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
Showing posts with label "Liberals". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "Liberals". Show all posts
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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)