One brief Shannon moment
In Feb 73, Computers and Automation republished an article on NSA from Ramparts. It's an interview with a former NSA guy, who (for fucking once) seems to have been genuinely former. He's telling the interviewer facts that are NOT generally known. He's providing Shannon information. He served in Turkey and Europe around 1967, so that's his main focus.

From the intro written by Ramparts:

Taken altogether, the experience of our informant in Europe, in the Middle East, and in Indochina bears witness to the aggressive posture of the United States in the late 1960s. It is hard to see anything defensive about it. Our policy makers are well-informed by the intelligence community of the defensive nature of our antagonists' military operations. The NSA operations here described reflect the drive of a nation to control as much of the world as possible; whose leaders trust no one and are forced to spy on their closest allies in violation of treaties they initiated themselves; leaders, moreover, for whom all nations are, in the intelligence idiom, "targets", and who maintain the U.S. imperium around the world in large part through threat of actual physical annihilation.

At home, however, the favored weapon employed is ignorance rather than fear. Like NSA headquarters itself, the United States is surrounded by barriers -- barriers of ignorance that keep its citizens prisoners of the cold war. The first obstacle is formed by the myths propagated about communism and about its aggressive designs on America. The second, and dependent for its rationale on the first, is the incredible barrier of governmental secrecy that keeps the most questionable U.S. aggressive activities hidden not from our "enemies", who are the knowledgeable victims, but from the American people themselves.

Nothing has changed. Ever since 1918, we've been attacking Russia and blaming Russia for our sins.

And I'm fully guilty of joining the ignorance. You can see it clearly in this blog. From the start in 2005 until I threw away the TV in 2011, I was blaming "Soviet agents" for "subversion". This is especially egregious because I had known the truth in the '60s and early '70s. The propaganda machine broke my early EXPERIENTIAL learning and replaced it by standard neocon shit.

From the interview with the former NSA dude:

Q. The implications of what you're saying are very serious. In effect, it means that based on your knowledge there is no real "balance of terror" in the world. Theoretically, if we know where every Soviet missile installation, military aircraft and missile submarine is at any given moment, we are much closer than anyone realizes to a first-strike capacity that would cripple their ability to respond.

A. Check.

Q. All this time, the Soviets must be doing intelligence against us too. What is its scope?

A. Actually, they don't get that much. They aren't able to break our advanced computer generated scrambler system, which accounts for most of the information we transmit. They do a lot of work to determine what our radar is like, and they try to find out things by working on some of the lower level codes used by countries like Germany and the Scandinavian countries we deal with. Their SIGINT operation is run by the KGB. The key to it is that we have a ring of bases around them. They try to make up for the lack of bases by using trawlers for gathering data, but it's not the same. They're on the defensive.

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. That they're on the defensive? Well, one of the things you discover pretty early is that the whole thing of containing the communist menace for expansion is nonsense. The entire Soviet outlook of their military and their intelligence was totally different from ours. They were totally geared up for defense and to meet some kind of attack. Other than strategic capacities relating to the ultimate nuclear balance, their air capabilities are solidly built around defending themselves from penetration. They've set up the "forward" area - our term for the socalled bloc countries of eastern Europe - less as a launching pad into Europe than as a buffer zone. The only Soviet forces there are are air defense forces, security forces. Put it this way: their whole technology is not of an offensive nature, simply, don't have the kind of potential for a tactical offensive that we do.

Nothing has changed since 1918.

The big picture here is epistemology. As fucking always, the leaders on all sides know the truth. Russian leaders are more honest with their own people, letting them know that their task is defensive. US leaders keep our people in total panic, constantly creating fake "attacks" from every conceivable and inconceivable source. We believe our aggression against Russia and Muslims and Rednecks and Antivaxers is justified because those enemies are attacking us. In fact the enemies are just trying to escape from our tyranny.

THEY KNOW IT'S A HOAX BECAUSE THEY CREATED THE HOAX.

= = = = =

Footnote 1: The interview continues in the next issue, with Shannon info about Vietnam and Israel and the size of NSA's domestic and foreign facilities, but less of the big picture.

Footnote 2: I halfway remember Ramparts but didn't read it regularly in those days, and didn't keep track of it later. Did it ever join the high-status hippie crowd and converge to Deepstate? The Wikipedia article clearly says NO. Ramparts began as a left-Catholic magazine in '67 then broadened its range. It was constantly in financial trouble, never found a steady subsidizer, and finally quit in '75. Media without a patron is probably clean. Several of its writers and editors are still active. Some converged to "progressive" Deepstate, others switched to Libertarian, which is the real Deepstate now.

Labels: #WholeOfSociety, epistemology

  ¶ 1:15 AM

  Platonic houses?
I enjoy spotting the automatic assumptions made by writers of various eras. When a fact or connection is unstated, or stated oddly, it gives you a clue about what the audience KNEW without thinking.

Here's a failed tautology from an episode of Ignorant:

Which room is a dining room table found in?

The obvious answer wasn't generally true, especially for the New Yorkers who wrote the show and provided the live studio audience. Most apartments didn't have dining rooms. Many people lived in furnished hotel rooms. The better class of houses and apts had separate dining rooms. A typical Midwestern bungalow had a long living room, and the dining table was in the part of the living room near the kitchen.

A more peculiar assumption showed up in the Dick Tracy radio show, mainly aimed at kids and sponsored by Quaker Oats.

If you don't have a box of Puffed Rice in your pantry, ask Mother to get some.

Pantries were extremely rare. Only the best houses had separate pantries, and most people had never SEEN a real pantry. Yet the writers assumed that everyone had a pantry and knew what was in it.

These rooms must have been part of a shared Platonic house, an image that was mapped onto the reality of each physical house. You knew which area of the kitchen or living room was the Platonic dining room, and you knew which cabinet in the kitchen was the Platonic pantry.

= = = = =

The first generation of mass-produced FHA houses after the war often had separate dining rooms which were too small to hold a table and chairs.



You had to slither around the furniture to reach the kitchen. This generation also had a utility closet with storage cabinets (a pantry) just off the kitchen. After 15 years of hell, people wanted to implement the Platonic house, even if it was less practical than the spacious rooms of an "obsolete" bungalow. The second generation around 1955 returned to bigger multi-purpose rooms, more like the bungalow.

= = = = = =

Continuing just for fun.

Here's a house that fits the Platonic ideal perfectly, and has a couple other ideal characteristics. The kitchen has a serious pantry and a breakfast nook, the dining room is separate and large, and the bedrooms are upstairs. The floor plan is elegant, with easy passage in every direction. No bottlenecks. The house is ideal in a more important way, based on EXPERIENCE. The roof combines the best qualities of Cape Cod and Bungalow. Steep slant and warm occupied attic prevent snow from sticking, so no snow load or ice dams. Wide overhang on all sides, and deep porch, prevent both sun and rain from hitting the walls. Much cooler in summer, and no need to close windows when it rains. Also keeps water away from the foundation, decreasing the chance of flooding and termites.

One non-Platonic feature on this house was nevertheless part of the better class of house from 1890 to 1930. The ice door, pointed by the blue arrow.

The house below is a classic pure Bungalow. The ice door happens to be on the side, so the picture shows how it looked to the ice man.



The ice man had a hard job. This door was about shoulder height, so he had to put down the ice block, open the outer door, open the inner door on the icebox itself, lift the 50 lb block to shoulder height, and shove it in.

Ice delivery was a peculiar business, technically unnecessary for most of its existence. Mechanical refrigerators were well-developed in 1880. Slow adoption of electric power made household refrigerators rare until 1920, and the habit of iceboxes continued through the '40s in most places.

The lower house also has a grade entry, one of the desirable features in the '20s, which has turned out to be desirable again for partly different reasons.

Labels: epistemology

  ¶ 11:13 PM

  Fairness and Fraser
Eric Anderson at Evolution News lays down a new Fairness Doctrine for scientific discussion. He's writing as 'advice' to one specific scholar at Simon Fraser Univ in BC who is setting up a new institute; but clearly Anderson is advising more generally.

Similarly, don’t burden your lectures and presentations and published papers with unnecessary Darwin-speak. As Joe Friday would demand, “Just the facts ma’am.” You have great substance in the research you’re doing. Stick with that and focus on the actual observed evidence. In your next lecture, rather than saying, “We’re going to examine an amazing molecular machine that nature evolved,” just say, “We’re going to examine an amazing molecular machine found in nature.”

The FCC fairness doctrine forced this type of factual objectivity on radio for 40 years. It worked.

Was it possible to have political comedy without partisan teams? Certainly. The expert comedians of Ignorant did it all the time.

"How did you get to be so stupid?"

"Easy. First I went to Washington...."

Insults aimed at politicians were aimed at ALL POLITICIANS, not Republicans. This is JUST THE FACTS, since there is precisely no difference between D and R.

When the Fairness Doctrine was abolished, it opened the way for Deepstate to create Symmetrical Scapegoating. We insult the PEOPLE on the other team. We never insult ALL POLITICIANS. Therefore ALL POLITICIANS can now get away with mass murder. Therefore they do.

Incidentally, the target of Anderson's advice could also take some advice from Simon Fraser. He explored the area now occupied by BC. He named a river after his logbook-keeper who found the river, but he refused to name a river after himself because he wasn't convinced it was truly a separate river. He refused a knighthood and died poor. JUST THE FACTS.

Labels: epistemology, Trinity House

  ¶ 7:16 AM

  Random rambling on epistemology
Rehashing:

It Pays to be Ignorant was an explicit parody of "experts" who know less than we do. Couldn't happen now. It was modeled on Info Please, which had a panel of arrogant condescending NYC "experts". Ignorant had three intentional idiots, expert COMEDIANS, who found an infinite number of ways to fuck up the most obvious questions.

Nearly all of the questions were tautologous or self-answering.

How many lakes are in the five Great Lakes?

Which wild animal is on the buffalo nickel?

Can you name a President who started life as a baby?

How many two-cent stamps in a dozen?

When is a June Bride married?

And the best of all:

Can you name the four people who star in the radio program 'It Pays to be Ignorant'?

A few of the questions required real knowledge:

What causes knotholes in a piece of wood?

And a few were fake tautologies, which the listeners would know if they listened to other radio shows like Hix or MacHarrie.

Which river is shown in the painting of Washington Crossing the Delaware?

Tautology? Nope. The river is the Rhine, as you'd know if you listened to Hix.

What hill was the Battle of Bunker Hill fought on?

Tautology? Nope. It was fought on Breed's Hill, as you'd know if you listened to MacHarrie.

Were these questions meant to let the listeners feel even more knowledgeable, or were the writers unaware of the non-obvious facts? Probably the latter, but we'll never know.

Separate observation about levels of knowledge: These Vaudeville-trained comedians knew when to break out of the script and talk personally to the audience, and sometimes reminded the audience that there was a script. "Wow! How did you know that?" "I read it right here." This level-crossing disappeared in movies, and then disappeared in TV, which mainly hired movie-trained actors. In movies and TV the script is the ONLY reality. No breakouts or level-crossing allowed.

In the '90s, "reality" TV and cable "news" practiced a new form of deception. Shows are rigidly scripted but appear to be spontaneous. Rush brought this deception to radio. Previous talk shows, from the '40s to the '80s, had a few guests each day, typically local politicians or local business owners pushing their agenda or product. Rush eliminated the guests, pretending that he was totally spontaneous, "walking a tightrope". In fact the elimination made it possible to script every second of the show. Guests are unpredictable. Trump, master of "reality" TV, brought "reality" TV openly into politics. "Spontaneous" random utterances and "orders", all precisely scripted to maximize conflict and chaos and increase the wealth and power of Deepstate.

Musical sidenote: The best part of Ignorant is Nat Novick's parody on classical music. Novick was a serious classical musician and his orchestra included virtuosi in all sections, especially the flutes. His remixes or quodlibets are pure genius, flipping between various composers and modern tunes seamlessly. Unfortunately host Tom Howard felt the need to keep up a constant patter during the music. I'd love to hear Novick's work on its own without Howard's play-by-play, but so far I haven't found it online. In fact Novick isn't even mentioned online, outside of specific references to Ignorant.

Labels: Entertainment, epistemology, SES

  ¶ 11:03 PM

  Sort of missing the point
Another delicious hack shows Demon Newsom and his demonic cohort enjoying a meal INSIDE at a restaurant, cozily gathered around a table, no muzzles anywhere in sight.

The commenters are pointing out the obvious hypocrisy, but they're missing the deeper point. The point is epistemology, not ethics.

These pictures show that the demons KNOW THERE IS NO RISK. The demons KNOW THIS IS NOT AN EPIDEMIC. The demons KNOW THIS IS NOT A DANGEROUS VIRUS, if in fact it's a virus at all. The demons KNOW THAT THE WHOLE THING IS A HOAX.

If they knew this was a real disease, they would be taking real steps to avoid it for themselves, whether anyone was watching or not.

One of the commenters is tragically missing the point. "This type of thing makes it harder for those of us who are trying to convince the deniers that the risk is serious." True, but you should step back and ask a bigger question. You are blindly obeying the WORDS of your leaders. You can see with your own eyes that the leaders DON'T BELIEVE WHAT THEY'RE SAYING. So why do you believe what they're saying when they don't believe it?

I remember what pulled me away from the 9/11 hoax, which I had blindly obeyed for several years. It was a similar insight into what Bush actually knew and believed. When Bush allowed the Saudis to take over one of our ports, I realized that he was NOT FIGHTING THE ARABS OR MUSLIMS. He was allied with Saudi, not fighting Saudi. At the same time he was convincing the rest of us to take the Saudi-sponsored "terrorists" seriously. BUT: I still didn't fully switch modes until I threw away the TV in 2010. At first I just thought Bush was incompetently failing to fight the terrorists. He was making it harder for those of us who were trying to convince the Truthers that terrorism was serious.

= = = = =

One sort of halfway quasi-positive sidenote: This hack was carried loudly by a mainstream TV station, not a secretive hacker. Several mainstream stations in Calif are steadily taking the side of truth. Even the NYTimes is starting to write more truth while still trying to slant it the other way. Berenson and similar aggregators are now citing more NYTimes features instead of independent data-gathering bloggers. I don't know if this trend will continue, but it is consistent with my prediction that the media would calm down after Biden Puppet replaced Trump Puppet.

Labels: epistemology, Sucker Filter

  ¶ 11:49 PM

  Still misses
This RAND study on changes in media is refreshingly objective in some ways, but still misses the main point.

The team also found quantifiable changes in certain linguistic areas between the pre-2000 and post-2000 periods. For example, the three newspapers’ reporting before 2000 used language that was more heavily event- and context-based than it was in stories written after 2000; pre-2000 stories also contained more references to time, official titles, and positions and institutions and used more descriptive, elaborative language to provide story details. In contrast, the team found that post-2000 reporting engaged in more storytelling and emphasized interactions, personal perspective, and emotion.

Refreshingly objective: Treats Fox and CNN as equally bad. Normally an article on this subject treats CNN as the GOLD STANDARD OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH and treats Fox as Satan.

The 2000 dividing line is unsurprising. In 2000 cable networks figured out that soap operas sell more soap than news. So they turned the news into soap operas.

We found a starker contrast between broadcast news and prime-time cable presentation after 2000. Compared with news presentation on broadcast television, prime-time programming on cable outlets exhibited a dramatic and quantifiable shift toward subjective, abstract, directive, and argumentative language, with content based more on the expression of opinion than on the provision of facts.

All of this is obviously true. Nice to have it verified by a quantitative text analysis. But narrative language versus official titles is NOT the problem. Back in the '40s, radio news was strongly narrative. Bob Trout and Lowell Thomas were storytellers, not official statement quoters.

The important difference is in the content of the story, not the style. Trout was narrating things that actually happened. Modern narrators are narrating about narration, not narrating about events. They are telling us what Trump said about what Pelosi said, or more often telling us what Trump failed to say about what Pelosi said about what Pelosi thought Bernie should have said.

= = = = = START PARTIAL REPRINT:

The Washington Post reported on Sunday that Davis said in an interview that he is "no longer certain about claims he made to reporters on background and on the record in recent weeks about what Cohen knows about Trump's awareness of the Russian efforts."

99% of our "news" is ATROCIOUSLY BAD EPISTEMOLOGY. If we had actual philosophers, they would be unraveling this nonsense and pointing out its infinite bonkersness.

Since the philosophers aren't doing their JOB, let's try to do it for them. Systematize this mess.

[WaPo claims that [Davis claimed to [know that [Davis no longer knows about [his claim to [know what Cohen [knows about what Trump [knows about a [totally non-existent and thus unknowable fairy tale.]]]]]]]]]

That's EIGHT LAYERS of claims and knowledge and anti-claims and anti-knowledge, based on a delusion (RUSSIAN_MEDDLING) that anyone who ACTUALLY KNOWS THE SLIGHTEST MICROBIT OF REALITY knows to be a delusion.

There is NO ACTUAL EVENT in any of this mess.

NOTHING HAPPENED.

Which means there is NO NEWS and NO INFORMATION. All we have is a stupendous and stupefying pile of BAD PHILOSOPHY. It's a mishmash of midrash.

= = = = = END PARTIAL REPRINT.

The Rand report misses the role of the Shared Lie. Most of these "arguments" and "debates" are based on two "opposing" opinions about a FALSE FACT. We are never allowed to hear a statement of plain old reality.

Arguments about foreign policy start with the ABSOLUTE IMPERATIVE that we must destroy Venezuela or Russia or Persia or CURRENT_ENEMY. The discussion is an auction, not a debate. Each side bids up the necessary amount of violence and genocide. Nobody is allowed to ASK why we need to destroy Venezuela.

Arguments about domestic policy start with the FLAT ASSERTION that CO2 causes "climate change". The discussion is an auction. How much of civilization do we need to obliterate in order to reduce CO2 by the specified percentage? What is the appropriate percentage? Nobody is allowed to ASK whether the attribution of cause and effect is correct.

Labels: Carbon Cult, epistemology, malign misattribution, Shared Lie

  ¶ 2:08 AM

  This is called "democracy" or something
Spokane-News mentions:

Vice President Mike Pence is in town today. Many have asked about the Law Enforcement presence along I90 and in town. Extra security in place for the motorcade and also reported protesters downtown.

I was curious to see how fast the motorcade was going, so I checked SRTMC, the hub for traffic webcams, and found this:

The SRTMC will be undergoing a planned outage with our camera services on 10/02/2018 between the hours of 2:00 PM - 6:00 PM. All camera images and video playback will be unavailable during this time. Traffic events, message signs, and flow segments services will continue to operate as usual. Thank you for your understanding and we apologize for any inconvenience.

Note that the reason for the outage is classified. Peons are not allowed to know why we aren't allowed to know about why our traffic is blocked. More bad epistemology.

I presume Pence is speaking at some idiotic Party event, supporting some demon R candidate who is identical to the demon D candidate.

This is called "demoncracy". We get the privilege of total traffic blockage so idiots of one party can see their preferred idiot up close, which is somehow better than seeing him on TV. We get to "choose" between equally demonic alien monsterblobs who EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE us with equal efficiency. But we aren't allowed to know ANYTHING AT ALL.

Labels: epistemology, infinite infinite infinite infinite lunacy

  ¶ 3:15 PM

  Teleology vs epistemology again
The latest Roman "scandals" are another classic pile of BAD EPISTEMOLOGY. Everyone is arguing about who knew what when, and who didn't know about the knowing of the not knowing of the claiming to know about the etc etc.....

Simple fact: Priests have been doing what priests do for a LONG TIME, and the PURPOSE of a priest has been KNOWN by EVERYONE for a LONG TIME.

Back in the '60s I knew people who were in "relationships" with priests. It didn't seem secret or dramatic or traumatic, it was just the way things work in the Church. If the situation was so perfectly obvious to a total outsider who never went to church, it must have been vastly more obvious to people who spent part of every day at Mass.

When you KNOW HOW THINGS WORK you can't get bogged down in epistemology. When you understand the PURPOSE of things, you won't bother to argue about a shared delusion.

= = = = =

Note on my own biases: Until a year ago I was more tolerant of Rome. I went along with the notion that the Sorosian demons currently leading the Church were not typical. After reading Henry Lea's 1877 history of the Inquisition, my tolerance disappeared. Lea's documentation was solid and extensive. This particular vice is mentioned, but only as one segment of the overall depravity. Rome's PURPOSE has always been to acquire infinite wealth and power by enslaving and impoverishing and ruining ordinary people. Prosperity Gospel all the way down. Insatiables exterminating Deplorables for 1500 years.

Labels: #DeplorableLivesMatter, epistemology

  ¶ 12:07 AM

  Where are the goddamn PHILOSOPHERS?
Via ZH as usual:

The Washington Post reported on Sunday that Davis said in an interview that he is "no longer certain about claims he made to reporters on background and on the record in recent weeks about what Cohen knows about Trump's awareness of the Russian efforts."

99% of our "news" is ATROCIOUSLY BAD EPISTEMOLOGY. If we had actual philosophers, they would be unraveling this nonsense and pointing out its infinite bonkersness.

Since the philosophers aren't doing their JOB, let's try to do it for them. Systematize this mess.

[WaPo claims that [Davis claimed to [know that [Davis no longer knows about [his claim to [know what Cohen [knows about what Trump [knows about a [totally non-existent and thus unknowable fairy tale.]]]]]]]]]

That's EIGHT LAYERS of claims and knowledge and anti-claims and anti-knowledge, based on a delusion (RUSSIAN_MEDDLING) that anyone who ACTUALLY KNOWS THE SLIGHTEST MICROBIT OF REALITY knows to be a delusion.

There is NO ACTUAL EVENT in any of this mess.

NOTHING HAPPENED.

Which means there is NO NEWS and NO INFORMATION. All we have is a stupendous and stupefying pile of BAD PHILOSOPHY. It's a mishmash of midrash.

What are the professional philosophers doing? According to this article on current trends in philosophy, they're philosophizing about the comparative value of current trends in philosophy. They're disputing whether professionalization of professional philosophers is a good thing, disputing whether Analytic Philosophers are better than Continental Philosophers.

Pissing contest. Swift's Bigendians vs Littlendians, still running 200 years later. Totally useless waste of money and academic office space.

= = = = =

Counternote: It appears that a few philosophers have been trying to systematize knowledge and claims, but they're not USING their symbols and systems for any ACTUAL PURPOSE. Mainly they're pissing on each other.

= = = = =

Literary note: I read Gulliver when I was a kid, and I didn't understand most of the references. I hadn't really thought about the Bigendian stuff since then. Now that I've been cooking and eating eggs for 50 years, I know that you can't break an egg at EITHER end. You aim the spatula at the middle. Did Swift know this? Was this the point of emphasizing the ends? Hard to tell. I doubt that he ever did any cooking; he would have relied on domestic staff. Before plumbing and refrigeration, cooking was strictly a full-time job. Now I can step into the kitchen, grab ingredients from the fridge, slap them together in a pan, eat the result, then return to my regular work 30 minutes later.

Labels: epistemology, From rights to duties

  ¶ 12:17 AM

  Being
The arrest of Awan, a REAL DNC HACKER from PAKISTAN, provides a perfect shibboleth dividing real news from fake news. The Wikileaks circle of real news covers the arrest in proper journalistic order, while the fake news, both national and "local", continues to cover the totally false and fictional lunatic soap opera of RUSSIANHACKING. What did Manafort know and when did he know it? What did Donald Junior know and when did he stop knowing it? What did Mattis fail to know and unwhen didn't he not fail to unknow it? Why didn't Flynn fail to not condemn Manafort for Manafort's nonmeeting with nobody at no uncertain unlocation?

How can you tell the difference between real news and fake news? Easy.

Real news is facts. Things that HAPPENED.

Fake news is bad philosophy. Convoluted epistemology. Talking about talking about knowing about not talking about not not knowing about not talking about talking about not not not not talking about knowing.

= = = = =

One of the Wikileaks circle published a document from the DNC dump showing Awan interacting with Wasserman-Schultz. I was more impressed by another part of the document. It explains fully why politicians are crazy beyond crazy.

Re: DWS MOVEMENTS - 5/12/2016

UPDATED: 4:46PM ET 4:30 PM - 5:00 PM LEADER PELOSI MEETING - APPROPRIATIONS CARDINALS STRATEGY BRIEFING RE: DEFENSE APPROPS -- H-203 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM AMY TO DRIVE DWS TO DNC 5:15 PM - 5:30 PM COMMS BUFFER 5:30 PM - 6:00 PM DNC COMMS - LIVE RADIO INTERVIEW, COSTA REPORTS WITH REBECCA ACOSTA -- Chair's Office, TBD to connect: TBD 6:00 PM - 6:10 PM AMY TO DRIVE DWS TO ANDREW MELLON AUDITORIUM (8 MINUTES) 6:01 PM - 6:10 PM FL23 IMRPOMPTU CALL - MICHAEL FREEDLAND -- DWS to call: 954-830-0123 6:10 PM - 6:45 PM FL23 DROP BY - CELEBRATION OF ISRAEL'S 68TH INDEPENDENCE DAY WITH AMB. RON DERMER (6:00PM-8:00PM) -- Andrew W Mellon Auditorium, 1301 Constitution Avenue Northwest, Washington, DC 20240 6:45 PM - 7:00 PM GEOFF TO DRIVE DWS TO WILLIE'S 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM AMY KROLL BRIDAL SHOWER / FAREWELL PARTY (7:00PM-9:00PM) -- Willie's Brew & Que, 300 Tingey St SE, Washington, DC 20003 9:00 PM - 9:10 PM GEOFF TO DRIVE DWS TO DCA 9:10 PM - 9:30 PM PACKING TIME 9:30 PM - 9:45 PM GEOFF TO DRIVE DWS TO DCA 9:45 PM - 10:15 PM DWS/GEOFF TO PICK UP SHELBY SCHULTZ FROM DCA 10:15 PM - 10:30 PM GEOFF TO DRIVE DWS/SHELBY SCHULTZ HOME 10:30 PM - 11:00 PM CALL - NIGHTLY CHECK-IN WITH TRACIE

This is six hours of DWS MOVEMENTS. The title itself explains everything. DWS is not making anything. DWS is not even making DECISIONS, supposedly the job of an executive.

DWS is just MOVING. Or more precisely DWS is being carted around to 12 different places in 6 hours. DWS is a robot, making preprogrammed IMPROMPTU appearances in a dozen places so the appropriate people can be seen with the robot.

Who is making the decisions? Obviously the staff who program the robot and schedule the limos and caterers and halls and so on.

In all of this MOVEMENT nobody ever decides on meaningful actions. The only decisions are who gets to BE with the DWS robot and who doesn't get to BE with the DWS robot.

This is even stupider than the bad epistemology of fake news. This is corrupt ontology.

The third leg of philosophy is COMPLETELY MISSING. There's no TELEOLOGY at all. No PURPOSE. Nobody ever steps back and asks WHY it's necessary to have all of these preprogrammed robots driving and flying around 24 hours a day and BEING in various places.

= = = = =

Irrelevant sidenote: How does this compare with my own non-BEING life? DWS was in 12 different places in 6 hours, which is apparently a typical rate of BEING for DWS.

How long does it take me to BE inside 12 different buildings? In the last 12 months, which were unusually active because of last September's surgery, I can count 9 different buildings. Home, two different Safeways, WalMart, hardware store, dentist, regular doctor, surgeon, hospital for surgery. My normal pattern is 7 locations per year, equivalent to 1/6 day of DWS BEING.

So DWS bes 1877 times faster than I be.

Well, that isn't really the proper comparison. More appropriately, my typical day includes two buildings: home and a store. Safeway or WalMart or hardware. By this method DWS bes 18 times faster than I be, not 1877.

Did I ever approach the DWS be-rate? Back in the '80s when I was working 1.5 jobs and eating in restaurants, my typical day included about 10 buildings. That's getting closer.

Labels: epistemology

  ¶ 12:22 AM

  Auerbach and epistemology
From an article by Auerbach, pointed by Assange....

The underculture is the heterogeneous set of local, non-elite, non-corporate institutions and social groupings that went unnoticed before the dawn of social media, which allowed its members to network nationally and globally on a scale that had never before been realized, producing a number of echo chambers that were not moderated by elite influence. The underculture exists in rural America, as well as in non-elite, mostly non-white areas of cities and suburbs. It is not an economic divide per se, but a cultural one. Some of its groups are still invisible online, but the internet has enabled some groups of the underculture to speak loudly enough to be heard nationally.

If you went on 4chan in 2016, you were part of the underculture. If you read about 4chan in the news and believed what you read, you were part of the overculture.

The last sentence is wonderfully terse and precise.

I noticed this when I unplugged the TV in 2010. Before unplug, I'd been part of the overculture. I was hearing and reading bad stuff about "Islam", and I believed it, EVEN though I'd previously known several Persians and acquired a more balanced picture of Islam. My own direct experience was SHORTED OUT by the overculture injection. After unplug, experience floated back to the surface and I started reading more accurate info.

The Auerbach Rule applies to anything uncool. A physical occupation, an unfashionable activity, a real non-gated neighborhood, a real Natural Law religion, real direct-observation science, a jail, an "enemy" country. If you had direct experience of X you were part of the underculture. If you read about X in the mainstream media and believed what you read, you were part of the overculture. In some cases the overculture info about X is far more positive than reality; in others it's far more negative. It's always wrong.

We have an extreme problem with epistemology. The overculture has exactly zero knowledge of the real universe. Everything the overculture "knows" is either diametrically wrong or bizarrely delusional.

Labels: #DeplorableLivesMatter, epistemology

  ¶ 3:54 PM

  Still fussing about Snowden
I keep returning (pointlessly!) to the Snowden story. All of his actions smell like Agent Provocateur or False Flag, but I can't pin it down, can't convince myself either way, can't scratch the itch. That's part of the pattern, of course.

Every time he surfaces in public I ask: Is this what NSA would want, or is this undesirable to NSA? So far the answers have always been on the NSA-wants side.

Overall his "revelations" were not new. That's exactly what intel agencies do when they feel pressure to say something. Provide facts that are true but known. Provide zero Shannon information. Good old epistemology again.

His recent demo of modifying an iPhone to "resist detection" was guaranteed to increase NSA attention on anyone who tries it.

Now there's an article in Vice, written for Snowden if not by Snowden, detailing his supposed efforts to blow the whistle through proper channels. He was allegedly bothered by the fact that NSA is doing its job. NSA's job is to monitor everything physically available. Anyone who had reached his level of security clearance and employment would understand this job. By focusing the reader's attention on mysterious abstract fictions called "laws" and "regulations", the Vice article encourages readers to spend their energies on changing or enforcing nonexistent concepts. Good old ontology again.

There's no way to completely escape a highly competent monitoring agency, but there are classic ways to limit its connections. Don't be interesting, don't own or use smartphones or web-connected appliances, don't talk through public channels.

Snowden's recent efforts directly counteract those classic cautions. He wants us to use our iPhones in a way that attracts maximum attention, and he wants us to focus on a completely futile task instead of controlling our footprint.

Labels: epistemology

  ¶ 4:18 AM

  We need philosophackers.
Seriously random thought.

The Deep State has taken control of epistemology and ontology and logic. All of those TOOLS of philosophy are no longer available to ordinary people.

When the UK state says that the number of Dreamers is unknown and unknowable, the state has usurped epistemology. You are not permitted to say that the Dreamers CAN BE COUNTED.

When the US "government" says that a Trans Thing can exist any time the Trans Thing declares that it exists, the state has usurped ontology. You are not permitted to say that this Trans Thing does not exist and CANNOT PHYSICALLY EXIST.

When every "government" says that Carbon causes the current phase of unusual weather, but Carbon did not cause the previous similar phases 33 years ago and 66 years ago and 99 years ago and so on, all governments have usurped logic and math. You are not permitted to say that the obvious leading variable, the earth's magnetosphere, is the leading variable. You are required to believe that Evil KKKarbon, one of the results, is the cause.



I've hit these points often. It's no longer enough to just mention them. We need philosophackers. Underground workers who will use all physically possible methods to fuck up and break up the state's control of PROPER THINKING.

Labels: epistemology, Metrology, STRONG!, switchover

  ¶ 12:53 AM

  Where are the philosophers?
Polistra asked this question before in a broader context. Time to ask it again in a highly specific case.

The Guidance is a violation of all laws of truth and logic and morality at all levels. At the deepest level it's a violation of epistemology.

How do we know things? By examining them and applying our experience. Some complicated things require more instrumentation like voltmeters or microscopes; at that point epistemology morphs into metrology, but it's the same process. Our experience, our pattern recognition abilities, our language, turn the raw perception into a statement or assertion.

Let's take a schoolgirl trying to pee in a school restroom. Suddenly the stall door pops open and a teenage boy appears.

Normal observation: This is a boy, and he wants to do bad things. Normal statement or assertion: I need to get the hell out of here and scream for help.

This observation is now EXPLICITLY FORBIDDEN BY THE GUIDANCE. The girl doesn't know if the thing facing her has declared itself to be a Trans thing or not. If the thing has stated verbally that it is a Trans Thing, its presence in the restroom is UNPUNISHABLE and her attempt to complain about the thing's presence is ILLEGAL. What's more, the girl is NOT ALLOWED TO ASK ANYONE whether the thing is a boy or a girl or a Trans or a XRY6ON9HF. All channels of observation and knowledge are OFFICIALLY CLOSED.



Where have all the philosophers gone? Gone to COOLNESS every one. They know one thing firmly from their own observation and experience: Truth doesn't get grants. Only absolute rigid adherence to Party Doctrine gets grants.

Labels: defensible spaces, epistemology, Metrology

  ¶ 1:47 AM

  Like the old song
"News" item:

"Trump is taking heat from both sides of the aisle for declining to correct an audience member who stated incorrectly that Obama is Muslim."

First, simple logic. Epistemology. We DO NOT KNOW anyone's religion. By most evidence, Obama has no religion at all; the fact that he made it to the Presidency is evidence that his only firm belief is a love of power. You don't reach that office intentionally unless your sole purpose in life is raw power. Regardless of evidence, you CANNOT say that the assertion "Obama is Muslim" is INCORRECT, and you CANNOT say that it is CORRECT either. Religion is UNKNOWABLE.

More broadly, any politician's STATEMENTS about his own belief are nonsense. For instance, Bitchboy Boehner claims to be "pro-life" while actually taking bribes from Planned Parenthood.

Second, the question of DO vs TALK. Trump is mainly TALKING ABOUT ACTION. He views the job of an executive as solving problems. He names problems and says what he will DO about the problems. Some of what he proposes to DO is workable, some probably isn't; but he is ABSOLUTELY UNIQUE in TALKING ABOUT ACTION.

All other politicians are talking about talk, or talking about talking about talk.

What "both sides of the aisle" want here is even crazier. They are TALKING ABOUT STOPPING TALK. They are insisting that the proper job of a President is CENSORSHIP.

This belief is perfectly understandable for the media demons. Their entire job is censorship and inquisition. Their sole purpose in life is to silence heresy and torture heretics. No other purpose is comprehensible within their alien calvariums.

This belief is inexcusable from other politicians. They should be solving problems. Instead they are only silencing heresy.

Sort of like the old song.

Where have all the epistemologists gone, long time passing?
Gone to inquisitors every one.


Well, that didn't work. And the reality isn't working either.

Labels: 20th century Dark Age, Danbo, epistemology

  ¶ 3:28 PM

  Ontology
Ontology is an area of philosophy that I normally ignore. I'm somewhat interested in the uses and misuses of epistemology (how we know things) and lately I'm ALL about teleology (purpose); but the subject of 'existence' doesn't seem to deserve a lot of thought.

Still, sometimes it has to be noticed, especially when it's misused.

= = = = =

(1) The long list of "gender types" that I copy/pasted in previous item is ontologically remarkable. All 56 of those bizarre lexical variants describe something that DOES NOT EXIST. There is simply no such thing as a mixed-gender person, and there is no way to "change your gender".

Of course people are wildly different in physique and temperament. Some males are comparatively soft and hairless; some females are comparatively strong and hairy. And there are a few dozen true hermaphrodites, born with both sets of equipment. But these 56 terms do not include those super-rare true hermaphrodites. All describe people who believe that they are "mixed-gender" in some fashion. The belief is false. These delusional people are either plain old male or plain old female.

Some people believe that they have "changed their gender" when they change their name and alter some features surgically. Nope. The only way to "change your gender" is to take a trip in a time machine, back to the moment when one sperm chose to poke its head into the egg that would become you. Then you would need to become microscopic and walk into your mother's womb and pick a different sperm with a different set of sex chromosomes, and then you would somehow persuade this other sperm to poke its head into your mother's egg.

Problem: This replacement process would wipe out your own existence. Someone else would have been born instead of you, so you would never have existed in the first place and you wouldn't have been able to gain a delusion about changing your gender and you wouldn't have needed to rent the time machine which doesn't exist anyway.

= = = = =

(2) Groundhog Day in Iraq. The army of the "nation" of Iraq is melting away in the face of Islamic opposition, which looks set to take the whole place. Didn't this happen before? Yes, twice. The army of the "nation" of Iraq melted away in the face of our unprovoked attacks both times. But didn't we train and equip them? Didn't we "nation-build" the "nation" of Iraq after our two unprovoked attacks? Yes. Well then, what the fuck is wrong?

Simple. The soldiers belonging to the "nation" of Iraq don't feel like defending the "nation" of Iraq because the "nation" of Iraq does not exist. The "nation" was a semantic category falsely imposed on pieces of four real nations in 1920, just as all of those trans-cis-bi categories are falsely imposed on two real genders.

= = = = =

Important difference between (1) and (2). In the wacked-out West, we are asserting nonexistent superloony hyperdelusions more and more strongly. We are in a wild positive-feedback loop of exponentially exploding psychosis. In the Middle East, nonexistent categories imposed by the insane West are being eliminated, and natural ethnic boundaries are returning. The process is messy and deadly, but it would finish much more quickly if the wacked-out genocidal superpsychotic West would stop pouring money and weapons into various factions to keep the nonexistent insane entities in place.

= = = = =

Later update: Looks like someone tried to de-birth and re-birth himself without a time machine!

Labels: epistemology

  ¶ 8:23 AM

  Wrong question
As the histrionics about NSA spying continue, the important question remains untouched.

Tech types have been aware for decades that NSA monitors everything. Everything means everything. Every fucking thing. Not everything legally permissible. Don't be silly. NSA doesn't use laws. Just everything.

Every electron, photon, wave and molecule that moves information from one place to another is susceptible to NSA. They may not succeed in catching everything, and they don't have the time or manpower to decipher or analyze everything, but they are making a thorough and exhaustive effort to catch everything.

This is parallel to the idiocy surrounding human genetics. We have an endless series of "studies" claiming to indicate that some particular skill or tendency is innate or learned. None of these "studies" are needed, and most are flat wrong. The separated twins studies back in the '50s already gave us all the info we need. Every human taste, talent and tendency is partly innate. Every single one, from strong legs to weak math skills to preferring red-haired females with slightly crossed eyes to hating clocks that represent 4 as IIII instead of IV. No need to "study" tiny pieces of a broad and simple fact that has already been determined.

In both cases the MEANINGFUL question is elsewhere.

With genetics, the MEANINGFUL question is how we USE these tastes and talents to maintain a strong civilization. We can deal with destructive tendencies or deficient skills more effectively and efficiently if we understand DEEPLY AND FIRMLY that they are mainly innate. We shouldn't waste time on "education" that can't possibly educate. We shouldn't waste time on "punishment" that can't possibly punish.

With spying, the MEANINGFUL question is how government USES its unlimited knowledge. Does it use the information to catch terrorists? No. Does it use the information to help citizens? No. (Quick example: the Romneycare website wouldn't have any problems if it could pick up the NSA's data stream. You wouldn't need to enter any facts about your life or health or income.) Does it use the information to assist local police in catching criminals? Obviously not. Local police are still on their own.

Strikes me that we can learn from the old video of a Brazilian pianist that UK Telegraph has been mysteriously presenting this week. After realizing that the orchestra is not playing the same concerto she had prepared to play, she goes through all sorts of dramatics and hysterics..... then at the moment where the piano enters, her HANDS know exactly what to do. Her HANDS hit the keyboard and proceed through a flawless performance because her HANDS were not participating in the weeping and gnashing of teeth.



Stop the histrionics. Don't worry about facts and epistemology. Just let your HANDS do what they're ready to do. You might be surprised.

Labels: epistemology, Experiential education

  ¶ 3:45 AM

  Potentially Explosive Schrödinger
Epistemology is one of the power structure's best tyranny tools. Schrödinger owns us.

Local example:

Spokane Police Department's Explosive Disposal Unit responded to a hazardous substance at a residence.... Authorities said a woman was cleaning out a home's garage when she found a container of a hazardous substance that had been in the home for years. The EDU processed the substance and sent in a robot to retrieve it. No word yet on what kind of substance it is but officials said it is "potentially explosive."

Nearby homes were evacuated for the residents safety.

Whatever the horrible stuff was ... (Isn't water "potentially explosive"? Lots of people are killed by exploding water heaters and pressure cookers) ... it was doing nothing for years. It would have continued to do nothing for many more years. The neighborhood didn't need to be evacuated during all those years when nothing happened. As soon as the authorities knew it existed, they were required to evacuate the neighborhood.

I'm not blaming the local authorities. Their actions are rational considering the power of epistemology in lawsuits and media "investigations" and federal "investigations". No executive wants to face the absolutely nonsensical but potentially explosive question "What did you know and when did you know it?"

There are two good defense weapons against tyrannical epistemology.

One is holding onto your own knowledge and memories. Don't let the principalities and powers delete history or create false facts or false numbers. This can be very hard unless you're keeping some kind of written record. Without writing, the mind is entirely too easy to flip.

The other is sharing of info. Leakers like Snowden and Manning, and the still anonymous Mr FOIA of Climategate, are the most serious enemies of tyranny. When everyone knows what the government knows, the government can't play its usual extortionate games. Blackmail only works with a secret.

Labels: epistemology

  ¶ 4:25 AM

  The Niger scandal


The country of Niger doesn't need epistemology. It needs regime change.

Here's a good set of stories on recent events there. Essentially, the NGOs and aid agencies are trying hard, but the local government is too stupid to go along with them.

It has lots of uranium, which is what started the "other" scandal, and farmland which produces plentifully in good years. If those resources could be used intelligently, Niger could be a moderately successful country.

Can we spell "colonialism"?

At some point Africa will have to cast off Soviet-era propaganda and decide which is more important: full and corrupt independence, or survival. Hopefully soon.

-----

Later: Could be a secondary advantage. For the last few decades, France has been acting like a non-custodial father: driving recklessly, shooting up the saloon. Possibly he would behave better if he got custody of his African 'offspring' again.
(I'm reminded of the old joke, "What happens when you play a country's record backwards?") He might also be able to send some of his Mohammedans back to the colonies, where they could help rebuild those places instead of causing trouble at home.

Labels: epistemology

  ¶ 10:17 PM