Don't be there.
Listening to the latest little Anglican dialog. Ashenden mentions that he recently participated in a BBC talk show, which went the way Satan's media always goes. Ashenden was the sole heretic in a firepit of Inquisitors, and got barbecued. Ashenden is the Perfect Englishman, always polite and understated and cautious but FIRM in his beliefs. None of that counts in a room full of acetylene torches. If you are THERE, you will be CRISPED.

A while back I wrote:

If you want to "change the world", there's absolutely no ACTIVE way to do it. The best you can do is AVOID strengthening Deepstate. All you can do is STAY THE FUCK AWAY from these atrocious fake puppet shows. Don't invite "controversial" speakers, don't join protests, don't join movements. Speak the truth when possible, do your duty.

Clearly Ashenden would have done better to follow this new rule. When you KNOW GOOD AND GODDAMN WELL that your presence will only REINFORCE AND STRENGTHEN SATAN, you should stay home. Take a nap. Take a walk. Make things. Do your duty.

Just now I realized: This new rule runs contrary to a long-established rule for dealing with bureaucratic or organizational opponents. CP Snow put it simply: BE THERE. I'm sure other realists like Machiavelli and Drucker have made the same rule in other ways.

BE THERE has been repealed.

It MIGHT still work in meetings with EXACTLY ZERO political and cultural content. If you're going to be discussing details of a project or product, you need to be sure your error-feedback and concerns are strongly represented.

But those ZERO POLITICS meetings are disappearing FAST.


= = = = =

Alternate view after reading the latest in the hilarious Elon saga.

Besides passive self-defense, there's a more positive reason to let the Soros side do all of the BEING THERE.

Too much BEING is harmful. Elon tries to BE EVERYWHERE, from Thailand to his various fake factories to his various mansions to all media channels at once. Everywhere he BES, he does harm to his OWN interests. He would do much less harm with a lot less BEING.

In earlier and saner eras, the WHOLE FUCKING POINT of becoming a rich and powerful executive was that you didn't have to BE anywhere in particular. You chose your managers carefully and gave them plenty of MODULARITY, plenty of room to respond to their various customers and employees.

You weren't allowed to gain share value by stock manipulation because stock manipulation was illegal. So you had to figure out how to increase PROFIT from ACTUAL PRODUCTION with ACTUAL EMPLOYEES selling to ACTUAL CUSTOMERS. And the best way do all of that was to BE ELSEWHERE. Let the managers and submanagers handle their modules and levels. This is hardly surprising because this is exactly how Nature does it.

You could then enjoy your rich life. You could winter in Palm Springs and summer in St Moritz.

Modern Sorosian globalists are global all the way. Each globalist assumes that he is the universe. When you're the universe, you can't allow any little piece of reality to run without your IMMEDIATE AND DIRECT COMMAND. Nobody else knows how to do anything because you've never given them a chance to learn. Machines and organizations are incapable of running on their own. There are no laws of physics or behavior. There is only your universal and absolute WILL.

This obviously gets tiresome, and in the end it simply DOESN'T WORK.

Later: AAACCCKKK! I'm agreeing with Arianna Huffington! Oh well. Doesn't matter who says it, the point is still valid.

= = = = =

Expansion of DON'T BE THERE in this item.

Labels: From rights to duties, infinite infinite infinite infinite evil

  ¶ 11:52 AM

  The people understand
Some excellent comments in this Spokane-News post about a suicide. Shows that many people understand the genocidal PURPOSE of the shutdowns.

Of course it doesn't matter how many people understand it. We don't have Epstein on our side, so we have less than zero power.

Less than zero? Yes, it's a positive feedback loop, a vicious circle. Our actions and beliefs cause the monsters to do MORE evil.

= = = = =

This leads back to my Don't Be There theme. My initial STRONG immune response to this tyranny was outright rebellion, but I had to squash it. Open rebellion always leads to vastly worse tyranny. See Gouvernour Morris's thoughts about revolutions.

Don't Be There was triggered by the conservatives on campus who were getting in fights with the Antifa and #resistance types. This is EXACTLY what Deepstate wants. Deepstate wants a visible display of disobedience so it can "justify" ever more crackdowns.

Rock and hard place, Scylla and Charybdis. Rock = creating a visible disturbance. Hard place = violating my GOD-ASSIGNED duty to truth and science. In the Don't Be There stuff I concluded that the best course is avoiding visible aggravation while quietly speaking the truth.

If you want to "change the world", there's absolutely no ACTIVE way to do it. The best you can do is AVOID strengthening Deepstate. All you can do is STAY THE FUCK AWAY from these atrocious fake puppet shows. Don't invite "controversial" speakers, don't join protests, don't join movements. Speak the truth when possible, do your duty.

At the moment this is still possible here. It's not possible in Britain where Deepstate cracks down equally hard on speech and imputed beliefs. I'm sure our Deepstate will get there soon, but it's not there YET.

Labels: Jackboot stomping forever, Pluponents

  ¶ 11:29 PM

  Madame Polisztra channels the Director
Madame Polisztra found a message waiting in her crystal ball this morning. She opens the channel......




Crystal ball: Ple-ase deposit fi-ave dollars before commencing your conversation.

J. Edgar: Oh, all right, dammit. [clang, clang, clang, ....]

Madame Polisztra: Good morning, Mr. Hoover. Pay phones up there?

J. Edgar: Yes, of course, Missy. I haven't forgotten my tradecraft.

MP: But doesn't new technology appear up there?

JE: Cell phones are a Jap thing, Missy. Nips have their own areas up here, so their stuff doesn't get used in our section.

MP: Internment?

JE: Yep. I didn't like it much the first time, but I've changed my mind up here. Old JC has a real bug up his ass about repentance, and the Japs haven't even begun to repent for what they did to China, the Philippines, and us back in the '30s and '40s. Still proud of it.

MP: Well, sir, what I wanted to talk with you ...

JE: Hey! That isn't a reefer over there, is it?

MP: No, sir! Absolutely not. Just a French coffin nail. Gauloise brand.

JE: All right, Missy, I didn't really think you were that dumb. Your author was, but I guess we educated him. Some. My dossier on him is out of date, so I don't know. Anyhow, smoke 'em while you got 'em. Can't smoke up here, dammit.

MP: Sorry to give you a jolt, sir. It won't be very long before we can't smoke down here either.

JE: Those idiots. Damn Ford administration with their prissy clean hands. I crossed over just before they came to power the first time, and now you've put them back in power a second time.

MP: Ford, sir?

JE: Ford administration. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Kissinger. You put them back in power, so what do you expect? Damn Episcopalians. JC calls them Pharisees, and I guess he's right. They think obeying all the regulations counts for more than defending the country or doing the right thing. Parlor pinkos. When the New York Goddamn Times helps the enemy - like it's been doing since I was down there - you don't just get "offended", you fight back. Steal their secrets. Shut them down. Chesapeake their boss. When Teddy Kennedy gives you orders, you don't obey him, you pull his dossier and educate him. Damn Kennedys anyway. Damn them all in hell.

MP: Don't you mean "all to hell", sir?

JE: You heard me the first time, Missy. Moses didn't want to transfer the whole family, but I reminded him that I've got some very interesting hieroglyphics in his dossier, about the real reason for those 40 years in the wilderness. So down they all go.

MP: Anyway, sir, what I wanted to..

JE: Yes, I know. Those colored boys in Miami. Thought they were jivin' in the big time with the camel fuckers. Turned out they were just rappin' with The Man. Great work. Fine work. Somebody in the Bureau has figured out how to do things right again. Must have learned it from the Brits. He won't last long, though. Damn pinko Fordies will have him on the carpet for breaking some idiotic reg.

MP: Sir?

JE: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sorry. You want to know what I'd do different. Okay, here's how we did it with the Commies: We set up entire political movements under our guidance, let the hippie trash join up and "decide" how they would compete with the other movements. Was bad enough trying to spot the informers in your own group; and then you had to worry about whether the Progressive Workers of the Globe was beating your time with the masses, and then you had to wonder whether the PWG was really the Bureau, or whether your own splinter group was really the Bureau. Ah, those were the days. Watching the Reds pissing on each other with Marxist quotes, each trying to be the most orthodox dick in the territory, when they should have been planning and bombing. Looks like the Company might be using that method with the camel humpers, but I don't see any sign that the Bureau is using it at home. There'd be more publicity for the alternate movements if they were.

Crystal ball: Please deposit tha-rrree dollars to continue your conversation.

JE: Tell you what, Missy. I better sign off now. Got to hoard my quarters for the one-armed bandit.

MP: What? Gambling up there? More of your, um, dossiers?

JE: No, this wasn't my doing. My influence only goes so far. This was the Indians. When they go on the warpath to plant a casino, nothing on earth or in Heaven can stop them. Woo woo woo woo woo, ka-ching. So thanks for listening, Missy.

MP: And many thanks for giving us your wisdom, Mr. Hoover. It won't make any difference, but I appreciate it.

Crystal ball: I am sor-ry, your par-ty has be-an disconnected. [Clack!]

-----

Later: Interestingly, it appears that J. Edgar did in fact penetrate an earlier version of the Seas of David, back in the '50s in New York. Makes me wonder if the organization continued as a Bureau-controlled 'ideological virus'.
  ¶ 7:06 PM

  The most dangerous
A monstrously frightening interview on BBC Business Daily with a futurist named Kevin Surace.

Loosely transcribed, with my own comments thrown into the mix:

Announcer: But can we be so confident? At no stage in history have so many jobs been under imminent threat from technological changes.

Surace: What happens over the next few decades as the intelligence of robots starts to surpass humans, and the tasks that they do begin to overtake ours ... we're approaching a time when a seriously human-like robot may cost around a thousand dollars ... Take autonomous cars as an example. They're going to save lives ... Now there will be a day, 20 years from now, when human drivers are going to be outlawed. ... So what happens if you like to drive? Well, that will be taken away from you.

Now let's take it a step further. What happens when most of our jobs are taken over by robots? There's been a little of that, but it really hasn't impacted the world economy.

Me: Unlike most commentators, Surace has the facts right on this point. In fact most jobs in Western countries haven't been taken by technology up till now; they've been taken by cheap labor in Bangladesh and China.

Surace: What happens when even coders aren't needed because the software doesn't need specific programs? Even you (the announcer) will be replaced by a robot, because it's a lot cheaper to have robots speaking on the air.

Announcer: But we all WANT human interaction, don't we?

Surace: Well, that's the point. We as a society have judged our own worth by the jobs we do. It wasn't always that way, but certainly since the advent of money that's what we've done.

Me: Absolutely wrong TWICE. Not 'AS A SOCIETY', you fucking egregious psychopath. (1) Humans are social mammals. We are REQUIRED to be useful. It's in our genes, or it's part of God's plan. Expressed either way, it's INNATE. We cease functioning if we aren't able to be useful. (2) Money didn't create this situation. Our need to be useful created money.

Surace: We build self-worth out of what we do. What happens when our self-worth can't be built out of a job, in fact we can't earn money from a job, because all jobs can be done better by robots and computers? Now that's not 3 years from now, but it's going to happen 40 or 50 years from now. It means we don't go to work. So as humans we get two choices. We're either going to have this amazing renaissance; this amazing focus on what humans can do ... It's art, it's song, it's dance, it's creativity, it's things we haven't thought of. Or, society collapses because only a few barons own all the robots and get all the money from production.

Announcer: Well, which do you think will happen?

Surace: Well, I think countries that are EVOLVED enough will decide to do the renaissance thing, will find new ways to think of our own personal self-worth.

= = = = =

Me: There's good old "EVOLVED" used in Orwellian reverse as usual. What's the top of the heap in any line of animals or plants? What's the characteristic of a species that thrives in all sorts of situations and adapts to all sorts of perturbations? Social structure. Cooperation, competition, communication, division of LABOR. Bacteria do it, flowering plants do it, bees do it, birds do it, wolves do it, and we do it. Removing the division of labor is DEVOLUTION.

We've seen many examples of parasitic subsocieties who believe they can get along on nothing more than song and dance, or chanting and begging (the religious equivalents of song and dance). They don't last long, because only a few people can sing and dance well enough to get mates.

Civilization functions when the WIDEST POSSIBLE RANGE OF HONEST TALENTS AND SKILLS are rewarded. This means that a WIDE RANGE OF TYPES WILL BE ABLE TO MATE.

We've already lost this battle in the West. 'Superstar syndrome' is the obvious symptom. Thanks to feminism and thanks to the total destruction of manufacturing, only entertainers and barons are qualified to mate.

The most dangerous point in Surace's horrible dystopia: Why in the fuck would these "barons" provide robots FOR FREE to billions of useless humans? It's completely impossible. The "barons" will be the same Chosen People who own the means of producing money now, and they will only provide services if they can find a way to make trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars thereby. How are all those unskilled singers and dancers going to get even one robot or one gram of synthetic food-like substance? Not gonna happen. No reason to feed all those Negative Externalities.

The stupidest point in Surace's stupid argument: The good old Arrow of History, reversed as always. He considers this hellish situation to be physically inevitable, like a rock rolling down a hill. Wrong. This path is guided by unimaginably evil human intelligence at every stage. Western countries have collapsed because the barons have removed or paralyzed all feedback mechanisms that previously stood in their way. Everything that might be able to fight back or hit the brakes has been eradicated. Churches cause doubt about wealth accumulation? Blackmail churches into submission. Families naturally require a man to work for money? Use the owned churches to smash families. Laws and regulators get in the way? Leveraged buyouts of governments. When all feedback is gone, the process is indistinguishable from a rolling rock, because all indications of LIFE are gone. Feedback is life. Life is feedback.


Attempted an answer in next entry.

Labels: Ethics, Grand Blueprint, Make or break

  ¶ 10:14 AM

  Yes, you don't get it.
Krugman is always frustrating. His heart is in the right place, but his brain isn't fully connected.

Consider the extended version of the “magneto trouble” metaphor I use in my recent book. Keynes argued that the Great Depression could be thought of as a failure in the car’s electrical system; so let’s think of it as a situation where your car won’t run because it has a dead battery — that is, you could get it running again with a fairly trivial and easy intervention: just buy a new battery, which costs only a tiny fraction of the expense of a new car.

In saying this I am not denying that there may be other problems with the car, perhaps even big ones. Maybe it needs new brakes, or a new transmission, and these had better be dealt with soon.

Still, what sense can it possibly make to say that therefore you shouldn’t start by replacing that dead battery?

I really don’t get it.

Exactly, city boy. You don't get it.

As Polistra has pointed out before, Krugman only uses half of the Keynes idea.

Keynes thought gov't should be like a dam, storing water in wet times and releasing it for use in dry times. Using the electrical flow analogy, the treasury is the battery. When the car [country] is running, the generator [productive activity] charges the battery. The battery [treasury] then holds a charge so you can start the car [country] when it has been stopped or stalled.

In other writings, Krugman seems to understand the idea, but he has not practiced both sides of Keynes. In good times a genuine Keynesian should be pushing hard for heavy taxes on the rich; should be constantly telling the rulers that they will be DEAD if they don't store up money. When bad times come, a genuine Keynesian shouldn't be pushing for stimulus; he should be saying "I told you so. It's too late now."

Krugman wants to replace the battery [the treasury] so it can provide a charge to get the country going now that it's stalled. But that won't work.

I once got marooned in the Okla Panhandle because I was trying to run a truck by Krugman's rule. The old company-owned '55 Ford flatbed (like this) had a good battery, but its generator burned out shortly after I left Ponca with a full load and a trailer. I was able to nurse it from Ponca into Dodge City with several external charges. Delivered the stuff that was needed in Dodge, and took the truck to a Ford dealer. They didn't have a generator for such an oldie, so I bought a new battery (as Krugman recommends!) and a charger, and started back home to Ponca with stops at gas stations every hundred miles. Around Laverne the new battery decisively failed because it wasn't getting a steady charge. I had to call the boss to fetch me. He wasn't happy.

Thus proving Krugman wrong.

Returning to the economic version: I was trying to run a country without a manufacturing sector. Instead of charging the treasury from taxes, I was borrowing from other countries. The method sort of worked for a while, enabling me to limp along slowly. Finally the treasury went decisively bankrupt and the country came to a complete halt. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

= = = = =

Fussy irrelevant tech sidenote: Both Keynes and Krugman are misusing the word magneto. Generators and magnetos are different ways of producing current. Early cars didn't have starters or batteries or a real electric system. Lights were oil or acetylene lamps, and you cranked the engine to start it. A magneto gave short pulses of current at the right moment for each spark plug, and the spark coil turned those pulses into high-voltage pulses. Cadillac introduced full electric systems in 1913, with a generator supplying a steady voltage, electric lights, and a battery to store charge for the next start. Everyone else followed suit immediately because cranking was wildly inconvenient and a constant source of injury.
  ¶ 4:23 PM

  More Persuasion poke-throughs
This time the Persuasion Substack is trying to find a non-polarized center ground for discussion in politics. They manage to be objective for a while:

At this level of conflict, emotion is driving the train. I admit to that myself. I remember, early on in Trump’s tenure, he did something—I can’t remember what it was, something about China. I remember having this sudden thought that, actually, that was not a bad idea—but not even wanting to have the thought in my head, let alone verbalize it. Then I realized I felt like if I gave him an inch, he’d take a mile—as if we were in a relationship. It’s a trick of the brain, as if he and I were in conversation, which we’re not.

So, it’s a fear. It’s a lack of trust. It’s easier, in a way, to keep things binary: bad, good. There’s really cool research that haunts me to this day by Robb Willer and Matthew Feinberg, where they asked liberals and conservatives if they would reframe an argument for something in words that would get the other side behind it. Interestingly, they found that 20% of liberals would not reframe their arguments to persuade conservatives, even if it would work better to get what they want. That’s high conflict: when any concession, no matter how small, feels too threatening to contemplate, even when it would be in their interest.

Yup. I remember how that feels. When I was solidly "liberal", I didn't want my holy words and thoughts to be desecrated by entering the Nazi ears of Fascists.

Post-1968 leftists are RELIGIOUS, not political.

Despite Persuasion's alleged intentions, their own religion pokes through as usual:

This is exactly how we get trapped, isn’t it? Because we don't get curious anymore. Journalists are captured by the high conflict. We’re not different. We’re human. I think there’s this magical thinking that we think we’re not. We think, “Oh, we're just dispassionately covering the issues.” That’s just not the case, as we see over and over again. If Trump wins the next election, or some version of Trump wins who’s more dangerous, everyone will say, “How could this happen?!”

Note the flat assertion, riding through on the wave without being seen.

They wish, or pretend to wish, for a ground connection, a standard measure, a readily available source of unbiased information. They don't go beyond wishing, don't try to imagine how such a source would work.

Is independence possible? Yes, but independence requires independence. Independent thought requires independence from money and lawyers and licensing.

I can't think of any examples at all in the political realm, but I know of one perfect example in economics. Wolf Richter remains carefully neutral between the bulls and bears, longs and shorts, scams and counterscams. He stands back and watches all of them with the same jaundiced glare. He sticks FIRMLY to actual data, and makes the best graphs in the world to COMMUNICATE the actual data.

Wolf is a one-man shop. He works loosely with a few correspondents in other countries, sharing the wealth and sharing the pulpit. He doesn't need a lot of licenses and Die-Versity Compliance and Enviro Compliance.

In current conditions, large media can't possibly achieve Wolf's level of independence. Large operations require large staffs and licensing and lawyers. You can't get money and licenses and lawyers unless you conform to Deepstate. You have to take the script that Deepstate writes, and read either the R character or the D character. There's no narrator in Deepstate's satanic stagecraft.

Well, is there any way to have national well-financed media that sticks to facts? Hell Yes. Two little words.

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

From 1934 to 1970 the FCC rigidly enforced the FD and it WORKED. Don't take my word for it. Listen to radio news from the '30s and '40s. You won't be able to use the Seven-Second Rule because it didn't apply then. You couldn't tell immediately which side the announcer was on. The announcers were human, so they undoubtedly had sides; but the writers and editors were CONSTRAINED BY LAW to stick to the data, just as Wolf does with economics.

Labels: From rights to duties, Metrology

  ¶ 10:53 PM

  Polistra's dream, 5
Part 5 of Polistra's Dream.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 and Part 3 and Part 4 first.


Ponca, June 1939. Polistra and Fran are still driving to the lake...



Polistra: Bye, Jimmy! See you later!

Jimmy: Goodbye, Miss Lister! Bye, Miss Fran!

Fran: Well, Jimmy looks a lot happier now. He finally got to test-drive his fine little automobile. Jimmy's family is struggling to make ends meet ... we'll visit them later on and you can see how it is.


Pol: Here's a thought. If real cars looked like Jimmy's car, sort of slapped together at odd angles, what would you think of the idea of cars in general? I'm not making fun of Jimmy, of course ... he's a kid, and this is helping him to learn carpentry. His next project will look better, I'm sure. But if the cars built by grownups looked like that, would you think cars were a good idea?

Fran: Well, of course not. Rhetorical question.

Pol: Yes. Okay, now if government actions, the products of government, were built like Jimmy's car instead of your Bantam, would you think government was a good idea?

Fran: Also rhetorical, but I'll play along. Hold on! The best part of this drive is coming up. Here we go....


Pol: Wow!

Fran: Snazzy, huh? Down into the spillway and up again, then we'll get to the boats.

Pol: Pretty fancy construction. Does this dam produce electricity?

Fran: No, the creek doesn't have enough flow. The idea here was mainly a reliable water supply for Ponca, and some beauty for everyone to enjoy. Most of all, the CCC provided useful work and training for the farm families who lost everything in the drought.


Pol: Well, as I was saying, a soapbox government is the problem we've got in 2008. The reasons are pretty complex, but we ended up with a government that does a bunch of things it doesn't need to be doing, can't find the will to do the things it desperately needs to do, and bungles horribly the rest of the time.


Fran: Good morning, sir! We'd like to rent a plain old rowboat for an hour.

Man: That'll be fifty cents, ma'am.

Fran: Here you go.


Man: Okay, you can take number three over there. Guess it's the only boat still in dock, so I don't really need to call it number three, do I? Have a pleasant jaunt, ladies!

Pol: That was easy.

Fran: Sure, why not?


Pol: Nothing is simple in my time. Everything requires identification and stacks of legal mumbo-jumbo. We'd have to sign forms to say we won't sue, forms to promise that we'll follow the safety rules, and so on. And on the other side, the rental man wouldn't dare smoke in public, and wouldn't dare pat you like that.

Fran: Well, there's not much chance of us stealing the boat ... he can see all of the lake from here. He wouldn't do much business if he acted distrustful all the time, and I thought his pat was reassuring. Actually I didn't even think about it until you mentioned it.

Pol: Yeah, but you're being logical and you're thinking like an American. Both of those qualities are gone in my time.

Fran: Gone? Entirely?

Pol: Well, okay, gone from the government, gone from the education system, gone from all the ruling institutions. Not entirely lost. But it doesn't matter if the people are mostly sensible, because the campaign experts have become so good at their jobs that they can basically order up a certain number of votes from the catalog. They don't need to bribe; nothing so crude or obvious. They just need to manipulate people very precisely. Result, politicians don't have to listen to the actual needs of their actual live voters. They can just pay the right experts and win. Which means they need lots of money for consultants and experts and advertising, and the money comes from a few rich contributors. Many of those contributors are foreign, or serving foreign interests.


Fran: Sounds a lot like the breakdown in business you were talking about before, the loss of self-sufficiency. Businesses don't need to worry about satisfying American customers or keeping American employees because they operate around the globe.

Pol: Exactly. I didn't make the connection. Thanks. The politicians themselves have changed too, or rather one side has changed. You'd recognize the Republicans, no problem. They're the same as Harding and Coolidge. The only purpose of government is to help their rich friends get richer, and a lot of their rich friends are Arabs, not Americans.

Fran: But didn't you say the Arabs are making war against you?

Pol: Yes.

Fran: And the Arabs are controlling the politicians?

Pol: Yes.

Fran: Well, that's familiar, I guess. We've got a lot of pro-German rich men now. Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford, Joe Kennedy.

Pol: True, but those pro-German folks stopped being pro-German after
the war started in '41. At least publicly. Our pro-Arab politicians continue
to take money from Arabs and kiss the filthy hems of those bathrobe things
that Arabs wear. Even the President does that, in the middle of a war that
the Arabs started.

Fran: Oh dear. I hope I don't live to see that.

Pol: Ack, I'm sorry. Let's don't dwell on that. Back to Jimmy's soapbox. For the Republicans a soapbox-car government is ideal because it looks awful, which persuades the voters that government is a bad thing. And then, even when a problem comes up that can only be solved by government, the people are ready to believe the claim that it should be left to the tender mercies of the stock market or the robber barons. So the government can't take over or even regulate in some areas where it's the only practical solution.

Fran: Sounds like Mr Harding, all right.

Pol: It's the politicians on the Left who have changed, who have lost track of Roosevelt's example. Their contributors are the weird Communists I keep talking about. Those contributors are rich too, but they claim to have a mantle of moral purity, and the press and TV help to reinforce that image. Most of those politicians and contributors are the sons and grandsons of gangsters and robber barons like Joe Kennedy and John D. Rockefeller.


Fran: Be careful to leave your sons well instructed rather than rich, for the hopes of the instructed are better than the wealth of the ignorant.

Pol: Wonderful! Did you write that?

Fran: Wish I had. One of those ancient Greeks.

Pol: So these particular ignorant heirs drive their pet politicians toward pure chaos. They do it in the name of art and conservation and liberty and the Earth Goddess, so that it seems on paper to have the same purpose as Mr Wentz's projects or this lake. But the art is a cruel joke, the conservation doesn't conserve, the liberty amounts to encouraging crime, and the total result makes life tremendously harder for everyone who isn't a rich man's heir. These wealthy ignoramuses spend most of their time in other countries anyway, so they don't need to be anywhere near the mess.

Fran: Broken circle.

Pol: Yep.


Fran: Well, I can't imagine how we could have made it through this Depression with a government like that. Even if I take the cynical view that Mr Roosevelt is just a practical politician ... which he is, of course ... we're lucky that he decided his reputation and his party would be best served by fixing the country and preserving families, instead of destroying them.

Pol: For sure. And come to think of it, the CCC played an even bigger part than you know yet. Here in the '30s they're building dams and parks and buildings, giving the country a solid basis for advancement. In the war against Japan and Germany that will start in '41, many of the soldiers will be former CCC boys, and all of them will be relatives or friends of CCC boys. The CCC gave them skills, a sense of usefulness and purpose, and a head start on military discipline. Most of all CCC helped them to support their families, to save their families from starvation. So they'll fight with extreme loyalty and determination. They'll fight fiercely to protect their families and to protect the government that helped to keep their families intact.

Fran: I'm getting the idea that your situation is the other way around?


Pol: Yes. Our war is much smaller, and there's no draft. We're still able to recruit the sort of men who are natural soldiers and natural heroes, and we're lucky to have a few men like that. But if we had to recruit millions, it wouldn't work. The government has spent too many years protecting criminals, favoring the rich, making life hard for normal families, and favoring the enemy. That's no way to build up a reserve of loyalty. It's been good for the rich Republicans who want to get richer, and it's been good for the rich Communists who enjoy poking a sharp stick into the eyes of Christian families and hearing them scream. But it sure as hell hasn't been good for normal families.

Pardon my language.

Fran: You're pardoned.

= = = = =

Continued in Part 6 here.
  ¶ 9:10 PM

  Lemonade and Mafias
Since I'm in NOW I SEE mode this morning....

There's a lemonade aspect of a monstrosity like lockdowns.

Many parents have realized that home schooling is better. They weren't forced to try it before. Now they see the benefits, after LEARNING BY EXPERIENCE how it works. Home schooling CAN'T work for poor parents with no resources, but it CAN work for middle-class parents with older kids.

Many employees have realized that working from home is better, after LEARNING BY EXPERIENCE that it's possible. They weren't forced to try it before, and the bosses weren't forced to allow it before. Again, WFH is simply impossible for many occupations, so it's not lemonade for them.

As I realized in 1969, prison breaks old habits. I had been allowing depression/laziness to take over my life. Prison broke the habit and taught me how to work. Prison often breaks drug habits as well. It didn't need to break my drug habit because I wasn't actually using drugs. I'd tried pot a few times and didn't like it. That wasn't my problem.

In this case the lockdown-prison has broken the ASSUMPTION that school is necessary, and the ASSUMPTION that working 8-5 in an office building is necessary. The school breakage may be a rare unanticipated consequence, since the governor-psychopaths who eliminated school forever are the same governor-psychopaths who had been telling us over and over and over that school is the cure for all ills.

But there's a big limitation in the school and work lemonades that doesn't apply to the literal jail situation.

We haven't changed the RULES that keep the habits running, and we don't have a competing STRUCTURE to encourage and DEFEND the new ways. Attendance in the school building is still required by all state laws, with special tricky exceptions for home schooling. Leaving kids at home to do their own schoolwork is also illegal. Most of the Die-Versity shit** for businesses assumes and requires attendance in the office building, because the Die-Versity dictators must SEE your race and sex and non-binary preference so they can COUNT you.

The NOW I SEE lemonade will be useless until we develop NEW RULES AND NEW STRUCTURES WITH REAL BULLYPOWER around the new way of doing things.

= = = = = START REPRINT:

I've been pointlessly asking Where are the Guilds? Here's a better question.

Where's the Mafia?

Prohibition wasn't a response to flu, and it wasn't an intentional part of Madman Wilson's agenda. It was a Federal formalizing of a movement that had been accumulating in the states for 40 years. By 1920 enough states had their own prohibitions that they could leverage a Federal amendment. Prohibition didn't automatically close anything; most breweries and distilleries were able to switch their output to non-beverage products. Bars and restaurants changed their menus but didn't change anything else.

We might draw a useful analogy from the public response to Prohibition. After a moment of obedience we cheerfully found and developed workarounds, and most police winked at the workarounds because the workarounds paid the police. That's the most optimistic vision of the near future. It's time to resume old-fashioned corruption in ALL fields of endeavor, since ALL HONEST WORK has been outlawed by the holocaust.



In Italy the Mafia is still active and useful. At the start of the siege there, the Mafia fed unemployed workers who were not receiving anything from the government.

In most of US the Mafia has lost its power.

Where have all the mobsters gone?
Gone to Wall Street every one.

Now they're part of the "official" NYC power structure, able to get billion-dollar bailouts and infinite power with zero chance of punishment. No risk, all murder.

We need to reconstitute a network of non-NYC psychopaths who use their evil powers to employ ordinary people for currently illegal activities like manufacturing and hairstyling and teaching, instead of following the NYC practice of slaughtering ordinary people.

Ordinary people would be happy to work for gangsters if the gangsters offer real work in exchange for real pay. I've seen this setup in Enid, which was a solidly 'connected' city. Low crime, low cost of living, plenty of work as long as you kept your trap shut and paid your vig.

The BIGGEST advantage of operating outside the law: You can eliminate ALL THE OTHER SHIT that gets in the way of doing a proper high-quality job. Rules, regulations, litigations. Mafias don't meekly "comply" with regulations, and mafias don't meekly settle lawsuits. Mafias deter regulators and lawyers with violence and extortion, ideally stronger violence than Deepstate and nastier extortion than Epstein.

The only rules that matter are real safety rules. If you're working around combustibles, don't smoke. If you're doing delicate or dangerous work, you can't be drunk or high.

WHEN WORK IS OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS HAVE WORK.

= = = = = END REPRINT.



** Footnote: The Die-Versity shit just got a lot worse, thanks to those "conservative" blackrobes who were recently appointed by the "conservative" politicians who told us over and over and over that we needed to fight hard for more "conservative" blackrobes to prevent this exact shit from happening. HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES CAN YOU BE FOOLED BY THIS SUCKER FILTER? Obviously the answer is Infinity Fucking Times.

Labels: Experiential education, Jail mode, Sucker Filter

  ¶ 7:42 AM

  Don't be there, expanded edition
Continuing from previous.

I've contributed to the Thomas More defense fund for Daleiden. They're begging for more, which is EXTREMELY UNDERSTANDABLE. They estimate that the defense will cost 20 million.

New thought:

Don't be there applies to legal defense as well. We've seen REPEATEDLY AND CONSISTENTLY that heretics are NEVER ALLOWED TO WIN. Satan owns all the black-robed demons and all the prosecutor demons.

Both sides are playing a game. The defense side knows perfectly well that Satan NEVER GIVES UP. Satan has INFINITE resources because SATAN OWNS THE COUNTERFEIT PRINTING PRESS. There is exactly ZERO chance of winning. Defender organizations gain budget and workforce by running a permanent defense. Parkinson, Parkinson, Parkinson.

Satan doesn't really like to kill heretics, because death ends the wasted energy and creates a martyr. Satan prefers to keep heretics OCCUPIED FOREVER with pointless fighting that will never succeed.**

What's the alternative? Don't be here. Live elsewhere without wasted energy.

Orwell showed us part of the picture in the last piece of the book, where Winston is living on a small pension, sipping coffee with other heretics in shabby cafes, discussing simple topics with the few neurons remaining after their brains were Rectified. Is this good Victory Coffee? Yes this is good Victory Coffee. Do you love Big Brother? Yes I love Big Brother. Is this good Victory Coffee? [loop]

= = = = =

MODEST PROPOSAL:

Instead of crowdfunding an endless and EXPONENTIALLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE court "fight", we should be crowdfunding a proper pension or annuity for heretics. We know that heretics will never be allowed to work, so we should honor them and protect them by giving them a decent retirement in a sane and INDEPENDENT country like Brazil or Russia.

Assuming a 3% return, a fund of 20 million would support 20 heretics decently and permanently in Brazil, where 30K is a professional-class income.

In other words, a thousand people donating a thousand each could annuitize one heretic. Realistic and achievable, if someone with the right connections can set up the fund properly.

= = = = =

** Footnote: OCCUPIED FOREVER with pointless fighting that will never succeed. That's exactly what we do to heretical COUNTRIES as well.

Labels: modest proposal

  ¶ 6:54 AM

  Wrong failure
Headline from "Skeptical" Inquirer:

Psychics Oddly Did Not See a Pandemic Coming

Wrong point. The epidemic is nothing special. It happens every year with one type of respiratory virus or another. It kills people who are ready to die from one pathogen or another.

The fortune-tellers can't be blamed for failing to warn us about an annual event, because it's nothing unusual or special. When dying people die from one brand of virus instead of another brand of virus, it's not news.

What the psychics failed to see is the total holocaust "justified" by the annual epidemic.

Or did they? I don't know, and don't feel like spending time on the question, but it's a question worth asking. Run through Youtube astrologers during 2019 and see if they converge on a prediction of total tyranny starting in Feb 2020.

After a quick glance at my favorite rapturite, I can see that the survey would be difficult and time-consuming. Psychics are ALWAYS predicting one type of apocalypse or another, and they're right in a general way. Deepstate has been forcing a chronic apocalypse since 1975, with periodic acute phases. This year's acute phase is the worst yet, with worse still to come after we briefly and partially "recover" from this phase. That's how psychopaths work. Unless we rid the world of psychopaths, we're all dead fairly soon.

Answering this question would require a lot of detailed listening and checking of captions to find the exact timing and shape of the prediction, and then to see if many psychics converged on that exact timing and shape.

Overall I'd rather trust astrologers than paid "scientists". Repeating from 2017:

= = = = = START REPRINT:

How do you know which side of a "debate" is good?



"Scientists" jail you for questioning "science".

Astrologers don't jail you for questioning astrology.


MDs force you to follow orders by withholding life-sustaining prescriptions. (In any other context this would be called extortion.)

Alternative healers don't force you to do anything.


Social "scientists" design and operate torture chambers.

Psychics and faith healers don't.


Non-smokers jail you for smoking in the wrong place, which is pretty much every place.

Smokers don't jail you for not smoking.


Bankers jail you for using cash.

Goldbugs don't jail you for using debit cards.


Globalists bomb you for questioning the Empire.

Localists don't bomb you for being a globalist.


The non-jailing and non-bombing and non-interventionist side of each debate is good. The jailing side is bad. Jailoleth.

= = = = = END REPRINT.

This year I need to add a new Jailoleth to the list, except it's not really a pair.

Epidemiologists jail and starve healthy normal people, and release criminals from all rules and laws.

.... But there isn't a well-formed opposing vector, as with the previous alternations. There isn't a named or defined 'alt-epidemiologist'.

Ordinary people with ordinary scientific literacy have been trying to counteract the epidemiologists, but we don't have a Guild or a Title or a Profession. We're just lovers of reality and lovers of LIFE, trying to defend real science and LIFE from all the Guilds and Titles and Professions who have unanimously joined the holocaust.

Labels: Asked better than answered, Leth

  ¶ 10:59 PM

  What would Bryan do?
The essence of Sorosian government is a two-step process:

1. Locate a "problem" that cannot be solved because it's an inherent fact of nature; or create a "problem" from scratch in such a way that it's logically and physically unsolvable.

2. Eternally pretend to "solve" the physically unsolvable "problem", using techniques that infinitely expand government power and budget. Since the "problem" will never be solved, infinite increase is GUARANTEED.

= = = = =

What happens when a politician breaks out of the process?

Headline in this morning's newspapers:

Beware of the politician with simple answers. Trump still divides, and there's still a lot at stake.

In other words, BEWARE OF PROBLEM-SOLVERS.

Don't let the plumber replace your faucet. Don't fix a flat tire. Don't let the doctor give you a vaccine. Don't let the city use



on the streets. Don't let the school DIVIDE kids according to their talents and vocations. Don't let policemen DIVIDE criminals from non-criminals by arresting criminals. Don't execute the worst criminals. Don't let the government build walls or tariffs or anti-missile systems to DIVIDE us from military or economic invaders. Don't let parents DIVIDE people by providing comfort and discipline to their own kids.

Everyone must be TOTALLY VULNERABLE, all real problems must get WORSE, all normal situations must be turned into unsolvable "problems".

This is Soros.

= = = = =

We still can't predict that Trump will do what he says, but his inauguration speech is a clarion call to BREAK the Sorosian two-step. No compromise, no "reverting to mean".

What would Bryan do?

I went back and read some Jennings Bryan and some Graybill. Trump's diagnosis is the same because our conditions are the same as 1890. Trump's prescription is entirely different because the correct solution has been determined EXPERIMENTALLY.

Bryan and Graybill were prescribing changes in the monetary system, which must have seemed like a solution at the time. They were wrong. Paper and silver and gold are all equally good, and none of them help to cure globalism. The cure for globalism is to DIVIDE the nation from all the evils of globalism.

FDR had the right cure even though he didn't talk like Bryan. Banks are the core vector of globalism. You have to decrease their power and increase the power of REAL VALUE PRODUCTIVE BUSINESS. You have to MAKE PEOPLE USEFUL again, which means eliminating the type of business that makes people useless. You have to can salmon with workers instead of ledgers.

Now that the correct cure has been EXPERIMENTALLY PROVEN, Trump is proposing to use it. Yes, it does require DIVIDING because solving always requires DIVIDING.

Labels: Make or break, skill-estate

  ¶ 3:39 AM

  Random
Short thoughts on various things.

-----

Ashcroft being interviewed on Fox News just now. Says: "It would be absurd for the US, being a nation of immigrants, to be seen as shutting out immigrants."

Oh? Why would that be absurd? Just because we did something in the past, we don't have to keep doing it. If that were true, we'd be saying things like: "It would be absurd for the US, having been built by slavery, to abolish slavery."

-----

Interesting transcript of Bush's conference with conservative opinion leaders. This exchange stands out:

So my question is, how can we measure victories? How can you measure winning? The last couple of years there just doesn't seem to be any signals or signs that we're winning.

THE PRESIDENT: That is the significant disadvantage we have in this war because the enemy gets to define victory by killing people. ... I don't know what Harry Truman was feeling like, or Franklin Roosevelt. But I do know ... that at Midway, they were eventually able to say two carriers were sunk and one was damaged. We don't get to say that. A thousand of the enemy killed, or whatever the number was. It's happening; you just don't know it.

=====

WHAT????????

WE DON'T GET TO SAY THAT?

WE DON'T GET TO SAY THAT?

George, aren't you the boss? Aren't you the one who decides whether we inform our own people of our successes, as any normal leader would do in any normal situation, let alone a war of propaganda? Or is someone else the boss? Teddy Kennedy? Prince Bandar? Saddam Hussein? JUST WHO IS IN CHARGE HERE?


=====

[Apologies for duplication of post earlier today ... Blogspot was giving strange errors and I couldn't tell if the post had actually gone online.]


  ¶ 1:40 PM

  What's the opposite?
What's the opposite of HARDASS REALIST? How about TAKINGITUPTHEASS FANTASIST?

The perfectly predictable outcome of the Daleiden case came out as perfectly predicted. "Trial" done, Daleiden in jail for a long time.

I wrote a year ago:

= = = = = START PARTIAL REPRINT:

I've contributed to the Thomas More defense fund for Daleiden. They're begging for more, which is EXTREMELY UNDERSTANDABLE. They estimate that the defense will cost 20 million.

New thought:

Don't be there applies to legal defense as well. We've seen REPEATEDLY AND CONSISTENTLY that heretics are NEVER ALLOWED TO WIN. Satan owns all the black-robed demons and all the prosecutor demons.

Both sides are playing a game. The defense side knows perfectly well that Satan NEVER GIVES UP. Satan has INFINITE resources because SATAN OWNS THE COUNTERFEIT PRINTING PRESS. There is exactly ZERO chance of winning. Defender organizations like Thomas More gain budget and workforce by running a permanent defense. Parkinson, Parkinson, Parkinson.

Satan doesn't really like to kill heretics, because death ends the wasted energy and creates a martyr. Satan prefers to keep heretics OCCUPIED FOREVER with pointless fighting that will never succeed.

What's the alternative? Don't be here. Live elsewhere without wasted energy.

= = = = =

MODEST PROPOSAL:

Instead of crowdfunding an endless and EXPONENTIALLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE court "fight", we should be crowdfunding a proper pension or annuity for heretics. We know that heretics will never be allowed to work, so we should honor them and protect them by giving them a decent retirement in a sane and INDEPENDENT country like Brazil or Russia.

= = = = = END PARTIAL REPRINT.

I've been leaving futile and pointless comments in various articles on the case, pushing the idea of pensioned exile. Perfectly predictably, nobody is listening. Everyone is stuck on stupid, mindlessly following Deepstate orders, mindlessly reading their assigned puppet part in Deepstate's grotesque puppet show, mindlessly pouring their money and talents into Deepstate's hyperdemonic project of obliterating the universe.


DON'T FUCKING BE THERE.
  ¶ 5:11 AM

  Political physics
Just as astrology can be a hard science, political analysis can be a hard science.

Schachtel shows how it's done. Most of the fact-gatherers on the sane side are hampered by a naive faith in "laws" and "liberties" and "ideologies". Schachtel turns politics into physics. Force, friction, flow. Just like Newton or Ohm. He asks the question:

How was the Biden Administration able to flip the switch on COVID Mania and turn off the Safety Regime virtually overnight, after 15 months of a ruthless propaganda and fear campaign claiming that America was in the midst of a perpetual pandemic of endless death and destruction? Luckily for Team Biden, the current White House are beneficiaries of Democrat, or D.C. insider privilege. And because they are part of the insider’s club, they have the ability to control and manipulate the power centers in D.C. at a moment’s notice. To make sense of this rapid, perplexing change of events, you have to understand how our institutions in Washington, D.C. actually work.

He then runs through the forces:

Now, the somewhat level-headed individuals in the Biden Administration have been seeking a way out of COVID Mania for quite some time. While the power grabs related to “the pandemic” have helped the people in charge accumulate power (particularly maniacal state governors) and install an authoritarian Safety Regime, the pandemic policies have also manifested several crises.

The frictions:

The Biden Administration is dealing with countless domestic and international upheavals, in addition to a sinking economy, among many other impending bubbles and catastrophes. They needed a way out as soon as humanly possible. COVID Mania had so many residual effects that it began to threaten the integrity of the entire system.

The flow:

They needed an exit strategy, so they simply asserted their insider privilege, moved the political appointees and the federal bureaucracy into order, and switched off COVID Mania like it was no big deal.

The bureaucratic circuit is protected by diodes. When the force is coming from the correct (D) pole of the president battery, the diode conducts and the bureaucratic circuit amplifies the orders. When the force is coming from the R pole, there's no action, just a lot of Zener noise.

= = = = =

Exactly one year ago I was hoping (but not really believing) that something like this could happen:

= = = = = START REPRINT:

One simple change would help tremendously.

Elect Biden.

Replacing the puppet in the White House wouldn't change the behavior of the Federal dysgovernment. Biden puppet and Trump puppet are identical passive mechanisms controlled by the same Master. But it would definitely change the actions of the governors and the media.

The holocauster governors are driven by infinitely evil bloodlust, but they are also driven by a specific hatred of Deplorables. In their cranial cavities Trump represents Deplorables, so he must be removed. Removing him would relieve some of the pressure in those alien cavities.

For damn sure electing Biden would solve the media end of the holocaust, immediately and completely. The media aren't in direct control of the ovens and gas chambers, but they are providing the fuel and the torches. If Biden was in the White House, the media WOULDN'T HAVE ANY MOTIVATION to continue killing millions of Americans. They would want their team to succeed. The Branded Witch Flu would instantly be treated as just another ordinary annual flu season, which would accidentally agree with fucking reality.

= = = = = END REPRINT.

I was underestimating the elasticity of the federal bureaucrats. They turned out to be changeable after the Orange Witch was burned.

Incidentally, this final flip OUGHT to prove to anyone who still hasn't figured it out that the entire holocaust is a HOAX.

The demonic governors have suddenly abandoned their Phases and Dashboards and Data and Cases. On May 3, Demon Inslee was getting ready to pull most of the state back into a stricter Phase because Cases. Now he has announced a full reopening on June 30. The start had nothing to do with "viruses" and the end had nothing to do with "viruses". Inslee's boss gave a new command and Inslee obeyed. That's all.

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

Tiresome but still crucial: We still don't know how the orders were given and what threats accompanied the orders. More importantly, we don't know anything about the PREPARATION before the start date. Everything clicked in perfect unison on March 12, 2020. You don't get a million bureaucrats in 200 countries to act in perfect unison without a couple years of training and rehearsals and drills. All of this shit was going on under the radar. Every Public Death Office in every city and county and province through the world was running through these rehearsals without giving anything away.

More abstractly, we still don't know the PURPOSE of the holocaust, the cui bono. There are several economic winners, like Amazon and Big Pharma, but those gains don't seem to balance out the much larger economic losses by governments and other corporations.

My usual Ockham answer is that there's no defined purpose. It's just psychopaths running rampant, deciding to work together for mutual sexual satisfaction. A global circlefuck. A planetfuck. This may be too simple, but at the moment I can't see anything more complex.

Labels: endless hell, infinite evil

  ¶ 12:46 PM

  Reprint and a bet
The ACU channel is livestreaming a discussion of the USA side of the holocaust. There's a lot more English than usual, so it will be more watchable here.

So far the discussion tends to support a 'bet' I've been thinking about.

In the few blessed countries and states that continued REAL SCIENCE and REAL PUBLIC HEALTH, this year's pattern of deaths looks like a fairly bad flu season, but not among the worst, even in recent times. In the places that decided to kill everyone, the death count is much higher, as you'd expect. More murder results in more deaths. QED.

But even among the holocausters, NYC and New Orleans stand out dramatically.

Here's the bet. In most places this "virus" is a rebranding of seasonal flu. In NYC and NO, this "virus" also includes a rebranding of medical errors.

The well-established estimates of deaths by medical error strongly resemble this year's "count" of "deaths" from the Haute-Couture Branded Virus.

I focused on medical errors a few years ago, and the writeup from exactly five years ago is worth a reprint.

= = = = = START REPRINT:


I've been noticing a lot of 'reverse marketing' lately. Putting it all together, it forms a much deeper and more vicious picture.

All institutions in the Satanic West have abandoned their purposes. They were designed ... and given legal privileges ... because they were supposed to serve the general population. Now they serve ONLY an elite few. They violently reject and kill the unwashed masses who were supposed to be the clients. The desirable elite isn't always the same set of people, but it's always a tiny fraction of the group that the institution was meant to serve. Some institutions don't even want the elite; they're working for entirely different goals.



Banks don't want depositors or borrowers.

Universities don't want students. (This has been true for several decades; more recently they're driving away faculty as well. Adjuncts, online lectures.)

Political candidates don't want votes.

The stock market doesn't want shareholders.

The court system doesn't want policemen.

Hospitals don't want patients.

The power grid doesn't want electricity.

Churches don't want Christians.

Corporations don't want employees OR customers.

Newspapers don't want readers.

TV stations don't want viewers.

Army recruiters don't want recruits.

Boy Scouts don't want boys.

= = = = =

In a few cases we have separate decentralized or 'workaround' institutions that behave properly. House churches still serve Christians. Small businesses want customers. Crowdfunding wants shareholders. But those alternative arrangements are exceptions, and the big centralized parts are working to eliminate the exceptions.


= = = = = END REPRINT.:

Instructively, the link I href'd for medical errors has been deleted.
  ¶ 7:02 AM

  More AI point-missing
This time the article is about randomness and human perception in the context of card games.

Originally, bridge hands were shuffled and dealt by the players themselves. During the late 1970s and into the early 1980s, serious competitions began switching to computer-generated hands. At first, players complained that the algorithms were faulty because they dealt too many wild hands with uneven distributions of cards. More often than they remembered, at least one player was dealt a void (no cards in one suit) or six or seven or more cards in the same suit.

These complaints were taken seriously because the players in competitive matches had many years’ experience to back up their claims that the computer-generated hands showed wilder distributions than the hands shuffled by bridge players.

Several mathematicians stepped forward and calculated the theoretical probabilities, comparing them to the actual distribution of computer-dealt hands. It turned out that the distribution of computer-generated hands was correct.

No it wasn't "correct". The computer-generated distribution was mathematically random, but mathematical randomness is NEGATIVELY CORRELATED with human perception of randomness.

There is widely accepted fallacy called the “law of small numbers,” according to which short-run outcomes should be similar to long-run average outcomes. If heads comes up half the time, on average, in coin flips, then we should expect 5 heads when a coin is flipped 10 times. (In fact, there is only a 25 percent chance of 5 heads and 5 tails in that case.)

No, small N is not the problem here. We're dealing (heh) with the inevitable results and patterns of a random process that is filtered through thresholds or categories.

In this case the categories are the four suits in a deck of cards. In other cases the categories may be types of disease in a city or types of fish in a pond or types of music in a playlist.

= = = = = START REPRINT:

The recent big lottery brings up randomness again. Lotteries are a very rare case, maybe the only situation in common experience, where a mathematical randomizer shows up in PURE or raw form.

The vast majority of "randomized" events in our lives are THRESHOLDED random.

Let's see if I can illustrate the difference.

This first animation shows some bars rising and falling by a pure mathematical random process. The height of each bar is decided separately at each frame of the movie. Notice that this set of motions looks fully random; you can't see any pattern in it.




Now I've added a THRESHOLD across the bars. This makes the situation far more realistic, corresponding to many random-driven events in ordinary life. From this angle it still looks unpatterned.




Now we're looking at the same THRESHOLDED situation from the top. Now we can see all sorts of patterns! At each moment we can see CLUSTERS of bars that have popped above the threshold, and we can't see the bars that are below. Most importantly, we don't see the continuously variable heights any more; we only see the DECISION. Each bar has turned into a yes-no vote.




Everything we sense is thresholded. These bars might represent sounds coming from all sorts of things (crickets, doors, cars, dogs in your yard, dogs in China, rivers in Argentina.) All of those things are in the air, but you only hear the nearest and strongest. Same with points of light, or weights on your hand, or differences in income and status between you and your neighbor. You only sense values that pop up above your internal threshold.

The most direct analogy for this image might be a field of grass seeds popping through the soil. They are driven by temperature and moisture, so they will tend to sprout within a limited range of time; but each one has a unique micro-climate depending on shadows, bacteria, earthworms, etc.

Another prime example: Cancer clusters. Each bar corresponds to one person, with a varying number of cancerous cells. Everyone has some cancerous cells all the time, but we don't register a case of cancer until the number of cells pops through the threshold of a screening test. Each frame in the animation might correspond to a map of cancer cases in one year. Some of the frames show very definite clusters of cancer cases! Better look for known carcinogens where those clusters formed! Is there a power line? A kerosene lamp? A cell phone? No, it's most likely just random stuff.

Or we could be talking about weather events. Rivers rise and fall all the time, but we don't call it a flood until a river rises above the line of the nearest occupied land. Some of these bars seem to be flooding several years in a row! It's global warming! No, it's most likely just random stuff.

But not always. In some cases a repeated flood is just part of this clustering effect, but repetition is actually more likely than plain clustering would imply. Everything in Nature depends in infinitely complex ways on previous events. If Wildcat Creek floods in March, the ground is still wetter than usual in May, so it takes less rain than usual to bring the creek up to flood stage. The threshold has moved. There are also long-term trends like sunspot cycles and El Nino / La Nina ocean oscillations. If conditions favor big rains this year, the trends are likely to favor big rains next year as well. Probably have to wait several years until the cycles return to a dry phase.



To illustrate, I've moved the threshold up and down in a sine wave. First as seen from the side, just to show what's really happening:





Now from the top. Wow! We got 500-year floods everywhere, for several years in a row! And then we have terrible droughts everywhere, for several years in a row! This can't be random!


Yes it can. The bars are still moving in the very same pattern; the driving forces haven't changed. It's just that the conditions for popping each event above the threshold are changing from year to year as they do in Nature.

People who see life through the prism of statistics have trouble handling thresholds. Abstract academics have to shoehorn life into closed-form real-number equations, and you can't use a threshold in that context. Thresholding is perfectly natural to a binary computer. An on-off choice is easy to write as code, and the computer can handle it more precisely than a continuous number. But this naturalness doesn't penetrate the academic mind. If you can't write a continuous function suitable for a slide rule, you can't begin to think about the problem.

= = = = = END REPRINT.

My illustrations show only two categories, above and below threshold, but the same rule applies with four categories. The players expect to see a relatively smooth distribution of categories over time, not a perfect mathematical random. They don't want to see long streaks of hearts or gaps of spades. Computerized random always gives you streaks and gaps in categories. The "imperfect" shuffling apparently leaves a smoother pattern of categories.

Since bridge is a HUMAN game played by HUMANS, the shuffle should give the HUMAN players what they want to work with.

Labels: AI point-missing, Real World Math

  ¶ 11:37 PM

  Malsaĝecoj
Finally figured out something that has been puzzling me for a long time.

Esperanto was never going to be a universal language because humans don't need or want a universal language. But it might have been much more useful if Zamenhof hadn't missed three BIG pieces of human perception and reality. The title above (roughly meaning Stupidities) includes all of them.

In general Zamenhof (1) used hard mathematical logic where it didn't belong, and (2) used soft natural processes where they weren't needed and (3) didn't notice one major reason why English is popular.

= = = = =

(1) The BIG miss was in the realm of adjectives. Zamenhof was following the idiotic "sciency" view of perception, which is still unfortunately widespread. Every "science" teacher will tell you There's No Such Thing As Cold Or Dark. Cold Is Only The Absence Of Heat, And Dark Is Only The Absence Of Light.

So Esperanto forms its adjectives mathematically. Varma is warm, Malvarma is cool. Luma is light, Malluma is dark. For every pair of qualities, Zamenhof rather arbitrarily chose the 'good' one as unmarked, and prefixed the 'opposite' with Mal. But what's an opposite? It's a hopelessly slippery concept, not reducible to math.



First, Mal is the wrong prefix. Mal doesn't mean 'not' in any language, it means 'bad' in most, 'small' in Slavic, 'paint' in German, and 'shopping' in English. Orwell fixed this problem in Newspeak with Unwarm and Unlight, while intentionally leaving the main mechanistic failure in place.

The main failure is simple. Yes, Goddamnit, There Is Such A Thing As Cold And Dark. Cold is completely distinct from abstract and meaningless crap like Not-Hot or Lack-Of-Hot or Zero-Hotness. Human senses are explicitly two-ended and dynamic. Cold means Less Hot Than It Was Before, or Less Hot Than It Is Over There. Dark means Less Light Than Before, or Less Light Than Over There. Beyond that, Cold and Dark carry huge piles of associations and memories that are utterly disjunct from the analogies and flavors of Hot and Light.

And even if you want to disdain human perception as Subjective you still have the same complete contrast of qualities and processes at the mechanistic level. How do you make something hot? By [electrical or mechanical] friction, or by combustion, or indirectly by fission. By transforming a bit of mass into vibration of entire atoms. And how do you make it cold? Not by transforming energy back into mass, not by defriction or decombustion or defission. Those processes DO NOT EXIST. You make something cold[er] by blocking off the usual sources of heat, or by hugely complex refrigeration cycles that essentially move the vibrational energy Over There. Similarly with Light and Dark. You make something light[er] by directing electromagnetic energy toward it and encouraging the energy to bounce into our eyes; you make it dark[er] by absorbing some of the energy instead of reflecting it.

All of those processes could be collapsed into the loose idea of steering energy in various directions, with lots of complexities tacked on. The important thing in all of them is the dynamic movement of energy one way or another, which corresponds nicely with the human perception of dynamic change one way or another. The same applies to other opposable pairs like High vs Low or Fancy vs Plain. It's always a directional change from an actual or remembered baseline.

Presence vs absence, One vs Zero, the "sciency" or Esperanto way of thinking, doesn't come anywhere near the physical AND perceptual reality of adjectival qualities.

= = = = =

(2) This is more subtle and linguisty. Zamenhof was trying to compromise or mix the virtues of synthetic and agglutinative languages, and lost both.

Agglutination is strictly mechanical, and it IS common among natural languages.

Verbs in Esperanto are properly and beautifully agglutinative. Start with a root. Romp is a root meaning break. The next attachment gives the tense, -a- for present, -i- for past, -o- for future, -u- for conditional or subjunctive. The next attachment can be -s for simple active or -ta for passive participle or -nta for active participle. Mi rompas = I break. Mi rompos = I will break. La rompanta knabo = the boy who is (in the habit of) breaking (things). La rompota fenestro = the window that will be broken. All perfectly orthogonal, just like Turkish or Korean. Because this is a natural mechanism, verbs are easy to learn and powerfully flexible to use. The best part of the language.

Nouns are messy and confused. I think Zamenhof was trying to mix agglutinative and synthetic without fully understanding why the mix is impossible.

He started with agglutinative. All nouns end in o. To form plural add -j (which should have been -y). La fenestroj = the windows. To form accusative add -n after the root or after the plural. La knabo rompis la fenestron = the boy broke the window. La knaboj rompis la fenestrojn = the boys broke the windows. So far it's agglutinative, BUT Zamenhof didn't take full advantage of the agglutinative way of thinking. Natural agg languages use the case ending for all the dynamic directions and relationships that a noun can assume. They have consistent endings for the inevitable NGDA, and by-means-of, along-with, into, out-of, away-from, and a dozen others. This means that agg languages don't need a lot of little connector words, because the dynamic directions are bundled with the noun.

The one oblique case that natural languages DO NOT bother to mark most of the time is accusative. Logically and binarily, you might think the accusative would be the most general. Zamenhof clearly thought so, which is why he chose to mark ONLY the accusative. But natural languages don't think so. In German and Latin and Russian, you'll find two or three cases that do get marked pretty solidly and consistently, but the accusative is only present part of the time for some classes of nouns.

Here's where Zamenhof lost the tune. Agg languages mark the noun and stop there. Mechanistic logic says that one set of attachments gets the meaning across, so that's all you need. Synthetic languages spread the grammar across a major part of the sentence, generally with different forms and different mappings for nouns and adjectives and articles.

Zamenhof picked up this quality of agreement and used it mechanically and orthogonally, which misses the point. La malbona knabo rompis la belan fenestron = the bad boy broke the pretty window. La malbonaj knaboj rompis la belajn fenestrojn = the bad boys broke the pretty windows. Since the number and the (unnecessary) accusative are marked reliably and completely on the noun, you don't need to mark the adjective.

In synthetic languages the splashed-out forms are more like a spice or color than a mechanism. In German the article normally carries the case and number fairly reliably; the noun may carry only the number; and the adjective may carry only the case. Everything depends on everything else, so each word carries less of the load both productively and receptively. You can sniff the relationship from one or all of the pieces, and that's enough.

= = = = =

Finally (3), Zamenhof didn't catch one of the big selling points of English. No diacritical marks. He grew up in Polish, which uses lots of different diacritics inefficiently, so he should have been more sensitive to this point.


= = = = =

Artistic sidenote: Happystar is, of course, using complementary colors to illustrate the point literally. Longtime Esperantists would see it metaphorically. They would change the right side to "Malverda stelo? Iam." Sometimes. The USSR had a peculiar off/on relationship with Esperanto, similar to their relationship with ham radio. Sometimes they used and manipulated these two 'internationalist' groups for propaganda purposes, and sometimes they strongly discouraged both groups as potential spies. It was hard to keep up with the dynamic directions of favor/disfavor.

Labels: Language update

  ¶ 10:06 AM

  Sleeping through cyberwar
Lately I've been listening at bedtime to episodes of 'Behind the Headlines' from the late '40s. This was a series of thoughtful essays by César Saerchinger, who had been a foreign correspondent and author. Like most intellectuals of that time, he was obsessed with the need for nuclear disarmament. This intellectual impulse later served to motivate the Soviet penetration and destruction of America, but nevertheless it was a rational conclusion before Moscow grabbed it.



Rough transcript of Saerchinger, April 1947:

We are today the most powerful nation. ... All but the Soviet satellites look to us in a world where security is still a dream. ... Within 10 years the Russians might be in possession of an atomic bomb or something equally terrible. After that the Russians will be on an equal footing with us. In the meantime the issue is lack of trust. They don't entirely trust us and we don't trust them. ... But no single factor has poisoned the atmosphere more than our monopoly of the atomic bom, the fact that we have actually demonstrated its monstrous destructive power, that we are continuing to stockpile more bombs while the whole world has agreed that the bomb must be outlawed if civilization is to survive.

The abortive attempts at disarmament in the 20s and 30s were followed by an armament race, followed by a devastating war. There is one crucial difference between the current race and the previous one. In the previous race, the industrially stronger powers won out in the long run. But in a nuclear war there will be no long run.

Note the dire comparison between previous and current weapons, motivating urgent disarmament of America so Russia can have all the power.

= = = = =

Now we have another transition of weapons, marked this week by Panetta:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta issued what he said is a “clarion call” Thursday for Americans to wake up to the growing threat posed by cyber war.

“The whole point of this is that we simply don’t just sit back and wait for a goddamn crisis to happen,” Panetta told Time. “In this country we tend to do that, and that’s a concern.”

Panetta came to the nation’s financial hub – New York City – to issue his battle cry. The city is the brightest bulls-eye on the American target for foes wishing to cripple the U.S. economy with computerized “worms” and “malware” that can infect computer networks via the Internet or insider sabotage.

“It is the kind of capability that can basically take down a power grid, take down a water system, take down a transportation system, take down a financial system,” he told Time editors. “We are now in a world in which countries are developing the capability to engage in the kind of attacks that can virtually paralyze a country.”

“Everybody knows what their iPhone can do, everybody knows what their computer can do, but I think there are too few people out there who understand the potential for the kind of attack that could cripple this country,” Panetta said. “The American people just have to be made aware of that.”

I appreciate Panetta's straight talk. No bureaucratic buzzwords, no shit about 'exceptionalism'. But he's manipulating the same old trick about a new and unfamiliar threat.

This new threat is simply nonsense.

There is no way the average citizen can be safe from an atomic bomb, but it's GODDAMN EASY to be safe from a cyberthreat. All you have to do is DECENTRALIZE. Keep all web-connected stuff totally separate from important stuff like factories and utilities. Important stuff was already running perfectly well before the web came along. Important stuff was already thoroughly automated and computerized before the web came along. There is simply NO REASON to tie these things to the web by cable or radio.

So we have to ask why Panetta is pushing this threat as dire and apocalyptic when it's NOT. Easy answer. He doesn't WANT us to decentralize. As a good bureaucrat, his sole purpose in life is to maximize the power and budget of his agency. When nuclear war fades from the scene, the Pentagon's genuine need for central power also fades.

Not only fades but fails. Remember what DIDN'T happen on 9/11. All of our centralized defense and intelligence apparatus (NORAD, NSA, SAC, CIA) completely failed to anticipate those 19 Saudi boys, and completely failed to respond. The only response came from brave men on one of the airliners.

Decentralized war requires decentralized defense. In the cyber realm, decentralized defense WORKS EVERY TIME IT'S USED. The only problem is that industries and governments are TOO FUCKING STUPID TO USE IT. They value the need for centralized command, the need to make factories respond every millisecond to the corporation's electronically-traded share value. Corporate leaders are Chinese agents. They consciously and intentionally move production to China, with the primary purpose of smashing the American economy and the secondary purpose of installing Chinese spyware in everything we use. Traitors.

Now Panetta is trying to centralize the defense against cyberthreats. He wants the Pentagon to be in charge of all cyberwar actions. We know where that will lead. It will lead to a new NORAD, and the new NORAD will fail just like the old one. Individual cyberdefense will end up being prohibited or intentionally diluted to serve our Wall Street and Chinese masters.

WATCH OUT!
  ¶ 4:48 AM

  Memoryholing humans
Following on yesterday's note about British paper ballots.

There's a strong parallel to my recent discussions of pre-electric semaphore systems and scrip.

In all cases the official myth treats electricity as magic. When a system switches from manual to electronic, we automatically assume that the old manual way was INFINITELY slower. We can't possibly return to a method that takes "many months" to transfer messages or transfer money or complete a count.

In fact the changeover didn't improve speed and the old way didn't take months. That wasn't the real purpose of the change.

Yesterday's Brit election showed the speed of human counters. Each constituency counted about 100k ballots in real time and finished checking within an hour after closing. The whole nation was done five hours after closing.

Rehashing my discussion of semaphores:

= = = = = START REPRINT 1:

Electric telegraphs began around 1830 when visual semaphore systems were already widespread in Europe and Russia. In those countries, news traveled much faster than horseback but somewhat slower than electricity. Why didn't USA copy the idea? For 50 years those systems were well known and highly functional, but we didn't use them. We made do with horses and runners until Morse and others persuaded the government to try the electric system.


Why were semaphores slower than electric telegraphs? The obvious answer is because electricity... but that isn't the real answer.

Two reasons, one of which could have been solved with existing technology.

(1) The moving parts of semaphores were big and heavy, requiring considerable strength and time to overcome inertia. The keyboards of the first electric telegraphs acted easily and instantly, with negligible mass and momentum. This could have been solved with the compressed-air technology of pipe organs. The English six-panel system would be best because its action was binary. Each key would valve air into its own combination of pistons, each flipping one panel. When the key was released, the spring-loaded panels would snap back to default.

(2) More subtle but unsolvable. The first telegraphs were NOT significantly faster than semaphores. The Chappe system, with a dense network of stations and highly skilled operators, was able to send a message from Calais to Paris in three minutes under ideal circumstances, and one hour in typical usage. Early telegraphs shared the limitation of frequent human intervention. Batteries at each station had to overcome the resistance and reactance of long wires. The message might travel about 5 miles to the first receiver, where the operator would have to copy the complete message and then resend it. This is identical to semaphores except for the inertia and momentum. Telegraphs became instantaneous after the invention of the relay, which automatically transferred the information to a new circuit with its own batteries. Relays act instantly, so a well-formed and well-maintained line could send a message through unlimited distances instantly. There was no conceivable way to develop a relay for visual systems. It would be possible right now using video cameras and OCR technology, but it wouldn't have been possible even 20 years ago.

= = = = = END REPRINT 1.

Rehashing the discussion of scrip:

= = = = = START REPRINT 2:

Hawala or scrip is the economic implementation of a principle that's painfully familiar and even trivial in other areas.

Decentralizing works ONLY when the modules or units share a common ground.

A trust network holds up ONLY when the units are built with a shared purpose. Ideally each unit should be physically incapable of harming the network.

When you can count on the units to follow the same rule in the same situation, you don't need a central controller sending commands to the units, and you don't need a lot of communication between the units.

When the modules have different grounds or different limits or different operating systems, you need a strong central controller, and even then the overall system will be inefficient. Most energy will be chewed up in the contradictory and redundant operations of the bureaucratic control system.

= = = = = END REPRINT 2.

We conveniently skip semaphores and scrip. They are entirely omitted from our history of tech, just as analog computers are omitted.

Well then, if speed isn't the main distinction between manual and electric, what's the real difference?

SKILL AND CONTROL.

Manual methods give work and utility to people with a common culture. Electronic methods make people redundant, make culture redundant, and require everything to be controlled from one center.

Manual methods are necessarily MODULAR, with activities organized by level. Each module does its own measuring or counting using an agreed-on culture, and each module protects its own calculations. There's no choice.

Electronic methods can be modular, but big tech always requires globalism. Each module must be instantly and invisibly monitored and controlled and hacked from the global control center.

All of our thoughts and histories have been Rectified to make human functions and skills look horrible. We can't possibly go back, because we'd lose all of our efficiency and speed.

Nonsense.

BIG TECH IS GENOCIDE.

= = = = =

Sidenote for future ref: In the earlier discussion on semaphores I asked: Why didn't USA copy the idea? I didn't answer the question, and still can't see an answer. We obviously weren't waiting for electric telegraphs, because they didn't even start developing until 1830. We had plenty of contact with France in those years. Our inventors and politicians often visited France for inspiration and financing. Chappe semaphores were EVERYWHERE in France, and they were dramatically visible. American writers commented on the 'flying wings' of Chappe, but we didn't adopt them. It's a strong puzzle.

Labels: Deadthink, defensible times, Morsenet of Things, scrip, skill-estate

  ¶ 10:54 PM