Well it finally happened, the far right got frightened enough it organised. The unite the right rally shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, there's a growing anti-white sentiment on the internet which gets reflected in real life and a number of threats from the far left to those who oppose their views. This has led to the less secure finding comfort with right wing radicals in white supremacist movements offering safety and a return to greatness. Taking advantage of the classic nostalgia for an age that never existed.
The biggest fan to the flame seems to be violence something we're seeing predominantly from Antifa giving punches and labelling anyone left of Marx a Nazi. Some of those fools call themselves anarchists, simple rule of thumb for noticing anarchists, nice people until you are a serious risk of causing them physical harm. "Buh mah emotions" aren't a reason to attack people, your cognitive dissonance won't kill you, it'll teach you and make you stronger when you learn to read it. We saw similar from BLM last year with some members hunting white people in
Socialism A versus socialism B, globalist socialism versus nationalist socialism. Either way it's 2 same think groups labelling anyone who thinks different as the enemy. Not realising they are so damn alike. Whether it be calling for racial segregation or racial safe spaces or historical revisionism, their similarities outweigh their differences.
I'm not going to touch much on the death of Heather Heyers, her life was tragically cut short when a car driven by someone attending the unite the right rally hit a group of protesters. Everything other than that is speculation at best, at worst attempts to generate more violence. This is what socialist extremists thrive on, confusion and random violence.
Let's take a step back from what we're seeing. There's 2 staunchly opposed sides good versus evil, justifying the use of violence and ostracism. Taoism teaches that good and evil are just subjective terms people use to justify their actions and that's what we're seeing strongly here. Division has been made now who steps in to conquer? It's useful for getting people to want laws surpressing their free expression, invasion of privacy and stricter financial regulation. Ultimately we're all easier to control if we think the same, are afraid to hold seditious materials and those in opposition can't get funding to spread their message. While that seems great now to fight people who's aim is to spread needless hate, down the line it limits individual rights. When dissent becomes illegal the authoritarian establishment will run unchecked. Who benefits? Cynically I'll look at the usual large corporations who need government to regulate them in to existence as the ones to benefit. It will be easier to quell people from challenging you if they think they want your product, can't speak out and generate funds to compete against you.
Lets break down the socialist threat, fascists and communists are 2 sides of the authoritarian coin, both offer unity and the foolish idea that a small number of people are capable of deciding what a large group unable to give their own lives need. Both enforce same think and will quickly label anyone who questions them the enemy, so who do they really threaten? The people these groups really threaten aren't each other but free thinking individuals wanting less authoritarian governance. If previous fascist and communist regimes have demonstrated anything it's the anarchists they get killed first. Anyone who can question motives and stimulate independent thought are a threat, we will be second against the wall after the leaders of the opposition are killed. The sheep underneath clearly want to follow any authoritarian government as long as they get their free stuff, as long as they don't have to think for themselves.
At the end of it all Charlottesville will serve as an effective battle cry to encourage more people into violence and restricting free expression to their own detriment. All we can do is remain calm, fight for free expression, logical reasoning and compassion for others. Never forget if violence begets violence, discourse begets understanding.
I'll wrap this up with a great video from https://fee.org/ .
https://youtu.be/rGFwPGNzQJM
20170819
20170725
Freedom of Expression Under Attack (Again)
Before I start this ramble, let me state I am prochoice. This comes from a place of freedom and liberty, from that place comes my outrage at the following. I've been smacked in the face by prolife placards while the Gardaí (Irish police) do nothing but I'll still defend their right to carry those placards.
At the weekend we saw triumphantalism from progressives over prolife campaigners having their posters confiscated by the Gardaí. These were the usual fare of images of a healthy child, blastocysts, fetuses and the after results of an abortion. This was done on the basis of obscenity laws, in the name of protecting children, ironic, no? This was supported by a few political parties. Whilst they were allowed to continue canvassing they couldn't display images of a medical procedure. When I confronted people on this I got a fairly harsh "learn the law" reply. Another irony people campaigning against an injust law, encouraging people to break the law by going abroad to have an abortion insisting laws should be followed without question. Further irony that the prochoice campaign needed the right to free expression in its early days. Other arguments included "they did it first", "wait until you have kids then you'll see my point of view" and "free expression doesn't extend to imagery".
Now I'll break those down a bit.
They did it first:
Two wrongs don't make a right. If you have a valid point you don't need to lower yourself to your opponents dirty tactics to defend yourself. Perpetuating those tactics damages society as a whole, you can't progress doing the same things over and over again. Gaining one advancement to lose another gains nothing, in this case gaining bodily integrity to lose free expression is not worth it because bodily integrity will be the last thing that will be won.
Logical fallacy:
If you ever need to resort to "when you have kids", "your to young to know", "if you had my experience" and similar to end a debate, you've failed to win a debate. When you make a statement the burden of proof is on you, if someone needs a qualifier to see your point of view you haven't explained it properly. Avoiding logical fallacies will help you debate better or help you change your mind, if your argument requires prerequisites that are limited to a subset of people then it's invalid and needs to be redeveloped until you're capable of expressing it.
The law:
"The law is an ass" Charles Dickens. As I said there's a laughable irony in people campaigning against a law, complaining when they perceive a breach of the law. Obscenity laws should only prevent perverts flashing people on the street. Not campaigners using medical imagery or pictures of children crawling around fully clothed. When obscenity laws extend to the removal of medical imagery things are going wrong. Other than the implication of the happy baby crawling is the result of every birth the imagery removed was fact based or the idea that all abortions can lead to infertility, what they use is reasonably science based. Let's play this out, in this brave new world of identity politics we're expected to be sensitive of everyone's God damn foibles all fact based reasoning could be offencive to someone. We've seen this starting in the states with things like "prove gender without using science". If Trump politics will lead the world to Idiocracy, progressivism will lead somewhere much worse.
Offence: (this will be short)
Offence, the inability to control emotional response to a situation. The simple version of offence, "fuck you" can be responded to two ways, "whaa I offended" or "welp that guys a jerk". The more complicated version of offence isn't offence, it's cognitive dissonance, the uneasy feeling someone gets when presented with evidence challenging their views.
Won't somebody please think of the children!:
Don't expect the world to look after your children they're your responsibility. You can't expect the world to stifle itself to make your life easier. Yes raising children is difficult but you can't do it by lying to them pretending the world is wonderful, otherwise your child will grow up to be emotionally stunted and incapable of dealing with the world as an adult. There's nasty things out there and you need to teach them how to deal with them.
Free expression is only speech:
No, then it would be free speech. Our thoughts do not only take place as only words therefore the way we convey information from one to another cannot either. If we allow progressivism to flail wildly down this path we'll end up pre-renaissance, in other words the dark ages. Not just called that due to a lack of adequate lighting but due to the lack of enlightened thought. Quite the dichotomy if progressive thinking leads to a lack of enlightenment. Imagery is an essential part of communication, can you explain a complex hydrocarbon without imagery? Can you express the loneliness of Picassos blue nude in words alone? Can you play a video game without pictures? How many people even use MUDs anymore? All these expressions need more than mere words but if progressivism runs rampant nothing will be safe.
Party support:
Given politicians and aspiring politicians seemed ok using an obscenity law to stop their opponents what will they use in a position of power? How can they represent all people when they find the views of some of them obscene? These lead me to the point that the less power a government has the safer people are.
Ultimately freedom of expression is key to a free society. The ability to freely debate produces new ideas. When subjects become taboo we block an avenue of learning. In this case not knowing the potential dangers of abortion could lead people to believe it is completely safe rather than having inherent risks that come with any medical procedure, unlike what prolife campaigners claim that it's always dangerous, between the 2 sides lies the truth. It reaches further than that the more taboo subjects, the more approved speech, the less we can watch and the less we can read, the less we can think, it doesn't matter if we're thinking progressive or conservative as long as we are all thinking the same, the easier we are to manipulate and control. How can you know you're thinking for yourself if you're not allowed to view all sides of a debate? Question everything, believe nothing without investigating it yourself and don't back down until you are satisfied.
At the weekend we saw triumphantalism from progressives over prolife campaigners having their posters confiscated by the Gardaí. These were the usual fare of images of a healthy child, blastocysts, fetuses and the after results of an abortion. This was done on the basis of obscenity laws, in the name of protecting children, ironic, no? This was supported by a few political parties. Whilst they were allowed to continue canvassing they couldn't display images of a medical procedure. When I confronted people on this I got a fairly harsh "learn the law" reply. Another irony people campaigning against an injust law, encouraging people to break the law by going abroad to have an abortion insisting laws should be followed without question. Further irony that the prochoice campaign needed the right to free expression in its early days. Other arguments included "they did it first", "wait until you have kids then you'll see my point of view" and "free expression doesn't extend to imagery".
Now I'll break those down a bit.
They did it first:
Two wrongs don't make a right. If you have a valid point you don't need to lower yourself to your opponents dirty tactics to defend yourself. Perpetuating those tactics damages society as a whole, you can't progress doing the same things over and over again. Gaining one advancement to lose another gains nothing, in this case gaining bodily integrity to lose free expression is not worth it because bodily integrity will be the last thing that will be won.
Logical fallacy:
If you ever need to resort to "when you have kids", "your to young to know", "if you had my experience" and similar to end a debate, you've failed to win a debate. When you make a statement the burden of proof is on you, if someone needs a qualifier to see your point of view you haven't explained it properly. Avoiding logical fallacies will help you debate better or help you change your mind, if your argument requires prerequisites that are limited to a subset of people then it's invalid and needs to be redeveloped until you're capable of expressing it.
The law:
"The law is an ass" Charles Dickens. As I said there's a laughable irony in people campaigning against a law, complaining when they perceive a breach of the law. Obscenity laws should only prevent perverts flashing people on the street. Not campaigners using medical imagery or pictures of children crawling around fully clothed. When obscenity laws extend to the removal of medical imagery things are going wrong. Other than the implication of the happy baby crawling is the result of every birth the imagery removed was fact based or the idea that all abortions can lead to infertility, what they use is reasonably science based. Let's play this out, in this brave new world of identity politics we're expected to be sensitive of everyone's God damn foibles all fact based reasoning could be offencive to someone. We've seen this starting in the states with things like "prove gender without using science". If Trump politics will lead the world to Idiocracy, progressivism will lead somewhere much worse.
Offence: (this will be short)
Offence, the inability to control emotional response to a situation. The simple version of offence, "fuck you" can be responded to two ways, "whaa I offended" or "welp that guys a jerk". The more complicated version of offence isn't offence, it's cognitive dissonance, the uneasy feeling someone gets when presented with evidence challenging their views.
Won't somebody please think of the children!:
Don't expect the world to look after your children they're your responsibility. You can't expect the world to stifle itself to make your life easier. Yes raising children is difficult but you can't do it by lying to them pretending the world is wonderful, otherwise your child will grow up to be emotionally stunted and incapable of dealing with the world as an adult. There's nasty things out there and you need to teach them how to deal with them.
Free expression is only speech:
No, then it would be free speech. Our thoughts do not only take place as only words therefore the way we convey information from one to another cannot either. If we allow progressivism to flail wildly down this path we'll end up pre-renaissance, in other words the dark ages. Not just called that due to a lack of adequate lighting but due to the lack of enlightened thought. Quite the dichotomy if progressive thinking leads to a lack of enlightenment. Imagery is an essential part of communication, can you explain a complex hydrocarbon without imagery? Can you express the loneliness of Picassos blue nude in words alone? Can you play a video game without pictures? How many people even use MUDs anymore? All these expressions need more than mere words but if progressivism runs rampant nothing will be safe.
Party support:
Given politicians and aspiring politicians seemed ok using an obscenity law to stop their opponents what will they use in a position of power? How can they represent all people when they find the views of some of them obscene? These lead me to the point that the less power a government has the safer people are.
Ultimately freedom of expression is key to a free society. The ability to freely debate produces new ideas. When subjects become taboo we block an avenue of learning. In this case not knowing the potential dangers of abortion could lead people to believe it is completely safe rather than having inherent risks that come with any medical procedure, unlike what prolife campaigners claim that it's always dangerous, between the 2 sides lies the truth. It reaches further than that the more taboo subjects, the more approved speech, the less we can watch and the less we can read, the less we can think, it doesn't matter if we're thinking progressive or conservative as long as we are all thinking the same, the easier we are to manipulate and control. How can you know you're thinking for yourself if you're not allowed to view all sides of a debate? Question everything, believe nothing without investigating it yourself and don't back down until you are satisfied.
20170719
Decriminalising Personal
In the wake of the collapse of the medical cannabis bill Catherine Byrne TD (Irish politician) has announced a proposed change to drug policy to change to a health based approach for possession of personal amounts of most drugs like cannabis, heroin and cocaine. I don't want to disrespect Catherine Byrne as she's one of the few politicians to respond to my email on the medical cannabis bill unlike anyone else in Fianna Gael, Labour, Sinn Fein or Fianna Fail. As my local TD this certainly carries favour with me come the next election and has made some great changes in the national drug strategy already, being able to approach it with more evidence based reasoning than most who deem themselves capable of ruling.
I'll briefly touch on the proposed change in policy but it's not the main point of this rant. I think Bill Hicks summed it up best with "sick people do not get better in jail". That is why we need a change in the way people in possession are handled. There's plenty out there about the societal benefits Portugal has experienced due to its change in policy and I recommend you research them yourself. Despite the gross misunderstanding of the benefits of rehabilitation over imprisonment by some at the Irish Times. This seems to be the 140 character attention span millenials are to be cursed with.
On to my main point, given the Oireachtas Health Committees 'it's too difficult' approach to the medical cannabis bill, what chance does a change to drug policy have? Logically no chance. If providing cannabis under a doctors directions under strict guidelines is too difficult how will our government committees cope with the complexities of figuring out personal use, adequate rehabilitation services and the risk of normalising drug use? Remember if you use drugs your of no use to society, regardless of your community work, income/employability or not causing harm to others, your presence is detestable and to quote a judge recently 'you should just leave the country'. Let us not forget the sacrosanct UN convention internationally banning drugs like cannabis, another blocker to the medical cannabis bill. According to our government this is adhered to by all countries, with the incredible blinkered approach ignoring the Netherlands, Switzerland, Portugal, Germany, Finland, Spain, Uruguay and the USA. All of which are not adhering to the aforementioned convention. Nah, those countries don't exist in the eyes of our government.
So there's two ways the changes will go, with the logic above it won't pass or by some amazing corkscrew politics it does pass, so what does that mean? I'm not foolish enough to believe that decriminalising personal amounts is better for people than not allowing medical cannabis and I hope you're not either, but I am paranoid enough to think there's a lot more politicing going on than we're allowed see. I think we will see a change in the drug policy but not for the right reasons. This policy is coming from an established member of Fianna Gael, one of the oldest parties in the country not from an upstart independent who doesn't know his place. Gino Kelly is just a nobody whinging about what people need, he's not their to tow the line and let the big boys play their game. He's even foolish enough to try represent the people who elected him. If we see this policy pass its a clear sign that the supporting bodies to our government are partisan against anyone who is not part of the political establishment. Reinforcing the strength of the established parties further adding to the idea that voting independent is a waste of time because they can't get anything done. The upside if it passes is the health committee will have less argument against any future attempt to implement a medical cannabis bill, as the ground work will already be laid out for people being in possession and going against the almighty UN convention. Maybe they'll even trust doctors to do a job they spent up to 7 years studying to do. Unlike politicians who seem to spend less than 7 minutes studying how to run a country.
I don't know about the rest of you but these sorts of antics seem another step closer to good aule rope day but given those supporting the TDs we'll need a lot more than 158 nooses. Free helicopter rides for communists afterwards too.
I'll briefly touch on the proposed change in policy but it's not the main point of this rant. I think Bill Hicks summed it up best with "sick people do not get better in jail". That is why we need a change in the way people in possession are handled. There's plenty out there about the societal benefits Portugal has experienced due to its change in policy and I recommend you research them yourself. Despite the gross misunderstanding of the benefits of rehabilitation over imprisonment by some at the Irish Times. This seems to be the 140 character attention span millenials are to be cursed with.
On to my main point, given the Oireachtas Health Committees 'it's too difficult' approach to the medical cannabis bill, what chance does a change to drug policy have? Logically no chance. If providing cannabis under a doctors directions under strict guidelines is too difficult how will our government committees cope with the complexities of figuring out personal use, adequate rehabilitation services and the risk of normalising drug use? Remember if you use drugs your of no use to society, regardless of your community work, income/employability or not causing harm to others, your presence is detestable and to quote a judge recently 'you should just leave the country'. Let us not forget the sacrosanct UN convention internationally banning drugs like cannabis, another blocker to the medical cannabis bill. According to our government this is adhered to by all countries, with the incredible blinkered approach ignoring the Netherlands, Switzerland, Portugal, Germany, Finland, Spain, Uruguay and the USA. All of which are not adhering to the aforementioned convention. Nah, those countries don't exist in the eyes of our government.
So there's two ways the changes will go, with the logic above it won't pass or by some amazing corkscrew politics it does pass, so what does that mean? I'm not foolish enough to believe that decriminalising personal amounts is better for people than not allowing medical cannabis and I hope you're not either, but I am paranoid enough to think there's a lot more politicing going on than we're allowed see. I think we will see a change in the drug policy but not for the right reasons. This policy is coming from an established member of Fianna Gael, one of the oldest parties in the country not from an upstart independent who doesn't know his place. Gino Kelly is just a nobody whinging about what people need, he's not their to tow the line and let the big boys play their game. He's even foolish enough to try represent the people who elected him. If we see this policy pass its a clear sign that the supporting bodies to our government are partisan against anyone who is not part of the political establishment. Reinforcing the strength of the established parties further adding to the idea that voting independent is a waste of time because they can't get anything done. The upside if it passes is the health committee will have less argument against any future attempt to implement a medical cannabis bill, as the ground work will already be laid out for people being in possession and going against the almighty UN convention. Maybe they'll even trust doctors to do a job they spent up to 7 years studying to do. Unlike politicians who seem to spend less than 7 minutes studying how to run a country.
I don't know about the rest of you but these sorts of antics seem another step closer to good aule rope day but given those supporting the TDs we'll need a lot more than 158 nooses. Free helicopter rides for communists afterwards too.
20170710
No Reform
Today we got the news that the medical cannabis bill may not pass. One phrase that has been bugging me all day 'Fine Gael TD Kate O’Connell warned: “Convicted drug dealers could secure a licence to supply cannabis.”'. I'll be honest here I'm in that category so maybe I'm more emotional about it, but let's break it down a bit.
People with experience shouldn't use their experience to work a legitimate job. That goes against any concept of freedom of employment and also the common sense of someone working in a field they're good at. Looking at how the government in the states has grown some of the worst weed known to man as reported by Vox governments have no idea what they're doing. How would you like your medicine made by someone who has no idea what they're doing? "Hello pharmacist give me 24 of your finest 'maybe paracetamol' and a pack of 'pin holes passion condoms', please". No I don't think so.
Let's also look at our TDs (Irish politicians) approach to people previously found guilty of crimes. There appears to be an attitude that criminals shouldn't have legitimate business or be a benefit to their society. Our representatives pick and choose who they represent. Should our representatives cause an 'us vs them' attitude in our society? This may seem acceptable to you right now but what if things changed, are you a smoker, enjoy occasional game of poker, like pornography or maybe have a vehicle with after market parts? Because all those things will come into the line of fire in the near future and then you're on the other side, the side that is reprehensible, morally corrupt and do not deserve representation from the people who take a percentage of your wages by force (don't forget, taxation is theft). That's why you need to be outraged by a politicians exclusion of a member of society no matter who they are.
Lastly I'll raise this, this concept that someone with criminal record shouldn't be allowed the same opportunities as someone who doesn't have a criminal record? Does this politician not believe that our criminal justice system is capable of reforming criminals? It's reasonable for them to believe so, what's unreasonable is that they have gotten in to a role that allows them to instigate changes in that area but they don't. Did they end up in a role they didn't understand?
What conclusion can we draw from that? A few things I can speculate, sheer ignorance developed by a sense of superiority. The concept they're better than others, with the nativity that's there's good & evil, that they're the good and only they can defeat the evil. Ignoble glory, to be a leader is to be a great person, surely they wouldn't have won the great democratic popularity contest if they weren't a great person, right? Finally, divide and conquer, politicians like this have something to gain while we're suspicious of each other. So what does Kate O'Connell need to hide or who is she hiding it for?
People with experience shouldn't use their experience to work a legitimate job. That goes against any concept of freedom of employment and also the common sense of someone working in a field they're good at. Looking at how the government in the states has grown some of the worst weed known to man as reported by Vox governments have no idea what they're doing. How would you like your medicine made by someone who has no idea what they're doing? "Hello pharmacist give me 24 of your finest 'maybe paracetamol' and a pack of 'pin holes passion condoms', please". No I don't think so.
Let's also look at our TDs (Irish politicians) approach to people previously found guilty of crimes. There appears to be an attitude that criminals shouldn't have legitimate business or be a benefit to their society. Our representatives pick and choose who they represent. Should our representatives cause an 'us vs them' attitude in our society? This may seem acceptable to you right now but what if things changed, are you a smoker, enjoy occasional game of poker, like pornography or maybe have a vehicle with after market parts? Because all those things will come into the line of fire in the near future and then you're on the other side, the side that is reprehensible, morally corrupt and do not deserve representation from the people who take a percentage of your wages by force (don't forget, taxation is theft). That's why you need to be outraged by a politicians exclusion of a member of society no matter who they are.
Lastly I'll raise this, this concept that someone with criminal record shouldn't be allowed the same opportunities as someone who doesn't have a criminal record? Does this politician not believe that our criminal justice system is capable of reforming criminals? It's reasonable for them to believe so, what's unreasonable is that they have gotten in to a role that allows them to instigate changes in that area but they don't. Did they end up in a role they didn't understand?
What conclusion can we draw from that? A few things I can speculate, sheer ignorance developed by a sense of superiority. The concept they're better than others, with the nativity that's there's good & evil, that they're the good and only they can defeat the evil. Ignoble glory, to be a leader is to be a great person, surely they wouldn't have won the great democratic popularity contest if they weren't a great person, right? Finally, divide and conquer, politicians like this have something to gain while we're suspicious of each other. So what does Kate O'Connell need to hide or who is she hiding it for?
20170704
Progressivism versus Liberalism
If you're a regular reader you know I've posted a few pieces on co-opted movements and methods of control. If not, go back and read them you fuck! Honestly it's been a struggle not come across as a nut trying to convince people the illuminati are controlling us with gay frogs. I think I'm going to fail today.
I used to consider myself a liberal until liberals started going in a very crazy direction, now we're seeing more and more liberals speaking up, but what are they speaking up against aaaand here's where I'll sound crazy. Liberalism is being co-opted by a controlled body of progressives.
First let me give you my own definition of liberals and progressives.
Liberal:
Person who strongly believes in individual rights but still wants a gummerment to look after and blame when shit goes wrong. Willing and able to debate. Truly open minded i.e. able to change their opinion based on new evidence. Understands that change comes slowly in increments (this point is essential).
Progressive:
Believes that change must happen drastically and immediately. Dogmatic in their beliefs. Believes beliefs are open minded rather than being ready and able to change them. Incapable of "giving a platform" to those who disagree, creating an echo chamber and lack of debate.
Let's look at the causes or should that be triggers? Progressives tend to be people wanting to be angry be it through their own lives not being fulfilling, personal trauma or just never learning to lose, a valuable lesson because sometimes life sucks. They're seeing little trinkets of windmills and tilting their jousts hard. Be it microaggressions, mansplanations or a perceived lack of diversity too name a few, they're ready to use these to attack people and gain a moral high ground. You're probably wanting a bit of an explanation on those and why they're little windmill trinkets, so I'll try.
Microaggressions:
These are subtle mannerisms that people have that perceived as aggressive. This could be holding a door open for a woman "because they're too weak to do it themselves" which isn't the case, holding the door open for the person behind you is just good courtesy. If someone didn't hold the door as I was following and let it swing in my male face I'd give them an earful. Young/old or male/female hold the door for the person behind until they've got a hand on it, it's just decency dammit! The other common microaggression is gesticulating with your hands when talking, most linguists including the great Naom Chomski will agree up to 60% of communication is in body language. Ponder that for a moment, progressives want your communication to be limited by more than half. Liberals won't get angry at good maners, usually accepting they're an integral social glue that keeps us together.
Mansplanation:
This seems to be anytime a man patiently explains something with lots of detail, leaving the recipient feeling condescended in receiving the information. Now imagine the word mumsplanation, that definition would fit that word very well. That approach to explanation isn't gender specific and usually come from a place where an individual has attempted to explain something without success, usually through a lack of clarity without understanding where that lack of clarity comes from. In that case covering everything seems like the best place to work from. This is mere communication issues not male oppression. Though a liberal (or pretty much anyone who isn't a progressive) will accept that communication can fail.
Lack of diversity:
This is a tricky one because it does exist. The question is how to address it. The important thing to point out against positive discrimination is the observation of Thomas Sowell, (paraphrasing here) when an individual is singled out to "benefit" from positive discrimination they often end up in a position they can't handle. Forcing people into positions they're not capable for will also lower standards in any organisation that falls victim to it, in other words do you want the doctor best suited to giving you a colonosocopy or someone who failed their exams? With that what seems to be best for an individual of a minority to succeed is to get the same opportunity to learn and apply for college or work as any other individual. Otherwise we end up a in a situation similar to what we've seen in New York, where teachers no longer have to pass a literacy test, because the test was seen as stopping members of minorities weren't getting teaching jobs. That is a sign of multiple failures within the education system leading up to someone becoming a teacher. That is a can 'o' worms of failings both societal and systematic. Now here's the less comfortable facts to consider, let's look at the observations from the unpopular book 'The Bell Curve' by Charles A. Murray & Richard Herrnstein. This controversial piece on the statistical links between genetics and IQ has caused a lot of irrational explosions from the progressive community, a lot of curious questioning from liberals and outright misinterpretations from the right. Most of the questioning raised will range from does this mean IQ testing is flawed, what are the methods used to generate the averages and most importantly what needs to change in education to ensure everyone has an opportunity to learn in a manner best suited to them? I just need to drop in a brief interjection here, the authors always wanted it noted the outliers on either end of the averages are so far outside that generalising by race for educational methods will be just as damaging as the current educational models. This isn't an exhaustive study but does highlight the need to study it more, which we can see here, demonstrating its not exactly race based but strongly linked to genetics. Now if progressives or the far right get what they want in "protecting cultures" through segregated "safe spaces" (seriously how do they not realise what they're doing?!?) or straight up racial segregation, we won't get the essential mix of genetics that could level the leading field (Dammit people, when will you learn, people is people!). Further to this what if some groups are better in certain situations than others. Steve Bannon pointed out that a disproportionate number of Asians work in board positions in tech, about 16%, a group who make up a little under 7% of the American populace. Should these people lose their jobs in the name of social justice or should they be encouraged to get the best out of life? There is no clear answer to this like the other points I raised but I hope I've highlighted the madness prevalent in progressive ideals.
This causes ever growing divisions within the left and liberal populace, a very obvious divide and conquer move from somewhere. Leaving liberals lost and confused why the only people left to debate when are who they view in their opposition on the right, it's easy to say this is Trumps doing but it's not the left he needs to distract, it's the right and centrists he's let down that have been let down, meanwhile they're distracted by the crazy left. This trend has been happening since before his emergence. Who gains? The obvious enemy is the right, either attempting to get the next generation of voter or discredit their opponent, but most on the right seem more open to debate than ever before. There's not enough gain for them. This is divide and conquer, a group who have more to gain if people are not cohesive and able to recognise a greater threat to them as individuals. All I can do is speculate, shadow governments, globalists, international bankers or the egg Council?
As read back over this I do realise this is a meandering rant, I hope you enjoyed.
I used to consider myself a liberal until liberals started going in a very crazy direction, now we're seeing more and more liberals speaking up, but what are they speaking up against aaaand here's where I'll sound crazy. Liberalism is being co-opted by a controlled body of progressives.
First let me give you my own definition of liberals and progressives.
Liberal:
Person who strongly believes in individual rights but still wants a gummerment to look after and blame when shit goes wrong. Willing and able to debate. Truly open minded i.e. able to change their opinion based on new evidence. Understands that change comes slowly in increments (this point is essential).
Progressive:
Believes that change must happen drastically and immediately. Dogmatic in their beliefs. Believes beliefs are open minded rather than being ready and able to change them. Incapable of "giving a platform" to those who disagree, creating an echo chamber and lack of debate.
Let's look at the causes or should that be triggers? Progressives tend to be people wanting to be angry be it through their own lives not being fulfilling, personal trauma or just never learning to lose, a valuable lesson because sometimes life sucks. They're seeing little trinkets of windmills and tilting their jousts hard. Be it microaggressions, mansplanations or a perceived lack of diversity too name a few, they're ready to use these to attack people and gain a moral high ground. You're probably wanting a bit of an explanation on those and why they're little windmill trinkets, so I'll try.
Microaggressions:
These are subtle mannerisms that people have that perceived as aggressive. This could be holding a door open for a woman "because they're too weak to do it themselves" which isn't the case, holding the door open for the person behind you is just good courtesy. If someone didn't hold the door as I was following and let it swing in my male face I'd give them an earful. Young/old or male/female hold the door for the person behind until they've got a hand on it, it's just decency dammit! The other common microaggression is gesticulating with your hands when talking, most linguists including the great Naom Chomski will agree up to 60% of communication is in body language. Ponder that for a moment, progressives want your communication to be limited by more than half. Liberals won't get angry at good maners, usually accepting they're an integral social glue that keeps us together.
Mansplanation:
This seems to be anytime a man patiently explains something with lots of detail, leaving the recipient feeling condescended in receiving the information. Now imagine the word mumsplanation, that definition would fit that word very well. That approach to explanation isn't gender specific and usually come from a place where an individual has attempted to explain something without success, usually through a lack of clarity without understanding where that lack of clarity comes from. In that case covering everything seems like the best place to work from. This is mere communication issues not male oppression. Though a liberal (or pretty much anyone who isn't a progressive) will accept that communication can fail.
Lack of diversity:
This is a tricky one because it does exist. The question is how to address it. The important thing to point out against positive discrimination is the observation of Thomas Sowell, (paraphrasing here) when an individual is singled out to "benefit" from positive discrimination they often end up in a position they can't handle. Forcing people into positions they're not capable for will also lower standards in any organisation that falls victim to it, in other words do you want the doctor best suited to giving you a colonosocopy or someone who failed their exams? With that what seems to be best for an individual of a minority to succeed is to get the same opportunity to learn and apply for college or work as any other individual. Otherwise we end up a in a situation similar to what we've seen in New York, where teachers no longer have to pass a literacy test, because the test was seen as stopping members of minorities weren't getting teaching jobs. That is a sign of multiple failures within the education system leading up to someone becoming a teacher. That is a can 'o' worms of failings both societal and systematic. Now here's the less comfortable facts to consider, let's look at the observations from the unpopular book 'The Bell Curve' by Charles A. Murray & Richard Herrnstein. This controversial piece on the statistical links between genetics and IQ has caused a lot of irrational explosions from the progressive community, a lot of curious questioning from liberals and outright misinterpretations from the right. Most of the questioning raised will range from does this mean IQ testing is flawed, what are the methods used to generate the averages and most importantly what needs to change in education to ensure everyone has an opportunity to learn in a manner best suited to them? I just need to drop in a brief interjection here, the authors always wanted it noted the outliers on either end of the averages are so far outside that generalising by race for educational methods will be just as damaging as the current educational models. This isn't an exhaustive study but does highlight the need to study it more, which we can see here, demonstrating its not exactly race based but strongly linked to genetics. Now if progressives or the far right get what they want in "protecting cultures" through segregated "safe spaces" (seriously how do they not realise what they're doing?!?) or straight up racial segregation, we won't get the essential mix of genetics that could level the leading field (Dammit people, when will you learn, people is people!). Further to this what if some groups are better in certain situations than others. Steve Bannon pointed out that a disproportionate number of Asians work in board positions in tech, about 16%, a group who make up a little under 7% of the American populace. Should these people lose their jobs in the name of social justice or should they be encouraged to get the best out of life? There is no clear answer to this like the other points I raised but I hope I've highlighted the madness prevalent in progressive ideals.
This causes ever growing divisions within the left and liberal populace, a very obvious divide and conquer move from somewhere. Leaving liberals lost and confused why the only people left to debate when are who they view in their opposition on the right, it's easy to say this is Trumps doing but it's not the left he needs to distract, it's the right and centrists he's let down that have been let down, meanwhile they're distracted by the crazy left. This trend has been happening since before his emergence. Who gains? The obvious enemy is the right, either attempting to get the next generation of voter or discredit their opponent, but most on the right seem more open to debate than ever before. There's not enough gain for them. This is divide and conquer, a group who have more to gain if people are not cohesive and able to recognise a greater threat to them as individuals. All I can do is speculate, shadow governments, globalists, international bankers or the egg Council?
As read back over this I do realise this is a meandering rant, I hope you enjoyed.
20170615
Bitcoin in turmoil?
Anyone watching the crypto market this morning will know bitcoin and ethereum have tanked against fiat currencies. This is likely caused by the issues of a delayed hard fork and rumours that the Chinese market is moving to litecoin. This makes now a great time to diverge your investments and buy up the altcoins. We're seeing less damage happening to the little guys. So who are the players?
Litecoin (LTC)
The Chinese coin has made since great advances in the last couple of days. Looking at the market history though its done this before and really shit itself afterwards. This is essentially a bitcoin clone but with more grey areas. Personally I won't trust a coin I can't find a white paper for. Not the best bet to go with.
Bytecoin (BCN)
The little coin that can. Bytecoin has weathered today's storm really well, loosing about 5% and getting back to yesterdays 80 satoshi, but over time its not made great gains compared to others and this is down to the lack of a road map for any usable tech. It's all been currency focused and no one will use it until it gets a higher value. In saying that it's been known to get to 100 satoshi which is a healthy 20% to make.
Digitalnote (XDN)
Saving the best for last. Another low value coin but with excellent potential. Whilst its taken a hit today its increases over the last few months show it has potential, making it a great medium to long term investment. The developers have been active this year with wallet updates and an anonymous messenger scheduled for Q4 of this year, once that's in use the coin and miners will be in high demand. They've also broken the mold with an Initial Crowd funding Coin Offering, the first of its kind attempt to gather coin from miners and traders to offer to larger investors at prices that won't cause a market explosion.
Litecoin (LTC)
The Chinese coin has made since great advances in the last couple of days. Looking at the market history though its done this before and really shit itself afterwards. This is essentially a bitcoin clone but with more grey areas. Personally I won't trust a coin I can't find a white paper for. Not the best bet to go with.
Bytecoin (BCN)
The little coin that can. Bytecoin has weathered today's storm really well, loosing about 5% and getting back to yesterdays 80 satoshi, but over time its not made great gains compared to others and this is down to the lack of a road map for any usable tech. It's all been currency focused and no one will use it until it gets a higher value. In saying that it's been known to get to 100 satoshi which is a healthy 20% to make.
Digitalnote (XDN)
Saving the best for last. Another low value coin but with excellent potential. Whilst its taken a hit today its increases over the last few months show it has potential, making it a great medium to long term investment. The developers have been active this year with wallet updates and an anonymous messenger scheduled for Q4 of this year, once that's in use the coin and miners will be in high demand. They've also broken the mold with an Initial Crowd funding Coin Offering, the first of its kind attempt to gather coin from miners and traders to offer to larger investors at prices that won't cause a market explosion.
20170608
What careers go into politics?
Listening to the Joe Rogan Experience podcast with Michael Malice an interesting point was raised that I think deserves being expanded on. What kind of person goes into politics? This will be Irish focused so some professions might be unique to Ireland. It's a given that those in power have some level of sociopathy and idealism that they know what's best for others. An idealism that is comparable to an OCD need to control.
Lawyers and barristers.
A lot of politicians globally move from law to politics. Let's break that down, lawyers are professional liars whose main job is to either prove or disprove a piece of paper says or doesn't say what it says. To quote the Simpsons they profit from the most miserable points in a persons life. They have the skills and the lack of morals to convince people they have the publics best interests at heart when they are purely self serving.
For sociopathy I have to give them an 8 out of 10.
For control freak a solid 8 out 10.
Inflated sense of self worth, 7 out of 10.
In short a strong addition to the nanny state and in it for their own gain but with no denials of there self interest.
Judges.
This is another global standard. These individuals started as lawyers and barristers. Then move up to being judges which takes a certain level of superiority complex. It's rarely the judge who sees themselves as a proctor of justice who moves to politics but the protector of society, molding society into their ideal, usually unwilling to accept that society changes and is made up of all the people who live within that society. This leaves them not just out of touch but unwilling to change there minds on what society needs. That is not healthy for a leader.
For sociopathy I'll give them a 6 out of 10.
For control freak it has to be solid 10 out of 10.
Inflated sense of self worth, 8 out of 10.
In short the same as lawyers but with a delusion that it's all for the common good oblivious to their self serving nature.
Teachers and Principals
So it's not teachers who are interested in spreading knowledge and facilitating the ability to learn. No, it's the breed of teacher that needs to tell people how it is. Unable to change there mind, clinging to the information they learnt over 20 years ago and unwilling to update based on new evidence. When they're done closing young minds it's time to move to a national scale.
For sociopathy 5 out of 10.
For control freak 8 out of 10.
Inflated sense of self worth, 9 out of 10.
In short, egotistical, controlling and ignorant.
Publicans (bar owner for my international readers)
This is an individual with little qualms against selling an addictive poison to the general public and profiting from people's self inflicted misery. Now that's their right to do and people's right to do to themselves but clearly not someone who should govern. Self serving is an understatement and they're well practiced at convincing people they care, it's the years of consoling drunks.
For sociopathy, 8 out of 10.
For control freak, 9 out of 10.
Inflated sense of self worth, 5 out of 10.
In short, self serving and uncaring to the needs of others.
Liberal Graduates
We're talking about someone who wasted at least 3 years in a social science course thinking they'll be the one to change the world where others failed. They're easily swayed by the needs of perceived of minorities forgetting the individual is the smallest minority. Their education is in a self perpetuating circle, spouting nonsense and absent of joined up thinking. Making judgements not in the demands of there constituents but on cultural Marxist conditioning, a mess of virtue signaling. What sums up these people is H.L Menckens quote "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.".
For sociopathy, 9 out of 10.
For control freak, 10 out of 10.
Inflated sense of self worth, 10 out of 10.
In short, naive, egotistical and ignorant.
The Average Person
More recently we've seen more and more average communitycentric people getting into politics. Often established community leaders with strong local backing behind them. They come in well meaning with good ideas and genuine interest to being improvements for their constituents. Then the reality hits in, with the above they hit a stone wall of established politics with a group of people stuck with their own ideals. After 6 to 12 months there delusion falls and they give up riding out the end of their term depressed in the corner of a government building.
For sociopathy, 3 out of 10.
For control freak, 7 out of 10.
Inflated sense of self worth, 8 out of 10.
In short, naive, well informed and ultimately broken.
Lawyers and barristers.
A lot of politicians globally move from law to politics. Let's break that down, lawyers are professional liars whose main job is to either prove or disprove a piece of paper says or doesn't say what it says. To quote the Simpsons they profit from the most miserable points in a persons life. They have the skills and the lack of morals to convince people they have the publics best interests at heart when they are purely self serving.
For sociopathy I have to give them an 8 out of 10.
For control freak a solid 8 out 10.
Inflated sense of self worth, 7 out of 10.
In short a strong addition to the nanny state and in it for their own gain but with no denials of there self interest.
Judges.
This is another global standard. These individuals started as lawyers and barristers. Then move up to being judges which takes a certain level of superiority complex. It's rarely the judge who sees themselves as a proctor of justice who moves to politics but the protector of society, molding society into their ideal, usually unwilling to accept that society changes and is made up of all the people who live within that society. This leaves them not just out of touch but unwilling to change there minds on what society needs. That is not healthy for a leader.
For sociopathy I'll give them a 6 out of 10.
For control freak it has to be solid 10 out of 10.
Inflated sense of self worth, 8 out of 10.
In short the same as lawyers but with a delusion that it's all for the common good oblivious to their self serving nature.
Teachers and Principals
So it's not teachers who are interested in spreading knowledge and facilitating the ability to learn. No, it's the breed of teacher that needs to tell people how it is. Unable to change there mind, clinging to the information they learnt over 20 years ago and unwilling to update based on new evidence. When they're done closing young minds it's time to move to a national scale.
For sociopathy 5 out of 10.
For control freak 8 out of 10.
Inflated sense of self worth, 9 out of 10.
In short, egotistical, controlling and ignorant.
Publicans (bar owner for my international readers)
This is an individual with little qualms against selling an addictive poison to the general public and profiting from people's self inflicted misery. Now that's their right to do and people's right to do to themselves but clearly not someone who should govern. Self serving is an understatement and they're well practiced at convincing people they care, it's the years of consoling drunks.
For sociopathy, 8 out of 10.
For control freak, 9 out of 10.
Inflated sense of self worth, 5 out of 10.
In short, self serving and uncaring to the needs of others.
Liberal Graduates
We're talking about someone who wasted at least 3 years in a social science course thinking they'll be the one to change the world where others failed. They're easily swayed by the needs of perceived of minorities forgetting the individual is the smallest minority. Their education is in a self perpetuating circle, spouting nonsense and absent of joined up thinking. Making judgements not in the demands of there constituents but on cultural Marxist conditioning, a mess of virtue signaling. What sums up these people is H.L Menckens quote "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.".
For sociopathy, 9 out of 10.
For control freak, 10 out of 10.
Inflated sense of self worth, 10 out of 10.
In short, naive, egotistical and ignorant.
The Average Person
More recently we've seen more and more average communitycentric people getting into politics. Often established community leaders with strong local backing behind them. They come in well meaning with good ideas and genuine interest to being improvements for their constituents. Then the reality hits in, with the above they hit a stone wall of established politics with a group of people stuck with their own ideals. After 6 to 12 months there delusion falls and they give up riding out the end of their term depressed in the corner of a government building.
For sociopathy, 3 out of 10.
For control freak, 7 out of 10.
Inflated sense of self worth, 8 out of 10.
In short, naive, well informed and ultimately broken.
20170529
Government Incentives
"The government should..." is generally the opening of a bad idea. This post I'm going to take apart government incentives.
Lets start with the first time buyers grant 5% rebate on a home up to €500,000 that's €25,000. Sounds great right? Well no, the market reacts to the available funds of the buyer, lenders were happy to give 5% extra and sellers rose the price to the available funds of the buyers. Which is why we've seen an increase on first time buyers homes by 5%, that brings first time buyers back to square 1 and not able to afford houses.
Lets look at the limitations on rent, landlords cannot raise rents by more than 4% from January of this year. Which saw a drastic increase in rent before January. Furthermore it petty much guarantees rents will increase by 4% per annum, in 12 years rents will have doubled. Given wages increase by 2% per annum and people are already paying over half there wages we could reach a critical mass for wages to rent within 20 years. I'm theory the market should stabilise before that critical mass hits, in theory landlords won't let it get to that point as they'll end up in a position with no one to rent to. Unless another government incentive kicks in.
Essentially what we see with any state incentive to relieve the market only works for a short period until the market increases to take advantage of the extra available funds of the consumer. The rules of supply and demand lead to the funds of the consumer dictating the price a product will be sold for, essentially no vendor will price themselves to a point of no sale. This has to be taken in balance with how essential the product is.
Now lets throw on the conspiracy hat. A number of politicians are property owners. If they're in a position to regulate their market upward then they likely will. Even worse they're doing it with tax payers money. This is even further reason government has no place in the marketplace.
Lets start with the first time buyers grant 5% rebate on a home up to €500,000 that's €25,000. Sounds great right? Well no, the market reacts to the available funds of the buyer, lenders were happy to give 5% extra and sellers rose the price to the available funds of the buyers. Which is why we've seen an increase on first time buyers homes by 5%, that brings first time buyers back to square 1 and not able to afford houses.
Lets look at the limitations on rent, landlords cannot raise rents by more than 4% from January of this year. Which saw a drastic increase in rent before January. Furthermore it petty much guarantees rents will increase by 4% per annum, in 12 years rents will have doubled. Given wages increase by 2% per annum and people are already paying over half there wages we could reach a critical mass for wages to rent within 20 years. I'm theory the market should stabilise before that critical mass hits, in theory landlords won't let it get to that point as they'll end up in a position with no one to rent to. Unless another government incentive kicks in.
Essentially what we see with any state incentive to relieve the market only works for a short period until the market increases to take advantage of the extra available funds of the consumer. The rules of supply and demand lead to the funds of the consumer dictating the price a product will be sold for, essentially no vendor will price themselves to a point of no sale. This has to be taken in balance with how essential the product is.
Now lets throw on the conspiracy hat. A number of politicians are property owners. If they're in a position to regulate their market upward then they likely will. Even worse they're doing it with tax payers money. This is even further reason government has no place in the marketplace.
20170514
Take Responsibility for Yourself Dammit
I've always been labelled as having a problem with authority, which I don't in the right circumstances I respect authority like in a work circumstance I'll talk to people who know things better than I do as they're a subject matter authority or when work is assigned to me fairly by an authority, I'll accept those. What I have a problem with its nonconcentual authority. We're born into a social contract that we never agreed too, expected to take direction from leaders we likely didn't and don't support while expected to be grateful of poor services in education or health care. All while a large percentage of our income gets stolen to enforce a laws and projects we don't support. When a junkie robs your money for their heroin addiction that's wrong, when a government steals your money for a power addiction that's taxes.
Why do this to ourselves? Because some people lack responsibility. If someone else is running things and it goes wrong it's not there fault they have a gummerment to blame for things going wrong. This is about as emotionally immature as thinking all things are part of God's plan. At least Moses put the effort of putting his stupid ideas on stone, says someone ranting with permanence of one's and zeros but bear with my hypocrisy as I'm trying to tell you to live your life your way without interference. Live with 1 rule, do nothing to interfere with the freedom and liberty of another individual and help support the liberty of others when they make it clear they need it. Let the natural laws take care of the rest. Want to fight gravity? Enjoy falling on your face, want to use an addictive substance without self control? Enjoy your show painful death. Want my property or product of my labor without my consent? Enjoy a bullet to the face.
Won't somebody please think of the outlaws?!
In the early days of the new world countries, primarily the Americas in this example people were allowed to be outlaws. Outlaws aren't necessarily criminals they lived outside the law. This was a double edged sword, a person wasn't expected to follow the law but didn't live with its protection. The universe may make us different but Samuel Colt made us equal. If an outlaw was to commit crime in an area under the law, they would be brought back to that area to face that areas perception of justice. Now we have nowhere to go, we're forced to live someone else's life. This is something our society has lost. Now people who disagree with the law are labelled degenerates, criminals and scum. With the state justifying violence and property damaged against non-violent offenders of laws they don't consent to in the name of a society they don't want to be members of. In a democracy a win of 1% means 49% of people are forced in to something they don't want. Making those peoples wants and needs irrelevant, therefore making those people irrelevant.
What's the answer?
Most of us can't afford a private island and if we could it probably doesn't have the resources we need, if it did the nations we could trade with, would impose a hefty import duty for demonstrating the pointlessness of statism. The other option is sudden revolution but revolutions tend to do just that revolve. That leaves us with progressive change, 1 mind at a time. Educate yourself, your friends and family in libertarianism and anarchism, the former is merely a stepping stone to the latter and is not a place we can let ourselves to get stuck. I warn you now it's an up hill struggle, in talking politics to a socialist and telling them I'm between anarchism and libertarianism they threatened to punch my face in for being a fascist who wants to see the world burn. Clearly they were low on the IQ scale but anarchism does pose a serious threat to socialists, as it is a political system the limits the rights of people in the name of the people, through committee and other government mechanism. Given my above observations socialists can be seen to be people who want a gummerment to blame and deem themselves to have the right to seize property and the fruits of people's labour.
In conclusion if you truly want to be free pick up some Ludwig Von Mises, Hans Hermann Hoppe and Howard Zimm. Think for yourself and question everything.
Why do this to ourselves? Because some people lack responsibility. If someone else is running things and it goes wrong it's not there fault they have a gummerment to blame for things going wrong. This is about as emotionally immature as thinking all things are part of God's plan. At least Moses put the effort of putting his stupid ideas on stone, says someone ranting with permanence of one's and zeros but bear with my hypocrisy as I'm trying to tell you to live your life your way without interference. Live with 1 rule, do nothing to interfere with the freedom and liberty of another individual and help support the liberty of others when they make it clear they need it. Let the natural laws take care of the rest. Want to fight gravity? Enjoy falling on your face, want to use an addictive substance without self control? Enjoy your show painful death. Want my property or product of my labor without my consent? Enjoy a bullet to the face.
Won't somebody please think of the outlaws?!
In the early days of the new world countries, primarily the Americas in this example people were allowed to be outlaws. Outlaws aren't necessarily criminals they lived outside the law. This was a double edged sword, a person wasn't expected to follow the law but didn't live with its protection. The universe may make us different but Samuel Colt made us equal. If an outlaw was to commit crime in an area under the law, they would be brought back to that area to face that areas perception of justice. Now we have nowhere to go, we're forced to live someone else's life. This is something our society has lost. Now people who disagree with the law are labelled degenerates, criminals and scum. With the state justifying violence and property damaged against non-violent offenders of laws they don't consent to in the name of a society they don't want to be members of. In a democracy a win of 1% means 49% of people are forced in to something they don't want. Making those peoples wants and needs irrelevant, therefore making those people irrelevant.
What's the answer?
Most of us can't afford a private island and if we could it probably doesn't have the resources we need, if it did the nations we could trade with, would impose a hefty import duty for demonstrating the pointlessness of statism. The other option is sudden revolution but revolutions tend to do just that revolve. That leaves us with progressive change, 1 mind at a time. Educate yourself, your friends and family in libertarianism and anarchism, the former is merely a stepping stone to the latter and is not a place we can let ourselves to get stuck. I warn you now it's an up hill struggle, in talking politics to a socialist and telling them I'm between anarchism and libertarianism they threatened to punch my face in for being a fascist who wants to see the world burn. Clearly they were low on the IQ scale but anarchism does pose a serious threat to socialists, as it is a political system the limits the rights of people in the name of the people, through committee and other government mechanism. Given my above observations socialists can be seen to be people who want a gummerment to blame and deem themselves to have the right to seize property and the fruits of people's labour.
In conclusion if you truly want to be free pick up some Ludwig Von Mises, Hans Hermann Hoppe and Howard Zimm. Think for yourself and question everything.
20170510
A Ramble on Co-ops
A co-op is business made of workers with customers who are members with voting rights on how the business runs, so the shareholder is the consumer.
Having shareholders as the ultimate recipient of the goods or services cuts out some of the dangers I've highlighted before about shareholder based businesses but not all of them but consumers can be sheep like wanting what someone else has and not focusing on what could be, ultimately stifling development. Voting itself is flawed as people will likely vote with the crowd not wanting to be on the losing team. In circumstances where tough decisions have to be made the executive committee will likely have a tough time convincing people or needs be done and possibly lose favour ultimately costing them their place on the committee.
Worker run will hit problems if things get tough for the business, when sacrifices need to be made they won't make them. A lazy worker won't be focused on quality just the sale whilst riding on the back of the more efficient or skilled worker, attempts to compensate for that risk will demoralise the skilled worker and they may end up being labelled a Koulack. The worker will lose when they don't/can't work unless the co-op has some level of personal indemnity insurance which will hurt profits or the worker risks only being paid for what they produce. If sales are seasonal they will risk low income in off seasons.
A successful co-op will still need a hierarchical system of control, executive committee, treasurer etc. but they're more likely to be voluntary which may mean lower quality. Without a executive committee it will fall into disarray and risk more embezzlement than without out but even with a committee there's a risk of embezzlement.
That's the negative down what's the benefits?
As the consumer is the benefactor and the democratic force they have more control over what they can buy and where there business goes. They will pay a lower price for there goods. They can inflate their sense of altruism and feed their ego too.
The worker gets more of the profit from sales. They can choose their working hours and rate of production. Knowing the product innately allows for better sales and gives greater satisfaction for selling it. As co-ops are often require membership to be a customer this gives a reasonably locked in customer base.
I'll argue co-ops will work best in a deregulated capitalist free market but that does open them up to liability for bad goods which will damage the co-op as a whole. In a free market they will be a cornerstone to generate competition, forcing "owner run" businesses to compete on price, quality and first to market products/services. So any socialists reading this are probably frothing at the mouth over this, "B-b-buh worker owned" so what? Any socialist regime has not been run by workers, it's always bureaucrats disconnected from the industry running operations. The workers are just the tool to get those bureaucrats in power. They will regulate co-ops into inoperable circumstances and favor government markets/places of sale over anything that can compete or highlight their incompetence.
Having shareholders as the ultimate recipient of the goods or services cuts out some of the dangers I've highlighted before about shareholder based businesses but not all of them but consumers can be sheep like wanting what someone else has and not focusing on what could be, ultimately stifling development. Voting itself is flawed as people will likely vote with the crowd not wanting to be on the losing team. In circumstances where tough decisions have to be made the executive committee will likely have a tough time convincing people or needs be done and possibly lose favour ultimately costing them their place on the committee.
Worker run will hit problems if things get tough for the business, when sacrifices need to be made they won't make them. A lazy worker won't be focused on quality just the sale whilst riding on the back of the more efficient or skilled worker, attempts to compensate for that risk will demoralise the skilled worker and they may end up being labelled a Koulack. The worker will lose when they don't/can't work unless the co-op has some level of personal indemnity insurance which will hurt profits or the worker risks only being paid for what they produce. If sales are seasonal they will risk low income in off seasons.
A successful co-op will still need a hierarchical system of control, executive committee, treasurer etc. but they're more likely to be voluntary which may mean lower quality. Without a executive committee it will fall into disarray and risk more embezzlement than without out but even with a committee there's a risk of embezzlement.
That's the negative down what's the benefits?
As the consumer is the benefactor and the democratic force they have more control over what they can buy and where there business goes. They will pay a lower price for there goods. They can inflate their sense of altruism and feed their ego too.
The worker gets more of the profit from sales. They can choose their working hours and rate of production. Knowing the product innately allows for better sales and gives greater satisfaction for selling it. As co-ops are often require membership to be a customer this gives a reasonably locked in customer base.
I'll argue co-ops will work best in a deregulated capitalist free market but that does open them up to liability for bad goods which will damage the co-op as a whole. In a free market they will be a cornerstone to generate competition, forcing "owner run" businesses to compete on price, quality and first to market products/services. So any socialists reading this are probably frothing at the mouth over this, "B-b-buh worker owned" so what? Any socialist regime has not been run by workers, it's always bureaucrats disconnected from the industry running operations. The workers are just the tool to get those bureaucrats in power. They will regulate co-ops into inoperable circumstances and favor government markets/places of sale over anything that can compete or highlight their incompetence.
20170507
Why Corporatism isn't Capitalism
Corporatism
The control of a state or organization by large interest groups.
Capitalism
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
The above are the Googled definitions, I feel capitalism is missing that it should be a deregulated market. That is essential, regulations are made by the government. If you take the power to control the markets from the governments then you remove the drive to have business based lobby groups, only social matters lobby groups need exist.
This stems from a comments socialists tried to make, first about banks being the epitome of free market yet when they deregulated they failed, therefore free markets will fail. Which isn't quite right, they failed when they got greedy and try invent value where there was none by loaning to themselves. Whereas credit unions don't take those risks, when one credit union does take that risk the league of credit unions is able to manage the problem and it teaches a lesson to the other credit unions, keeping them all in check. A capitalist market would have let those banks fail and taught the public to be careful who they trust with their money.
What about intellectual property? What about it? How's that working out for the human race with pharmaceuticals? Personally I suffer from chronic pain and I'm financially restrained this leaves me unable to afford the latest medications because there's no competition in creating them, the IP holder is allowed a have a monopoly. As we see with Martin Shkreli and some secondary level science students without that regulation there could be a competitive market see here for an example. But that will stop people wanting to develop. Not true, there will be a significant period of time between release and another body recreating the product, this should allow for reasonable profits to be made to fund the next round of R&D for the next product, with a reasonable percentage going to the business or business lenders (see here for why shareholders are a bad idea).
Markets operate under natural laws, before you think you've got me, a natural law is not a regulation, it's an observable effect. For example the law of gravity, we don't need taxes going to gravity police for gravity to be enforced, you try break the laws of gravity you fall on your face. Want more examples? Evolution is probably the best place you can observe markets in action, an animal develops a trait that is successful, it eats more or survives better and therefore gets to pass on its genes to the next generation who then have those traits. As they're natural laws they can be observed and people can learn what limitations to operate within.
When deregulation happens development can prosper, a company can release a product to the market if it works out, it does well and others will try do the same either cheaper or better. This causes a cycle of development, constantly driving down costs for the consumer. If it fails, then back to the drawing board. If you don't think that's the case then look at the evolution example above (and stop skipping paragraphs).
What about dangerous products? Let's start environmentally, individuals and organisations will still be expected not to intentionally cause harm to others, as per the NAP If your pollution damages property that isn't yours then you need to pay for the repair. Make companies culpable for the damage they cause.
Health similar to the above if it causes harm to someone other than the user then it could be regulated, that's not to say addictive substances should be banned because people steal to get them, people shoplift clothes for the sake of it and no one calls for the ban of clothes. Essentially it's the right of any adult to choose there conscious state. To dictate someones conscious state is to tell someone how to think. This act of deregulation brings drugs out of the hands of criminals into a openly competitive market where clean cheap drugs will win out. A company selling quantities likely to cause overdose should face prosecution.
To surmise, Corporatism is a system that allows those on top to stay on top when they don't belong there, whereas Capitalism is a system of greater flux that has more room for people to prosper as individuals.
The control of a state or organization by large interest groups.
Capitalism
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
The above are the Googled definitions, I feel capitalism is missing that it should be a deregulated market. That is essential, regulations are made by the government. If you take the power to control the markets from the governments then you remove the drive to have business based lobby groups, only social matters lobby groups need exist.
This stems from a comments socialists tried to make, first about banks being the epitome of free market yet when they deregulated they failed, therefore free markets will fail. Which isn't quite right, they failed when they got greedy and try invent value where there was none by loaning to themselves. Whereas credit unions don't take those risks, when one credit union does take that risk the league of credit unions is able to manage the problem and it teaches a lesson to the other credit unions, keeping them all in check. A capitalist market would have let those banks fail and taught the public to be careful who they trust with their money.
What about intellectual property? What about it? How's that working out for the human race with pharmaceuticals? Personally I suffer from chronic pain and I'm financially restrained this leaves me unable to afford the latest medications because there's no competition in creating them, the IP holder is allowed a have a monopoly. As we see with Martin Shkreli and some secondary level science students without that regulation there could be a competitive market see here for an example. But that will stop people wanting to develop. Not true, there will be a significant period of time between release and another body recreating the product, this should allow for reasonable profits to be made to fund the next round of R&D for the next product, with a reasonable percentage going to the business or business lenders (see here for why shareholders are a bad idea).
Markets operate under natural laws, before you think you've got me, a natural law is not a regulation, it's an observable effect. For example the law of gravity, we don't need taxes going to gravity police for gravity to be enforced, you try break the laws of gravity you fall on your face. Want more examples? Evolution is probably the best place you can observe markets in action, an animal develops a trait that is successful, it eats more or survives better and therefore gets to pass on its genes to the next generation who then have those traits. As they're natural laws they can be observed and people can learn what limitations to operate within.
When deregulation happens development can prosper, a company can release a product to the market if it works out, it does well and others will try do the same either cheaper or better. This causes a cycle of development, constantly driving down costs for the consumer. If it fails, then back to the drawing board. If you don't think that's the case then look at the evolution example above (and stop skipping paragraphs).
What about dangerous products? Let's start environmentally, individuals and organisations will still be expected not to intentionally cause harm to others, as per the NAP If your pollution damages property that isn't yours then you need to pay for the repair. Make companies culpable for the damage they cause.
Health similar to the above if it causes harm to someone other than the user then it could be regulated, that's not to say addictive substances should be banned because people steal to get them, people shoplift clothes for the sake of it and no one calls for the ban of clothes. Essentially it's the right of any adult to choose there conscious state. To dictate someones conscious state is to tell someone how to think. This act of deregulation brings drugs out of the hands of criminals into a openly competitive market where clean cheap drugs will win out. A company selling quantities likely to cause overdose should face prosecution.
To surmise, Corporatism is a system that allows those on top to stay on top when they don't belong there, whereas Capitalism is a system of greater flux that has more room for people to prosper as individuals.
20170505
A Brief Breakdown of Fascism
Constantly explaining fascism has driven to write this post and boarder line repetition based psychosis. Which is why this post is dedicated to Ranto... You know who you are!This also means from the SJW misuse of the term fascist.
A fascist is originally a word to describe a bundle of sticks tied around an axe handle (so fascists are similar to faggots), it was then used as a symbol of nationalist socialist movements in Europe to appeal to the working class especially wood cutters, the biggest of those was the Nationalistischer Sozialist der Deutschland Republik (Nationalist Socialist of the German Republic) which outside of Germany was abbreviated as Nazi.
The strange thing is a lot of what led up to fascist politics is right wing ideals roughly starting with Hegel's 'Elements of the Philosophy of Right' which first postulated or near outright stated “the state is the march of God through the world.”. Followed by Carlye's 'On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and The Heroic in History' which espouses a "great man" ideal. Which is immediately flawed as we must remember all people are created equal so anyone who deems themselves great enough to lead is just as flawed and prone to error as you or I. This method of leadership is akin to monarchy. Friedrich List 'The National System of Political Economy' which goes into protectionism, infrastructure spending, and government control and support of industry, essentially a strong link between business and government. This is where it starts going socialist, state control of the means of production etc. the difference being the state is a body over the people not of the people. Next author to look is Charles Darwin, he might be good at natural science but not politics. In 'The Descent of Man' long story short he suggests eugenics because it works so well in farming. Let's move on to 'Race Traits and Tendencies of the American Negro' by Frederick Hoffman, this isn't a statistics based piece like 'The Bell Curve' by Charles A. Murray and Richard Herrnstein. Race traits is pure "the criminal negro mind" bullshit which inspired Jim Crow. Moving on to Madison Grant's 'The Passing of the Great Race' which suggests sterilisation as “practical, merciful, and inevitable solution of the whole problem”, I'll leave that there. This leads nicely to Oswald Spengler's 'The Decline of the West' simply it suggests liberalism is dead (well that was a 100 years too early), and suggests a the only option was a monolithic cultural based government. Essentially starting the battle between communism and fascism. Next look at the friend/enemy politics of Carl Schmidt in 'The Concept of the Political' something we see continue in modern politics like America vs Russia or America vs ISIS or America vs... Jeebus guys get out together! I can't do this without mentioning Adolf Hitler's seminal piece 'Mein Kampf' which draws together a lot of the above work into one piece promoting 1 nation/people/culture united under God to be prosperous and strong. It's a strong piece of writing that appeals to a person's ego, making themselves feel better about themselves and think that Hitler had them and there nations interests at heart, fooling them into a cult of the state.
You maybe thinking I've left out Friedrich Nietzsche, I haven't. Nietzsche despised socialism in all forms, he was a writer who pushes his reader to question everything and think for themselves, he considered the Germans to be beer swilling louts do could not subscribe to the Nazi agenda of a superior race. A large chunk of his ideals were to transcend the idea of statehood and for people to be strong on there own terms, supporting themselves. His works got co-opted after his death by his sister who owned the rights to his books, her husband being a senior member of the Nazi party.
Hopefully this explains a little about what fascism actually is and helps you realise that there's little difference in the modus operandi of Fascism and Socialism, both being authoritarian statists, demanding detriment of individual rights in favour of the community with no consideration that the community is a group of individuals.
A fascist is originally a word to describe a bundle of sticks tied around an axe handle (so fascists are similar to faggots), it was then used as a symbol of nationalist socialist movements in Europe to appeal to the working class especially wood cutters, the biggest of those was the Nationalistischer Sozialist der Deutschland Republik (Nationalist Socialist of the German Republic) which outside of Germany was abbreviated as Nazi.
The strange thing is a lot of what led up to fascist politics is right wing ideals roughly starting with Hegel's 'Elements of the Philosophy of Right' which first postulated or near outright stated “the state is the march of God through the world.”. Followed by Carlye's 'On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and The Heroic in History' which espouses a "great man" ideal. Which is immediately flawed as we must remember all people are created equal so anyone who deems themselves great enough to lead is just as flawed and prone to error as you or I. This method of leadership is akin to monarchy. Friedrich List 'The National System of Political Economy' which goes into protectionism, infrastructure spending, and government control and support of industry, essentially a strong link between business and government. This is where it starts going socialist, state control of the means of production etc. the difference being the state is a body over the people not of the people. Next author to look is Charles Darwin, he might be good at natural science but not politics. In 'The Descent of Man' long story short he suggests eugenics because it works so well in farming. Let's move on to 'Race Traits and Tendencies of the American Negro' by Frederick Hoffman, this isn't a statistics based piece like 'The Bell Curve' by Charles A. Murray and Richard Herrnstein. Race traits is pure "the criminal negro mind" bullshit which inspired Jim Crow. Moving on to Madison Grant's 'The Passing of the Great Race' which suggests sterilisation as “practical, merciful, and inevitable solution of the whole problem”, I'll leave that there. This leads nicely to Oswald Spengler's 'The Decline of the West' simply it suggests liberalism is dead (well that was a 100 years too early), and suggests a the only option was a monolithic cultural based government. Essentially starting the battle between communism and fascism. Next look at the friend/enemy politics of Carl Schmidt in 'The Concept of the Political' something we see continue in modern politics like America vs Russia or America vs ISIS or America vs... Jeebus guys get out together! I can't do this without mentioning Adolf Hitler's seminal piece 'Mein Kampf' which draws together a lot of the above work into one piece promoting 1 nation/people/culture united under God to be prosperous and strong. It's a strong piece of writing that appeals to a person's ego, making themselves feel better about themselves and think that Hitler had them and there nations interests at heart, fooling them into a cult of the state.
You maybe thinking I've left out Friedrich Nietzsche, I haven't. Nietzsche despised socialism in all forms, he was a writer who pushes his reader to question everything and think for themselves, he considered the Germans to be beer swilling louts do could not subscribe to the Nazi agenda of a superior race. A large chunk of his ideals were to transcend the idea of statehood and for people to be strong on there own terms, supporting themselves. His works got co-opted after his death by his sister who owned the rights to his books, her husband being a senior member of the Nazi party.
Hopefully this explains a little about what fascism actually is and helps you realise that there's little difference in the modus operandi of Fascism and Socialism, both being authoritarian statists, demanding detriment of individual rights in favour of the community with no consideration that the community is a group of individuals.
20170503
Methods of Control: Co-opted movements
So what do I mean by a co-opted movement? A group that claims to have an end goal but it's means are achieving something else. Why care? People are wasting their energy on being detrimental to there own society and community.
Violence:
The biggest sign of a co-opted movement is one that resorts to violence as its first step, there is nothing that can't be achieved without some rational thought out debate and real open mindedness, beliefs aren't open minded, being able to change you beliefs based on new evidence is.
Self destruction:
As we see with social justice warriors they'll quickly turn on themselves for pointless things and innocent mistakes. Similarly like we've seen with modern feminism attacking Germaine Greer or Christina Sommers. By attacking the established and intellectual proponents of a movement the whole movement is weakened. This way the movement can't organise efficiently.
Private funding:
Never trust altruistic business people, they exist for profit the only time they give money is when they get something in return. Any movement should only accept funding from its own members or small donations from the public, not large grants from investment bankers.
Contradiction in the name of the cause:
A co-opted group will often flip-flop its position to suit its ulterior purpose, arguing against a tactic of its enemy to later adopt that tactic for its own means.
Inability to debate:
A co-opted movement will have limited debating ability and will often veer away from talking about their subject, often falling back to baseless insults, accusations and claims "you shouldn't have to ask" against the person who questions then. When they have to talk about it they'll revert to a person who is trained with a script.
What can be done?
What an opposition should do with a co-opted is:
Violence:
The biggest sign of a co-opted movement is one that resorts to violence as its first step, there is nothing that can't be achieved without some rational thought out debate and real open mindedness, beliefs aren't open minded, being able to change you beliefs based on new evidence is.
Self destruction:
As we see with social justice warriors they'll quickly turn on themselves for pointless things and innocent mistakes. Similarly like we've seen with modern feminism attacking Germaine Greer or Christina Sommers. By attacking the established and intellectual proponents of a movement the whole movement is weakened. This way the movement can't organise efficiently.
Private funding:
Never trust altruistic business people, they exist for profit the only time they give money is when they get something in return. Any movement should only accept funding from its own members or small donations from the public, not large grants from investment bankers.
Contradiction in the name of the cause:
A co-opted group will often flip-flop its position to suit its ulterior purpose, arguing against a tactic of its enemy to later adopt that tactic for its own means.
Inability to debate:
A co-opted movement will have limited debating ability and will often veer away from talking about their subject, often falling back to baseless insults, accusations and claims "you shouldn't have to ask" against the person who questions then. When they have to talk about it they'll revert to a person who is trained with a script.
What can be done?
What an opposition should do with a co-opted is:
- Remain calm
- Stay on topic
- Don't resort to violence whilst being prepared to defend themselves and challenge all bullshit
- It is essential to question everything
- Encourage debate
- Discourage violence
- Try to keep cohesion in the group
- One reason to co-opt a movement is to break it up but there will come a point where someone will have to leave and start there own group.
20170501
Cannabis is not a gateway drug
One of the biggest arguments against cannabis is "it's a gateway drug". I'm going to propose a few reasons this is wrong.
Mis-education: People are often taught the dangers of cannabis in a greatly exaggerated manner, this will cause people to think the dangers of other drugs are exaggerated too.
Criminals or pushers: Criminals sell drugs, to get cannabis someone is most likely going to be dealing with a serious criminal. Cannabis has the lowest mark-up of any drug, so it's in a criminals interest to sell something more profitable.
Substance abuse: Through escapism people will want to get out of there heads, cannabis isn't all that great at this but is the light start, people who want to escape will start light and work up. Very few start with heroin.
So what can be done?
Education: dis-spell the myths about cannabis, ensure people know the difference between cannabis and hard drugs.
Decriminalise: moving cannabis sale from criminals to legitimate taxed businesses changes the dynamic, a legitimate cannabis seller will be pushing nothing worse than smoking accessories and munchies.
Psychiatric care: the substance abuser will always exist, it could be alcohol, cannabis, paint or anything. There issue lies in the psychological no matter how much prohibition is introduced they'll find something, it can only be resolved with adequate psychiatric help.
Mis-education: People are often taught the dangers of cannabis in a greatly exaggerated manner, this will cause people to think the dangers of other drugs are exaggerated too.
Criminals or pushers: Criminals sell drugs, to get cannabis someone is most likely going to be dealing with a serious criminal. Cannabis has the lowest mark-up of any drug, so it's in a criminals interest to sell something more profitable.
Substance abuse: Through escapism people will want to get out of there heads, cannabis isn't all that great at this but is the light start, people who want to escape will start light and work up. Very few start with heroin.
So what can be done?
Education: dis-spell the myths about cannabis, ensure people know the difference between cannabis and hard drugs.
Decriminalise: moving cannabis sale from criminals to legitimate taxed businesses changes the dynamic, a legitimate cannabis seller will be pushing nothing worse than smoking accessories and munchies.
Psychiatric care: the substance abuser will always exist, it could be alcohol, cannabis, paint or anything. There issue lies in the psychological no matter how much prohibition is introduced they'll find something, it can only be resolved with adequate psychiatric help.
20170429
Methods of Control: Criticism of Rules For Radicals
Rules for Radicals is a book by Saul Alinsky, a guide for people trying to institute change, this is part of my pieces on methods of control. Essentially this book aims to help "the revolution" through cheap tricks. It's like The Art of War but for political upheaval. To use the same Einstein quote again "in a debate there is a thesis and antithesis, when successful the outcome is a synthesis", this book discourages that. The name using "radicals" makes the indoctrinated feel special, part of a group that are the only ones who understand them.
"Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood.
It's innocent enough and good advice on the front but it instills the us and them mindset encouraging aggressive behaviour with "build power from flesh and blood", there is no us and them just individuals. Some who think a like but none think the same.
"Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
This is essentially, 'pick your battles' but going outside your expertise is how you learn. It also stops the "radical" from seeing things from the opponents point of view and potentially stops them understanding why they're wrong. This seems cultish disconnecting the indoctrinated from anything that will veer them away from being controlled.
"Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
A fairly simple attack method, similar to what I mentioned talking about cults but this stops the opposing sides from reaching a common ground managing the us and them mentality. This stops the synthesis of ideas forming.
"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
This is a diversion tactic, wasting resources is as greedy as hoarding them. It does nothing but divert the opponent and hinders development.
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defence. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
Childishness, to get Machiavellian the sooner one has to resort to insults and shouting the less validity their argument has. It also diverts from actually discussing the issues or topics, distracting the "radical" from opposing views and makes them afraid of being ridiculed, keeping the indoctrinated on side and not questioning what they're doing.
"A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
Back to my cult piece, this is a method of indoctrination and control to stop people questioning what they're doing, no one wants to be the one ruining the fun and be ostracised from the group.
"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news.
No one wants old news, seems fair enough but this stops people being able to formulate reasonable arguments against you and stops the indoctrinated from realising what they're doing might be wrong.
"Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
Another one to inhibit discourse and to stop people from coming to an agreement, there will be no peace with tactics like this.
"The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
If people are afraid of you they won't question you, then you can get away with anything.
"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
Keep them under pressure and they'll fuck up. Giving the "radical" the opportunity to cease control.
"If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathises with the underdog.
Play the victim and you'll get bwahs, this isn't development or bettering society it's simple manipulation. No good will come if it and when people realise what you're doing, it'll lose you more than it gained.
"The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem.
More blocking of development and a synthesis of ideas.
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalise it, and polarise it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
This is just dirty tricks, classic Ad Hominem and alienates those in opposition. This is best highlighted in the modern left calling ask those that oppose them fascist or Nazis regardless of their actual politics.
This all seems to be a way to create Lenins 'useful idiots', destabilising one authoritarian system to replace it with another. It also seems to be more about keeping the indoctrinated on your side. A truly developed society cannot be forced by the will of a few but one that facilitates the freedom and liberty of all individuals. Rules for radicals encourages an aggressive take over without regard to the wants and needs of all people, with its cultish methodology those involved will not realise what they've done or who they've done it for until it's too late.
Like with all my methods of control I write this to highlight how we are manipulated and controlled, the more aware of these you are the more in control of your own life you are.
Full disclosure I have used these in a business environment, often with those unwilling to improve but as a last resort to drive Kaizen when speaking to them reasonably has failed. It's a real, "I can wash but never be clean" situation for me. I have great concern for those who use these methods without remorse.
"Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood.
It's innocent enough and good advice on the front but it instills the us and them mindset encouraging aggressive behaviour with "build power from flesh and blood", there is no us and them just individuals. Some who think a like but none think the same.
"Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
This is essentially, 'pick your battles' but going outside your expertise is how you learn. It also stops the "radical" from seeing things from the opponents point of view and potentially stops them understanding why they're wrong. This seems cultish disconnecting the indoctrinated from anything that will veer them away from being controlled.
"Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
A fairly simple attack method, similar to what I mentioned talking about cults but this stops the opposing sides from reaching a common ground managing the us and them mentality. This stops the synthesis of ideas forming.
"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
This is a diversion tactic, wasting resources is as greedy as hoarding them. It does nothing but divert the opponent and hinders development.
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defence. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
Childishness, to get Machiavellian the sooner one has to resort to insults and shouting the less validity their argument has. It also diverts from actually discussing the issues or topics, distracting the "radical" from opposing views and makes them afraid of being ridiculed, keeping the indoctrinated on side and not questioning what they're doing.
"A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
Back to my cult piece, this is a method of indoctrination and control to stop people questioning what they're doing, no one wants to be the one ruining the fun and be ostracised from the group.
"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news.
No one wants old news, seems fair enough but this stops people being able to formulate reasonable arguments against you and stops the indoctrinated from realising what they're doing might be wrong.
"Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
Another one to inhibit discourse and to stop people from coming to an agreement, there will be no peace with tactics like this.
"The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
If people are afraid of you they won't question you, then you can get away with anything.
"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
Keep them under pressure and they'll fuck up. Giving the "radical" the opportunity to cease control.
"If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathises with the underdog.
Play the victim and you'll get bwahs, this isn't development or bettering society it's simple manipulation. No good will come if it and when people realise what you're doing, it'll lose you more than it gained.
"The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem.
More blocking of development and a synthesis of ideas.
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalise it, and polarise it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
This is just dirty tricks, classic Ad Hominem and alienates those in opposition. This is best highlighted in the modern left calling ask those that oppose them fascist or Nazis regardless of their actual politics.
This all seems to be a way to create Lenins 'useful idiots', destabilising one authoritarian system to replace it with another. It also seems to be more about keeping the indoctrinated on your side. A truly developed society cannot be forced by the will of a few but one that facilitates the freedom and liberty of all individuals. Rules for radicals encourages an aggressive take over without regard to the wants and needs of all people, with its cultish methodology those involved will not realise what they've done or who they've done it for until it's too late.
Like with all my methods of control I write this to highlight how we are manipulated and controlled, the more aware of these you are the more in control of your own life you are.
Full disclosure I have used these in a business environment, often with those unwilling to improve but as a last resort to drive Kaizen when speaking to them reasonably has failed. It's a real, "I can wash but never be clean" situation for me. I have great concern for those who use these methods without remorse.
20170427
The Myth of Altruism
Altruism:
Disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
I postulate that altruism is a myth. That we all do things for a reason, these reasons are a product of our minds and fulfill a goal we are praxeological beings. Some of this is based on my own experience and feelings.
Take an example of a way someone might help a person, like giving up a seat for an elderly person,
Societal:
It's what's expected of someone.
It's to help encourage the society around them to do the same should they be in need.
On most public transport it's the rules.
Id massage:
By experiencing a selfless act this satisfies someones Id, this creates a flow of endorphins and then satisfies the ego.
Virtue signalling:
To show the world how good a person you are, this raises the individuals sense of worth within there community and gives others the impression they're a good person.
Fishing for compliments:
Just doing it for the thanks.
Proving me wrong:
After reading this article you'll never know if you're doing it just to prove me wrong or if you're being altruistic.
None of these are reasons to not help others but it's important to be aware of what you do and understand your motives. Only if you're true to yourself can you develop as a person, know yourself and know those around you.
Disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
I postulate that altruism is a myth. That we all do things for a reason, these reasons are a product of our minds and fulfill a goal we are praxeological beings. Some of this is based on my own experience and feelings.
Take an example of a way someone might help a person, like giving up a seat for an elderly person,
Societal:
It's what's expected of someone.
It's to help encourage the society around them to do the same should they be in need.
On most public transport it's the rules.
Id massage:
By experiencing a selfless act this satisfies someones Id, this creates a flow of endorphins and then satisfies the ego.
Virtue signalling:
To show the world how good a person you are, this raises the individuals sense of worth within there community and gives others the impression they're a good person.
Fishing for compliments:
Just doing it for the thanks.
Proving me wrong:
After reading this article you'll never know if you're doing it just to prove me wrong or if you're being altruistic.
None of these are reasons to not help others but it's important to be aware of what you do and understand your motives. Only if you're true to yourself can you develop as a person, know yourself and know those around you.
20170425
A Piece on DMT
Dimethyltryptamine AKA the God molecule. It's one of the most common chemicals in ethnobotanicals (plants that let you see God). It occurs naturally in most mammals as part of our endocrine system yet its purpose is unknown it's hypothesised to be integral to dreaming. As such its amongst the least dangerous hallucinogens, it still has its risks but it's accessible to the newer psychonaut but essential to the experienced. As it's a substance our body produces it gets broken down quickly, ingesting it alone has no effect as the stomach acids destroy it immediately. If it's taken alone it should be smoked in plant or crystal form or it can be made into a tea with an MAOI like Ayahuasca.
What plants?
There's a multitude that contain it but the 2 most powerful are Salvia Divinorum and Acacia. It's recently been postulated that Acacia is the burning bush through which the Judaic God spoke to Moses.
What is it good for?
People take it to commune with God, for me this has been a direct link from conscious to sub-conscious and a feeling the universe is talking to me. The latter isn't as strange as it sounds, to truly understand the world outside one needs to look within. The sub-conscious holds our connections to past lives that's where this connection feels like the universe is talking to you.
Whats it like?
My preference is to use it as an aid to my mediation, whilst it has some fun fractal hallucinations in the waking world it's ability to facilitate enlightenment far out weighs that. I will load a pipe, start my chant and try still my mind. After that prep of about 15 to 20 minutes I'll smoke the bowl, drawing the smoke as deep as possible and holding it. Finish the bowl and let the trance take over. It will begin with fractal like visuals in the darkness forming into archetypal images, dragons, the Buddha a multitude of things. From there through previous attempts I focus on an opening happening at my crown this feels to facilitate the connection better. I find it best to let what comes, come. Allow the sub-conscious talk to me and question as I need. All in all the trip only lasts about 15 minutes but while I'm meditating it feels like a few hours, this demonstrates the flimsy nature of time and our perception along it linearly.
What have I learnt?
There are a few personal revelations that will remain personal, I'll just say it will help you realise the things you do wrong and help you improve.
People fear intelligent individuals, the ones willing to learn and expand their minds. We're a threat to those seeking to control.
To know the world outside you, you must look within.
Always be prepared to change your mind.
Try not have beliefs.
Never assume you're more intelligent, better or worse than anyone else, we all have skills others don't.
Perception is key to everything.
Our perception of other people is a reflection of ourselves, we view aspects of ourselves in other people, often when we don't like someone it's most likely we don't like something we see of ourselves... Sometimes they're just ass holes.
It is essential to remember this is how people interact with us too.
Question everything even the mundane. Small answers help us understand other things we may not expect.
Experiment with other ideas, think like that, experience like that but remember you don't have to stay like that.
I got my chant from a DMT trip, 'ho chi jah roh' it doesn't mean anything as far as I know, it helps me still my mind.
Using previous trips, recalling and remembering them during meditation will help induce the state.
What plants?
There's a multitude that contain it but the 2 most powerful are Salvia Divinorum and Acacia. It's recently been postulated that Acacia is the burning bush through which the Judaic God spoke to Moses.
What is it good for?
People take it to commune with God, for me this has been a direct link from conscious to sub-conscious and a feeling the universe is talking to me. The latter isn't as strange as it sounds, to truly understand the world outside one needs to look within. The sub-conscious holds our connections to past lives that's where this connection feels like the universe is talking to you.
Whats it like?
My preference is to use it as an aid to my mediation, whilst it has some fun fractal hallucinations in the waking world it's ability to facilitate enlightenment far out weighs that. I will load a pipe, start my chant and try still my mind. After that prep of about 15 to 20 minutes I'll smoke the bowl, drawing the smoke as deep as possible and holding it. Finish the bowl and let the trance take over. It will begin with fractal like visuals in the darkness forming into archetypal images, dragons, the Buddha a multitude of things. From there through previous attempts I focus on an opening happening at my crown this feels to facilitate the connection better. I find it best to let what comes, come. Allow the sub-conscious talk to me and question as I need. All in all the trip only lasts about 15 minutes but while I'm meditating it feels like a few hours, this demonstrates the flimsy nature of time and our perception along it linearly.
What have I learnt?
There are a few personal revelations that will remain personal, I'll just say it will help you realise the things you do wrong and help you improve.
People fear intelligent individuals, the ones willing to learn and expand their minds. We're a threat to those seeking to control.
To know the world outside you, you must look within.
Always be prepared to change your mind.
Try not have beliefs.
Never assume you're more intelligent, better or worse than anyone else, we all have skills others don't.
Perception is key to everything.
Our perception of other people is a reflection of ourselves, we view aspects of ourselves in other people, often when we don't like someone it's most likely we don't like something we see of ourselves... Sometimes they're just ass holes.
It is essential to remember this is how people interact with us too.
Question everything even the mundane. Small answers help us understand other things we may not expect.
Experiment with other ideas, think like that, experience like that but remember you don't have to stay like that.
I got my chant from a DMT trip, 'ho chi jah roh' it doesn't mean anything as far as I know, it helps me still my mind.
Using previous trips, recalling and remembering them during meditation will help induce the state.
20170424
Shareholder Returns Failing Business
This will be a short post. What's the harm in shareholders? Businesses owing to shareholders become focused on profits for a small group of people, trying to make a larger profit than the years before. Sounds like a good plan but that can't happen, there's a finite amount of resources and customers. It can be achieved through developing newer or better products but that requires funding R&D, something that doesn't always have a payoff as quick as needed to satisfy shareholders. This leaves the profit having to come from extra expense on customers and reduction in wages to the producers in a business. Adding expense on customers is a very short term benefit, usually giving any competitor an opportunity to undercut and take customers. Reducing pay and/or bonuses to staff is slightly better, given the cult of business people will find it hard to leave and when they do there will be someone willing to take the job to get there start even at a lower wage. Take out the shareholder and a business may expand slower but is more in control of its direction, its funding could be better supported through business loans, as long as it keeps up the minimum payment they've little to worry about and keeps its autonomy. Leaving it room to develop as a business that can benefit its consumers with products or services they want or need.
20170422
Ibrahim Halawa, freedom or speedy trial
This maybe unpopular but I'm writing it anyway. Ibrahim Halawa travelled to Egypt in August in 2013 to join protests against the dispersal of sit in protests against the removal of the then president Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim brotherhood by the military, in a "day of rage". It's hard to pin down what he's being charged with as it's a group trial with charges from murder, attempted murder and banned protest, not all but the core charges.
Lets break this down a little, the Muslim brotherhood are a more fundamental Sunni group, who belive Sharia law should be in all aspects of life for all peoples. That in itself is fundamentally wrong and impinges on an individuals freedom and liberty, Google Sharia law and make up your own mind but I think you'll find it's not for you. They're also responsible for a number of terrorist attacks, so really seem to be another group misusing the Muslim faith for the system of manipulation (I don't believe all Muslims are dangerous but any religion can be abused for controlling people into dangerous things, more on that later). This is who Ibrahim chose to support.
Now onto my main point here, Ibrahim has been imprisoned for the worst part of 4 years without trial, a speedy trial is a fundamental human right and this is what people should be campaigning for. Instead people are demanding the immediate release of someone who went out of their way to go a country erupting in violence to support a violent group. Is that what people want? For the perpetrators and supporters of the suppression of freedoms who use violence to get there way to be allowed to free.
People need to step back from there feelings and take a look at the cold facts of what's happened here, be reasonable and campaign for what's right, a speedy trial. His youthful foolishness needs to be taken into consideration but that's no reason for a person to not face trial and every country has a right and duty to enforce its laws fairly.
Lets break this down a little, the Muslim brotherhood are a more fundamental Sunni group, who belive Sharia law should be in all aspects of life for all peoples. That in itself is fundamentally wrong and impinges on an individuals freedom and liberty, Google Sharia law and make up your own mind but I think you'll find it's not for you. They're also responsible for a number of terrorist attacks, so really seem to be another group misusing the Muslim faith for the system of manipulation (I don't believe all Muslims are dangerous but any religion can be abused for controlling people into dangerous things, more on that later). This is who Ibrahim chose to support.
Now onto my main point here, Ibrahim has been imprisoned for the worst part of 4 years without trial, a speedy trial is a fundamental human right and this is what people should be campaigning for. Instead people are demanding the immediate release of someone who went out of their way to go a country erupting in violence to support a violent group. Is that what people want? For the perpetrators and supporters of the suppression of freedoms who use violence to get there way to be allowed to free.
People need to step back from there feelings and take a look at the cold facts of what's happened here, be reasonable and campaign for what's right, a speedy trial. His youthful foolishness needs to be taken into consideration but that's no reason for a person to not face trial and every country has a right and duty to enforce its laws fairly.
20170420
Why not co-op insurance?
Short post, a lot of people complain about high costs of insurance and it being forced on people. So why not co-op based insurance? Credit unions demonstrate a market for community based financial based institutions.
The biggest blocker is current legislation (in Ireland) requires an insurance company to have €1 million bonded in the country for the purpose of paying out on funds they may not have. As you know from my bio I'm strongly in favour of market deregulation and would happily see this go, consumers should demand companies prove ability to deliver the service. Without that my following loose idea should work.
Co-op insurance:
The core idea here will be community based. People who join the co-op do it for there own gain and to benefit their community, similar to the how and why credit unions operate. Essentially over a given number of people you can assume averages of what diseases will be prevalent so from the outset you can easily assume an average annual policy cost, this will give a baseline policy cost. Genetic testing would be essential here, this will cause an increase to premiums for the individual but being a community minded co-op most the cost should be spread across the consumer base, similar can be applied with pre-existing conditions. If the initial baselining was done accurately the mark up wouldn't be to great. Why the mark up for those more likely to have illness? It'll keep the costs down for the rest of the group and make the scheme more attractive to people less likely to require the insurance fund, the more people you have not needing the fund the cheaper it is for those who will be using it regularly.
Competitive medical market:
This hypothetical insurance co-op would benefit by encouraging people to find doctors. Give the customer a ball park cost for the procedure they need and keep a directory of doctors but not limit the customer to this doctors. Allow the customer to contact and negotiate the best price with simple haggling, call a few doctors find who has the best rate, use that to drive down costs with other doctors, this could be done by the co-op for a low enough administrative fee but complacency or back handers will happen.
So why not co-op insurance?
The biggest blocker is current legislation (in Ireland) requires an insurance company to have €1 million bonded in the country for the purpose of paying out on funds they may not have. As you know from my bio I'm strongly in favour of market deregulation and would happily see this go, consumers should demand companies prove ability to deliver the service. Without that my following loose idea should work.
Co-op insurance:
The core idea here will be community based. People who join the co-op do it for there own gain and to benefit their community, similar to the how and why credit unions operate. Essentially over a given number of people you can assume averages of what diseases will be prevalent so from the outset you can easily assume an average annual policy cost, this will give a baseline policy cost. Genetic testing would be essential here, this will cause an increase to premiums for the individual but being a community minded co-op most the cost should be spread across the consumer base, similar can be applied with pre-existing conditions. If the initial baselining was done accurately the mark up wouldn't be to great. Why the mark up for those more likely to have illness? It'll keep the costs down for the rest of the group and make the scheme more attractive to people less likely to require the insurance fund, the more people you have not needing the fund the cheaper it is for those who will be using it regularly.
Competitive medical market:
This hypothetical insurance co-op would benefit by encouraging people to find doctors. Give the customer a ball park cost for the procedure they need and keep a directory of doctors but not limit the customer to this doctors. Allow the customer to contact and negotiate the best price with simple haggling, call a few doctors find who has the best rate, use that to drive down costs with other doctors, this could be done by the co-op for a low enough administrative fee but complacency or back handers will happen.
So why not co-op insurance?
20170418
Methods of Control: Cults in Business
I write these to help people identify when they're being manipulated. Once you are aware of them you can protect yourself and make your own decisions rather be manipulated into making the decisions others want you to make.
The cult method:
Now to go through where these are used, now Scientology would be the obvious one to go for but I think it'll be more interesting to use business to demonstrate this. Six sigma will be the main one I use but not limited just to it.
Don't be mistaken six sigma isn't all bad and does have some useful elements but so do others like agile but they use cult methods to keep themselves relevant and in businesses, you shouldn't keep yourself limited to just one. I use business methodology to demonstrate the innocuous places methods of control happen. Thinking for yourself will always be more successful, common sense and thinking things through will always be a stronger than someone else's ideals. Be adaptable, be creative and be yourself.
The cult method:
- Aim for people who feel marginalised, this is easier than it seems, practically everyone feels unique, that there's no one like them and no one really understand them.
- Use language that makes them feel special.
- Use words only the cult knows to get them curious.
- Once they're in, be over stimulating, loud noises, chanting in groups, lots of cheering whooping and applause for the new initiates.
- Next start degrading the target, make them crave the above praise.
- Convince them the only support they get will be from the cult.
- Convince them no one else understands them, this is reinforced by the language used by the cult.
- Offer levels to go through to improve themselves as a reward system, give them the praise they crave.
Now to go through where these are used, now Scientology would be the obvious one to go for but I think it'll be more interesting to use business to demonstrate this. Six sigma will be the main one I use but not limited just to it.
- Marginalised people: aiming for people under pressure to make improvements. Management are a minority often disliked by those under them and pressured by those over them. The junior employee underpaid and desperate to get ahead. These are prime targets for indoctrination.
- Getting people into these methods appeal to peoples egos, telling them they're intelligent and their position makes them special.
- Six sigma and many other business methodologies are rife with there own words, SIPOC, Kaizen, MoSCoW and RACI. While others like Agile have scrums and waterfalls, which make sense outside the business world so have the hook to get people in.
- Once you join things turn in to a Tony Robbins seminar with cheering and applause for the new people. Reassurance that you can do it if you dedicate your time to it thus distracting you from alternatives.
- Then comes the degradation, convince people that what they've done so far is useless and that using their method is the only path to success.
- Dependency on the method, using the buzzwords show how things can only be achieved using their methods, use case examples from big name brands and companies to convince people their method is the only path to success.
- Support, convince the initiate that they can only use approved websites and reading materials, most of which require membership.
- Support of other members, once the initiate is indoctrinated enough they'll be using the methods language, the only people who can understand them are other initiates, this also convinces others they need to be indoctrinated.
- Levels, most notably with six sigma there's 2 grades. The tests for which need to be paid for, again using language people know but don't fit in the business world, green belt and black belt. The lower level green belt is a continuous certification, the exam isn't standard entrants must study together and develop together, this strengthens the cult situation, the exam then isn't about right answers but about prime having similar answers, showing a group mind not individual thought. The more illustrious black belt is tested the same but on a much harsher scale followed up with regular retesting based on project work from your given business.
Don't be mistaken six sigma isn't all bad and does have some useful elements but so do others like agile but they use cult methods to keep themselves relevant and in businesses, you shouldn't keep yourself limited to just one. I use business methodology to demonstrate the innocuous places methods of control happen. Thinking for yourself will always be more successful, common sense and thinking things through will always be a stronger than someone else's ideals. Be adaptable, be creative and be yourself.
20170417
The needless fear of automation
There's a lot of fear with automation going around. It'll be interesting to see how the next couple of decades to with it but the fear is over hyped, the looms didn't ruin textile industry neither did sheet music ruin live music.
Every time we've seen a major change in industry there's been massive leaps in safety and productivity. As we see regularly, artisan crafts remain popular and in demand. Home automation with IoT is a emergent field providing a market for many a start-up. There is still employment available, with any of these leaps in industry jobs have evolved out of what was new, there will obviously be a field for automation repair, work flow development and a perfect opening for kaizen process improvement.
Some benefactors of automation.
Agriculture:
High definition cameras in sheds save a farmer a lot of time in checking, similarly the user of drones checking livestock and searching for lost livestock, combined with RFID or similar the tracking could be made a lot quicker and easier.
Stock delivery:
Most large shops already use this, entering incoming stock in to there point of sale systems, tracking sold goods and triggering alerts when goods need to be replaced, but it could be expanding to when and which shelves need to be restocked. This can be extended to vending machines, using something small like the raspberry pi, stock can be monitored, fed back to a central server, where the person handling stock can download there orders and load their van with exactly what they need. This cuts back on excess fuel consumption and journeys to machines that don't need it.
Retail:
Very few 'bricks and mortar' retailers take advantage of reservations like Argos or Schuh. Whilst it's a natural extension of Argos' retail model, Schuh have blended convenience and consumers want to view, handle and try a product. This is a very simple integration into a shops POS and massively improves the consumers perception of a company whilst helping solidify there place competing in an internet environment.
The automation resistance seems like a reason to bring in universal basic income, UBI a rant for another post. I worry people will cheat themselves out of opportunity being co-opted in to opposing what should make there lives better.
Those who fight change will die out.
Every time we've seen a major change in industry there's been massive leaps in safety and productivity. As we see regularly, artisan crafts remain popular and in demand. Home automation with IoT is a emergent field providing a market for many a start-up. There is still employment available, with any of these leaps in industry jobs have evolved out of what was new, there will obviously be a field for automation repair, work flow development and a perfect opening for kaizen process improvement.
Some benefactors of automation.
Agriculture:
High definition cameras in sheds save a farmer a lot of time in checking, similarly the user of drones checking livestock and searching for lost livestock, combined with RFID or similar the tracking could be made a lot quicker and easier.
Stock delivery:
Most large shops already use this, entering incoming stock in to there point of sale systems, tracking sold goods and triggering alerts when goods need to be replaced, but it could be expanding to when and which shelves need to be restocked. This can be extended to vending machines, using something small like the raspberry pi, stock can be monitored, fed back to a central server, where the person handling stock can download there orders and load their van with exactly what they need. This cuts back on excess fuel consumption and journeys to machines that don't need it.
Retail:
Very few 'bricks and mortar' retailers take advantage of reservations like Argos or Schuh. Whilst it's a natural extension of Argos' retail model, Schuh have blended convenience and consumers want to view, handle and try a product. This is a very simple integration into a shops POS and massively improves the consumers perception of a company whilst helping solidify there place competing in an internet environment.
The automation resistance seems like a reason to bring in universal basic income, UBI a rant for another post. I worry people will cheat themselves out of opportunity being co-opted in to opposing what should make there lives better.
Those who fight change will die out.
20170416
Berkley and the suppression of free expression
With more Berkley riots I felt compelled to change focus from what I was writing. Whilst I don't agree with alt-right ideology I firmly believe people have the right to congregate, form political ideals and express themselves. Einstein said "In any successful debate you have 2 parties entering with a thesis and antithesis, if successful they come out with a synthesis". Only in good debate can you develop new ideas and that's what the political landscape needs. New ideas not violent clashes between 2 old and useless politics. Both of which have a history of failure at the cost of peoples lives, be it the fascist regimes of the 30s and 40s to the many failed socialist experiments in Russia, China, North Korea or Cuba.
Further irony is groups often needing the right to free expression like communists and anarchists fighting free expression, burning posters reminiscent of free expression protests from the 60s and inciting violence against those who oppose them. I will have no sympathy for those injured inciting violence in an attempt to suppress free expression.
In the 30s the brown shirts arose because Nazi meetings and rallies were regularly attacked like we've seen at Berkley. This gave the Nazis a sense that they had to defend themselves, this is what we're seeing at pro-Trump rallies with alt-right and 'the proud boys' arming up ready to fight. These things will only escalate to proactive attacks on opposition, if people don't learn to discuss we will see extreme violence like shootings and bombings.
This can be resolved peacefully, through debate and discussion. The opposing sides have common ground they can start at, working out from there they can educate each other on what the opposite is wrong about and come out with the synthesis Einstein talked about. That is what free expression is needed for, the ability to say what you think and for it to be explained why you're wrong. Without it we develop a climate of ignorance and fear, but maybe that's what people want, a fearful and ignorant populace, easier to control, manipulate and trigger.
Further irony is groups often needing the right to free expression like communists and anarchists fighting free expression, burning posters reminiscent of free expression protests from the 60s and inciting violence against those who oppose them. I will have no sympathy for those injured inciting violence in an attempt to suppress free expression.
In the 30s the brown shirts arose because Nazi meetings and rallies were regularly attacked like we've seen at Berkley. This gave the Nazis a sense that they had to defend themselves, this is what we're seeing at pro-Trump rallies with alt-right and 'the proud boys' arming up ready to fight. These things will only escalate to proactive attacks on opposition, if people don't learn to discuss we will see extreme violence like shootings and bombings.
This can be resolved peacefully, through debate and discussion. The opposing sides have common ground they can start at, working out from there they can educate each other on what the opposite is wrong about and come out with the synthesis Einstein talked about. That is what free expression is needed for, the ability to say what you think and for it to be explained why you're wrong. Without it we develop a climate of ignorance and fear, but maybe that's what people want, a fearful and ignorant populace, easier to control, manipulate and trigger.
20170414
Nobody Writes the Date Right
So this is a habit I picked up from the incredible XKCD this will be hard for you take but YOU ARE ALL DOING WRITING YOUR DATES WRONG. It's pretty simple, today is the 14th of April in 2017, if you're European that's 14/04/17 if you're American it's 04/14/17 but according to ISO 8601 it should be 2017/04/14.
It's simple numbers we're taught it all as children in base 10 numbers i.e. 0 to 9, the highest integer is expressed on the right so two thousand, five hundred and eighty three is expressed as 2583, if we used the European date format that comes out as 3852 and even worse like the American date format 5283, way to go America shit like this is why you don't use the metric system.
So apologies to database admins, they use this constantly in databases which brings us to why this is useful, in a database time can be expressed to the millisecond in one string 2017041415283350. Now obviously this won't work in a 32 bit environment but you knew that.
And now you know why my dates are funny on my posts. Next time on shit you didn't need to know, how to make sour dough bread from your thrush infection.
It's simple numbers we're taught it all as children in base 10 numbers i.e. 0 to 9, the highest integer is expressed on the right so two thousand, five hundred and eighty three is expressed as 2583, if we used the European date format that comes out as 3852 and even worse like the American date format 5283, way to go America shit like this is why you don't use the metric system.
So apologies to database admins, they use this constantly in databases which brings us to why this is useful, in a database time can be expressed to the millisecond in one string 2017041415283350. Now obviously this won't work in a 32 bit environment but you knew that.
And now you know why my dates are funny on my posts. Next time on shit you didn't need to know, how to make sour dough bread from your thrush infection.
Universal Basic Income
Update another interesting UBI post in favour here.
Preamble:
The 2 most convincing arguments around UBI I've seen so far
Dangers Of Universal Basic Income
Libertarian Case for Basic Income
I'm still opposed to it, essentially it comes down to these points.
People need encouragement to develop, it's often said that the greatest developments come from war, it's not necessarily war but the act of competition, some of the greatest innovations in road safety come from races, the space race was a dick measuring contest between the US and Russia, whilst part of the cold war it wasn't a conflict, so on that a competitive wage market or even a lack of money are major contributing factors to people to do something. Personally I would never have gotten interested in process development and analytics if I hadn't ended up in role that paid more. Some will end up working in science or medicine to make things better but most end up disillusioned through the college process and crippling debts.
Not pushing people into a state where they need to work could be unhealthy, leaving them complacent, watching drivel, reading some rambling ranty blog or playing video games. Taking away there routine and allowing people to slip into an unnatural sleep cycle and poor diet will cause depression.
Where does the money come from before you say "gummerment", back to my usual point, where do they get there money from? Taxes, what's the largest source tax? Income tax. As you reduce the number of people employed or having to be employed you reduce the number of people who can be taxed, so that leads to higher VAT (sales taxes) and/or higher income tax on the few left working. You might think it can come from corporate tax, some sort of automation tax but like how Ireland gets companies into the country, we risk losing them to countries with lower automation tax and looser environmental laws.
In favour there's a simple argument for UBI it should be a single payment unlike our multi-payment system we have now, a fairly simple payment to all citizens cutting back on the bureaucracy needed to issue social welfare.
Further to that it should leave people free to develop as they want, study what they want and work a lot less if not at all. As I said above I don't see it working like that for the vast majority.
Preamble:
The 2 most convincing arguments around UBI I've seen so far
Dangers Of Universal Basic Income
Libertarian Case for Basic Income
I'm still opposed to it, essentially it comes down to these points.
People need encouragement to develop, it's often said that the greatest developments come from war, it's not necessarily war but the act of competition, some of the greatest innovations in road safety come from races, the space race was a dick measuring contest between the US and Russia, whilst part of the cold war it wasn't a conflict, so on that a competitive wage market or even a lack of money are major contributing factors to people to do something. Personally I would never have gotten interested in process development and analytics if I hadn't ended up in role that paid more. Some will end up working in science or medicine to make things better but most end up disillusioned through the college process and crippling debts.
Not pushing people into a state where they need to work could be unhealthy, leaving them complacent, watching drivel, reading some rambling ranty blog or playing video games. Taking away there routine and allowing people to slip into an unnatural sleep cycle and poor diet will cause depression.
Where does the money come from before you say "gummerment", back to my usual point, where do they get there money from? Taxes, what's the largest source tax? Income tax. As you reduce the number of people employed or having to be employed you reduce the number of people who can be taxed, so that leads to higher VAT (sales taxes) and/or higher income tax on the few left working. You might think it can come from corporate tax, some sort of automation tax but like how Ireland gets companies into the country, we risk losing them to countries with lower automation tax and looser environmental laws.
In favour there's a simple argument for UBI it should be a single payment unlike our multi-payment system we have now, a fairly simple payment to all citizens cutting back on the bureaucracy needed to issue social welfare.
Further to that it should leave people free to develop as they want, study what they want and work a lot less if not at all. As I said above I don't see it working like that for the vast majority.
Rant on analysis 1 of many
There's nothing I enjoyed more in my old job than a fresh streaming pile of raw data, give me a months data and a quarter to compare it to, I'm like a pig in shit. Nothing teaches you more about statistics than wading into it up to the knees. From fucking around with SQL to force a database into giving you what you need, to performing black magic with vlookups holding a concatenate referencing a pivot table makes my dick tingle. It's not just the joy of a good script coming together but the overview showing you in clear numbers or charts for the discalcic.
Then you must do the hard work RCA (Root Cause Analysis), comparing the results to the reality, then the horror kicks in. When looking into the causes of contact, often by listening in to calls you slowly realise that data gets skewed by laziness, things like 'billing' isn't the top call driver it's the top of the list. Then you need to start a new table, list the user, the reason given and the actual cause. From that you get what I call "frequent fuckers",
essentially an exclude list of users that misuse logging and cause anomalous data. Go back to the original piece of data, create a new tab with a table of the "frequent fuckers" to to your raw data putting in a vlookup against the new tab, if they're on the table get it to give a mark, throw in a ifna to keep it clean, rebuild your pivot table but this time add a filter to exclude the "frequent fuckers" and then this look different.
The worst thing someone can do is over use averages, averages are often the bit in the middle that no one uses, providing solutions on averages gives these best solution for no one.
Try it yourself, http://www.pewresearch.org/data/ has lots of data sets, see can you get to the same results they do, more interesting is if you don't, then you get to figure out why not. Any questions leave a comment, who knows I might even get back to you.
Then you must do the hard work RCA (Root Cause Analysis), comparing the results to the reality, then the horror kicks in. When looking into the causes of contact, often by listening in to calls you slowly realise that data gets skewed by laziness, things like 'billing' isn't the top call driver it's the top of the list. Then you need to start a new table, list the user, the reason given and the actual cause. From that you get what I call "frequent fuckers",
essentially an exclude list of users that misuse logging and cause anomalous data. Go back to the original piece of data, create a new tab with a table of the "frequent fuckers" to to your raw data putting in a vlookup against the new tab, if they're on the table get it to give a mark, throw in a ifna to keep it clean, rebuild your pivot table but this time add a filter to exclude the "frequent fuckers" and then this look different.
The worst thing someone can do is over use averages, averages are often the bit in the middle that no one uses, providing solutions on averages gives these best solution for no one.
Try it yourself, http://www.pewresearch.org/data/ has lots of data sets, see can you get to the same results they do, more interesting is if you don't, then you get to figure out why not. Any questions leave a comment, who knows I might even get back to you.
Water charges
One of my biggest political annoyances has to be the anti water charge protests. I can't argue that people don't have a right to clean water but it's ludicrous to think it won't cost. With treatment and distribution there is an expense, an expense our government need to account for from a consistent source.
That rules out things like the Apple tax payment or other corporate taxes the EU deemed unjust, no company tax is an assured income as low tax rates are given to encourage employment remove that and jobs will be lost. By encouraging employment not only is there income to tax but it reduces the number on social welfare freeing up funds that are needed elsewhere from education to healthcare or even just those with serious reasons not to be able to work.
Back to the cost, the fairest way to do it like any commodity is by usage, when you buy petrol it's based on what you take not an average of what everyone uses, otherwise someone with a small efficient vehicle will pay for more than that use. From an environmental perspective by charging people for what they use will mean people will be likely to be conservative a precious resource, fixing leaks and not wasting it hosing down there lawns.
As we've seen meters are not an option which leads to flat rates, which has already failed but not for the reasons it should, to go back to the petrol analogy it forces people who are being economical to pay for more than they use which goes against any sense of fairness. It also encourages a blasé approach from those wasting water, "I paid for it I'll do what I want with it".
This leads me to where we seem to be going with it, a false idea of not paying for it. The attitude of the protesters seems to be "the gummerment will pay" without an understanding of where the "gummerment" get their money taxes, the majority of which is income tax. So we still pay for it but don't know it, either in an increase to basic PAYE, sneaking it under PRSI or just not reducing USC. Now I know 0.5% of VAT is meant to be for water services but that's not working otherwise we'd have a working water system free of leaks etc. Other than that the only option is to benefit from the rewards of other people's labour without reward or recompense, in other words slavery.
That leaves this writer to continue to insist metered water charges are the only way forward. To placate people who will use the what about the elderly or "won't somebody please think of the children" this can be addressed through similar to the heating allowance, whilst I disagree with government subsidies as they cause unneeded inflation (more on that later) it does aid those who need it whilst ensuring those who don't still pay.
That rules out things like the Apple tax payment or other corporate taxes the EU deemed unjust, no company tax is an assured income as low tax rates are given to encourage employment remove that and jobs will be lost. By encouraging employment not only is there income to tax but it reduces the number on social welfare freeing up funds that are needed elsewhere from education to healthcare or even just those with serious reasons not to be able to work.
Back to the cost, the fairest way to do it like any commodity is by usage, when you buy petrol it's based on what you take not an average of what everyone uses, otherwise someone with a small efficient vehicle will pay for more than that use. From an environmental perspective by charging people for what they use will mean people will be likely to be conservative a precious resource, fixing leaks and not wasting it hosing down there lawns.
As we've seen meters are not an option which leads to flat rates, which has already failed but not for the reasons it should, to go back to the petrol analogy it forces people who are being economical to pay for more than they use which goes against any sense of fairness. It also encourages a blasé approach from those wasting water, "I paid for it I'll do what I want with it".
This leads me to where we seem to be going with it, a false idea of not paying for it. The attitude of the protesters seems to be "the gummerment will pay" without an understanding of where the "gummerment" get their money taxes, the majority of which is income tax. So we still pay for it but don't know it, either in an increase to basic PAYE, sneaking it under PRSI or just not reducing USC. Now I know 0.5% of VAT is meant to be for water services but that's not working otherwise we'd have a working water system free of leaks etc. Other than that the only option is to benefit from the rewards of other people's labour without reward or recompense, in other words slavery.
That leaves this writer to continue to insist metered water charges are the only way forward. To placate people who will use the what about the elderly or "won't somebody please think of the children" this can be addressed through similar to the heating allowance, whilst I disagree with government subsidies as they cause unneeded inflation (more on that later) it does aid those who need it whilst ensuring those who don't still pay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)