Archive for October, 2017

Never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake

Sunday, October 15th, 2017

The left, in its enthusiastic rush to ever greater holiness, has forgotten that its rules are only for the little people.

Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  But Harvey Weinstein is my enemy, even though he is being devoured by my enemies.

The Khmer Rouge started out as a bunch of very smart western educated intellectuals. Who proceeded to torture each other to death. They wound up with cadre that could not read numbers.  Observe the obvious collapse in intelligence and competence among our elite.  You could not trust the scientists building to ITER to build a chicken coop unsupervised.  Recollect Obama’s struggles to get the Obamacare website up. Remember the inanity and stupidity that was revealed in the Challenger inquiry, and ITER is a long way downhill from the Challenger.

But we should no more buy in to this doctrine of the innate purity of women, than we should buy in to the allegations of CIA, fascist, and capitalist influence in the Khmer Rouge.

It is great that Harvey Weinstein is getting the shaft, but these women are not victims. They are whores.

Harvey Weinstein is guilty of hitting on hot chicks while old and fat.  And worst of all, hitting on them incompetently.   If he had lost some weight, or been better at it, he would have been fine.  The reason this is all coming to light now is that he has been getting older and fatter.

You need to apply the Mike Pence rules in the workplace:  If you are with female coworker, leave the door open, because if you close the door, it is like watching television with a large economy size bag of potato crisps beside you.

Sex is pre rational and pre verbal.  If you are alone with a pretty woman, no one is going to open the door, and there is a horizontal surface, you will, perhaps unconsciously and unintentionally, emit certain stimuli, and likely she will react to these stimuli with certain other stimuli, quite likely without conscious awareness of doing so, and you will, perhaps unconsciously, react …

And pretty soon you are both horizontal on the floor.

But since she probably did not intend any of that to happen, under the current rules, she gets to call it rape. The mating dance has the form of pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender. So if she subsequently decides she was raped, it is always plausible, at least to her.

Its like having a bag of potato crisps beside you while watching television, except that she gets to claim that the potato chips forced her.

Which, in a sense, they did.  She did not want to have sex with you, and she did not want to finish an entire economy sized bag of potato crisps.  While she and you were watching television you heard her say eleven times that she did not want any more potato crisps.  And while she and you were fucking she said

Stop!

loudly and clearly several times, but you were too distracted to keep count.

By enforcing anti sex rules selectively upon the elite, we make the elite unattractive, with the result that women want to mate dysgenically.

We need to enforce anti sex rules selectively upon the non elite.

Obviously it should be illegal and subject to the death penalty for a man and a woman to get together behind closed doors, when that woman belongs to another man, so in a sense this is a move in the correct direction, but the trouble is we are only restraining the sexual behavior of affluent white males, not of dope dealers, criminals, and blacks, so criminals and blacks get all the pussy, and get to look, and act, way more manly than the guy in the corner office.

The concept of consent requires verbal and verbalizing consciousness.   And sex predates verbal and verbalizing consciousness by a very long time. The part of your mind that decides to have sex is far older and more powerful than the part of your mind that is capable of making up a narrative about what you are doing and why.

We can meaningfully apply the concept of consent to marriage, where a woman consents to move from one household and the authority of one male, to another household and another male, but trying to apply it to sex winds up with the absurdity that each thrust needs a legal notary.

If the door is closed, and the woman does not swiftly make an exit, sex is likely to ensue, and she consented to the likelihood that it would ensue. If a man and a woman are together in private in a secure place for a reasonable length of time, there is good chance that they are going to have sex regardless of what they theoretically intend. If a woman consents to be alone with a man in private, she knows full well that sex may well ensue. If you cannot really expect to leave the large economy sized bag of potato crisps half full, regardless of your intentions, you cannot really expect to refrain from having sex, regardless of your intentions.

The reason Harvey Weinstein is now getting in trouble is that he is fat and has been getting fatter.  If he had lost weight and lifted iron, he could have hit them over the head with a brick and gotten away with it.

The trouble with the way the left is enforcing restraints on male sexuality is that it means that Jeremy Meeks gets all the pussy. We need to enforce a no-getting-together-behind-closed-doors rule starting with Jeremy Meeks, rather than starting with Harvey Weinstein and Mike Pence. Our testosterone is falling, and we are getting stupid. But that the left is getting stupid is a very good thing.

Role models

Tuesday, October 10th, 2017

When Han Solo hits on princess Leia in “The Empire Strikes Back”, he does it right. She shit tests him to hell and back, and he plows on. Similarly, in “Gone with the wind” Rhett Butler proposes to Scarlett O’Hara, she rejects him, and he forcibly kisses her.

When I look at old movies, the hero always does it right. When I watch newer movies, the hero never does it right. It seems forced, artificial, and gratingly unnatural. Looks like robots carrying out a script to move the plot along. In real life, would never work, the hero would never score dealing with a woman in the way that men deal with women in modern movies.

And modern men just do not score approaching women in real life. In modern movies, action girl saves the lad in distress, and then for no apparent reason starts to like him. So it is like, “how do you meet a girl except you wait for action girl to rescue you?”

Boy meets girl remains a major plot thread, but boy and girl just never get romantic in a natural normal manner. I don’t mind if boy meets girl because of time travel, elves, space ships, dragons, and space aliens. For that I can suspend disbelief. But I just cannot suspend disbelief when they get romantic without going through the normal mating dance. In the Lord of the Rings movie, Arwen goes in for a kiss with Aragorn. The dialog explains that they already have a sexual relationship. The film maker has to depict them as already somehow having a long established off screen romance, because he is just not allowed to depict a man and a women getting together in the way that men and women actually do.  He just cannot depict Aragorn going in for a kiss with an as yet unkissed Arwen.

Trump still not in power.

Monday, October 9th, 2017

I hoped and expected that Trump would be in power by now, and observed that this would feel like a coup, and would require measures that resemble a coup.

CNN complains “Trump goes rogue” and complains that Trump is fighting for control of the presidency.

Now he is fighting for control of the presidency?

During the weekend, he issued a demand to end the great replacement, which has continued during his presidency.

Giving effect to these demands would require open political conflict with the Republican party, and open armed conflict with the permanent government.

If he yields, he will be a one term president, and the Republicans, to their immense relief, will be voted out in 2018 and 2020, giving them excuses for not implementing the policy that they run on in elections.

On his performance since the election, and the precedent of every president since Roosevelt, he will yield.

But he is Trump.

To win, he has to bring the White House into line, and then get heavily involved in a bunch of primary fights to remove Republican Party cucks in 2017.  Which so far he has not been doing.  He has been trying to make a deal with the establishment, a deal consistent with him remaining sufficiently faithful to his base to win re-election, and the establishment just is not having any.

Events so far have been consistent with the Moldbuggian view that elections and all that are as relevant as Queen Elizabeth going in a stagecoach to open the British Parliament.  The Permanent Government runs the country day to day, Harvard sets policy, and the American Law Institute, a wholly owned subsidiary of Harvard, legislates.

Indeed CNN implicitly endorsed the Moldbuggian view, by complaining that the country has two foreign policies, one set by the State Department and the Defense Department, and Trump’s policy – with the clear implication that Trump should butt out and stick to robotically signing State Department policy.

The trouble with CNN’s solution, however, is that the State Department and the Defense Department do not have one foreign policy, but a hundred, with the result that their foreign proxies are always shooting at each other, and from time to time shooting at US troops and diplomats.  Without a president in charge, they are institutionally incapable of acting as one.  The Cathedral has not solved the institutional and organizational problem of acting as one without delegating all power through a single chief executive officer.  They are not agreement capable.

And, not being agreement capable, they are incapable of making a deal with Trump.

Trump is a deal maker.  But now he is in a situation where deals are just not possible.  He has to fight and possibly be utterly defeated, or fail to fight and quite certainly be utterly defeated, fail to fight and be a lame duck for his entire single term, and then ignominiously lose the election in a landslide.

His attempts to cut a deal have alienated his base, and show absolutely no sign of producing a deal.  He is dealing with a group of people institutionally incapable of making a deal.  The accusation that Trump is intransigent is pure projection.  Social Justice Warriors always project. Trump is alarmingly ready to compromise, but can find no one to compromise with.   Winning will require measures that have been unthinkable – yet Tony Abbot and Duterte were willing to deploy such measures.  I thought, therefore, Trump would be willing to deploy such measures.  So far, however, he has yielded.  Trump is a deal maker.  He is going to have to be a general.  He is going to have to seize the power of the presidency, or be a one term president as he takes the blame for Harvard’s policy of electing a new people.

How to do cryptocurrency right

Sunday, October 8th, 2017

Proof of work tends to be inherently slow, has inherently high transaction costs, and the miner’s interests are not identical with those holding currency as a store of value and those using currency as a medium of exchange.

Proof of stake is nontrival to get right. It is a form of the infamously difficult to understand (and infamously difficult to program correctly) Paxos protocol. The Paxos protocol has the great advantage over the proof of work in that after an unpredictable and possibly large time, it announces a definite result, whereas with the bitcoin proof of work protocol, no result is ever final, it just becomes exponentially probable.

Ignore the carping that proof of stake is inherently flawed. Any implementation of proof of stake that is easy to understand is likely inherently flawed, that being the infamous nature of Paxos.

Bitcoin was genuinely decentralized from the beginning, and over time became more centralized. Big exchanges and a small number of big miners are on the path to inadvertently turning it into another branch of the oppressive and corrupt government fiat money system.

The new altcoin offering are for the most part not genuinely decentralized. They have a plan for becoming genuinely decentralized some time in the future, but the will and ability to carry the plan through has not been demonstrated.

Assume that, instead of everyone being a peer, we have few dozen or so peers, the peers distributed among several nuclear armed jurisdictions, and each peer has a hundred million or so clients, and each peer stores the entire blockchain forever.

OK, we are talking rather large peers. A terabyte of storage, a hundred dollars worth, will keep one of them going for a week. Say two terabytes for redundancy. I don’t think cost of storage is going to be a significant problem.

Scaling, however, is the hard problem. Making enormous amounts of storage actually useful and effective is the problem. The amount of storage per client is absolutely insignificant. The amount of bandwidth per client is absolutely insignificant. Having a useful connection between enormous numbers of clients and enormous amounts of storage via enormous amounts of bandwidth is the hard part.

Prompt response is another problem. It inherently takes time, and potentially large and unpredictable time, to reach consensus on the blockchain.

We can, however, have fast trust base responses followed by consensus: Since the peers are pretty big, you can trust a peer for your payment during the short time it takes for consensus to settle.

The way this would work is that every client is hosted by a peer. If his host should crash, or turn evil, he can move to another peer, though during the move he will not be able to make fast transactions. When he makes a payment, the peer hosting him testifies that this is not a double spend, and the payment is instantly flagged to the recipient as cleared – but it does not get flagged as settled, and the recipient cannot spend the payment, until it gets incorporated into the blockchain consensus, about twenty minutes later. Since the peers are big and long lived, you can trust them with your money for half an hour or so, and if you don’t want to trust them,, or you don’t trust some of them, you just wait for the transaction to be incorporated into the consensus.

A bad time to invest in Bitcoin

Sunday, October 8th, 2017

Back in 2013 I urged people to invest in Bitcoin.

Yesterday someone asked my cleaning lady to invest in Bitcoin.

Now if someone had asked her to accept payment in Bitcoin, or send payment in Bitcoin, then this would be compelling evidence that one should invest in Bitcoin.

But when cleaning ladies are asked to invest in Bitcoin, not a good investment.

When Bitcoin began, everyone was a miner, and everyone was a peer, everyone stored the entire blockchain. Which was great, but did not scale. And now people are struggling with half assed ideas about how to get it to scale.  Bitcoin can no longer deliver on its original promises, has not figured out what new promises to make, and many of the new promises are unworkable, or are scams, or are likely to turn into scams.

In defense of Hugh Hefner

Monday, October 2nd, 2017

Why is Hugh a pevert for having sex with numerous fertile age women at the age of ninety? Here is a toast to 20 milligrams of tada and 12.5 milligrams of caber.

It is stupid and counterproductive to blame men for sexual revolution, and particularly stupid and particularly counterproductive to blame alpha males for the sexual revolution.

Blaming Hugh Hefner for the sexual revolution is stupid. Blame Queen Caroline. Hugh Hefner was just watching the decline from poolside.

The problem is not that Hugh Hefner had sex with lots of women, the problem is that women want to have sex with alpha males. The problem is that women want to party till their youth and beauty runs out.  Rather than contrasting the sexuality promoted by Hugh Hefner with one hundred roses monogamy that only existed up to the early nineteenth century, we need to contrast it with today’s sexuality.

Starting with Queen Caroline, and following up with Florence Nightingale, the problem always has been women out of control.

She wants 2.3 more years of sex with other men before she settles for you.   They don’t want to waste a day more of their youth and fertility on their husbands than absolutely necessary

Monogamy and chastity are an agreement between males for equitable sharing of pussy, which deal was imposed on women with a stick, and the stick needs to re-applied from time to time.

“Hypergamy” means that women prefer to fuck Hugh Hefner. Since we have suppressed all the Hugh Hefners, , since today’s elite is unmanly and emasculated, it now means they prefer to fuck Jeremy Meeks.

We were better off when they were fucking Lord Byron and Hugh Hefner, than with them fucking Jeremy Meeks.

Suppress the Hugh Hefners of the world, and you will find your ten year old daughter is fucking a forty year old motorbike gang leader and ice dealer.

The problem is not Playboy magazine. The problem is that Queen Caroline did not receive a whipping.

In Victorian times they said that the problem was aristocratic wealthy male military officers. Make the army plebeian, it will solve the problem.

Then in Hugh Hefner’s time, they said the problem was wealthy and cultured businessmen, make business politically correct, it will solve the problem. What are they now saying about Jeremy Meeks?

We are targeting affluent high IQ males to make them terrified of women, thus “A rape on Campus” and “sexual harassment”. The man who did twenty years in prison for torture, rape, murder, and cannibalism gets a free pass.

This whole business started out as an attack on King and Aristocracy. Women are wonderful, it is just aristocrats and military officers forcing them to behave badly. Free and empower women, raise their self esteem, make the military plebeian, and they will behave well.

Have they been behaving well?

We observe women doing bad things with powerful men.  We conclude that powerful men are using their power to make women behave badly.  So we take power away from men and give it to women.  “Sexual harassment” law makes eunuchs of wealthy men.  The reason that lawyerettes have sex with criminal lowlives is that the judges and senior partners they associate with are terrified of them, and are therefore unattractive.

Are women now behaving better?  Is it better that lawyerettes have sex with judges, or sex with criminals?

Well, actually, it is better if they get married, cook meals, and have babies.  We now have profoundly dysgenic fertility, as cooking and babies is only for women too stupid to become cat lady PhDs.  A woman has all her life to get an education and career, but only a short time to get married and have children.

I don’t behave badly because I am a bad person.  I behave badly because in this environment, that is what it takes to get my dick wet.  I don’t like defect/defect equilibrium at all.

We cannot get out of defect/defect and into cooperate/cooperate by calling on only one side in the war of the sexes to cooperate. In fact we cannot get out of defect/defect merely by calling on people.  To end the war will take some enforcement, which enforcement was abandoned with Queen Caroline.