they mean or say that they mean, and people just are not naturally inclined to use a word the way that Zippy would like them to use the word “racist”.  Language does not work like that.

If there was a place for a word with that meaning, we would have had such a word before Trotsky.

They are pushing muck uphill when they try to keep the pleasant associations of gay, but they have the power. Zippy is pushing muck uphill when he tries to call blacks who beat up whites racist, rather than the anti racists that they so obviously are, and he does not have the power.

“Racist” means what it means, and what it means is that blacks are entitled to beat the hell out of whites, and whites are not entitled to fight back.  We saw that in the Zimmerman incident.  The supporters of Trayvon implicitly admitted what they explicitly denied, that they assumed that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.  They simply felt that Trayvon had the right to do so, and Zimmerman had no right to defend himself.  That is what racism means.  Zimmerman was a racist, because less black than Trayvon, therefore deserved his beating.

Trayvon was obviously motivated in part by hatred of those less black than himself, because, according to retard girl’s testimony, when he reached his father’s house, he turned around and said he was going to get that “creepy cracker”.  But scarcely anyone called him a racist for that, which shows that is not what “racist” means, shows that even the tiny handful of reactionaries and extreme right wingers that are trying to give it the meaning “someone who thinks differences between kinds of human matter, and who has strong preferences in favor of some kinds and against other kinds of humans”, cannot bring themselves to actually use it in that sense, because it would sound mighty strange to actually use it in accordance with that meaning.

“Racism” is an anti concept because actual usage and purported meaning completely contradict each other.  It purportedly means Hitler-nazi-genocide evil, and actually means white, as proven by actual usage, as for example in the Trayvon Zimmerman case.  Zimmerman was a racist and Travyon not a racist, just as an air conditioned capitalist tee shirt factory which has eight hour shifts but limited toilet breaks is a sweat shop, but a communist slave labor camp in the tropics where the slaves are worked to death in baking heat on nineteen hour shifts  is not a sweatshop.

Similarly “prejudice”.  What is prejudice?  Is it a belief one assumes true without adequate empirical evidence?  Obviously not.  “Prejudice” means “hate fact”, or “low status belief”.

Words mean what they are used to mean.  And scarcely anyone calls Martin Trayvon racist.  Not progressives, not me, and not Zippy.  Zippy is not going to spontaneously call Trayvon “racist” to describe the fact that Trayvon was in the habit of attacking people less black than himself, any more than Zippy is going to spontaneously call me “gay” because I am in a good mood.

Ever faster movement left

Sunday, May 4th, 2014

Weasel zippers reports some tweets:

Screen shot 2014-05-02 at 10.02.47 AM

Screen shot 2014-05-02 at 10.02.57 AM

Screen shot 2014-05-02 at 10.03.06 AM

Now, not only can free speech get you fired, supporting, people’s right to free speech behind closed doors with the blinds drawn, while piously deploring what they say, can get you fired.

Observe that Josh Olin did not take the horribly extreme ultra ultra far right neo nazi position that people have a right to free speech in public.

Can anyone remember a time when anyone was so ultra extreme far right as to support free speech in public?  I am sure that not only did I never support such a horrible thing, but my parents and grandparents and great grandparents never supported it either.

Everyone who was born before 1956 remembers a time when there was no such thing as marital rape, when the idea that there was something wrong with a husband compelling his wife to perform her marital duties was so strange that there was no easy way to say such a thing and be understood.  And yet, no one remembers ever thinking such a thing, nor the people of the time thinking such a thing.  The past is always changing, only the future is certain.

For a long time, esr has entirely forgotten that once upon a time, he, his entire family, and everyone he knew, took a husband’s right to compel his wife to perform her marital duties entirely for granted.  Now, it seems, he has entirely forgotten that once upon a time he supported not only the right to freedom of speech behind closed doors with the curtains drawn, but, gasp, horror, free speech in public, a position so extreme right wing that no one has words to express how horribly right wing it is.  Freedom of speech is now bullying, just as the marital contract is now rape.  All right thinking people agree on this, and they always have.



ESR moves ever leftwards

Friday, May 2nd, 2014

Esr has to move ever leftwards, or else suffer persecution, and to prove himself sufficiently left, has to enthusiastically support the ever greater persecution of his fellow leftists. Thus each leftist has to move further left, and has to support the persecution of his fellow leftists even more than he did last year.

This is the left singularity, which results in ever leftwards movement, ever faster.

It is always cut short internally by dictatorship, a Stalin or a Cromwell who, finding himself outflanked on the left, makes it as illegal to be to the left of him as it has long been illegal to be to the right of him, or else cut short by foreign conquest, the foreign conqueror is drawn in by weakness, and by the extermination of people he cares about.

If not cut short, the final outcome would be infinite leftism in finite time, where everyone tortures each other to death, and the last torturer commits suicide for his inability to inflict infinite torments.

The closest approach to an actual left singularity was Chang Hsien-chong, who reduced the population of Szechwan from three million to seven thousand, largely by torturing people to death.

Had his career not been cut short by imperial reconquest, would have doubtless reduced the population to zero, either outflanked on the left and killed by someone even lefter than himself, or killing himself after torturing to death the last of his generals. Recall how the political followers of Aristide continued in zombie like loyalty even after he personally gouged out the eyes of one of his loyal minions with his own thumbs. Recall generals in Siberia, surrounded by armed and loyal troops, going to Moscow when summoned for torture and death

As Trotsky said:

The party in the last analysis is always right … I know that one must not be right against the party. One can be right only with the party, and through the party …

Chang Hsien-chong distributed the wealth of the landlords to the poor, then ate the landlords for oppressing the poor, then exterminated the intellectuals for infecting the poor with insufficiently progressive ideas, then flayed the poor alive for being insufficiently grateful for having the wealth of their oppressors redistributed to them.

Of all those who write in English, the historian Donnithorde  was in the best position to know the truth about Chang Hsien-chong. Leftists, which is to say all modern historians, either rewrite Chang as a mild mannered agrarian reformer or else a horrible reactionary installed in power by the CIA. (I am just making up the part about the CIA) – modern historians, which is to say modern leftists, go completely incoherent and make no sense whatsoever when reporting these events. To get a report that is evidence based and intelligible, you have to go back to books and articles written in a safer time when the left was less terrified of itself.