Turley shows his true colors
I keep up with Turley's commentaries because he has good connections and catches new developments on the populist front before other media. Unfortunately he isn't a real Populist. He doesn't have the excuse of ignorance or misunderstanding, because his definitions are academic and ACCURATE. He knows plenty about the history of globalism vs localism, and tells it properly.

Despite that, he defends Trump as a populist while actually defending Trump's standard NYC Repooflican actions. This is an intentional distortion of meaning and logic.

In the latest piece Turley bashes Michael Weiner alias Savage for telling the truth about faker Trump. I've never been sure about Weiner's real position, but that's irrelevant. Weiner's public output has been consistent and strong on this subject for decades, always defending the working class regardless of party, always seeing through the fakes regardless of party. If it's a shtick, it's a mighty deep shtick.

In fact Trump has broken nearly ALL of his scampaign promises. One complete exception is Persia. Trump made it clear that he would obey Israel and make war against Persia, and he is doing it. One partial exception is the tariffs against China, which are mostly proper and starting to give proper results. The other tariffs are evil blockades and sanctions with no economic justification.

Aside from the partial tariff exception, Trump's real actions are standard NYC Repooflican. Zero interest, zero tax, zero borders, infinite debt, infinite war, infinite Dow.

Turley claims that Trump "built the wall". Flat lie. Trump has opened the border wider than Obama did, and hasn't even started on the wall.

Labels: Shared Lie

  ¶ 11:43 PM

  Meanwhile......
By contrast, in the PURPOSELESS part of the world:



This is what happens when you SNATCH AWAY the PURPOSE of people who were formerly USEFUL.
  ¶ 12:03 AM

  Good medicine
A story featured on ZH that gets EVERYTHING right.

Life is PURPOSE. People are made to be USEFUL.

At the end the author throws in "Good things happen to good people", which is one of those stupid cliches like "God won't give you anything you can't handle". In fact good things mostly happen to attractive people. But aside from the last line, the story is GOOD MEDICINE.

Even the ZH commenters got the point and liked it!

Labels: infinite GOOD

  ¶ 11:51 PM

  Brief thought
Been scrambling to meet a courseware deadline this week.

Just one convective thought:

Some foreign leaders understand that Trump is a fake created by Deepstate. Some don't. Putin understands and says it implicitly if not quite openly.

Salvini doesn't seem to understand. He calls himself the Italian equivalent of Trump. Terrible comparison. Salvini is straightforward. His purpose is clear and his actions follow the purpose, with occasional necessary sidetracks and compromises to get things done.

Why would an honest worker compare himself to a faker?

It's like Caravaggio calling himself the Italian equivalent of Andy Warhol, or Caruso calling himself the Italian equivalent of the Monkees.

Labels: Bemusement

  ¶ 3:22 PM

  Not likely to work
I've tried to avoid** reading or listening to Jordan Peterson, except for the snippets in various reviews. He seems to be heading in the right direction in many ways, but I'm not sure of his motivations. Finally listened to a few minutes of an interview where he describes the new Twitter-like alternative, which is definitely a good idea in theory.

Still not impressed. He doesn't seem to understand how BIG this alternative must be. When you're up against the entire universe of money, and the entire universe is a branch of CIA and NSA, you need a BIG army of lawyers and investors and counter-intel operators and sleazy private detectives. Otherwise the entire universe will squash you in an instant.

Also, after listening to Peterson I'm even more suspicious of his motives. His views are mostly the usual "social" "science" bigotries. He smells like an Agent Provocateur, and his new forum smells like a cult. Or maybe it's just a "social" "science" research project, gathering data on a specific group of subjects. Can't prove it, but my olfactory nerves for APs have always been pretty accurate.

Connecting to previous item, EARLY apprenticeships are the real solution to the problem Peterson claims to address. If unlovable men spend adolescence acquiring the discipline and PRIDE of productive work, their life path will be entirely different. They still won't be lovable, but they will have a SHIELD against the insinuations and idiocies and bullies of an infinitely busted genocidal anticulture, and they will have a head start on an independent and confident career.

= = = = =

** For clarity: I always try to avoid reading or examining the work of 'parallel' people. I don't want my own courseware or thinking to be pulled or pushed by similar work or thoughts. In the pull direction I want to avoid unintentional plagiarism; in the push direction I don't want to steer away from a valid idea through fear of unintentional plagiarism. My work should follow directly from my own observations as much as possible.

Labels: Make or break

  ¶ 6:13 AM

  Celebrating the right things
AMLO celebrates apprenticeship. He says Mexico currently has 580K apprentices, and hopes to double the number by next year.

How many apprentices are currently working in USA STRONG? According to the Hechinger report, about 500K now. Obama pretended that he wanted to increase to 750K but didn't do it.

Since Mexico's population is half of USA STRONG's population, Mexico is doing twice as well in this department.

Meanwhile, we're still shaping all of our educational incentives to Harvard PhDs.

Most Euro countries beat both Mexico and USA all to hell in apprenticeship and all aspects of REAL-LIFE TRAINING.

Labels: Experiential education

  ¶ 8:18 AM

  When you serve.....
Watching one of AMLO's events where he introduces his pension system to a town or county. Thinking as usual about Mexico's strong culture, and AMLO's well-earned confidence. When you serve the people, the people support you.

A nice little symbol of a secure culture and a secure leader:



Can you imagine the Secret Service allowing that belt buckle anywhere on the planet, let alone next to the president????

I looked at the transcript to see if this fellow was identified, but I couldn't really tell which of the names was his. As it happens, AMLO's speech was making the same point.

There is no longer a Presidential Security Staff.

Do you know how many security guards cared for the president of Mexico?

Eight thousand soldiers. Not even Trump is cared for by eight thousand soldiers. That elite body has disappeared and now these soldiers have become part of the Secretariat of Defense to take care of the people. The president is taken care of by the people. He who fights for justice has nothing to fear.

I hope and pray that he's right.

As for "not even Trump", he's just barely correct on that number, but Trump is getting ready to blow through it:

President Donald Trump's fiscal 2020 budget proposal seeks $2.3 billion to fund the U.S. Secret Service, an increase of 7 percent over the estimated spending for 2019 and some 15 percent above actual spending for 2018.

The budget summary issued by the White House last week says it seeks to hire 177 additional special agents, officers, and professional staff for the agency. But the budget detail released this week says that overall Secret Service full-time equivalent employees will rise by 313 employees, jumping from 7,334 in the 2019 budget to 7,647 in the 2020 budget.

The vector comparison is sharp. AMLO eliminates Secret Service, Trump expands it.

Labels: 2/3

  ¶ 5:00 AM

  It's not the silicon computer, it's the meatware computer
Yet another missed point about AI and Big Data.

Via MindMatters, Gary Smith discusses how Big Data helped and failed in the 2008 and 2016 campaigns.

In 2008:

The Obama campaign put every potential voter into its database, along with hundreds of tidbits of personal information: age, gender, marital status, race, religion, address, occupation, income, car registrations, home value, donation history, magazine subscriptions, leisure activities, Facebook friends, and anything else they could find that seemed relevant…

After Obama secured the nomination, the fund-raising continued. For the full 2008 election campaign, Obama raised $780 million, more than twice the amount raised by his Republican opponent, John McCain. McCain didn’t have a realistic chance of winning, and he didn’t—with only 173 electoral votes to Obama’s 365.

Obama didn't need the data. He had intrinsic advantages. He was attractive and confident, and above all he KNEW what the people wanted to hear. Obama beat Hillary in the primaries because Hillary was SCREEEEECHING the standard D talking points over and over. Obama beat McCain in the general because McCain was speaking the standard Repooflican talking points over and over.

= = = = =

In 2016:

That should have worked for Clinton too, surely. Her team of sixty mathematicians and statisticians created a program called Ada to replicate the success, as widely expected. But, as Smith explains to Marks:

Smith: Some of the stuff that made a difference, they couldn’t put in a computer. Like the enthusiasm factor. When Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump gave speeches, tens of thousands of people showed up and yelled and screamed and were excited. And when Hillary Clinton gave a speech, a couple of hundred people would show up and sit politely. And you couldn’t put that in a computer.

Wrong. Audience size is a simple number. You CAN put it in a computer, and the computer CAN calculate the national average audience size. Hillary's staff DIDN'T put it in the computer, didn't write the code to evaluate it. Here again the computer wasn't needed anyway. The difference was so fucking obvious that you didn't need refined statistical evaluation to see it.

[This is broadly and importantly true. In science and in life, statistics are totally unnecessary. A distinction or measurement that only appears after statistical evaluation is NOT a meaningful difference. If you have to use stats to get the answer, you don't have an answer.]

The real difference was the same as 2008. Bernie and Trump were speaking clearly and confidently, saying things that agreed with human experience. Hillary was SCREEEEEEECHING the standard old Dem talking points. Bernie would have won if Hillary's team hadn't MEDDLED AND HACKED the primary results.

In both cases the data was totally irrelevant. But on another level all recent campaigns were in fact human vs machine. Hillary and McCain and Romney were repeating the same meaningless noises over and over and over like a busted washing machine. Obama and Trump and Bernie were acting like humans, appearing to observe a real problem that real humans had experienced, and appearing to offer rational solutions to the real problem.



In the end both Obama and Trump turned out to be fake humans. Both reverted to machine behavior after the election. But we're only talking here about campaigns.

= = = = =

Larger sidenote: I've been noting lots of AI pointmissers lately. All of them are intentionally giving the computer too much credit. In some cases the pointmisser wants us to be SCARED so the pointmisser can intimidate us into submission. In other cases the pointmisser wants us to be IMPRESSED so the pointmisser can sell us a fraudulent product.

Elon wants to IMPRESS us with autonomy so we'll buy his shares. Hillary wants to SCARE us with the unstoppable force of the computer so we won't notice that she's a dumb low-IQ drunken thug.

There's nothing new about Big Data, and nothing autonomous about computers. Computers handled millions of verbal and numerical data points in the 1890 Census, and Hollerith machines have been figuring and printing mass quantities of checks and other documents ever since then.

This year's model can handle more data and more sophisticated algorithms than the 1890 Hollerith, but it's still just sorting and counting. It's still mechanically performing a task assigned by the HUMAN who hires the programmers. We should always give full credit or blame to the HUMAN who sets the goal.

Labels: AI point-missing, Blinded by Stats

  ¶ 11:26 PM

  Dozens of fake "answers", ignoring the answer.
Via Eurekalert, public health authorities are worried about insufficient blood donations from "communities of colour". The article proposes a huge pile of possible reasons and possible solutions, but never gets CLOSE to the obvious answer.

PAY.

When you PAY people for hard labor, they're VASTLY more likely to do it.

This applies even more strongly to organ donation. For some ABSOLUTELY NONSENSICAL AND UTTERLY TURBOCRAZY DYSREASON, we have decided that paying people for a HUGE piece of pain and suffering is "unethical".

The other end of this nasty industry is flooded with LITERAL blood money. The Red Cross and the various "donor" industries get PAID monstrous amounts of money for storing and sorting and transporting the raw material. Why in the HOLY FUCK shouldn't they PAY for the raw material?

As always, NYC is the satanic black hole of economics. All money goes into NYC, nothing leaves. Paying Deplorables is UNACCEPTABLE INTOLERABLE ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE. "Ethics" means genocide.

Labels: Ethics, unasked and answered

  ¶ 8:38 AM

  Double shared lie
Linked via NakedCapitalism, more totally wrong dysdefinitions of socialism.

“The 2018 PRRI American Values Survey offered respondents two definitions of socialism. One described it as ‘a system of government that provides citizens with health insurance, retirement support and access to free higher education,” essentially a description of social democracy. The other was the full Soviet dose: “a system where the government controls key parts of the economy, such as utilities, transportation and communications industries.’

Neither of these conditions has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with socialism.

"Health insurance, retirement support and free college" was the US standard from 1940 to 1980. The first two are still there. We still supply single-payer Medicare for 70% of all medical COSTS, because 70% of all medical COSTS are in old age. Retirement support = SS, standard equipment since 1936. College ranged from free to affordable. Two-year community colleges, which are the ONLY post-secondary education needed by 98% of the population, were usually free.

"Government controls utilities, transportation and communication": Again standard in 1950 USA. Utilities were mainly municipal, sometimes state. Privatization of utilities started in 1980, expanded with the Enron laws in 1999. Transportation was railroads and bus systems. Railroads were a strictly regulated utility. Bus systems were municipal. Communication was the post office and Ma Bell. The post office was purely federal, and Ma Bell was a strictly controlled utility, not owned by government but serving government.

We don't want these good things because they're socialist. We want these good things because we FORMERLY HAD THEM and we remember that LIFE WAS BETTER when we had them.

= = = = =

Tiresomely repeating:

Socialism means that the SUPPLY of capital for business is CONTROLLED by government, not by Jamie Dimon. That's all.

In the Soviet system, businesses were expected to make a profit by creating real value. Government shared in the profit via VAT. Government used some of its tax income to invest in new or improved businesses, aiming to maximize the use of human skills.

In the modern US system, businesses are FORBIDDEN to make a profit and FORBIDDEN to allow customers or employees to survive. All employees and customers must die. Government gets nothing because tax is also forbidden. Everything, including government, runs on debt supplied by NYC banks. No value is generated. All value is destroyed. The Dow exponentially rises toward infinity as the population declines toward zero.

= = = = =

Why is PRRI distorting the definition so grossly? Who is PRRI? Quick answer by looking at their connections: PRRI is a branch of Deepstate.

So: Deepstate has figured out that "socialism" is popular. Deepstate must associate "socialism" with free stuff from government, to accelerate the push toward zero real value and infinite debt.

Using this definition also discredits Bernie, who is trying to restore the CORRECT definition of the word. Come to think of it, maybe discrediting Bernie is the MAIN purpose?

The big problem again: This definition of "socialism" misses the crucial role of PROFIT in both the old US setup designed by FDR and the Soviet setup. None of the services and products in those actual systems were free. Everything had a cost, and both government and business tried to operate on the profit side of the ledger. Medicare and SS brought in more tax revenue than they paid out. Municipal utilities and Bell Tel were profitable. Colleges were affordable and profitable.

Labels: Natural law = Soviet law, Shared Lie

  ¶ 11:19 PM

  Sensible conclusion
For once a sane headline in RealClearScience.

Marijuana probably won't stop the opioid crisis.

I didn't bother to read the article, but it's a good question and a non-trivial answer. Before legalizing pot, you could rationally ask whether opening up one currently illegal drug would ease the pressure on other illegal drugs. Would heroin addicts switch to pot and be satisfied? Seemed plausible.

The answer here in Spokane is clearly NO. Heroin overdoses are increasing steadily, while problems related to pot remain zero, as they were before legality.

Marijuana belongs in the same category as tobacco. The smoke itself is hard on the lungs, just as inhaling smoke from any fire would damage the lungs. The intoxication is relatively mild. It can make you feel better and calmer, but it doesn't consume your life. Heroin and meth become your entire life.

After legalization the folks who had already been using pot continued using pot. There wasn't a huge burst of new users or crossover customers from other drugs.

Labels: Constants and Variables

  ¶ 6:17 AM

  Missing the AI point as always
Worriers are worrying about the danger of deep fakes, computer animations good enough to get past all human and software detection.

Under the right set of circumstances, deepfakes will be very influential. They don’t even have to be particularly good to potentially swing the outcome of an election. As with so much in elections, deepfakes are a numbers game. While the presence of tampering in all but the most sophisticated deepfakes can be quickly identified, not everyone who views them will get that message.

As with all worrying about AI and robots, this misses the real question.

All politicians in Sorosian lands are COMPLETELY DISJUNCT from all truth, facts, logic, thinking, reason, and emotion. Our leaders emit bizarre word-jumbles based on absolute beyond-schizy nonsense.

It doesn't matter if a digital video misrepresents the R version of hyperinsanity or the D version of hyperinsanity. All of it is 999999999999999999 gigalightyears outside of reality, so 999999999999999999.1 gigalightyears is not any worse.

Fortunately we have some ground points, some baselines, for comparison. Historically we can compare with FDR, who told us the whole truth. He explained what he was trying to do and why, and then he DID IT.

In the current world we have another ground point. Putin tells his people the truth. He CONSTANTLY explains what he's doing and why, and then he DOES IT.

THIS IS NOT MYSTERIOUS.

Every good leader, in every realm from parenting to teaching to corporate execs to national execs, follows this pattern. When the followers know what you're doing and why, they can judge your performance. When your performance matches your purpose well enough, the followers will follow gladly through difficult times. FDR proved it here, and Putin proved it in Russia.

Our modern dysleaders NEVER explain anything and NEVER do anything. In a certain empty trivial sense their performance is perfect. No purpose, no action. Just weird gibberish and screeching. But nations need more than empty screeching.

Also non-mysterious: Nations with good leaders are moving ahead FAST, and nations with gibberish screechers are collapsing fast.

Labels: AI point-missing, infinite infinite infinite infinite infinite infinite infinite INFINITE INFINITE INFINITE INFINITE INFINITE INFINITE INFINITE lunacy, Shared Lie

  ¶ 11:32 PM

  Moral guide dogs
Dogs made civilization. Without dogs, humans are just chimps.

Via a Bad Girls tumblr...

I enjoy watching her. I'm a chimp. Her dog is trying to guide her toward a different path. She really should be listening to the dog instead of the chimps.

Labels: Entertainment

  ¶ 4:47 AM

  Privilege without responsibility
Turley brings out a fact that I hadn't heard before. It doesn't get much attention.

Web services are clearly somewhere between the traditional roles of publisher and carrier.

Turley's rarely heard point: Web services were granted immunity from prosecution for carrying illegal or libelous content.

Immunity makes sense for the post office or the old Bell Tel utility, because they couldn't practically read or listen to every message. Neutral carriers are expected to carry messages until a specific sender has been legally banned. After a sender has been determined to be officially obscene or treasonous, the carrier will usually disconnect service.

Immunity doesn't make sense for Youtube and Facebook, which use algos and thousands of human censors to EDIT content. By normal definitions they are publishers, not carriers. A publisher can be sued for carrying illegal or libelous content, because the publisher has knowingly decided to publish the material.

Immunity is normally balanced by the requirement to carry content until specifically banned. Google and FB are getting immunity without the requirement to carry.
  ¶ 1:19 AM

  Constants and Variables 133
Constant: Every country arrests journalists and whistleblowers for various reasons, some of which are perfectly valid.

The variable is what happens AFTER the arrest.

UK arrested Assange many years ago and the case continues to increase in intensity, despite many years of huge protests.

Russia arrested a journalist a week ago and the case has been dropped following a few complaints.

At the moment Russia is doing a better job of "freedom" for journalists than US or UK.

If "democracy" has any meaning or purpose, it should mean responsiveness and adaptiveness. Good feedback loops.

Labels: Constants and Variables

  ¶ 12:07 AM

  Vicarious vegetarians
It's been clear from the start that Tesla cultists are not truly green. They're rich fuckheads who fly and drive all the time. Owning a Tesla is a plenary indulgence that shortens their time in Gaian purgatory.

The latest Innovative Disrupter shows the same disconnect. BYND is a "new" fake meat made from soy and other stuff. BYND is claiming that its form of fake meat is new, and above all it claims to make the product more available by placing it in the meat department.

Real vegies with real experience know that both claims are false.

How do I know? I've been mostly vegy for most of my adult life. Vegy from 1970 to 1990, then part carny from 1990 to 2010, and now vegy again. The weakly carny period exactly corresponded to my TV-watching period and my neocon period. Not surprising. When you're locked into TV's forcible injection system, you aren't running on natural tendencies.

Though I pretended at first to be following "moral" principles, vegy is just easier for me. My guts don't like meat and don't handle it well. I'm healthier without it. I don't claim or believe that everyone should be healthier without meat. PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT.

During the 1970-1990 period I used fake meat made by Morningstar. It was easily available in regular grocery stores everywhere, including beef-loving Enid and OKC. When I resumed vegy in 2010, I started using the stuff again, then a quick experiment proved that it wasn't adding any nutrition, so I stopped. It's pretty damn expensive for nothing more than taste and texture.

Morningstar is a big company that has dominated the niche for 50 years because its products are EASILY AVAILABLE and good. Not all of the items taste convincingly like meat, but all of them are easy to cook, tasty, and satisfying to eat.

So the traders and cultists who are boosting BYND clearly don't understand the market. They don't know (1) the niche is already occupied (2) vegies are satisfied with Morningstar (3) serious vegies won't buy fake meat from the meat counter because they don't want to endanger their souls by touching the real thing. This is true of genuinely religious vegies from Muslim to Adventist.

In other words, there's a damn good COMMERCIAL reason why fake meat isn't sold in the same freezer with pig knuckles and T-bones. Stores and distributors haven't simply been missing an opportunity for 50 years.

= = = = =

Two minutes after posting the above, this appeared in Youtube's Suggested For You:


And three minutes later, this ad popped in RealClearScience:



Apparently I confused Google's algo with the discussion of part carny and weakly carny, so it decided to hit me from both flanks.

Labels: Bemusement

  ¶ 6:22 AM

  Finding the control lever
Via Psych Today, a study in good old nematodes has found the control path for epigenetics. The article is somewhat unclear and the original paper seems to be extremely dense with jargon and insider concepts. There isn't a doi ref so I can't try to read the original, and I wouldn't get very far anyway.

After all the caveats, here's the apparent point: In the simple nervous system of C. Elegans, there are direct neural connections to the ovaries, which directly shape the variable parts of the genome while the offspring are being built.

Up till now, the existence of epigenetic change has been firmly established, but the physical link from parental experience to genomic modulation wasn't known. Now we know HOW parental thoughts and emotions cause permanent learning in the child. It's not through diffuse influences like hormones. It's a hardwired cable from the brain to the baby, writing firmware in EPROM.

Speculation: A roundworm's thoughts and emotions are simpler than a mammal's thoughts and emotions. Direct feed is probably sufficient for a nematode, but a mammal would need a distinct processor and selector to emit the correct RNA molecules into the fetus. Where is this processor and code generator?

Labels: Grand Blueprint

  ¶ 1:26 AM

  Good old grammarrhoid
From a rather obscure Australian culture website, a classic grammarrhoid.

We must have all noticed the fast-coming oblivion of the adverb ending in “ly.” Here are just a few of the many instances that I have heard recently from people on air:

It is something that comes natural / You will feel different / We did everything correct / It has not worked perfect / She sings it so beautiful / Are you going to take this competition serious / They are doing it safe / We’re doing absolutely phenomenal / What do you say to people who say you are acting hypocritical – What I say is can you rephrase the question and not mangle the language.

Hypercorrection. Taking a "rule" and blindly applying it to cases where it doesn't work.

Feeling different and acting hypocritical are exactly right by the traditional rules, and in this case the traditional rules are good.

Feel and act are condition verbs that behave like be. Such verbs require adjectives as predicates, not adverbs. I am different, I feel different, I act different.

Feeling differently would only be meaningful if you were discussing an alternate use of the tactile sense, such as a prosthetic hand with electronic pressure detectors. Acting hypocritically would only be meaningful if you were a theatre critic discussing an actor who was using his skills dishonestly. Both are conceivable but contrived.

Sidenote: The above grammarrhoid, while claiming to defend traditional rules, breaks traditional rules of punctuation in every sentence, leading to constant ambiguity.

Labels: Language update

  ¶ 3:56 PM

  More sanity from Ed
Sanity as always from Ed Niedermeyer:

I feel like a broken record with this, but Nissan took people at their word with the Gen1 Leaf, invested huge and then nobody bought it. I wasn't a perfect product, but it worked and was affordable. Turns out people only want to save the world if they can go fast & look cool.

On the fucking dot.

I've been grousing for years that nobody is paying any attention to the EV's proper niche. EVs are uniquely suitable for city runabouts, in a situation where you can always charge up overnight at home. The first EVs 110 years ago fitted the niche. The rebirth of EVs has always missed the proper market. NOBODY has come close yet.

Saving the world is fashionable. Fashionable people can't POSSIBLY go slow, and can't POSSIBLY tolerate the slightest hint of uncoolness. Uncool cheapskates are happy to live slow and simple, using much less energy and resources than the world-savers. We never get thanked for being GENUINELY GREEN, because we don't give a fuck about saving the world. Saving the world is another name for destroying the world, and uncool cheapskates don't enjoy destruction.

Coolness is all about theory and orthodoxy.

Survival is all about experience and preservation.

Labels: Carbon Cult

  ¶ 3:19 PM

  Parkinson all the way
A couple weeks ago I said:

Actually the Austrian nationalist party would have done better to simply disband after Kurz adopted their platform and started controlling the border. Mission accomplished, go home and rest. An organization that keeps running after its purpose is achieved ALWAYS descends into corruption. Parkinson's Law.

Convective thought:

This also applies to individuals and even organs and cells.

I've been saying this forever in the context of crime and Sorosian dysculture:

A man is meant to MAKE things. If he can't MAKE things, he will BREAK things.

This is exactly the same law. Without PURPOSE, a man descends into corruption. Crime, addiction, suicide. Hadn't quite connected it until now.

Within the organism, Nature mostly takes care of the problem. Janitor cells ruthlessly clean out cells that aren't actively participating in the organ's purpose.

The vast majority of "reformers", in prisons and poor neighborhoods and poor countries, totally miss this part of Natural Law. They believe, or pretend to believe, that supplying money WITHOUT VALUE will solve all problems. Dead wrong. It always creates more problems. The welfare only feeds the corruption. In poor neighborhoods, welfare checks are the venture capital for criminal enterprises. In poor countries, Foreign Aid buys mansions and limos for the dictator.

The intellectual leaders of "reform" have no illusions about their purpose. They are intentionally creating new problems which will "justify" more expenditure and power for their organizations. Another Parkinson's Law, probably the most important one.

Labels: Make or break, MMT, Natural law = Sharia law

  ¶ 11:00 PM