Monday, December 24, 2012
The Dictators for Dynasties Program
What Anomaly UK describes, I think, is pretty standard practice for US-led Progressivism (as he points out, this is usually called "the International Community") when it looks like autocracy might be getting another chance.
Worth Reposting
Larry Correia lays out the argument against gun control.
I am not political, and I don't think there's a point to arguing with voting idiots, so why am I reposting this? Because it is excellent. 10,000 words of TL;DR that read like 100. He covers everything he can cover. He shakes no rifles, makes no bold statements about his cold, dead hands, and doesn't threaten violence if he doesn't get his way. This essay is the work of a man who is what every phony intellectual gun blogger thinks he is.
There are so many ways that a post against gun control can go wrong, but this one went only right.
I am not political, and I don't think there's a point to arguing with voting idiots, so why am I reposting this? Because it is excellent. 10,000 words of TL;DR that read like 100. He covers everything he can cover. He shakes no rifles, makes no bold statements about his cold, dead hands, and doesn't threaten violence if he doesn't get his way. This essay is the work of a man who is what every phony intellectual gun blogger thinks he is.
There are so many ways that a post against gun control can go wrong, but this one went only right.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Prevention and Containment
I liked this article.
If policies like this one ever get implemented, it will be because of dedicated executives, not because of any raised political furor. Such levelheaded thinking does not come naturally to hominid tribes when they are in a lather.
Beyond proper care of the insane, I think this type of policy is the best defense against these sorts of things.
A Carousel of Laughing Crocodiles
It all started with this video. A near-perfect example of crocodile humor, the only people who laughed at it were liberals, specifically gay marriage advocates. Conservatives felt some part of them that they don't want to admit exists burst into tears, while maintaining that it was not funny. I really didn't give a fuck, and thought it was unfunny.
Men, who naturally have a much better sense of humor than either gay men or women (who do you think wrote the script?), responded with this video. It is actually funny, because it's not crocodile humor.
Naturally, this begot a series of other videos, including two videos where women threaten "we would so marry our gay friend!" It's funny; if they thought they were such good potential husbands, you'd think it would be common practice.
The first video in that second string is especially unfunny and out-of-place. Lesbians, despite the handpicked selection in the video, are usually quite ugly. I don't know how the causality works, exactly, but I've met a number of lesbians in my time, and I wouldn't have dated any of them. A hot lesbian is pretty rare. The unfunny goes beyond that, however. Why do these videos assume that men give a damn about marriage? Sure, some do; they're called betas, and they live to provide supplicating commitment to women, but the probably vote Democrat anyway. Your typical, little-m misogynist Republican voting asshole (hi Roissy!) doesn't give a rat's ass for marriage. If some lucky gay man happened to pick up his woman of the hour, he'd just go elsewhere. No big deal.
That's why the second video is funny. Good comedy, not crocodile humor, is built on exaggerating and emphasizing reality. If your dogma runs counter to that, you'll have a very hard time generating genuine laughs, and you'll settle for crocodile humor.
Men, who naturally have a much better sense of humor than either gay men or women (who do you think wrote the script?), responded with this video. It is actually funny, because it's not crocodile humor.
Naturally, this begot a series of other videos, including two videos where women threaten "we would so marry our gay friend!" It's funny; if they thought they were such good potential husbands, you'd think it would be common practice.
The first video in that second string is especially unfunny and out-of-place. Lesbians, despite the handpicked selection in the video, are usually quite ugly. I don't know how the causality works, exactly, but I've met a number of lesbians in my time, and I wouldn't have dated any of them. A hot lesbian is pretty rare. The unfunny goes beyond that, however. Why do these videos assume that men give a damn about marriage? Sure, some do; they're called betas, and they live to provide supplicating commitment to women, but the probably vote Democrat anyway. Your typical, little-m misogynist Republican voting asshole (hi Roissy!) doesn't give a rat's ass for marriage. If some lucky gay man happened to pick up his woman of the hour, he'd just go elsewhere. No big deal.
That's why the second video is funny. Good comedy, not crocodile humor, is built on exaggerating and emphasizing reality. If your dogma runs counter to that, you'll have a very hard time generating genuine laughs, and you'll settle for crocodile humor.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Your bones are His canvas, your blood, His paints
"In modernism, art becomes a philosophical enterprise rather than an artistic one."
Modern art is a contest of cleverness, a higher-status version of getting a mustache tattoo on your finger. As the author of the article continues,
"The driving purpose of modernism is not to do art but to find out what art is. We have eliminated X —is it still art? Now we have eliminated Y —is it still art? The point of the objects was not aesthetic experience; rather the works are symbols representing a stage in the evolution of a philosophical experiment. In most cases, the discussions about the works are much more interesting than the works themselves. That means that we keep the works in museums and archives and we look at them not for their own sake, but for the same reason scientists keep lab notes—as a record of their thinking at various stages."
This scientific approach to art sounds valid... Until you remember that art is not the Higgs-Boson, and does not need discovering, only defining. Oh, I guess it was just intellectual wank all along.
Postmodern art is the tradition for which Duchamp was the spiritual ancestor - pissing on art itself. Why I wouldn't consider Duchamp to be a postmodern artist ahead of his time is that Duchamp was pissing on modernists, whereas postmodernists are indiscriminate - they will as soon piss on a Pollack or a priceless grand piano.
Postmodernism has made art the vanguard of the Progressive society - ever marching towards the destruction of everything that came before, the abortion of everything that would come after, and the exploitation of everything that is unlucky enough to share its present.
Modern art is a contest of cleverness, a higher-status version of getting a mustache tattoo on your finger. As the author of the article continues,
"The driving purpose of modernism is not to do art but to find out what art is. We have eliminated X —is it still art? Now we have eliminated Y —is it still art? The point of the objects was not aesthetic experience; rather the works are symbols representing a stage in the evolution of a philosophical experiment. In most cases, the discussions about the works are much more interesting than the works themselves. That means that we keep the works in museums and archives and we look at them not for their own sake, but for the same reason scientists keep lab notes—as a record of their thinking at various stages."
This scientific approach to art sounds valid... Until you remember that art is not the Higgs-Boson, and does not need discovering, only defining. Oh, I guess it was just intellectual wank all along.
Postmodern art is the tradition for which Duchamp was the spiritual ancestor - pissing on art itself. Why I wouldn't consider Duchamp to be a postmodern artist ahead of his time is that Duchamp was pissing on modernists, whereas postmodernists are indiscriminate - they will as soon piss on a Pollack or a priceless grand piano.
Postmodernism has made art the vanguard of the Progressive society - ever marching towards the destruction of everything that came before, the abortion of everything that would come after, and the exploitation of everything that is unlucky enough to share its present.
Friday, December 21, 2012
The end credits track for the TV movie about America
Angels and demons holding hands and whistling 'Dixie'
We haven't had that kind of fun 'round here since 1960
We wait in longer lines than the Russian's ever did
Selling our children's souls to the highest bid
I can't describe the way it feels
These songs will blare out of your eyes
When I get to the green building
My arrival will be televised
When I get to the green building
When I get to the green building
Na Na Na...
Na Na Na...
Satan's cheerleaders prancing 'round the maypole in December
We haven't had that kind of spectacle here since I can remember
Our fearless leaders say they're equal to the task
And every point of view on this depends on who you ask
It doesn't matter any way
Our prophecies are realised
When I get to the green building
The stars will shine out of your eyes
When I get to the green building
When I get to the green building
Na Na Na...
Na Na Na...
Isn't it interesting to see whose heart shall pass?
When they try to hide them, but they're made of glass
Isn't it interesting to see who lives or dies?
On the rollercoasters and the water slides
Isn't it interesting to watch them play their game?
When they're all such cheaters and they have no shame
And isn't it interesting to hear the demons sing?
When the doorbell rings
At the green building
Isn't it interesting?
Isn't it interesting?
When the doorbell rings
At the green building
Isn't it interesting?
Isn't it interesting?
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Well, not quite
I don't think they're accounting for the fact that, before 1968, nobody would vote for a black guy.
Azathoth loves the poor, and misery is his favorite relish!
I had thought all the priests of this order were gone, defrocked. Does their particular brand of piety still get reaffirmed by course of habit, or has some new sect of True Believers risen to take their place?
Whatever the reason behind it, we've seen once again the rearing of the ugly head of a policy that, while standard issue in the sicklier trees in the grove, has never quite caught on close to the geographic center of the Cathedral. A half-assed implementation was tried in 1994, but was quietly sidelined when the law expired.
Azathothian capital-P Progress reacts to tragedy by finding something or someone safe and easy to blame, in lieu of doing anything actually effective to help solve the problem or prevent it from occurring again. What is most curious about this particular instance, is, that with more than 105 million guns being sold since the Assault Weapons Ban sunset, I'm not sure that this is such an easy target. In 1994, gun enthusiasts were normally hunters, but since then, much has changed. Not only has the number of active hunters declined, but the number of gun enthusiasts has risen, and the "scary military rifles" of 1994 are the hunting rifles of 2012.
So the number of folks whose jimmies would get rustled by such legislation is much higher in 2012 than it was in 1994. How do the democrats think they'll get away with such legislation?
Well, in the case of Obama in particular, it's his last term and thus time to piss everyone off. But, in the case of other leftist politicians, I think the election results were pretty clear: Screw men, women are the only voting block we need. Fifty Shades of Grey-reading soccer moms will turn out in droves to support legislation that promises however falsely to protect their precious babies, so term-unlimited congressmen can reasonably expect to come back to pre-warmed leather office chairs in 2014. Bureaucrats, of course, will remain unaffected whatever happens, but they are still normally reluctant to sacrifice their elected puppets for no reason whatsoever.
The American militia movement has basically demonstrated that it'll put up with anything the Left has thus far thrown at them, having put up with two elections of a black man as president, the passing of the healthcare bill, and the continued financial ruination of their country's economy without violent incident. Maybe a gun ban would be the match in the powder-room, but I doubt it, and so does the Left.
So, then, we might actually see another scary looking gun ban pushed through. Well, that would make me sad, but what does that actually mean for the country?
Well, in short, it won't remove an avenue by which tyranny can be kept in check, and it won't solve the problem of crazy people going on rampages, either.
What will it do? Force the poor to rely on strong, aggressive males for defense.
With effective weapons like AR-15s and Glocks out of the picture (I'm imagining the worst kind of ban, here), poor people will have to resort to swords, knives, clubs and other primitive weapons that are only effective in the hands of strong, aggressive men. The elite, of course, can just move away from crime, hire armed bodyguards, drive everywhere, and apply for the now-rare permit to carry a handgun (which, itself, is now three or four times as expensive as before the ban). The poor, however, don't have any of those options, and must instead rely on a more medieval structure for defense.
Once again, Progressivism proves itself the poor's best friend (in the same way that a casino owner is the best friend of a habitual gambler).
postscript:
It's salient, I think, that progs today actually believe that inanimate objects can cause people to be evil. They can't say it that way, of course, because they're currently pimping an image of rationality (maybe in a half-century or so they'll be pushing faith, and we'll get some really funny protests), but it's still a pretty good indicator that we're experiencing a third Renaissance (or maybe one big continuous one).
Whatever the reason behind it, we've seen once again the rearing of the ugly head of a policy that, while standard issue in the sicklier trees in the grove, has never quite caught on close to the geographic center of the Cathedral. A half-assed implementation was tried in 1994, but was quietly sidelined when the law expired.
Azathothian capital-P Progress reacts to tragedy by finding something or someone safe and easy to blame, in lieu of doing anything actually effective to help solve the problem or prevent it from occurring again. What is most curious about this particular instance, is, that with more than 105 million guns being sold since the Assault Weapons Ban sunset, I'm not sure that this is such an easy target. In 1994, gun enthusiasts were normally hunters, but since then, much has changed. Not only has the number of active hunters declined, but the number of gun enthusiasts has risen, and the "scary military rifles" of 1994 are the hunting rifles of 2012.
So the number of folks whose jimmies would get rustled by such legislation is much higher in 2012 than it was in 1994. How do the democrats think they'll get away with such legislation?
Well, in the case of Obama in particular, it's his last term and thus time to piss everyone off. But, in the case of other leftist politicians, I think the election results were pretty clear: Screw men, women are the only voting block we need. Fifty Shades of Grey-reading soccer moms will turn out in droves to support legislation that promises however falsely to protect their precious babies, so term-unlimited congressmen can reasonably expect to come back to pre-warmed leather office chairs in 2014. Bureaucrats, of course, will remain unaffected whatever happens, but they are still normally reluctant to sacrifice their elected puppets for no reason whatsoever.
The American militia movement has basically demonstrated that it'll put up with anything the Left has thus far thrown at them, having put up with two elections of a black man as president, the passing of the healthcare bill, and the continued financial ruination of their country's economy without violent incident. Maybe a gun ban would be the match in the powder-room, but I doubt it, and so does the Left.
So, then, we might actually see another scary looking gun ban pushed through. Well, that would make me sad, but what does that actually mean for the country?
Well, in short, it won't remove an avenue by which tyranny can be kept in check, and it won't solve the problem of crazy people going on rampages, either.
What will it do? Force the poor to rely on strong, aggressive males for defense.
With effective weapons like AR-15s and Glocks out of the picture (I'm imagining the worst kind of ban, here), poor people will have to resort to swords, knives, clubs and other primitive weapons that are only effective in the hands of strong, aggressive men. The elite, of course, can just move away from crime, hire armed bodyguards, drive everywhere, and apply for the now-rare permit to carry a handgun (which, itself, is now three or four times as expensive as before the ban). The poor, however, don't have any of those options, and must instead rely on a more medieval structure for defense.
Once again, Progressivism proves itself the poor's best friend (in the same way that a casino owner is the best friend of a habitual gambler).
postscript:
It's salient, I think, that progs today actually believe that inanimate objects can cause people to be evil. They can't say it that way, of course, because they're currently pimping an image of rationality (maybe in a half-century or so they'll be pushing faith, and we'll get some really funny protests), but it's still a pretty good indicator that we're experiencing a third Renaissance (or maybe one big continuous one).
Monday, December 3, 2012
Homage to the New Puritan Man
If this doesn't remind you of Stalin-era pageantry, you are impossibly thick, and certainly no fun at parties.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Name Change
I'm feeling a bit whimsical, so Unreasonable Expectations is now The Evil Blog. We'll see if it will last. I also gave it a bit of a facelift. The new URL is http://affably-evil-overlord.blogspot.com/.
Google trigger: veryunreasonableexpectations.blogspot.com; mwuahahahahah.blogspot.com
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Knowledge and Privilege for Self-Defence
Oleg brushes up against HBD with this post.
Essentially, this is how elites protect themselves: By simply not going near danger. Considerable expense of both money and effort goes into achieving a bubble thick enough that petty criminals can't get through.
The ideal scenario is to carry a firearm every day, and live somewhere with little to no crime.
Essentially, this is how elites protect themselves: By simply not going near danger. Considerable expense of both money and effort goes into achieving a bubble thick enough that petty criminals can't get through.
The ideal scenario is to carry a firearm every day, and live somewhere with little to no crime.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Obi-Wan Kenobi is a giant douche
His name is practically synonymous with the wise, prudent teacher, who guides the hero along the True Path of Good.
This is odd, because Obi-Wan Kenobi is a huge douche.
The popular duel on Mustafar between Anakin and Obi-Wan provides a good example of why (yes, we'll have to wade through the awful dialogue):
Obi-Wan: "You have allowed this Dark Lord to twist your mind until now you have become the very thing you swore to destroy."
Anakin: "Don't lecture me, Obi-Wan. I see through the lies of the Jedi. I do not fear the Dark Side as you do. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new empire."
Obi-Wan: "Your new empire?"
Anakin: "Don't make me kill you."
Obi-Wan: "Anakin my allegiance is to the Republic, to democracy!"
I have a problem with Obi-Wan's last sentence there. You see, Palpatine didn't enact a coup against the Senate, he didn't start a revolution, he was duly elected, both as Chancellor, and then as Emperor. It was the democracy of the Senate that put Palpatine in power. Now, some of you will point out that Palpatine may or may not have used his Sith mind tricks to win the Senate over. OK, but how is that qualitatively different than what any real-world politician does to get elected? In fact, wouldn't democracy be really vulnerable to the mind-control powers of the Sith? Wouldn't all the successful politicians be Dark-Side force sensitive (Jedi being barred from politics)? So Palpatine didn't destroy the democracy of the Republic (in fact, he does not dissolve the Senate for another 20 years or so), he was the product of it. If the Jedi are really the defenders of the Republic, then they should have stepped aside to make way for Palpatine's rise to power.
Instead, the Jedi react as any group of humans does when an enemy group takes power (or in this case, when they discover that the seat of power is a member of an enemy group): they go outside the rules to try to win. The Jedi dispatch a squad of assassins to eliminate the duly-elected Chancellor in what can most charitably be called a coup attempt. Palpatine, having graciously allowed his enemies the first move, kills them all anyway, except for Anakin, whom he converts to his side. In response to the attempt on his life, Chancellor Palpatine makes his move, securing his power further in yet another completely legal vote, resulting in his coronation as Emperor. Meanwhile, he excises the rest of the Jedi, which is perfectly understandable, because, as you might have noticed, they are exceptionally dangerous. Obi-Wan and Yoda aren't calling it quits, though, and make yet another assassination attempt on the legitimate head of state, which fails.
So Obi-Wan is a hypocrite, claiming to be a defender of democracy, but in fact being an enemy of it. That reminds me of someone else.
Later in the scene, we see Obi-Wan confess his failure to Anakin as a mentor. Here's the transcript:
Obi-Wan: "I have failed you, Anakin. I have failed you."
Anakin: "I should have know the Jedi were plotting to take over."
Obi-Wan: "Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil!"
Anakin: "From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!"
Obi-Wan: "Well then you are lost!"
Wait just a freaking second. What was it Obi-Wan was saying just five minutes earlier?
Anakin: "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy."
Obi-Wan: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes. I will do what I must."
...
In fact, everything Anakin says here is demonstrably true. The Jedi made not one, but two assassination attempts on the legitimate head of state. The Jedi routinely interfere in affairs outside their jurisdiction. The Jedi undermine the system that they are sworn to protect. Q.E.D., evil.
Fast forward twenty years, and we see that Obi-Wan has absolutely no problems lying to his newest apprentice if it means he will unquestioningly follow Obi-Wan's version of events. In fact, here's a montage of Obi-Wan lying, and here's a Robot Chicken musical number about the deceptions of the Jedi. This has more or less been beaten into the ground, so I don't feel like going over it again.
This is odd, because Obi-Wan Kenobi is a huge douche.
The popular duel on Mustafar between Anakin and Obi-Wan provides a good example of why (yes, we'll have to wade through the awful dialogue):
Obi-Wan: "You have allowed this Dark Lord to twist your mind until now you have become the very thing you swore to destroy."
Anakin: "Don't lecture me, Obi-Wan. I see through the lies of the Jedi. I do not fear the Dark Side as you do. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new empire."
Obi-Wan: "Your new empire?"
Anakin: "Don't make me kill you."
Obi-Wan: "Anakin my allegiance is to the Republic, to democracy!"
I have a problem with Obi-Wan's last sentence there. You see, Palpatine didn't enact a coup against the Senate, he didn't start a revolution, he was duly elected, both as Chancellor, and then as Emperor. It was the democracy of the Senate that put Palpatine in power. Now, some of you will point out that Palpatine may or may not have used his Sith mind tricks to win the Senate over. OK, but how is that qualitatively different than what any real-world politician does to get elected? In fact, wouldn't democracy be really vulnerable to the mind-control powers of the Sith? Wouldn't all the successful politicians be Dark-Side force sensitive (Jedi being barred from politics)? So Palpatine didn't destroy the democracy of the Republic (in fact, he does not dissolve the Senate for another 20 years or so), he was the product of it. If the Jedi are really the defenders of the Republic, then they should have stepped aside to make way for Palpatine's rise to power.
Instead, the Jedi react as any group of humans does when an enemy group takes power (or in this case, when they discover that the seat of power is a member of an enemy group): they go outside the rules to try to win. The Jedi dispatch a squad of assassins to eliminate the duly-elected Chancellor in what can most charitably be called a coup attempt. Palpatine, having graciously allowed his enemies the first move, kills them all anyway, except for Anakin, whom he converts to his side. In response to the attempt on his life, Chancellor Palpatine makes his move, securing his power further in yet another completely legal vote, resulting in his coronation as Emperor. Meanwhile, he excises the rest of the Jedi, which is perfectly understandable, because, as you might have noticed, they are exceptionally dangerous. Obi-Wan and Yoda aren't calling it quits, though, and make yet another assassination attempt on the legitimate head of state, which fails.
So Obi-Wan is a hypocrite, claiming to be a defender of democracy, but in fact being an enemy of it. That reminds me of someone else.
Later in the scene, we see Obi-Wan confess his failure to Anakin as a mentor. Here's the transcript:
Obi-Wan: "I have failed you, Anakin. I have failed you."
Anakin: "I should have know the Jedi were plotting to take over."
Obi-Wan: "Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil!"
Anakin: "From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!"
Obi-Wan: "Well then you are lost!"
Wait just a freaking second. What was it Obi-Wan was saying just five minutes earlier?
Anakin: "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy."
Obi-Wan: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes. I will do what I must."
...
In fact, everything Anakin says here is demonstrably true. The Jedi made not one, but two assassination attempts on the legitimate head of state. The Jedi routinely interfere in affairs outside their jurisdiction. The Jedi undermine the system that they are sworn to protect. Q.E.D., evil.
Fast forward twenty years, and we see that Obi-Wan has absolutely no problems lying to his newest apprentice if it means he will unquestioningly follow Obi-Wan's version of events. In fact, here's a montage of Obi-Wan lying, and here's a Robot Chicken musical number about the deceptions of the Jedi. This has more or less been beaten into the ground, so I don't feel like going over it again.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
TV Shows for Reactionaries
One of the more tiresome aspects of Hollywood is its seemingly incessant preachiness. Whether it's a barbarian from a distant fantasy land in an alternate universe, or a failing university student traveling through alternate worlds, it always seems to be the goal of Hollywood characters to promote Democraceh across the multiverse. The spread of communism is inevitable, comrades!
So when a show (inadvertently, in this case) seems to forget entirely that it's a mouthpiece for the party line, it's pretty refreshing, even if the show isn't top quality.
The one-season wonder Kings that ran on NBC in 2009 is an example of this. Set in an alternate present, Kings is essentially an homage to the biblical story of King David. The country of Gilboa has recently coalesced in the past two decades from warring city-state kingdoms. King Silas is, well, the King, and we mean it. Curiously, where most Hollywood writers would have the modern-analogue country be run like an absolute monarchy, but officially be a democracy or republic or whatever, Michael Green skips all that nonsense and instead we have an absolute monarchy, set in a modern, New York-like city, (which the king commissioned in the last decade or so, no less!), running the country pretty much how you or I would run the country.
There's drama, such as when the King's primary financier pulls all the royal funds, but the King handles things like, well, a king. We have no scenes of tyranny or brutality (there is an incident where a region rebels instead of accepting being handed over to a Republic of Gath as a result of peace negotiations), no glaring irresponsibility, and no scenes where the King hammily cries "UNLIMITED POWAAAAAHHHH!"
So when a show (inadvertently, in this case) seems to forget entirely that it's a mouthpiece for the party line, it's pretty refreshing, even if the show isn't top quality.
The one-season wonder Kings that ran on NBC in 2009 is an example of this. Set in an alternate present, Kings is essentially an homage to the biblical story of King David. The country of Gilboa has recently coalesced in the past two decades from warring city-state kingdoms. King Silas is, well, the King, and we mean it. Curiously, where most Hollywood writers would have the modern-analogue country be run like an absolute monarchy, but officially be a democracy or republic or whatever, Michael Green skips all that nonsense and instead we have an absolute monarchy, set in a modern, New York-like city, (which the king commissioned in the last decade or so, no less!), running the country pretty much how you or I would run the country.
There's drama, such as when the King's primary financier pulls all the royal funds, but the King handles things like, well, a king. We have no scenes of tyranny or brutality (there is an incident where a region rebels instead of accepting being handed over to a Republic of Gath as a result of peace negotiations), no glaring irresponsibility, and no scenes where the King hammily cries "UNLIMITED POWAAAAAHHHH!"
The plot of the show revolves around David Shepherd, a Captain in the Gilboan army, who has the good luck to be caught on tape destroying a "Goliath" tank (which looks suspiciously like a T-55), and is assimilated into the court for propaganda purposes. David's character is fairly wooden, but the internal politics of the regime are what's most interesting about the show.
Now, Kings isn't a great show. It's pretty soapy, and sometimes you don't really care what's going on, but if you're even a little bit on the Dark Side, it's worth watching a few episodes just to grin at one of the few examples of monarchy as effective contemporary governance in fiction that I've seen treated seriously in probably the last century.
Now, Kings isn't a great show. It's pretty soapy, and sometimes you don't really care what's going on, but if you're even a little bit on the Dark Side, it's worth watching a few episodes just to grin at one of the few examples of monarchy as effective contemporary governance in fiction that I've seen treated seriously in probably the last century.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Friday, October 26, 2012
Progress, comrades!
Everyone knows that manufacturing has experienced great leaps and bounds in the last century. CNC machining, aluminum, titanium, and tungsten metalworking, and, of course, plastics are just a few of the innovations in manufacturing that we've seen since 1900.
It's no secret to connoisseurs of fine antiques that "they don't make 'em like they used to", but surely such people are just Luddite blowhards, sour about the great progress that's been made since their pappy's heyday.
Of course, in 1900, things were much less expensive, but naturally that's just a product of inflation, not of any greater difficulty today in making them. Inflation is something that can't be helped, of course, as every good Progressive knows. It's a cost of the great march forward.
Things may have been cheaper then, but were they more affordable? Well... Yes, at least for the example that I'm about to show you.
By pure Providence, I have procured a page from the 1902 Sears Catalog, describing the Winchester rifles that they offer for sale. We will examine just one: Item No. 6R836, the Winchester 1894 Repeater, in .30-30 smokeless caliber with an octagon barrel. In 1902, this rifle sold for the handsome fee of $14.75, which would be more than two weeks' pay for a textile laborer at the time.
Oh, glory, that we live in such a society where you don't have to wait for months, saving your pennies, to buy a fine rifle from a big name manufacturer!
Wait, what?
That is the 2005 Winchester catalog, which is the second to last year that they produced Winchester 1894s at the same New Haven, Connecticut plant where they had produced rifles for the past 140 years (and also conveniently before the recent economic downturn, avoiding any noise from that). As you can see, the price of the Winchester rifle, now listed as the "Model 94 Legacy Rifle Octagon" (pictures on page 21, prices on page 53) sexagintupled from 1902-2005. But, surely this is all due to inflation. When we adjust for it, it should come out about the same.
LOLNO.
When we adjust for inflation, we find that the price of the Winchester rifle had nearly tripled by 2005.
Winchester doesn't make that particular model of rifle any more, but in 2011, Winchester re-introduced the 1894 series (produced by a Japanese company, this time). What do they cost today?
These imports are nearly four times more expensive when adjusted for inflation than their American-made counterparts from a century and a decade ago.
Well, Americans are making more money today than they did before, right?
No. Minimum wage in my home state runs over $7.50, and that's about what you'll make if you work at a fast food restaurant or gas station. At this pay grade, working 56 hours a week the new, imported Winchester rifle costs us well over three weeks' wages. Granted, you're at least less likely to be eaten by a textile mill.
Even in 2005, it wasn't really any easier to buy a New Haven Model 94. The minimum wage in my state then was a little over $5, and the Winchester rifle would still have cost you over three 56-hour weeks' wages, even before the recession.
The purpose of this article isn't to wail that all industry today sucks and that the early 1900s were soooo much better. In fact, quite a lot has gotten better since then. Just restricting it to the firearms industry, ammunition is both cheaper and better today than it was in 1900, materials advancements have greatly enhanced the reliability and durability of firearms in many cases, and brand name semiautomatic rifles can be had for less money than today's Winchester rifle (though still more than that Winchester would have cost in 1902, after inflation is accounted for).
However, it is clear that 110 years ago, we could make high quality items from machined steel and cut wood for far less than we can today. I have a number of suspicions as to why, but those will have to wait for a later post.
It's no secret to connoisseurs of fine antiques that "they don't make 'em like they used to", but surely such people are just Luddite blowhards, sour about the great progress that's been made since their pappy's heyday.
Of course, in 1900, things were much less expensive, but naturally that's just a product of inflation, not of any greater difficulty today in making them. Inflation is something that can't be helped, of course, as every good Progressive knows. It's a cost of the great march forward.
Things may have been cheaper then, but were they more affordable? Well... Yes, at least for the example that I'm about to show you.
By pure Providence, I have procured a page from the 1902 Sears Catalog, describing the Winchester rifles that they offer for sale. We will examine just one: Item No. 6R836, the Winchester 1894 Repeater, in .30-30 smokeless caliber with an octagon barrel. In 1902, this rifle sold for the handsome fee of $14.75, which would be more than two weeks' pay for a textile laborer at the time.
Oh, glory, that we live in such a society where you don't have to wait for months, saving your pennies, to buy a fine rifle from a big name manufacturer!
Wait, what?
That is the 2005 Winchester catalog, which is the second to last year that they produced Winchester 1894s at the same New Haven, Connecticut plant where they had produced rifles for the past 140 years (and also conveniently before the recent economic downturn, avoiding any noise from that). As you can see, the price of the Winchester rifle, now listed as the "Model 94 Legacy Rifle Octagon" (pictures on page 21, prices on page 53) sexagintupled from 1902-2005. But, surely this is all due to inflation. When we adjust for it, it should come out about the same.
LOLNO.
When we adjust for inflation, we find that the price of the Winchester rifle had nearly tripled by 2005.
Winchester doesn't make that particular model of rifle any more, but in 2011, Winchester re-introduced the 1894 series (produced by a Japanese company, this time). What do they cost today?
These imports are nearly four times more expensive when adjusted for inflation than their American-made counterparts from a century and a decade ago.
Well, Americans are making more money today than they did before, right?
No. Minimum wage in my home state runs over $7.50, and that's about what you'll make if you work at a fast food restaurant or gas station. At this pay grade, working 56 hours a week the new, imported Winchester rifle costs us well over three weeks' wages. Granted, you're at least less likely to be eaten by a textile mill.
Even in 2005, it wasn't really any easier to buy a New Haven Model 94. The minimum wage in my state then was a little over $5, and the Winchester rifle would still have cost you over three 56-hour weeks' wages, even before the recession.
The purpose of this article isn't to wail that all industry today sucks and that the early 1900s were soooo much better. In fact, quite a lot has gotten better since then. Just restricting it to the firearms industry, ammunition is both cheaper and better today than it was in 1900, materials advancements have greatly enhanced the reliability and durability of firearms in many cases, and brand name semiautomatic rifles can be had for less money than today's Winchester rifle (though still more than that Winchester would have cost in 1902, after inflation is accounted for).
However, it is clear that 110 years ago, we could make high quality items from machined steel and cut wood for far less than we can today. I have a number of suspicions as to why, but those will have to wait for a later post.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Speaking isn't one of the great Sith powers
Moldbug does not do a very good job speaking. My mentor in evil he may be, but it pains me to see him make the mistake of speaking in public twice, without remedy. At least this time, he did not submit himself to the jaws of the vicious Progressive torture machine - debate.
He simply isn't a convincing orator. His speech is wandering, beset heavily by the Um, the dreaded highwayman, who robs it of pacing and fire.
My advice to Lord Moldbug is to get himself a few speaking classes, or to use writing as his only medium from now on.
H/T Foseti.
He simply isn't a convincing orator. His speech is wandering, beset heavily by the Um, the dreaded highwayman, who robs it of pacing and fire.
My advice to Lord Moldbug is to get himself a few speaking classes, or to use writing as his only medium from now on.
H/T Foseti.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Absurd Notions on National Reform: Kingmaker Edition
I was stopped in the street today by someone handing out pamphlets for Mitt Romney. Since I had the time, I decided to engage them in a conversation. I told them that I was not intending to vote for anyone in the election, and that I frankly didn't care about it much either way.
This would not do. The campaigner pressed me on the issue, assuming that I had never considered voting at all. I assured them that, no, I had once been political, and yes, I'd voted (by absentee ballot no less). I was asked somewhat personal things about my life, I suppose in an attempt to pin down what sort of demographic I came from. Eventually, I disengaged the conversation, probably leaving the campaigner quite confused as to why a person well-educated on political issues would choose to take no side in the matter.
Besides the fact that elections are a tribal conflict, of Optimates and Vaisyas against Helots, Dhalits, and Brahmins and I'm a Brahmin who doesn't really fit well into any political bracket (if I voted according to tribal lines, I would either vote for Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich), there's a more Bayesian reason why I don't vote.
It doesn't matter. Fractally so.
Orange-blooded reactionaries know that voting does not matter because the President and Congress have no meaningful power, and you can't vote for bureaucrats. What if we're wrong? What if the President and Congress actually have power?
Well, then voting still does not matter.
Voting is normally sold as a civic duty of high importance. Based only on the description given by election ushers, an alien visiting Earth might even believe that he was chosen, alone, among all humans, to choose the bearer of an office of high importance.
If voting were that - kingmaking - it would matter. It might not be a good way to do things, but can you imagine if it was indeed your duty to choose, alone, the next bearer of such an important and high office? You might not sleep for days. You would ponder every candidate, you would endeavor to meet them, to find out everything you could about them, you would probably take your job very seriously, and if you didn't, a great many people would think less of you.
Some people treat voting this way. I once did. However, most do not. Most don't think about their vote until the impelling heat of the election storm is at its greatest. Even then, they probably go to the poll and either vote along tribal lines, or vote for whomever they liked best on TV.
Voting clearly doesn't hold much importance to people, yet you ask almost anyone about voting, and they will assure you that it's very important.
Here is a stark case of lying without confidence. These people act as if voting doesn't matter, but their convictions do not agree with their actions. How confusing modernity is! Lying without confidence is a telltale sign of a religious belief (know of any armies that truly believed God would carry the day and laid down their arms? Neither do I), and we live in a highly religious country.
I've committed a grave sin. I haven't explained my thesis yet. So, why doesn't the very act of voting matter? Well, think about the reality, not the dogma for a minute.
There are 300 million give-or-take people in the United States. 217 million of these are eligible to vote. Of these, perhaps 90 million will actually vote. So if you vote, you are .000001% of the vote. You are, in fact, such an insignificant element of the voting population, that my phone's calculator rounded you to 0. To my phone, your vote does not matter at all.
To this, many will respond "but what if the vote is very close? Then my vote would matter!"
Ignoring the fact that the electoral college is free to give the popular vote the finger if it chooses, such close votes have literally never happened. Even the closest presidential elections have depended on no less than several hundred votes.
Ah, what fun would it be to end there, though? Let's say it happens. The Closest Election Ever. It's 2044, and Justin Bieber is running against aged statesman Tom Cruise in a personality battle royale. Besides being close, this election truly matters. Bieber's platform is that broiled babies make the healthiest breakfast. Cruise's platform is that babies shouldn't be eaten, cornflakes should, as they prevent compulsive masturbation. You truly believe that masturbation is a human right; Tom Cruise is going down!
Well, it turns out the Closest Election Ever was decided in the 9th district of Kandahar, in the relatively young state of Afghanistan, not in your native district, in the US capital in Honolulu (D.C. long since having been swallowed by Maryland's expanding marshlands). The pathans there feel strongly about masturbation, and Tom Cruise wins. Tough luck, kid.
OK, fine, the election was decided in favor of Bieber in your native district in Honolulu by exactly one vote (it just so happened that all the half-votes cast by children under 13 ended up cancelling out). But, was it your vote that decided the election? The truth is that just as you have a choice to vote or not to vote, so does everyone else in the election. In the absolutely astronomically improbable event that the election comes down to one vote in your district, you are still not a kingmaker, because everyone else has that choice, too. Just as easily as you could make Bieber king, or deem him unworthy, someone else in your district could undo that by choosing to vote instead of doing something terribly important, like bathing.
Voting is easy. So why not vote? Well, let's put it a different way. What if you had a one in a billion chance of finding $10,000 lying on the ground at the courthouse if you went there today any time from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM (we're assuming here that you don't already have an important appointment there)? Would you go? You might say yes, but consider that one in a billion is a pretty low probability, and that you probably actually do have about those kind of odds of finding $10,000 dollars at the courthouse. Are you rushing out right now to the courthouse? I didn't think so.
Given this, I find it very strange indeed that my father, who would, often and loudly, declare that "gambling is a tax on people who can't do math", is a firm believer in voting as a civic duty.
This would not do. The campaigner pressed me on the issue, assuming that I had never considered voting at all. I assured them that, no, I had once been political, and yes, I'd voted (by absentee ballot no less). I was asked somewhat personal things about my life, I suppose in an attempt to pin down what sort of demographic I came from. Eventually, I disengaged the conversation, probably leaving the campaigner quite confused as to why a person well-educated on political issues would choose to take no side in the matter.
Besides the fact that elections are a tribal conflict, of Optimates and Vaisyas against Helots, Dhalits, and Brahmins and I'm a Brahmin who doesn't really fit well into any political bracket (if I voted according to tribal lines, I would either vote for Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich), there's a more Bayesian reason why I don't vote.
It doesn't matter. Fractally so.
Orange-blooded reactionaries know that voting does not matter because the President and Congress have no meaningful power, and you can't vote for bureaucrats. What if we're wrong? What if the President and Congress actually have power?
Well, then voting still does not matter.
Voting is normally sold as a civic duty of high importance. Based only on the description given by election ushers, an alien visiting Earth might even believe that he was chosen, alone, among all humans, to choose the bearer of an office of high importance.
If voting were that - kingmaking - it would matter. It might not be a good way to do things, but can you imagine if it was indeed your duty to choose, alone, the next bearer of such an important and high office? You might not sleep for days. You would ponder every candidate, you would endeavor to meet them, to find out everything you could about them, you would probably take your job very seriously, and if you didn't, a great many people would think less of you.
Some people treat voting this way. I once did. However, most do not. Most don't think about their vote until the impelling heat of the election storm is at its greatest. Even then, they probably go to the poll and either vote along tribal lines, or vote for whomever they liked best on TV.
Voting clearly doesn't hold much importance to people, yet you ask almost anyone about voting, and they will assure you that it's very important.
Here is a stark case of lying without confidence. These people act as if voting doesn't matter, but their convictions do not agree with their actions. How confusing modernity is! Lying without confidence is a telltale sign of a religious belief (know of any armies that truly believed God would carry the day and laid down their arms? Neither do I), and we live in a highly religious country.
I've committed a grave sin. I haven't explained my thesis yet. So, why doesn't the very act of voting matter? Well, think about the reality, not the dogma for a minute.
There are 300 million give-or-take people in the United States. 217 million of these are eligible to vote. Of these, perhaps 90 million will actually vote. So if you vote, you are .000001% of the vote. You are, in fact, such an insignificant element of the voting population, that my phone's calculator rounded you to 0. To my phone, your vote does not matter at all.
To this, many will respond "but what if the vote is very close? Then my vote would matter!"
Ignoring the fact that the electoral college is free to give the popular vote the finger if it chooses, such close votes have literally never happened. Even the closest presidential elections have depended on no less than several hundred votes.
Ah, what fun would it be to end there, though? Let's say it happens. The Closest Election Ever. It's 2044, and Justin Bieber is running against aged statesman Tom Cruise in a personality battle royale. Besides being close, this election truly matters. Bieber's platform is that broiled babies make the healthiest breakfast. Cruise's platform is that babies shouldn't be eaten, cornflakes should, as they prevent compulsive masturbation. You truly believe that masturbation is a human right; Tom Cruise is going down!
Well, it turns out the Closest Election Ever was decided in the 9th district of Kandahar, in the relatively young state of Afghanistan, not in your native district, in the US capital in Honolulu (D.C. long since having been swallowed by Maryland's expanding marshlands). The pathans there feel strongly about masturbation, and Tom Cruise wins. Tough luck, kid.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
OK, fine, the election was decided in favor of Bieber in your native district in Honolulu by exactly one vote (it just so happened that all the half-votes cast by children under 13 ended up cancelling out). But, was it your vote that decided the election? The truth is that just as you have a choice to vote or not to vote, so does everyone else in the election. In the absolutely astronomically improbable event that the election comes down to one vote in your district, you are still not a kingmaker, because everyone else has that choice, too. Just as easily as you could make Bieber king, or deem him unworthy, someone else in your district could undo that by choosing to vote instead of doing something terribly important, like bathing.
Voting is easy. So why not vote? Well, let's put it a different way. What if you had a one in a billion chance of finding $10,000 lying on the ground at the courthouse if you went there today any time from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM (we're assuming here that you don't already have an important appointment there)? Would you go? You might say yes, but consider that one in a billion is a pretty low probability, and that you probably actually do have about those kind of odds of finding $10,000 dollars at the courthouse. Are you rushing out right now to the courthouse? I didn't think so.
Given this, I find it very strange indeed that my father, who would, often and loudly, declare that "gambling is a tax on people who can't do math", is a firm believer in voting as a civic duty.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Absurd Notions on National Reform: So-Not-a-Terrorist Edition
Oleg points out what should be obvious: Insurgents with rifles tend to lose hard against regular infantry.
If you grew up with hunters, think about them for a moment. Wannabe insurgents often assume that they'll get to use every hunter in America as an ad-hoc soldier. Fine, we'll say that they do.
What does the average American hunter look like? He is usually older, past forty (like it or not, hunting is a tradition that's being lost in America). He probably will not be a great marksman; besides most kills not occuring beyond 50 yards, subsistence hunting is uncommon in America today. If you don't make it, you either try again with another $1 round of ammunition, or you go out for steaks afterwards. Some hunters are good marksmen, but they tend to be exception, not the rule.
The average hunter is probably not in great shape, either. Certainly not in such uniform fighting condition as regular infantry. Even if he is not obese or disabled, his ability to traverse large amounts of terrain on foot is most likely limited.
There are how many hunters in America? This NSSF estimate gives us 14 million regular hunters. The combined US armed forces number about 3 million, many - possibly a majority - in noncombat roles.
Ahah! See, we outnumber them 5 to one!
That may be, but having an effective military is more than just having a bunch of guys who can shoot rifles well. Beyond what Oleg mentions, there's artillery, air support, armor, naval power, etc. Oleg does not even mention that it's more important to have an infantryman who can keep moving quickly and for a long time than it is to have one that can shoot well. The goal of infantry is not to kill the enemy, as many wannabe insurgents believe; it is to displace the enemy. Even if America's hunters are great marksmen, how are they supposed to displace such a well-supplied, mobile, well-armored enemy?
How are the insurgents supposed to counter the heavy weapons of the US armed forces? US armor is pretty much invulnerable to the weapons available to the Usian hunter. One commenter mentions a quip by Tito about how tankers have to get out to take a leak sometime. What he fails to consider is that armor does not operate alone, that armor is equipped with smoke dischargers, that no armor platoon would be dumb enough to all go piss at once, and that tankers can hold their urine long enough to lob a few HEAT shells at rebel infantry. What about artillery? Artillery can cause huge amounts of casualties and deny whole sectors to insurgent activity without ever even seeing the enemy. Can Joe Hunter out-sneak a recce fireteam of Army Rangers scouting for artillery? I doubt it. Sure, commando raids can knock out artillery, but are Usian hunters qualified to carry out such raids? For starters, do they have any C4?
Few, if any commenters addressed the issue of how small armed insurgents are supposed to kill even light aircraft. What does the insurgency do when the military shuts down all non-approved movement of materiel and just airlifts the necessary supplies from unit to unit? You cannot shoot down a Chinook with a hunting rifle. Many wannabe insurgents assume that they will simply hit military personnel, knocking out pilots on the ground, drivers in the motor pool, etc. What about UAVs? A Reaper or Firescout loaded with APKWS is more than enough to knock out an entire unit of insurgents with rifles or a convoy of trucks carrying supplies to rebel forces, and the insurgency can't do diddly about it. Meanwhile, their pilots are sitting back, sipping coffee in a well-defended military base, far from danger. With either aircraft, the pilot does not even have to fly the aircraft; both are capable of fully autonomous flight. Far from being expensive aircraft to keep flying, both aircraft are designed primarily for endurance, and both run on lamp oil.
What is the insurgency supposed to do about the blue water Navy, which besides being perfectly capable of shutting down shipping entirely, can fire long-range cruise missiles and launch aircraft against insurgent forces from positions untouchable by the insurgency? What is the insurgency supposed to do about the Navy's latest brown water ships, purpose designed to fight low level wars like the kind they want to start?
And why would a 14 million man militia have a smaller, less vulnerable supply chain than the 3 million man combined US armed forces? Why couldn't the US military use the same supply chain disrupting tactics that wannabe insurgents claim will be their saving grace? Wouldn't those same tactics be as or more effective on an ad-hoc supply chain carried on the backs of F-150s hauling pallets of grandma's cookies than on an organized, well-defended, and in many cases airborne professional military logistics machine?
Don't worry. You're insurgency won't starve. It'll break up and everyone will go home long before then.
It's also assumed by wannabe insurgents that Usians, including those in the military, will see the nobility of their cause and rise up to aid them. How has that worked out previously? In no instances in the past 150 years did the American public rise up and join la resistance, and in many cases, the insurgents are remembered only as terrorists.
Insurgencies don't work by themselves. They need external support of another nation to succeed. Are the insurgent wannabes prepared to ally themselves with China or Russia? Hahahahah, wouldn't that be amusing?
If you grew up with hunters, think about them for a moment. Wannabe insurgents often assume that they'll get to use every hunter in America as an ad-hoc soldier. Fine, we'll say that they do.
What does the average American hunter look like? He is usually older, past forty (like it or not, hunting is a tradition that's being lost in America). He probably will not be a great marksman; besides most kills not occuring beyond 50 yards, subsistence hunting is uncommon in America today. If you don't make it, you either try again with another $1 round of ammunition, or you go out for steaks afterwards. Some hunters are good marksmen, but they tend to be exception, not the rule.
The average hunter is probably not in great shape, either. Certainly not in such uniform fighting condition as regular infantry. Even if he is not obese or disabled, his ability to traverse large amounts of terrain on foot is most likely limited.
There are how many hunters in America? This NSSF estimate gives us 14 million regular hunters. The combined US armed forces number about 3 million, many - possibly a majority - in noncombat roles.
Ahah! See, we outnumber them 5 to one!
That may be, but having an effective military is more than just having a bunch of guys who can shoot rifles well. Beyond what Oleg mentions, there's artillery, air support, armor, naval power, etc. Oleg does not even mention that it's more important to have an infantryman who can keep moving quickly and for a long time than it is to have one that can shoot well. The goal of infantry is not to kill the enemy, as many wannabe insurgents believe; it is to displace the enemy. Even if America's hunters are great marksmen, how are they supposed to displace such a well-supplied, mobile, well-armored enemy?
How are the insurgents supposed to counter the heavy weapons of the US armed forces? US armor is pretty much invulnerable to the weapons available to the Usian hunter. One commenter mentions a quip by Tito about how tankers have to get out to take a leak sometime. What he fails to consider is that armor does not operate alone, that armor is equipped with smoke dischargers, that no armor platoon would be dumb enough to all go piss at once, and that tankers can hold their urine long enough to lob a few HEAT shells at rebel infantry. What about artillery? Artillery can cause huge amounts of casualties and deny whole sectors to insurgent activity without ever even seeing the enemy. Can Joe Hunter out-sneak a recce fireteam of Army Rangers scouting for artillery? I doubt it. Sure, commando raids can knock out artillery, but are Usian hunters qualified to carry out such raids? For starters, do they have any C4?
Few, if any commenters addressed the issue of how small armed insurgents are supposed to kill even light aircraft. What does the insurgency do when the military shuts down all non-approved movement of materiel and just airlifts the necessary supplies from unit to unit? You cannot shoot down a Chinook with a hunting rifle. Many wannabe insurgents assume that they will simply hit military personnel, knocking out pilots on the ground, drivers in the motor pool, etc. What about UAVs? A Reaper or Firescout loaded with APKWS is more than enough to knock out an entire unit of insurgents with rifles or a convoy of trucks carrying supplies to rebel forces, and the insurgency can't do diddly about it. Meanwhile, their pilots are sitting back, sipping coffee in a well-defended military base, far from danger. With either aircraft, the pilot does not even have to fly the aircraft; both are capable of fully autonomous flight. Far from being expensive aircraft to keep flying, both aircraft are designed primarily for endurance, and both run on lamp oil.
What is the insurgency supposed to do about the blue water Navy, which besides being perfectly capable of shutting down shipping entirely, can fire long-range cruise missiles and launch aircraft against insurgent forces from positions untouchable by the insurgency? What is the insurgency supposed to do about the Navy's latest brown water ships, purpose designed to fight low level wars like the kind they want to start?
And why would a 14 million man militia have a smaller, less vulnerable supply chain than the 3 million man combined US armed forces? Why couldn't the US military use the same supply chain disrupting tactics that wannabe insurgents claim will be their saving grace? Wouldn't those same tactics be as or more effective on an ad-hoc supply chain carried on the backs of F-150s hauling pallets of grandma's cookies than on an organized, well-defended, and in many cases airborne professional military logistics machine?
Don't worry. You're insurgency won't starve. It'll break up and everyone will go home long before then.
It's also assumed by wannabe insurgents that Usians, including those in the military, will see the nobility of their cause and rise up to aid them. How has that worked out previously? In no instances in the past 150 years did the American public rise up and join la resistance, and in many cases, the insurgents are remembered only as terrorists.
Insurgencies don't work by themselves. They need external support of another nation to succeed. Are the insurgent wannabes prepared to ally themselves with China or Russia? Hahahahah, wouldn't that be amusing?
Friday, September 28, 2012
Slow dances with doom
What's with modern apocalypse fiction? Said a friend:
Sheesh.
"You know, everything was much better exactly one day ago," he said, on that fateful April day in 460 AD, exactly one day after the Roman Empire collapsed entirely.
Sheesh.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Liberated the fuck out of them.
Said by an acquaintance from Vladivostok:
"What I remember best about the Soviet era was that the heaters worked."
"What I remember best about the Soviet era was that the heaters worked."
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Oh, say does that artistic equivalent of baboon vomiiiiiiit stiiiiiill waaaaaave...
I'll be the first to say it: The flag of the United States is a wretched piece of artistic design.
In fact, this flag was so successful as an identification aid, that it forced the opponents of its bearers to change their insignia, so that they would avoid friendly fire incidents. In a simplified form, it's still distinctive, and easily recognizable, if a bit reminiscent of modern art.
It's busy, the colors clash, and as a 18th century IFF aid, it completely blows. From a distance, it looks like a blob of pink and blue. What, are those dirty colonial rebels or the British East India Company?
As a modern IFF aid, it's hilariously inept.
"Roger that, I cannot ID if they are friendlies or hostiles, they appear to be wearing some sort of pure green-grey insignia. Or maybe they all fell right-sleeve first into chicken poop, cannot confirm, over."
You know what's a good flag design, from both an artistic and identification perspective? This:
In fact, this flag was so successful as an identification aid, that it forced the opponents of its bearers to change their insignia, so that they would avoid friendly fire incidents. In a simplified form, it's still distinctive, and easily recognizable, if a bit reminiscent of modern art.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Occasionally, I construct axioms
Reaction is realizing that, on the official multiple choice test on good and evil, good is not in the answer bank.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
On Nerds
Your Dear Blogger has been very lazy of late. Dancers! Did I tell you to stop?
A blog I've never heard of before has a great analyses of The Big Bang Theory. In a fairly remarkable show of self-awareness by the nerd crowd, she rejects how the show portrays nerds (as something to be laughed at).
A blog I've never heard of before has a great analyses of The Big Bang Theory. In a fairly remarkable show of self-awareness by the nerd crowd, she rejects how the show portrays nerds (as something to be laughed at).
The Big Bang Theory and its British predecessor, The IT Crowd are both comedies poking fun at nerds. Sometime in the late '90s and early 2000s, the Star Wars generation turned thirty and found that, after college, they had to get a job. A great influx of the modern nerd was injected violently into mainstream society, and the NORPs have had to find some way to cope. These shows are a manifestation of that reaction.
At some point, though, someone discovered that these shows which cruelly poke fun at nerds could be marketed to nerds. Nerds are unused to exposure and fame, and so even this very negative publicity was welcomed with open arms by them. Thus, you can find a booth for The Big Bang Theory at Comic-Con.
At some point, though, someone discovered that these shows which cruelly poke fun at nerds could be marketed to nerds. Nerds are unused to exposure and fame, and so even this very negative publicity was welcomed with open arms by them. Thus, you can find a booth for The Big Bang Theory at Comic-Con.
I don't find these shows fun to watch or at all clever. They're a gas relief valve for people who have a hard time with that weird guy at the office who collects action figures. If you've never had to deal with that, or simply don't care, that humor has a decent chance to not resonate with you, and the somewhat hackneyed writing behind it doesn't have anything to hide behind.
Somewhat predictably, though, if you are the weird guy at the office who collects action figures, you stand a decent chance of selling out. Any time in the spotlight tastes as sweet as chocolate to an impoverished African child, no matter if that time is used to jeer and laugh at you. This urges no cause, spurs no activism, requires no awareness to be raised. It's just a fact of life: For the monkey, no publicity is bad publicity.
Monday, September 3, 2012
More martyrs for the cause!
It would be rad if Oleg would stop advocating the shooting of cops.
Does he really think that knocking off a few cops on a no-knock warrant with scary, high capacity drum magazines will make law enforcement and the bureauarchy as a whole more sympathetic to the idea of laxer gun regulation?
Does he really think that knocking off a few cops on a no-knock warrant with scary, high capacity drum magazines will make law enforcement and the bureauarchy as a whole more sympathetic to the idea of laxer gun regulation?
Saturday, August 4, 2012
You don't hear this one anymore...
Mister Charlie Lindbergh, he flew to old Berlin,
Got 'im a big Iron Cross, and he flew right back again
To Washington, Washington.
Misses Charlie Lindbergh, she come dressed in red,
Said: "I'd like to sleep in that pretty White House bed
In Washington, Washington."
Lindy said to Annie: "We'll get there by and by,
But we'll have to split the bed up with Wheeler, Clark, and Nye
In Washington, Washington."
Hitler wrote to Lindy, said "Do your very worst,"
Lindy started an outfit that he called America First
In Washington, Washington.
All around the country, Lindbergh, he did fly,
Gasoline was paid for by Hoover, Clark, and Nye
In Washington, Washington.
Lindy said to Hoover: "We'll do the same as France:
Make a deal with Hitler, and then we'll get our chance
In Washington, Washington."
Then they had a meetin', and all the Firsters come,
Come on a-walkin', they come on a-runnin',
In Washington, Washington.
Yonder comes Father Coughlin, wearin' the silver chain,
Cash on his stomach and Hitler on the brain.
In Washington, Washington.
Mister John L. Lewis would sit and straddle a fence,
His daughter signed with Lindbergh, and we ain't seen her since
In Washington, Washington.
Hitler said to Lindy: "Stall 'em all you can,
Gonna bomb Pearl Harbor with the help of old Japan."
In Washington, Washington.
Then on a December mornin', the bombs come from Japan,
Wake Island and Pearl Harbor, kill fifteen hundred men.
In Washington, Washington
Now Lindy tried to join the army, but they wouldn't let 'im in,
'Fraid he'd sell to Hitler a few more million men.
In Washington, Washington
So I'm a gonna tell you people: If Hitler's gonna be beat,
The common workin' people has got to take the seat
In Washington, Washington.
And I'm gonna tell you workers, 'fore you cash in your checks:
They say "America First," but they mean "America Next!"
In Washington, Washington.
"Lindbergh", by Woodie Guthrie
Got 'im a big Iron Cross, and he flew right back again
To Washington, Washington.
Misses Charlie Lindbergh, she come dressed in red,
Said: "I'd like to sleep in that pretty White House bed
In Washington, Washington."
Lindy said to Annie: "We'll get there by and by,
But we'll have to split the bed up with Wheeler, Clark, and Nye
In Washington, Washington."
Hitler wrote to Lindy, said "Do your very worst,"
Lindy started an outfit that he called America First
In Washington, Washington.
All around the country, Lindbergh, he did fly,
Gasoline was paid for by Hoover, Clark, and Nye
In Washington, Washington.
Lindy said to Hoover: "We'll do the same as France:
Make a deal with Hitler, and then we'll get our chance
In Washington, Washington."
Then they had a meetin', and all the Firsters come,
Come on a-walkin', they come on a-runnin',
In Washington, Washington.
Yonder comes Father Coughlin, wearin' the silver chain,
Cash on his stomach and Hitler on the brain.
In Washington, Washington.
Mister John L. Lewis would sit and straddle a fence,
His daughter signed with Lindbergh, and we ain't seen her since
In Washington, Washington.
Hitler said to Lindy: "Stall 'em all you can,
Gonna bomb Pearl Harbor with the help of old Japan."
In Washington, Washington.
Then on a December mornin', the bombs come from Japan,
Wake Island and Pearl Harbor, kill fifteen hundred men.
In Washington, Washington
Now Lindy tried to join the army, but they wouldn't let 'im in,
'Fraid he'd sell to Hitler a few more million men.
In Washington, Washington
So I'm a gonna tell you people: If Hitler's gonna be beat,
The common workin' people has got to take the seat
In Washington, Washington.
And I'm gonna tell you workers, 'fore you cash in your checks:
They say "America First," but they mean "America Next!"
In Washington, Washington.
"Lindbergh", by Woodie Guthrie
Friday, August 3, 2012
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
You may now defile the bride
Saving anal sex for marriage may be the funniest thing I've read on the Internet all week.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Backlog
Two posts I promised would be here the better part of a month ago never materialized, because of an acute case of total computer implosion. If I am continually breaking higher levels of technology, does that mean I am a wizard?
Anyway, there's lots of good stuff over at Foseti's, which I won't even hyperlink to, because I am lazy, and, let's be honest, if you need one, someone probably changes your bedpans. Ranging from GBFM's review of Prince Caspian to a couple good articles on how conservative policy regarding the insane... is. I'd had that particular thought marinating in the back fridge for several months, but now I'm afraid it's gone bad. Darn.
Alrenous seems to have discovered via the comments section that I'm totally evil. Well, I'm pretty sure somewhere in the archives I warned him. It wasn't anything personal, Al, you just suck at logic.
Some things will occupy this space later this week, or maybe next week, or perhaps a month from now.
Anyway, there's lots of good stuff over at Foseti's, which I won't even hyperlink to, because I am lazy, and, let's be honest, if you need one, someone probably changes your bedpans. Ranging from GBFM's review of Prince Caspian to a couple good articles on how conservative policy regarding the insane... is. I'd had that particular thought marinating in the back fridge for several months, but now I'm afraid it's gone bad. Darn.
Alrenous seems to have discovered via the comments section that I'm totally evil. Well, I'm pretty sure somewhere in the archives I warned him. It wasn't anything personal, Al, you just suck at logic.
Some things will occupy this space later this week, or maybe next week, or perhaps a month from now.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Fear Not, Madam, I'm From The Communist Internet
Who cares if it's illegal, if it furthers the Revolutionary cause?
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Oooooh, what's this do..?
I was wondering why I wasn't being emailed when someone commented on The Blog.
Well, that's fixed now. Blogger sure does a great job of burying settings in a cascade of drop-down menus.
Well, that's fixed now. Blogger sure does a great job of burying settings in a cascade of drop-down menus.
For those of you that have been commenting, you can expect a bit more attention from me in the future.
Also, I am working on two new posts which ought to be a good deal of fun. Expect them in the next week or so.
Also, I am working on two new posts which ought to be a good deal of fun. Expect them in the next week or so.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Traditional Gender Roles
I laughed hard when I saw this.
I don't see anything wrong with stories of women who rise past their traditional gender roles to fulfill those of men, any more than I see anything wrong with stories of dragons or faeries.
But at least Mulan's tie-in marketing didn't insult itself.
The only thing funnier would be a The Hunger Games tie-in Katniss toddler dolly.
I don't see anything wrong with stories of women who rise past their traditional gender roles to fulfill those of men, any more than I see anything wrong with stories of dragons or faeries.
But at least Mulan's tie-in marketing didn't insult itself.
The only thing funnier would be a The Hunger Games tie-in Katniss toddler dolly.
Pudding of Proof
The most revealing thing about Operation Fast & Furious is not that the Democrats are siding with their own (shocker!), or that the president may have been involved, but that we have a House of Representatives with a Republican majority and they can't do squat to touch the bureaucracy.
Who really rules the country?
Who really rules the country?
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
A Side of Cheese
Whine.
We already know what her opinion is. She runs a video blog called Feminist Frequency.
Hilarious parody here.
We already know what her opinion is. She runs a video blog called Feminist Frequency.
Hilarious parody here.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Renaissance II
E-l-ctr-c B--g-l--
Did you read my post and think "well, yeah, every society has their loonies; that doesn't reflect thought that anyone in their right minds would take seriously!"?
Well, how about the BBC?
Lloyd, bless his Tory heart, has pointed out that an unnamed BBC show (which I suspect is The Real Hustle) has exposed a psychic, but, so as to avoid stepping on the toes of any delicate viewers, claimed that there were, in fact, very real psychics out there in the world, and so more is the crime, because these frauds were making them look bad!
Next up, Wiccan frauds, who charge for herbal healings. Those bastards! No real Wiccan healer would charge for their services!
Did you read my post and think "well, yeah, every society has their loonies; that doesn't reflect thought that anyone in their right minds would take seriously!"?
Well, how about the BBC?
Lloyd, bless his Tory heart, has pointed out that an unnamed BBC show (which I suspect is The Real Hustle) has exposed a psychic, but, so as to avoid stepping on the toes of any delicate viewers, claimed that there were, in fact, very real psychics out there in the world, and so more is the crime, because these frauds were making them look bad!
Next up, Wiccan frauds, who charge for herbal healings. Those bastards! No real Wiccan healer would charge for their services!
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
This Blog Title Is A Rape Joke
I think a point by point will be the best way to conquer this Everest.
"I just really hate it when men treat women like objects for their amusement."
Of course, that's because the modern definition of "rape" includes shit like this. Got fucked with consent by an alpha, but have a motive to say otherwise? Rape! For example, I knew a girl in high school who'd been "almost raped". I asked her what happened, and it turned out she'd almost had sex with a guy, but chickened out at the last minute. I'm willing to bet that 99 of those hundred in four hundred women weren't raped in the "he jumped out of the bushes and tied me down" sense, but rather in the "I was drunk, and he stuck it in my ass" sense.
"I just really hate it when men treat women like objects for their amusement."
Translation: I am jealous that high status men treat my hotter friends as objects, but not me.
"I'm just interested in feminism and saddened by rape culture and misogyny."
T: My hairy-armed lesbian friends would never forgive me if I admitted that I'm turned on when my boyfriend wrestles me into doggy style.
"1 in 4 women have been raped!"
It's true. 1 in 4 women have been raped. I remember this ratio proving more or less true in high school.
Of course, that's because the modern definition of "rape" includes shit like this. Got fucked with consent by an alpha, but have a motive to say otherwise? Rape! For example, I knew a girl in high school who'd been "almost raped". I asked her what happened, and it turned out she'd almost had sex with a guy, but chickened out at the last minute. I'm willing to bet that 99 of those hundred in four hundred women weren't raped in the "he jumped out of the bushes and tied me down" sense, but rather in the "I was drunk, and he stuck it in my ass" sense.
"Kind of like how it's unfair that I get catcalled on the street even when I'm wearing jeans and a hoodie."
Sometimes, they even hold doors open for me! Those bastards!
"[If] I'm ever assaulted, the guilty party will most likely go free."
"[If] I'm ever assaulted, the guilty party will most likely go free."
Look on the bright side, if you ever cheat on your boyfriend, you always have the option to destroy a man's life instead of fessing up.
"It's not fair that I have to be terrified when I go jogging after 6PM or when I'm on the bus or going to get milk."
Yeah, and I should be able to go get burgers at 4AM in downtown Houston without fear. Life ain't perfect, kid. If you're really worried, get a Glock.
"That's rape culture when you tell me it's my responsibility not to get hurt! You take away the responsibility of a human being not to rape!"
Last time I checked, rape was illegal. It's also your responsibility to not walk in front of a train. Nevertheless, deliberately running someone over with a train is also illegal. Suggesting that you take steps to protect your own life does not imply that it's OK for someone else to do whatever they can to threaten it.
"Because it's really fucking exhausting trying to believe in a future where I'm not treated like a crazy person for believing in equality!"
You should try believing in inequality.
"Because feminists are still considered 'hysteric', 'lesbians', and 'in need of a good lay.'"
So... It's been a while, then? Tell me, does your boyfriend live in your state?
"Because girls have next to no decent role models in pop culture and are raised to hate their own bodies."
"Because girls have next to no decent role models in pop culture and are raised to hate their own bodies."
That's because they're fat. I guess Ripley wasn't good enough for you; you demand Whale Ripley.
"Because people like you tear me down in constant, ignorant ways by not even dignifying my opinions. (sic) with the mildest consideration."
Well, proper punctuation would help.
"Because you treat my interest in women's rights like a phase."
Man-chins are no phase, my dear.
"And you know what? I have had it with people who trivialize how fucking scary it is to be a girl by telling us that fighting for our rights is unattractive."
It's unattractive.
"I think it is hot as hell."
And you're not a man, so shut up.
"So fuck anyone who thinks they have the right to tell me not to care. Fuck them. I do care. I will always care."
"Great, honey, now turn over."
"I am done trying to please bullies."
T: I'm sad because alphas won't fuck me.
T: I'm sad because alphas won't fuck me.
-----------
For further lulz, see the List of Ways In Which You, Too Can Be A Rapist.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Progressive History
The Renaissance is a lie.
The oft-repeated tale that the Dark Ages were suddenly and abruptly ended by the dissemination of printed works and increased independence is, like all Progressive dogma, hogwash.
In reality, the age saw a rise in superstition, symbology, and esoteric thinking. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
18th century, perhaps, suffered a different fate. While advances in rational thinking certainly did occur during "the Enlightenment", the notion of the period as a shining bastion of rationality was almost certainly contrived by rebel scum trying to hijack the accomplishments of far better men. Indeed, the levellers had almost nothing to do with the scientists of the era at best, and at worst, they ruthlessly persecuted them.
The oft-repeated tale that the Dark Ages were suddenly and abruptly ended by the dissemination of printed works and increased independence is, like all Progressive dogma, hogwash.
In reality, the age saw a rise in superstition, symbology, and esoteric thinking. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
18th century, perhaps, suffered a different fate. While advances in rational thinking certainly did occur during "the Enlightenment", the notion of the period as a shining bastion of rationality was almost certainly contrived by rebel scum trying to hijack the accomplishments of far better men. Indeed, the levellers had almost nothing to do with the scientists of the era at best, and at worst, they ruthlessly persecuted them.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Anatomy of a Revolution
What does a hypothetical American Revolution Part II: Electric Boogaloo look like?
Libertarians will happily offer up that it looks like bunch of libertarians in fatigues with American flag lapel pins reluctantly and yet eagerly taking up small arms against teh gubments. According to libertarian dogma, this in no way marks them for precision bombings, because they are Patriots, and F-15E pilots are also Patriots, and Patriots cannot hurt Patriots through the Law of Conservation of Patriotism. America.
In reality any American revolution is born of Americans; that is, leftists. Look then not to your militias and the totally-not-a-militia-group RWVA, but rather to the Occupy scourge. Wherever there is a heavy odor of cannabis, there you will find your revolutionaries.
The urge to revolt is a childish one. It is essentially analogous to a tantrum, thrown by a dissatisfied baby. Unless met with stern discipline, it only begets further tantrums of increasing violence until the child is left rolling on the floor, screaming, kicking, punching, and incessantly insisting that you're hurting me! Your humble author does not intend hyperbole; it is simply convenient to illustrate the motor of revolutions in this way. Another method, and the reader might be inclined to sympathize with the imps, and we can't have that, can we?
Thus a revolution is born when the unwashed masses are unsatisfied, for whatever reason, however large or small. Instead of meeting this public display of dissatisfaction with a swift slap on the rump, the authorities such as they are make baby talk, cooing about how "oh yessss, you are such a poowuh babeh, yuusssss you arrrreee." The protesters will simply meet this with as much confrontation as possible, until some local group of law enforcement is forced to defend themselves.
This eventuality will serve as proof of the injustices that the levellers have been yammering on about the entire time, and will allow them to riot with confidence that they'll have the sympathies of the elite.
This will soon erupt into an all-out Iraq style self-occupation, with troops eventually being called in to do nothing but get shot at by protesters-cum-insurgents. Naturally, whenever troops are ordered to fire against the insurgents, they will be heavily vilified, but this will be so infrequent as to be rendered insignificant.
Make no mistake about US troops: they are trained to obey orders, and thus will be as willing to fire upon American citizens as they would Iraqis or Afghans. It simply won't happen to a large enough degree to quell the revolution to any appreciable degree.
Eventually, enough civil servants will see a greater promise of power within the revolutionaries than within the current structure, and will "give up", in a ploy to solidify their places within the new regime.
Once power is handed over, the revolutionaries will seize all government assets, and renounce all debt. They will then swiftly go deep into debt of their own. All "tories" (those loyal to the previous government) will flee the country, and the assets they left behind will be seized. The rich that stayed behind will be "liberated" of their assets. Infrastructure will crumble, and never be rebuilt. Food shortages will become routine, with starvation deemed a "price of liberty."
Eventually, power will coalesce around certain figures of the revolution. This will result in extremely heavy-handed government, with current officeholders exercising gross amounts of power in an attempt to suppress sympathy with potential competitors. Eventually, something resembling a stable power structure will develop, and the new government, now the old government, will fall into a lazy, Breznevian state, only motivated by a desire to expand the power of its individual members.
Sound familiar?
Libertarians will happily offer up that it looks like bunch of libertarians in fatigues with American flag lapel pins reluctantly and yet eagerly taking up small arms against teh gubments. According to libertarian dogma, this in no way marks them for precision bombings, because they are Patriots, and F-15E pilots are also Patriots, and Patriots cannot hurt Patriots through the Law of Conservation of Patriotism. America.
In reality any American revolution is born of Americans; that is, leftists. Look then not to your militias and the totally-not-a-militia-group RWVA, but rather to the Occupy scourge. Wherever there is a heavy odor of cannabis, there you will find your revolutionaries.
The urge to revolt is a childish one. It is essentially analogous to a tantrum, thrown by a dissatisfied baby. Unless met with stern discipline, it only begets further tantrums of increasing violence until the child is left rolling on the floor, screaming, kicking, punching, and incessantly insisting that you're hurting me! Your humble author does not intend hyperbole; it is simply convenient to illustrate the motor of revolutions in this way. Another method, and the reader might be inclined to sympathize with the imps, and we can't have that, can we?
Thus a revolution is born when the unwashed masses are unsatisfied, for whatever reason, however large or small. Instead of meeting this public display of dissatisfaction with a swift slap on the rump, the authorities such as they are make baby talk, cooing about how "oh yessss, you are such a poowuh babeh, yuusssss you arrrreee." The protesters will simply meet this with as much confrontation as possible, until some local group of law enforcement is forced to defend themselves.
This eventuality will serve as proof of the injustices that the levellers have been yammering on about the entire time, and will allow them to riot with confidence that they'll have the sympathies of the elite.
This will soon erupt into an all-out Iraq style self-occupation, with troops eventually being called in to do nothing but get shot at by protesters-cum-insurgents. Naturally, whenever troops are ordered to fire against the insurgents, they will be heavily vilified, but this will be so infrequent as to be rendered insignificant.
Make no mistake about US troops: they are trained to obey orders, and thus will be as willing to fire upon American citizens as they would Iraqis or Afghans. It simply won't happen to a large enough degree to quell the revolution to any appreciable degree.
Eventually, enough civil servants will see a greater promise of power within the revolutionaries than within the current structure, and will "give up", in a ploy to solidify their places within the new regime.
Once power is handed over, the revolutionaries will seize all government assets, and renounce all debt. They will then swiftly go deep into debt of their own. All "tories" (those loyal to the previous government) will flee the country, and the assets they left behind will be seized. The rich that stayed behind will be "liberated" of their assets. Infrastructure will crumble, and never be rebuilt. Food shortages will become routine, with starvation deemed a "price of liberty."
Eventually, power will coalesce around certain figures of the revolution. This will result in extremely heavy-handed government, with current officeholders exercising gross amounts of power in an attempt to suppress sympathy with potential competitors. Eventually, something resembling a stable power structure will develop, and the new government, now the old government, will fall into a lazy, Breznevian state, only motivated by a desire to expand the power of its individual members.
Sound familiar?
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Reminisce
When your Dear Blogger was much younger, he used to be a libertarian.
Yes, the ammunition-stockpiling, Ron-Paul rally-attending, "FREEDOM!"-shouting type of libertarian.
We wore our American flag pins proudly, we saw ourselves marching in the footsteps of the Founders. With every step down Independence Avenue, we thought we could feel the approving gazes of Jefferson, Washington, and Madison (Adams was nobody's favorite).
We claimed we said "revolution" with "love". We claimed we were nothing but peaceful.
But there wasn't a one of us who didn't fantasize, deep down, that he would be the one standing, against all odds, in a rubble-strewn capitol, clutching Old Glory and an M1 Carbine.
Yes, the ammunition-stockpiling, Ron-Paul rally-attending, "FREEDOM!"-shouting type of libertarian.
We wore our American flag pins proudly, we saw ourselves marching in the footsteps of the Founders. With every step down Independence Avenue, we thought we could feel the approving gazes of Jefferson, Washington, and Madison (Adams was nobody's favorite).
We claimed we said "revolution" with "love". We claimed we were nothing but peaceful.
But there wasn't a one of us who didn't fantasize, deep down, that he would be the one standing, against all odds, in a rubble-strewn capitol, clutching Old Glory and an M1 Carbine.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Friday, May 18, 2012
Revenge
Your humble blogger suggests you read the book The Count of Monte Cristo.
Among novels written in the 19th century, it is one of my all time favorites.
The greatly simplified 2002 movie is worth watching to get the jist of the novel, or if you want to reminisce about the book without spending the time to read it.
May all your vengeances be sweet.
Among novels written in the 19th century, it is one of my all time favorites.
The greatly simplified 2002 movie is worth watching to get the jist of the novel, or if you want to reminisce about the book without spending the time to read it.
May all your vengeances be sweet.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Greek Graffiti
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Delusions of Mediocrity
This is a joke, right?
Barack, may I call you Barack? Barack, you couldn't be a conceited, self-centered, abusive dictator if you personally slaughtered your entire cabinet. Why are you trying to convince everyone that you're Kim Il-sung?
This is about as convincing as that time I took a White House tour, and they told the story about it being haunted, and then two Secret Service agents came out of the Oval Office covered in sheets shouting "booooo!!!"
Barack, may I call you Barack? Barack, you couldn't be a conceited, self-centered, abusive dictator if you personally slaughtered your entire cabinet. Why are you trying to convince everyone that you're Kim Il-sung?
This is about as convincing as that time I took a White House tour, and they told the story about it being haunted, and then two Secret Service agents came out of the Oval Office covered in sheets shouting "booooo!!!"
Monday, May 14, 2012
Gangbanging Amy
Being preoccupied with classic films such as The Bridge on the River Kwai, and Henry V, your Dear Blogger had never seen the film Chasing Amy.
And now he has.
Chasing Amy is one of those great films where the stated moral of the film diametrically opposes the taught moral of the film.
Oh, be quiet, it's not like I'm spoiling Citizen Kane.
In the film, Ben Affleck falls head-over-heels puppy-dog-in-love with a chain-smoking lesbian slut. Besides being a dyke who pontificates on how lesbians can too lose their virginity (hey, fists stretch vagoos even more than cocks, dontcha know), one of the major reveals in the film is that Alyssa D'Whore had sex with multiple men at once on multiple occasions in high school.
Ladies. If you had been dicked by two guys at once on multiple occasions by the time you graduated high school, you did not "experiment", it was not "a time in your life" or "a decision you made"...
Say it with me:
You. Were. A. Slut.
Maybe there's such a thing as a recovered slut. I've never met one.
This movie so perfectly frames what actually happens when a beta puppy dates a femslut that it's not even funny. From the oblivious infatuation, to the revulsion of Alyssa when Affleck confesses his undying love, to the unacknowledged righteous rage at discovering you were dating a slut, hurriedly disguised as "shock of inexperience", to the slut defense mechanism, it has it all.
...Including a monologue about how no, totally, she's The One, man, and you let her get away! How could you! To top it off, it's delivered by the writer and director, no less!
The film ends, revealing that Affleck has quit his job writing a ludicrously successful stoner comic to spend the next year writing an apology comic that no one will buy, the last page of which looks like this.
I'll give you a moment to wipe the vomit off your monitor.
He hands the comic over to Alyssa, who bins it as soon as he's gone, and then denies any romantic connection to him to her current saggytitted, lichfaced codyke.
The irony is that the only point any rational person would take away from this film is that discovering your chainsmoking, polyamorous, lesbian, twilight-of-her-prime girlfriend is a slut, should come as absolutely no surprise, and should be met with an emergency evacuation procedure, anti-mine countermeasures, and a tactical nuclear reprisal.
To Kevin Smith... Exactly what does "in love, put the individual ahead of their actions" mean, other than "make excuses for everything your slut girlfriend does"?
And now he has.
Chasing Amy is one of those great films where the stated moral of the film diametrically opposes the taught moral of the film.
Oh, be quiet, it's not like I'm spoiling Citizen Kane.
In the film, Ben Affleck falls head-over-heels puppy-dog-in-love with a chain-smoking lesbian slut. Besides being a dyke who pontificates on how lesbians can too lose their virginity (hey, fists stretch vagoos even more than cocks, dontcha know), one of the major reveals in the film is that Alyssa D'Whore had sex with multiple men at once on multiple occasions in high school.
Ladies. If you had been dicked by two guys at once on multiple occasions by the time you graduated high school, you did not "experiment", it was not "a time in your life" or "a decision you made"...
Say it with me:
You. Were. A. Slut.
Maybe there's such a thing as a recovered slut. I've never met one.
This movie so perfectly frames what actually happens when a beta puppy dates a femslut that it's not even funny. From the oblivious infatuation, to the revulsion of Alyssa when Affleck confesses his undying love, to the unacknowledged righteous rage at discovering you were dating a slut, hurriedly disguised as "shock of inexperience", to the slut defense mechanism, it has it all.
...Including a monologue about how no, totally, she's The One, man, and you let her get away! How could you! To top it off, it's delivered by the writer and director, no less!
The film ends, revealing that Affleck has quit his job writing a ludicrously successful stoner comic to spend the next year writing an apology comic that no one will buy, the last page of which looks like this.
I'll give you a moment to wipe the vomit off your monitor.
He hands the comic over to Alyssa, who bins it as soon as he's gone, and then denies any romantic connection to him to her current saggytitted, lichfaced codyke.
The irony is that the only point any rational person would take away from this film is that discovering your chainsmoking, polyamorous, lesbian, twilight-of-her-prime girlfriend is a slut, should come as absolutely no surprise, and should be met with an emergency evacuation procedure, anti-mine countermeasures, and a tactical nuclear reprisal.
To Kevin Smith... Exactly what does "in love, put the individual ahead of their actions" mean, other than "make excuses for everything your slut girlfriend does"?
Nightmares From An Alternate Universe
Roissy has a great post on why feminists don't want a male pill. Contained therein is this video, which I just had to share.
Feminists are defending their right to cuckold. If a man can choose whether to have sex, and not have children, or to have sex, and have children, the feminist can no longer saddle him with an unwanted child born of another man. There are other components to this, but I'm focusing on cuckoldry because it's the dark, moist underbelly of the feminist temnospondyl leviathan.
Consider an alternate universe, in which men fight in political arenas to prevent technologies that might help eliminate rape, such as pepper spray, or easily concealable firearms. Why, such a world* would look positively barbaric, dystopian, like something out of a cheesy '80s science fiction movie!
Indeed, it would.
*I urge you to read the whole story, from the beginning, as it's really quite good, like the vast majority of Yudkowsky's writings. If you must skip to the relevant bit, however, simply CTRL+F "rape" after clicking the link in the main body of this blog post.
Feminists are defending their right to cuckold. If a man can choose whether to have sex, and not have children, or to have sex, and have children, the feminist can no longer saddle him with an unwanted child born of another man. There are other components to this, but I'm focusing on cuckoldry because it's the dark, moist underbelly of the feminist temnospondyl leviathan.
Consider an alternate universe, in which men fight in political arenas to prevent technologies that might help eliminate rape, such as pepper spray, or easily concealable firearms. Why, such a world* would look positively barbaric, dystopian, like something out of a cheesy '80s science fiction movie!
Indeed, it would.
*I urge you to read the whole story, from the beginning, as it's really quite good, like the vast majority of Yudkowsky's writings. If you must skip to the relevant bit, however, simply CTRL+F "rape" after clicking the link in the main body of this blog post.
STRONG INDEPENDENT BLACK WOMEN
NEED NO DIET
The reality, of course, is that black women, probably amongst all members of Progressive society, are the most entitled. They feel entitled to a man, so they don't keep themselves shapely, and they end up as an ethnic Stay-Puft mascot.
The reality, of course, is that black women, probably amongst all members of Progressive society, are the most entitled. They feel entitled to a man, so they don't keep themselves shapely, and they end up as an ethnic Stay-Puft mascot.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
The Black Snake's Dull Smoke
It is revealing that the American creation myth is so important to Progressives.
Similarly, it's important to the stunted subspecies Levellus neoconservatius, which is why you hear stupid shit like "weapons were widely outlawed in Europe until the early 1800s", which so far as I can tell, is more or less hogwash.
The title of this post is a reinterpretation of the National Anthem of The United States, substituting one of these for the rocket. Someone might get hurt!
Similarly, it's important to the stunted subspecies Levellus neoconservatius, which is why you hear stupid shit like "weapons were widely outlawed in Europe until the early 1800s", which so far as I can tell, is more or less hogwash.
The title of this post is a reinterpretation of the National Anthem of The United States, substituting one of these for the rocket. Someone might get hurt!
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
7 Blunders of The World
Too good not to share.
Living in these cities belies the tale that's told around the country; that the nation is thriving, the greatest that has ever been, and the great march forward continues.
The reality is that we're in the middle of the Slow Apocalypse, the only end no one saw coming.
Living in these cities belies the tale that's told around the country; that the nation is thriving, the greatest that has ever been, and the great march forward continues.
The reality is that we're in the middle of the Slow Apocalypse, the only end no one saw coming.
Monday, May 7, 2012
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Dinoscholus
Randall Monroe admits modern college education is broken... In song, at that.
One thing you can count on in a Progressive society; the humor will be more honest than the sermons.
One thing you can count on in a Progressive society; the humor will be more honest than the sermons.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Fauxtopia
Just because they keep telling you that you live in Utopia, doesn't make it true.
This video, linked by Foseti via GLP, is like a The Onion skit for reactionaries.
"Two separate groups of young people, intent on creating mayhem, went on rampages over the weekend."
Nowhere in the entire video is it mentioned that every last perpetrator was black. The brilliance of this strategy is that if you don't mention the race of the perpetrators to your white viewers, they assume they were white, whereas black viewers don't think nigga moments are news.
"It's not the parents' fault! garbled ...Outside the place, you don't know your child all way up 69 street!"
I would be fascinated if you'd tell me exactly who's fault it is, then, ma'am.
"This could've exploded into somebody getting hurt [if someone had intervened]."
Well, you don't have to intervene to get hurt, obviously!
Too bad it actually happened.
So the next time you're at a gun store, checking out handguns for daily carry, and the guy behind the counter, trying to sell you a $1500 1911 quips "if you need more than 8 rounds, you're doing something wrong", reply "may I see a computer with internet access? I have something to show you..."
sigh
This video, linked by Foseti via GLP, is like a The Onion skit for reactionaries.
"Two separate groups of young people, intent on creating mayhem, went on rampages over the weekend."
Nowhere in the entire video is it mentioned that every last perpetrator was black. The brilliance of this strategy is that if you don't mention the race of the perpetrators to your white viewers, they assume they were white, whereas black viewers don't think nigga moments are news.
"It's not the parents' fault! garbled ...Outside the place, you don't know your child all way up 69 street!"
I would be fascinated if you'd tell me exactly who's fault it is, then, ma'am.
"This could've exploded into somebody getting hurt [if someone had intervened]."
Well, you don't have to intervene to get hurt, obviously!
Too bad it actually happened.
So the next time you're at a gun store, checking out handguns for daily carry, and the guy behind the counter, trying to sell you a $1500 1911 quips "if you need more than 8 rounds, you're doing something wrong", reply "may I see a computer with internet access? I have something to show you..."
sigh
Appeal to Unreason
Oh noes! Science has proven that power really does corrupt absolutely! My whole blog is undone!
Err, actually, no. What the science underneath the soundbite-short sensationalist article is telling us is that dopamine levels rise when an individual comes into perceived power. Far from corrupting absolutely, these dopamine levels act as a reward for achieving power, in the same way that you get a dopamine reward for sex, exercise, or lactation. Why do humans get a dopamine reward for achieving power? Because the apes didn't were quickly sidelined/bred out/murdered by those who did.
Of course, cocaine and a number of other drugs work directly on the dopamine system, but that doesn't mean power = cocaine any more than breastfeeding = cocaine. In addition, you can't shoot up power, which is why many persons of considerable power and influence still use cocaine.
Even if power did equal cocaine, the jump from that to power corrupts absolutely requires you to believe the dogma about drugs being physical manifestations of Satan, laced with His very Evil. If you believe this drivel, why do you read my blog?
Just remember, kids, Alexander III of Macedon built a huge empire while high on power, and Frank Whittle designed the turbojet engine while high on methamphetamines.
I, of course, ripped this off of Roissy, who nominally justifies it, but appears to actually be making a point about how the current power elite is addicted to power (something that doesn't just happen, mind you) and can't be saved. He's wrong in several of the details, of course, but his overarching point seems valid.
Err, actually, no. What the science underneath the soundbite-short sensationalist article is telling us is that dopamine levels rise when an individual comes into perceived power. Far from corrupting absolutely, these dopamine levels act as a reward for achieving power, in the same way that you get a dopamine reward for sex, exercise, or lactation. Why do humans get a dopamine reward for achieving power? Because the apes didn't were quickly sidelined/bred out/murdered by those who did.
Of course, cocaine and a number of other drugs work directly on the dopamine system, but that doesn't mean power = cocaine any more than breastfeeding = cocaine. In addition, you can't shoot up power, which is why many persons of considerable power and influence still use cocaine.
Even if power did equal cocaine, the jump from that to power corrupts absolutely requires you to believe the dogma about drugs being physical manifestations of Satan, laced with His very Evil. If you believe this drivel, why do you read my blog?
Just remember, kids, Alexander III of Macedon built a huge empire while high on power, and Frank Whittle designed the turbojet engine while high on methamphetamines.
I, of course, ripped this off of Roissy, who nominally justifies it, but appears to actually be making a point about how the current power elite is addicted to power (something that doesn't just happen, mind you) and can't be saved. He's wrong in several of the details, of course, but his overarching point seems valid.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Myth as World
Describing a tiger to someone who has never seen or heard of a cat:
"They have these animals, large as the largest pony, and fierce as the fiercest bear. They will only be sated by living flesh, and will have nothing of greens or bread."
"So they are something like extremely carnivorous bears?"
"No, they are lithe and perfectly silent, able to sneak past a man without him ever knowing. Their very paws are like velvet, and each digit tipped with a deadly dromeosaur sickle-claw!"
"I see."
"But that's not all, their ears are sharp as the sharpest wolf's! Their hind legs, like an enormous hare's, able to launch their great body huge distances! Their fangs are long and wickedly sharp, like a vampire's!"
"This all sounds a bit far-fetched to me."
"And their eyes glow in the dark, and their coat is orange with black stripes!"
"OK, now I know it's bollocks..."
"They have these animals, large as the largest pony, and fierce as the fiercest bear. They will only be sated by living flesh, and will have nothing of greens or bread."
"So they are something like extremely carnivorous bears?"
"No, they are lithe and perfectly silent, able to sneak past a man without him ever knowing. Their very paws are like velvet, and each digit tipped with a deadly dromeosaur sickle-claw!"
"I see."
"But that's not all, their ears are sharp as the sharpest wolf's! Their hind legs, like an enormous hare's, able to launch their great body huge distances! Their fangs are long and wickedly sharp, like a vampire's!"
"This all sounds a bit far-fetched to me."
"And their eyes glow in the dark, and their coat is orange with black stripes!"
"OK, now I know it's bollocks..."
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Hand-Me-Down Lies
If a person communicates that they believe the world works in one fashion, when in reality, it works in another, three situations are possible. Perhaps more than three, but certainly at least these three.
The first is that they are mistaken. If a person is mistaken about reality, you would expect their actions of consequence to resemble those they would take if they truly believed in their mistake. Similarly, were you to torture them, screaming at them "tell me about how the world works!" they would never answer you that the world works in a way different than their misconception.
The second is that they are lying with confidence. If a person is lying with confidence, you would expect their actions of consequence to resemble those they would take if they did not truly believe in their lie. Were you to torture them in the same manner as the example in the previous paragraph, they would eventually, under sufficient pressure, answer you that the world works in a way different than their lie, i.e., truthfully.
The third is that they are lying without confidence. If a person is lying without confidence, you would expect their actions of consequence to resemble those they would take if they did not truly believe in their lie, same as if they were lying with confidence. However, were you to torture them in the UE-approved manner, they would never answer you in a way that contradicts their lie.
How is this possible? Lying without confidence is where a lie is generated, and then is never spoken aloud, never recognized as a lie, and thus the liar has no internal memory space dedicated to remembering that it is a lie. In the first generation, this might be called lying to yourself or burying the truth, but it has become commonplace since the 17th century or so to pass these lies down from generation to generation, like antique furniture. Thus, these terms are insufficient to describe the phenomenon in the second generation or later. A liar of this variety cannot possibly answer you with the truth, because in order to do that he must have been the architect of the lie, and granddad never passed down the blueprints. Such a lie exists via the magic of ritual. A liar-without-confidence repeats his lie as a social ritual, one which has no bearing on how his decisions of consequence are made. Decisions of no consequence, of course, are free to be used as simple decor, and may, in fact be used to support the lie.
Just don't ask him to move to a black neighborhood.
The first is that they are mistaken. If a person is mistaken about reality, you would expect their actions of consequence to resemble those they would take if they truly believed in their mistake. Similarly, were you to torture them, screaming at them "tell me about how the world works!" they would never answer you that the world works in a way different than their misconception.
The second is that they are lying with confidence. If a person is lying with confidence, you would expect their actions of consequence to resemble those they would take if they did not truly believe in their lie. Were you to torture them in the same manner as the example in the previous paragraph, they would eventually, under sufficient pressure, answer you that the world works in a way different than their lie, i.e., truthfully.
The third is that they are lying without confidence. If a person is lying without confidence, you would expect their actions of consequence to resemble those they would take if they did not truly believe in their lie, same as if they were lying with confidence. However, were you to torture them in the UE-approved manner, they would never answer you in a way that contradicts their lie.
How is this possible? Lying without confidence is where a lie is generated, and then is never spoken aloud, never recognized as a lie, and thus the liar has no internal memory space dedicated to remembering that it is a lie. In the first generation, this might be called lying to yourself or burying the truth, but it has become commonplace since the 17th century or so to pass these lies down from generation to generation, like antique furniture. Thus, these terms are insufficient to describe the phenomenon in the second generation or later. A liar of this variety cannot possibly answer you with the truth, because in order to do that he must have been the architect of the lie, and granddad never passed down the blueprints. Such a lie exists via the magic of ritual. A liar-without-confidence repeats his lie as a social ritual, one which has no bearing on how his decisions of consequence are made. Decisions of no consequence, of course, are free to be used as simple decor, and may, in fact be used to support the lie.
Just don't ask him to move to a black neighborhood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)