Anti semitism

January 7th, 2011

As Moldbug tells us:

Anti semitism is the faulty, paranoid, and obsessive belief that Jewish elites are significantly different from gentile elites.

Jews, as Jews, simply were not an are not influential in the development of the theocracy that ruled us. Jews really do not matter so much, so any belief system that causes one to focus on Jews sends one crazy, detaches one from reality.  If we look at the elite and bad conduct by the elite, and start asking:
“Who is a JOO? Look I see a JOO!  See the JOO!” then we are apt to attribute to the elite an ethnic solidarity that it conspicuously lacks. The elite is disproportionately Jewish, and hates Jews, entirely white, and hates whites, mostly anglophone, and hates anglophones, mostly American, and hates Americans and America.

Before any Jew was allowed to get anywhere near the reins of power, he had to convert to progressivism, or plausibly pretend to. Lots of them did so, as the progressive theocrats intended, which was highly beneficial for those Jews that converted and ascended, but a disaster for Judaism, and none too good for the Jewish people as a people.

Progressivism is an American branch of left protestantism, which sought theocratic power, in particular wanted all educational institutions to inculcate all children, especially Jewish and Catholic children, in their religion. Since the American constitution forbade this, they over time, ditched Christ, ditched redemption, and in large part ditched God. This started in 1900 or so and was largely completed by the time they were running reeducation, denazification and anti-colonialism.. They retained, however, a great pile of Christian and specifically protestant beliefs that are incompatible with Judaism as a religion, a culture, and a society. If Jews were influential as Jews, progressivism would be post Jewish, rather than post Christian.  But progressivism is, in practice, a post Christian heresy from Christianity.

For an example of the post christian character of progressivism, consider the ludicrous progressive belief that all people are equal in ability and virtue and so forth, which is what remains of the Christian belief that all people are equal in the sight of God, after God and Christ have been removed from the belief system.

The proposition that men and women are literally equal, that races are equal, leading to the conclusion that they are interchangeable, that women can be soldiers and firemen, men can marry other men, can only be understood as proposition about souls, rather than bodies, and when this doctrine is doubted, the reaction is religious rather than empirical. Understood as a species of Christian belief, it makes sense, because the Christians believe that the most important part of the self is immaterial. If it’s immaterial, then material differences have nothing to do with it. So Christians are free to believe pretty much anything they want about this most important part of the self, unconstrained by material evidence of any sort. They are free to believe that deep inside everyone, there is a core, an essence, that is not the slightest diminished by bodily infirmity etc. etc. I.e., the soul. The progressives jettison God, replacing God with, presumably, Nature. So “equality before God” becomes “equality before Nature”. That is, natural equality (of some unspecified sort). And this could be how the progressives manage to believe in some unspecified “natural” (biological or whatever) equality even though no evidence backs them up. Their belief is derived, not from evidence, but from the Christian heritage of progressivism. Their belief looks superficially like a scientific hypothesis because all the terms in it could be interpreted as referring to natural things, but it doesn’t really have any empirical content, because “equality”, while it could refer to something measurable, does not actually refer to anything measurable. Any attempt to measure something to test the claim of “equality” is attacked by progressives.

Progressives are using naturalistic-sounding words to talk about equality, but they are behaving as though it didn’t make any sense to try to measure it, which is how Christians would behave with respect to attempts to rigorously test equality before God. The Christian reaction would range from skepticism that it could be done, to the sense that it doesn’t even make sense to try, and finally to the certainty that it is heresy to even suggest such a thing and the person suggesting it is evil and possibly a sorcerer and should be burnt at the stake – and if you express doubt about natural equality, the progressive reaction you will get is not an appeal to empirical evidence, but condemnation and threats.

Progressivism is today influential world wide, and everywhere it is primarily American. For example “Gay pride” was applied throughout Europe often before it was applied in America, but with made in America propaganda, directly translated and retain American idioms, and often American neologisms, such as “Gay” as the new euphemism for homosexual; the hand of the master was visible; the muppet’s lips were moving, but the voice was not that of a local. Similarly American schoolchildren are taught about America, and are primarily taught that America is the most evil nation in the world, and German schoolchildren are also taught about America, and are primarily taught that America is the most evil nation in the world.

But, I hear you ask, if the Cathedral, the progressive ruling elite, is primarily American, rather than Jewish, why is it so maniacally anti American? Why you, ask, do they hate people like you and me. Surely that they hate Americans shows they are not Americans, do not think of themselves as Americans, therefore must be Jews?

Alas, self hatred is depressingly common, and progressives hate themselves, and therefore hate everyone like themselves, and therefore they hate you, and hate me, for reasons I will now explain:

Central to Christianity is sin and redemption. Christians are held to a standard so high that they cannot possibly attain it, and even if they attained it, they are condemned by original sin; we are all sinners and should be ashamed and guilty. But the preacher offers us a way out. Accept Christ as Lord, Christ will forgive you, Christ loves you, Christ will shoulder the load. Yes, you are a sinner, but Jesus loves you. And thus, central to progressivism is sin. Progressives are held to a standard so high that we cannot possibly attain it, and even if we attained it, we are condemned by original sin in that we are beneficiaries of colonialism slavery racism and blah blah blah. But the sensitivity trainer cannot offer us a way out, since God is dead and Jesus never existed. And so progressives are required to hate themselves. And they do.

The Progressives, the Left, the Cathedral, does not hate non Jewish whites because it is disproportionately Jewish; it hates all whites because it is white and hates Jews disproportionately because it is disproportionately Jewish.  It hates America and Americans because it is primarily American.

The most honest political ad of all time illustrates the perils of the politically correct only listening to each other. When they speak, their purpose is not truth, but power – and since they understand power as meaning the capacity to harm, everything they say is a lie intended to harm the hearer – and since they listen respectfully, indeed worshipfully, to each other …

The ruling elite is theocratic, hence the nickname “the Cathedral”. Their religion is simultaneously altruistically self hating, as illustrated by environmentalism and the fact that the disproportionately Jewish elite hates Israel and Jews, yet contradictorily, at the same time nihilistic and cynical, with the Alinksyite approach that anything goes in the pursuit of power, a contradiction resolved in their own minds since they are pursuing total, limitless, and absolute power, not on their own behalf, but on behalf of the oppressed and downtrodden – they are doing it for the proletariat, for the colonized. And if the proletariat and
the colonized are so rude as to talk back to their betters, well then, they are doing it for the trees.

The Cathedral will destroy everything, starting with itself, just as the most honest political ad of all time ended with the murder of the narrator. Its self hatred renders it powerless against more self confident theocracies, such as Islam, and its self destructiveness renders it incapable of holding power for very long even absent external enemies.

If the Jews were running things, we would have decent airport security like they have in Israel, instead of naked body scan and genital gropedown.   If the Jews were running things, the CIA would operate more like Mossad and less like the Keystone Cops.

The antiprofiling fetish is a left superstition and ritual, derived from progressivism’s Christian roots,  not a Jewish superstition and ritual – so it is obvious who is in charge.

Similarly, Israel had no banking crisis, despite the fact that their banks are full of Jews, who are doubtless as crooked as bankers elsewhere:  The reason there is no banking crisis in Israel is because banks in Israel did not make political loans to voter blocks and special interest groups notorious for not paying their debts; such loans being a progressive, rather than Jewish, superstition. And when the US government put the heat on banks around the world to buy mortgage backed securities, Israel “refused to support the world banking system”.  Since when did we have a world banking system? One worldism is a progressive superstition centered on the UN, and the UN hates Jews.

The left is lily white (as we saw at the “rally to restore sanity”) and hates whites.  The left is dominated and largely controlled by America and anglophones (as we saw with the export of the “gay pride” program to the non English speaking world) and hates anglophones and hates Americans most among anglophones.  The left is disproportionately Jewish, and hates Jews.

We are not ruled by Jews.  We are ruled by people who hate themselves and hate us and hate Jews most of all.

Here is the Bank of Israel’s take on the Global financial crisis:  You will notice that while everyone else is lying about it, they are telling the truth:

What are the factors that led to the global crisis?

The main factor that initiated the crisis was the accumulation of mortgages in default in the US as a result of the reversal of the trend of US housing prices. This occurred against the background of easy mortgages over a period of several years during which mortgages were provided to homebuyers who did not have sufficient ability to repay them. The losses spread to large financial institutions in a number of countries through the globalized financial markets, which facilitated the creation and marketing of complex financial instruments world wide. These instruments had a variety of terms to deal with default that had not been in use in the past and some of the instruments were sold and guaranteed by large financial institutions. Large investment houses worldwide held the view that advances in the study of finance had enabled a better understanding of these products and the correct valuation of the products and their guarantees. In retrospect, the risk assessment of these products was extremely deficient. Thus, significant losses were incurred by these large financial institutions and their customers. As a result, uncertainty regarding the financial stability of these institutions spread at a surprisingly quick rate and activity in the markets for more basic financial products-in which these same investment houses are active-was also affected.

How has the crisis so far affected the Israeli financial system relative to its effect on the financial markets and institutions in other advanced economies?

One of the main causes of the global financial crisis was the provision of mortgages, primarily though not exclusively in the US, to borrowers with insufficient ability to repay them. As a result, housing prices rose sharply in these countries, as did the prices of financial assets. When the financial institutions began to realize that they had provided mortgages to homebuyers with insufficient ability to repay them and these individuals were forced to sell their homes, a downward trend began in the prices of houses that served as the collateral for not only sub-prime mortgages, but higher quality mortgages as well. The drop in the value of other assets also eroded the collateral for loans that were made by the financial institutions in these countries. These developments, together with the collapse of the markets for mortgage-backed securities, had a multiplier effect that among other things led to the collapse of several financial institutions in the US, the UK and Europe. The large-scale provision of such mortgages in these countries to individuals with insufficient means to repay them was not,  however, characteristic of the Israeli financial system

You will observe that members of the Israeli elite can and do speak close to the the truth about the crisis, (the problem was mortgages to deadbeats) while members of the American elite, including their European muppets, cannot and do not. (Supposedly the problem was “excessive leverage”.)  Thus the financial crisis was brought to you by progressivism, not by the Jews, despite the  disproportionate presence of Jews in finance and financial regulation.

The evil empire

January 3rd, 2011

Wikileaks Cable 10Paris58 reveals the extent of US rule over Europe.  If Europe is further left than the US, broker than the US, and more $@$%# than the US, this primarily that the American ruling elite has a freer hand in ruling Europe than in ruling the US, due to the US constitution, and the American tradition of liberty.

In Cable 10Paris58, the writer announces that France is insufficiently left wing, therefore an American program of intervention in French internal affairs is required to move France further left.

“Gay Pride” is another illustration of the same process.  When the US implemented “Gay Pride” in the US, it implemented “Gay Pride” world wide.  And what is a gay pride parade called in Spanish?  el día del Orgullo Gay

The use of the American neologism “Gay” reveals who is calling the shots, who planned and organized this event.

Let us reflect on Aristide’s rule in Haiti:

The US intervened in Haiti to install Aristide at gunpoint and it also intervened in Haitian society and culture to convince Haitians that this was a good thing, was benevolent and progressive.

The US demanded an election. It then demanded an election rigged in Aristide’s favor. He won, was overthrown. US demanded with threat of violence that he be reinstated. He was reinstated again, overthrown again. US invaded, installed him on the presidential throne with the guns of US marines, and, just to make sure Aristide did not get up to any mischief, surrounded him with an all white praetorian guard.

You will probably read all over the internet and the mainstream media that the numerous occasions in which Aristide was removed from power were evil American plots by evil America to deprive Aristide of his immensely popular and well deserved power.  Each of the supposedly anti American sources saying that stuff is a US state department muppet – someone from the state department has his arm up the speaker’s @$$ and his fingers are moving the speaker’s lips – pretty much in the way the praetorian guard were moving Aristide’s lips.

They are indeed anti American – because the US state department and the US ruling elite is anti American.

Just look at the races of the actors.  The people who installed Aristide were white Americans.  The people who guarded him were white people of undisclosed nationality.   (Not all that undisclosed – when everything fell apart, Aristide’s praetorians were rescued from black Haitians by the US marines)  The people Aristide fled were black Haitians.

It is not the Joos, it is Harvard and the State Department, not a sinister Jooish plot, it is a sinister Harvard plot.  It is a government conspiracy to impose more government on those who can least resist it – the French being less able to resist than Americans, and the Haitians being less able to resist than the French.

The 1994 intervention in Haiti is not in itself all that important, Haiti being just a small pimple, but it is important in what it reveals – like Cable 10Paris58 it reveals the true face of US imperialism.

astroturf “anarchism”

January 2nd, 2011

The Belmont club reports on left “anarchism”, taking the movement at face value, as if it was what it appears to be.

the purest and most uncompromising of which are the anarchists.

In fact, left anarchists are astroturf. They are the government threatening those that would restrain its growth.

Repeating my previous post on the Greek riots:

Observe the recent firebombings in the Greek riots, where the “rioters” murdered three people.

Here are a couple of videos of the “rioters” firebombing police.

The “rioters” charge the police, and bang on their shields with light sticks, making no attempt to jab through the gaps at the actual bodies of the cops, nor using sticks heavy enough to even shake the shields.    No axe handles or baseball bats.

Hey guys, if you want to bang on armored cops, I have a sledgehammer that would make a pretty good mace. It goes through concrete mighty fast.

They then fall back, and hurl firebombs – but they do not not hurl firebombs at the police, but at the ground in front of the police.  One cop gets one of his boots splashed with burning petrol.  He rolls around, and a couple of other cops put him out.  In the second video, same scene shot from a different angle, we observe that the cops make not the slightest attempt to arrest the firebombers for attempted murder, and the rest of the mob for assault and as accessories to attempted murder.  It is all theater.  When they see that one of the firebombs has actually hit, the theater pauses.

When right wing militia listens politely to an FBI provocateur provocateur at a meeting proposing that they bomb someone, they all go to jail for plotting crimes.  The “rioters” firebomb a cop, and everyone acts like it is an unfortunate accident – which of course is exactly what it is.

The “rioters” in the Greek riots are government employees put on the streets by government sponsored unions that are themselves as much part of the government as the police were.

The end of the road to serfdom

December 26th, 2010

Hayek, in “The Road to Serfdom” predicted the welfare regulatory state must inevitably become the totalitarian terror state.

Observe:  We have arrived. America is now a totalitarian terror state.

In 1992 I visited Cuba.  Thereafter, I argued it was a totalitarian state, because when I asked certain questions some people fled, fearing that merely hearing the question would result in them being punished for the thoughts it might elicit, and others answered furtively.

Yesterday, I asked someone very close to me a question apt to have a politically incorrect answer (I cannot identify him further, for he swore me to secrecy)

He looked around furtively.  We were on top of a hill overlooking the Coral Sea in a semi rural area, the other side of the world from his workplace.  He lowered his voice.  He then proceeded to utter a series of politically correct platitudes, with gestures and grimaces reversing their meaning, his grimaces implying the opposite of the ostensible meaning, the same sort of communication coded against possible eavesdroppers and hidden microphones that I encountered in Cuba, where they would swear loyalty to communism, while making a gesture of their throats being cut.

Like Havel’s green grocer, the truth would destroy his career.

This is the behavior that in 1992 I saw in Cuba and thereafter used as evidence that Cuba was a totalitarian state, a state of omnipresent fear.

So if Cuba was totalitarian in 1992, America is totalitarian in 2010.   We have arrived at the end of Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom”.

In America, unlike Soviet Russia, we don’t send dissidents to Alaska, and although lots of American psychiatrists are eager to diagnose political deviation as mental illness and treat it with electroshock and lobotomy as they do in Cuba, government has as yet declined to employ them in this capacity.  But what government does do is ensure that political deviation blights your career.  If a company knowingly employs political deviants, it is apt to be sued by quasi governmental organization for a “hostile work environment”, in which lawsuit, no evidence will be presented of anyone saying unkind things to those for which the work environment was supposedly hostile, but evidence will be presented that employees had subversive thoughts – often evidence that they expressed subversive thoughts far from their workplace, as perhaps on a hill overlooking the Coral sea the other side of the world from his workplace – so the company will be punished, for failure to punish subversive thoughts.

Hayek, in “The Road to Serfdom”, argued that regulatory welfare state must inevitably become totalitarian.  Lo and behold, totalitarianism has arrived.  Most people, everyone with some position in society, everyone with something that could be taken away from them, are very, very frightened.

And what is totalitarianism?  Hayek’s totalitarianism seems to be pretty much Havel’s totalitarianism, and here is Havel on totalitarianism:

The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!”

Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

I think I can safely assume that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and the carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be.

If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.

Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone.

The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.”

This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan ‘I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient,’ he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth.

The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, “What’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?”

Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the façade of something high. And that something is ideology.

As Bruce Charlton points out:

If you go into an institutional environment – a government office, a school or college, a hospital or doctor’s surgery, a museum, public transportation – and you observe posters adorning the walls on politically-correct topics such as diversity, fair trade, global warming, approved victim groups, third world aid – remember Havel’s essay, and that the correct translation of such posters is as follows:

“I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient”

Such posters are a coded admission of submission to ideology – except in the rare instance where they advertise genuine corruption by ideology.

The frequency of such posters nowadays, compared with a generation ago, is a quantitative measure of the progress of totalitarian government.

The future is Muslim, Mormon, and Catholic

December 25th, 2010

Anglican Christmas church service, ten attend, eight with one foot in the grave.  Sermon is about the other foot dropping.

Catholic Christmas church service, approximately one hundred attend, most of them young.  Sermon is about Christmas being a time for children.

Some months ago I checked the graveyards.  To judge by the absence of angels, graveyards one hundred  percent protestant.

High returns on IQ between countries, but low returns within country

December 21st, 2010

If we control for academic qualification, there is zero or negative return on IQ within a country.  That is to say, of two people of different IQ but same country and the same academic qualification, the smarter one will have similar or lower socioeconomic success.

If we do not control for academic qualification, IQ still does not make a very large difference.  Of two people of very different IQ, but the same country, and academic qualifications typical for their IQ, the much smarter one will not be much richer

I think it likely that this is a manifestation of the observed fact that high IQ people tend to be nerds, socially low status, tend to get in trouble socially.

However, if we compare between countries, countries where people have slightly higher average IQ tend to be much more prosperous than similar countries with slightly lower average IQ.

A two standard deviation difference in an individual person’s IQ predicts only about a 30% difference in his wage.  But half a standard deviation difference in a country’s average IQ score predicts a 200% difference in the average wage in that country.

Why do high IQ people do so badly?

Suppose you have a bunch of people together.  And the crowd makes a mistake about X, or, which comes to much the same thing, a high status person in the crowd makes a mistake about X.  The high IQ kid is going to say “X is wrong”.  But no one else in the crowd can tell whether X is right or wrong.  They will think it is a matter of opinion, like what flavor of icecream is better, or a matter of authority, an arbitrary rule decreed by someone, and this kid is wrongfully claiming authority to decree that rule.

And will conclude that the smart kid is inappropriately throwing his weight around, is acting inappropriately for his status, they will be insulted, offended, and angered at what they incorrectly perceive as a claim of status and authority. And so will attempt to correct his swelled head, will tell him his status is low, and his status claim inappropriately high.

So the smart kid in the group, like the stupid kid in the group, is going to wind up at the bottom – and very likely with an income to match.  The high IQ kid is going to be a social failure in a group where the majority is stupid.

In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is at the bottom.

So if you want society to be run by smart people, that society has to stream the kids, group smart kids with smart kids, and dumb kids with dumb kids, and get its leadership from the leadership that emerges from leading the smart group.

If, on the other hand, society thinks that everyone should go to university, and the elite universities select their students primarily on political correctness and cultural similarity to the existing elite rather than smarts, then your society is going to wind up being run by people who are not much brighter than average, and most of the wealth and power is going to be in the hands of people who are not much brighter than average for that country.

The smart group will do well, but the smart individual will do badly.  Thus a smarter country is much richer, but a smarter individual is little richer, and may well be be poorer.

It follows that the way for the smart kid to succeed is to get in with a smart group of about his own intelligence that is in charge of its own destiny, get in on the right track early, and the way for a country to succeed is to make the formation of such groups easy and natural.

Leftist fratricide

December 16th, 2010

The unity of the left in part derives from room at the top, that the ruling elite promised endless expansion – government jobs, and quasi governmental jobs like “diversity training”, “human resources”, and “sensitivity training”, jobs for which one must demonstrate adequate leftism as a entry requirement. As the west moves into financial crisis, there is a marked shortage of additional room at the top. In Britain, the expansion of the state has halted, or considerably slowed, a change misleadingly described as “drastic cuts”. For those Britons expecting natural progression into government jobs and government created jobs, it certainly feels like they have been cut, that they have been abandoned to drop into the underclass. The end of endless expansion is, to them, indeed a “cut”.

So anti establishment leftist Julian Assange exposes the establishment leftists in the state department. Rotund establishment leftist Michael Moore supports Julian Assange, pays his bail, and smirks and rolls his eyes when discussing the ludicrous sex charges against him. Immediately ugly diesel dyke feminists are thrown into a frothing rage by that smirk and eye roll and call Michael Moore a rape enabler.

The unity of the left is expensive, and starting to exceed the capability of states to pay. The left is therefore moving into a crisis analogous to the reformation.  The reformation was a loss of unity in the theocracy which made the age of reason possible.  Today’s theocracy is suffering from a similar weakening.

On the other hand, Roissy, like Unwin, argues that rationalism can only dominate in a patriarchal society, for which proposition Oprah is plausible evidence.

Political correctness kills

December 10th, 2010

Pajamas Media has a long list of notable and obvious terrorists, who, as moderate Muslims, were invited into the highest reaches of the US government.

They only tell stories of high terrorists in the bosom of authority, simultaneously in authority in the US government, and in authority in Al Quaeda, neglecting to mention lowlier foot terrorists who actually carry out the killing, for example Hasan: the first terrorist to give an academic lecture with Power Point – to an Army audience – explaining his intention to commit a terrorist attack against his audience for the glory of God and the destruction of the infidel.

Pajamas media piously tells us that it does not want to see Muslims profiled – oh no, heaven forbid, the horror, the horror – merely held to the same standards as normal people.

But, of course, that is exactly the problem. Because profiling is such a horrible sin, because making generalizations on the basis of available evidence is such a horrible horrible horrible sin, people are bending over backwards to avoid drawing the conclusion that a particular Muslim is a terrorist when it is glaringly obvious that the particular Muslim is a terrorist.

Fear of profiling not only means we strip search and grope three year old girls from Pasadena. It means that we wave through people covered in a Burkha. There is no middle ground. If you allow people to use all available evidence, they are profiling. If you don’t allow them to use all available evidence, there is no limit to what evidence they are required to ignore.

Julian Assange’s “rape”

December 9th, 2010

Roissy has the details:  The Assange “Rape”: A Case Of Spurned Groupies

These girls, excited by his internet fame, pursued him, stalked him, and jumped his boner.  He pumped them and dumped them both.  Upon discovering they had been dumped and that he had banged them both, they then claimed rape – not on the basis that he had coerced them, but on the basis that he had refused to wear a condom, had been banging them both, and had refused to keep on banging them – on the basis that he treated them the way famous people usually treat the numerous  women that eagerly pursue them.

Julian Assange is a hero

December 7th, 2010

Yes, he is a leftist, but he is an enemy of the regnant left, an enemy of the state, an enemy of my enemy.  Why are all these rightists complaining when Assange makes Obama look like a dangerous lunatic and the state department look like deluded religious fanatics?  Are these rightists loyal to a government that is at every level composed of men who hate them and regard them as enemies?  Apparently so.

What took down the Roman Catholic theocracy was not the light of reason, not the enlightenment, but bigoted religious zealot theocrats like Martin Luther, who were rebelling because the Church was not theocratic enough.  Julian Assange is one of those rebel theocrats.

Julian Assange’s most important accomplishment was not leaking a pile of private emails that show our masters speaking unspeakable truths that no one speaks in public.  What I found more disturbing was how often the cables were bland, how often they sincerely believed their deluded lies.  What I found disturbing was not that these diplomats sometimes spoke the truth, but that they usually did not, that while hereditary aristocrats and monarchs can usually see the truth and are apt to speak it, and foreign politicians can sometimes see it and sometimes speak it, American diplomats can seldom see the truth even when it is right in front of them.  The cables are shocking not because they reveal what was unknown, but because they sometimes reveal what everyone know but no one says – but far too often, the cables are not shocking, far too often they reveal a theocracy that piously and sincerely believes in its official religion, far too often the cables reveal a frightening lack of hypocrisy.

Julian Assange’s most important accomplishment was rubberhose, the predecessor to truecrypt.  In the long run, it is more effective to change society by changing the tools through which people interact, than by direct confrontation with the state.  The state exists only because people think it exists, and is therefore far more fragile than it seems.