Barbie Movie births a Political ManifestoFar from being a flippant male-bashing rant, I thought the Barbie movie did an excellent job of framing deep questions, smashing idols of simplistic reasoning, and equal opportunity lampooning of the stupidity inherent in either ideological position. Here, I don’t intend to give a detailed review and analysis of the movie, even though I think it is deserving of one. I want instead to point out one scene that I think frames the gender wars cleverly and then offer a political reform to address that problem. I don’t think this is a realistic solution to be implemented by any democracy in the near future, but I do think it is an interesting thought experiment that helps clarify the deep issues at play. Spoiler Alert: Barbieland is in the midst of a political upheaval. Ken has effectively seduced the once independent Barbies of Barbieland and is now threatening to change the constitution to entrench his newly established patriarchy. Barbies resent their once total and complete dominance of Barbieland being wrested from them and plot their revenge by waking their fellow sisters from the hypnotic effect of patriarchy, while duping the Ken’s with their feminine wiles. It’s winner take all politics as either Ken rules or Barbie. In the midst of these machinations, Ken has an intimate moment with Barbie as he looks her longingly in the eye and asks, why does Barbie Dreamhouse have to belong to either me or you, why can’t we share it? The inability to share a home together becomes reflective of the inability to share the political regime. It is a deep statement of the problem and birthed, in my mind at least, the following suggestion. But before we jump to the solution, a little more on the problem. The Barbie Movie also relates the arrival of Barbie to a precipitous drop in birth rates. In the disturbing opening homage to Kubrick’s classic, 2001 a Space Odyssey, young girls take their baby dolls with whom they have been playing mothers and smash them violently on the ground, like the tool wielding ape-like hominids do to the rising crescendo of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, ushering in The Superwoman. Here the movie links one of the grave dangers facing free affluent democracies to the supposed emancipation of womankind. Western societies face a population crash. It seems that free societies continue to promote the short-term interests of the individual at the expense of the longer-term interests of the family. People want and demand greater freedom and refuse to engage the more difficult and responsible tasks of home-building and child-rearing. And our political system encourages that degradation. Leaders are elected for what they give me now, not for the wisdom of their policies to affect a better future for our children. Deficit spending becomes the norm in such a world. There are many ways to mortgage the future for pay-offs in the present. One Solution – Give political power to childrenIn a related post, that also got me thinking about this, Taminad.Crittendan suggests extending voting rights to children. S/He gives solutions to the obvious problems but I believe s/he is thinking in the wrong direction. (I do not recognize the name Taminad and don’t want to make presumptions about gender). I think this solution of universal suffrage for children exacerbates the problem. Children are the most susceptible to short-term thinking. Training for adulthood involves helping children understand why piano practice is better than playing Xbox. Giving the vote to children is tantamount to feeding the beast and electing leaders that extend recess and cancel math class. Votes for Households I think voting should be limited to one vote per household and only households can vote. Individuals that have not yet formed households have not passed the necessary test of citizenry. I think a person is ready to vote once they have proven the ability to partner with another person towards the joint venture of building the future. Barbie and Ken are party-centered career toys that lack genitals. They spend their days dating and flirting but with no ability to consummate a relationship. These are the adults of today and the political leaders of our democracies. Political leaders with no children are not sufficiently staked in the sort of concerns that parents are. People who have not yet learned the give and take of household making, the sort of shared thinking and compromise of living inside a structure which is greater than the sum of its parts - haven't yet developed the sort of virtues necessary to make wise decisions for the super-structure which is the nation. Defining a HouseholdFor the purpose of voting, I would define a household very broadly. I would not penalize people who can't or don't want children. Children should be desired for their own sake and not used as a tool to achieve more political power. Households are classically married couples, men and women who can conceive, raise and nurture children all by themselves without involving third parties. But variations on that theme are also welcome as there are many ways to contribute towards the future and make a home. Grandparents can make a home with their grandchildren where necessary. The elder partners contributing their wisdom won over time and the younger parties their vigour. They are bound together in a contract of mutual assistance whereby they agree to serve the home, the home that provided all parties with certain benefits, even beyond the time the parties need the home. They have a debt of gratitude to help the structures that got them to where they are. This I think is the essence of citizenry, to receive from the collective and then contribute to the collective structures even beyond immediate utilitarian concerns so that it can continue to provide into the future for others. Homes are the basic model of that contract and states should grow out of a collection of homes. Rather than growing out of a collection of individuals that can, at times, work at cross-purposes to the home. DisenfranchisementI think the framers of the constitution thought along similar lines when they left eligibility requirements for voting to the discretion of the states. They understood that some threshold was required and that defining that threshold would go a long way in defining the nature of the polity and the sort of decisions it would make. Most states opted for a land-ownership requirement such that voting became the privilege of white, affluent men. This served to disenfranchise poorer whites, all blacks and women. However, we must be careful not to overly demonize these benighted practices. I am not recommending a return to this chauvinism. But I do want to point out that limiting voting to men did not mean that policies ran counter to the interests of women. Men were capable of seeking policies and furthering institutions that did good for their wives and daughters, their sisters and mothers. When the head of a household votes, especially understanding that he represents the interests of the entire household, he is more inclined to think about what is best for all the members of the household. Certainly, parents thought long and hard about what was best for their children. In fact, giving the vote to children might well have the opposite effect. Parents will be more likely to vote for the things that serve their interests alone knowing that the children can take care of their own interests with their votes. I don't think this reasoning applies to the interests of the black man as their disenfranchisement totally eclipsed them from public consciousness. However, women in Switzerland seemed contented enough with the decisions made by men that they did not insist on the local vote in one particular canton until 1990. Forming a home is something that every adult, rich or poor, black brown or white can accomplish. It is a low common denominator while still being a significant threshold criterion. And better than an arbitrary age criterion, in that it relates to an actual accomplishment. I believe my suggestion takes advantages of this broader, household thinking without the pitfall of privileging male power. By contrast, when men vote for male interests and females vote for female interests you get the sort of social bifurcation that destabilized Barbieland. Households vote for everyone inside the house. Saying that each household gets one vote does not mean we return to disenfranchising woman. The opposite is true. The problem of who votes for the household, the abuses possible when one adult pre-empts the other, are problems that this proposal won’t solve. In fact, it creates a problem for the household to negotiate which is exactly the healthy thing for a family to work through. Who guarantees that a couple is in total agreement when they buy a house in a particular neighborhood? Who knows what sort of manipulations and campaigns went on inside the bedroom before the husband finally folded and bought the house down the block from his in-laws against his better judgement. A vibrant democracy should create problems for thinking adults as they struggle to prioritize different interests. A healthy democracy should mirror the same problems in the minds of the voter as in the mind of the constituent assembly. Or better, the same problems that face a growing family in the Midwest, wanting both increased investment in public schooling for their children and better business environment for their small company should be the same problems faced by the House of Representatives. One vote per household makes the politicking, horse-trading, caucusing everyone’s problem. One vote for every adult above the age of 18 is not better, but it is simpler. It avoids politics in the house and kicks the problem over to the professional politicians. It allows everyone to cluck cluck at those two-faced hypocritical politicians because we are not called upon to really struggle like they are to come up with real worakable solutions. We can keep our hands clean with the purity of our one vote without having to consider the competing interests of the people we live with. We don’t have to do the hard work of convincing anyone of the correctness of our position, we have the privilege of voting whatever we want without having to justify our process or lack thereof to anyone. One vote for every adult is a convenience, a luxury, that avoids conflict at the expense of the value of each vote. Just give everyone the vote, children, mentally challenged adults, just so that no one has to argue about what is better or more important. We devalue the vote because we don’t want the difficulty of having to politic in our own homes. Just like we ask schools to instill our children with virtues because we can’t do it ourselves, we task our elected officials to sort out the impossible dilemmas and competing priorities of more and less government. The Battle of the Sexes should be fought first in the home and then in ParliamentA 2016 study showed the highest gender gap ever recorded since the Higher Education Research Institute of UCLA began polling in 1966. There was an 18-point gap between the number of females identifying with liberal politics versus the number of males. The showdown between Democrats and Republicans, some might say the stalemate, reflects on some deep level the different evolutionary strategies of men versus women. This is a problem that a Parliament cannot solve. In fact, I believe it inverts the problem such that males look to advance their status at home by electing a hyper-male President. And females look to advance their status in the home by strengthening the Democratic party. The opposite should be the case. Every household should benefit from the different strategies offered by men and women. In a time and place where the female mode of operation dominates the household and brings those children greater benefits then that woman should steer that home to vote for a party that offers similar strategies at a national level. And in a home where the male mode of operations seems to confer benefits on the household, then that home should steer its vote towards a party that mirrors a similar mode of operation. Obviously, this is far from simple. And I am speaking in gross generalities. However, my main point is to question the direction in which solutions should be found and then mirrored. I think homes are the living laboratories of differing gender approaches and adaptations to changing environments. I think those differing approaches are modulated inside a home structure and constrained in a healthy way by competing concerns. I think when those concerns are played out on a national scale, unrelated to the problems of a family, they tend to more extreme and ideological positions which become more entrenched and difficult to modulate. In short – one vote per home means that the wisdom each family gains by searching for different solutions, leveraging both male and female modalities becomes the brain trust of the entire nation. Only then can we leave the pink artificiality of Barbieland and return to the real world of births and deaths, young and old, sex and fertility, competition without all out warfare.
Featured Posts Barbie Movie births a Political ManifestoMarcus Aurelius on Not Overthinking ItInflating campus sexual assault statisticsPopular PostsSufferingDereliction of Duty in American PoliticsREVISED: The Economy Lost 70K Jobs In MarchTop ConversationsThe Utopian Philosopher You DeserveRam's Horns and Culture - A Jewish New Year MessageJBP's Court decisionthinkspot. The place where thinkers meet.We’re grateful for your support. We're funded by your platform subscriptions. If you can subscribe or make a small donation today, it would mean a lot. To subscribe, just click on the "Subscribe" button at the top of any thinkspot page.
The flame of creativity flickers dangerously. Prometheus’ punishment, was it all in vain?This is the information age. Information, information, everywhere. Constantly assaulting your senses. Information is mainstream. Access to information has never been higher. But it is not the same as access to knowledge. A lot of this information is actually anti-knowledge. The advent of the search engine led to an explosion of information available to the everyman. As did social media. A hundred extraneous details about the lives of people you know far too little, and like even less, are now buzzing around in your head, even if you do not want them. Irrelevant trivia about the number of goals scored by a certain athlete in a 1972 game, or the affair between a prominent celebrity and his stepdaughter. The random useless things you end up google searching on your everyday train of thought. Just because you can, you know?So much so, it’s become impossible to shut out.Art is fading away. Where is it left? In the galleries, where the more incomprehensible a painting, the more artistic it’s considered to be?In the theatre, where the greater the degree of depravity, the more critically acclaimed the work?In your head, with the endless buzzing of ideologies and extracts of pointless conversations and the most mind-numbing data about everything under the sun?Even in the streets, they will pull down the statues of our heroes soon. As soon as the people finish urinating on them in the name of freedom. The boundaries between beautiful and depraved merged until they meant the same thing. Symmetry used to be beautiful. Realism used to be beautiful. Method used to be beautiful. But that beauty is cliché as per modern definitions.Stream of consciousness. Excessive sentimentality. Exaggerated tragedy. Bleakness with edges blackened further in order to be recognisable. Deconstructionism. These are the new parameters. The only parameters.“Art doesn’t have to mean something. Art doesn’t have to be beautiful. Art doesn’t have to be understood. Art doesn’t have to have a point.” But doesn’t it, though?Some artists are eccentric. Maybe even all. But all eccentrics are certainly not artists. How do you think creatively when your university has been stripped of its arches and gargoyles? How do you write a romantic novel in an over-sexualised world where love is ridden off as a naive distraction? How do you write poetry when you hear profanities screamed all day long? When did we become so rich and poor at the same time? Will our children inherit this poverty? What a victory!Possibly, too many are unconcerned, even unaffected by this. Can these “stoics” carry on the legacy of human creativity? They see, and they do not flinch.
Featured Posts Marcus Aurelius on mental health and getting back to basics.The Party LineThe Gagging of Human CreativityIt’s Been 5 Years Since My Sister Died By Suicide | Something For Everybody 184Popular PostsMatthew's Account of Christ's Encounter with the Canaanite WomanSexuality and the Bible - Read like a Jew.Gallup Poll: Guvvy Corp Not Trusted!Top ConversationsDid He who made the lamb make thee?Disapproval of Promiscuous Women-When is this Jealousy with a Halo?Entrepreneurial Rightsthinkspot. The place where thinkers meet.We’re grateful for your support. We're funded by your platform subscriptions. If you can subscribe or make a small donation today, it would mean a lot. To subscribe, just click on the "Subscribe" button at the top of any thinkspot page.
Featured Posts When The Future Of The Republic Depended Upon The Fate Of One ManAbortion in OH is a smoke-screenREVISED: The Economy Lost 70K Jobs In MarchPopular PostsSuccess is the last problemOh Life (Friday Night Poetry Rant)*Guns, Germs, and Steel* (Two)Top ConversationsJBP's Court decisionBack after Two Years - Has Anything changed?Social Justice: a Religious Movementthinkspot. The place where thinkers meet.We’re grateful for your support. We're funded by your platform subscriptions. If you can subscribe or make a small donation today, it would mean a lot. To subscribe, just click on the "Subscribe" button at the top of any thinkspot page.
The Party LineDear Friends,It seems to me, the first amendment’s right to free speech is studiously enforced… as long as you agree with the State. Take the example of Jordan Peterson. Does anyone believe that if he was pushing the official party line, climate alarmism, trans rights and depopulation… the regulating body would have demanded he undergo reeducation? Of course not! Only a fool would believe that. A double standard. If Peterson was a good post modernist expert, he would be lauded as a ground breaking free thinker. Because, as we all know, “free thinking” is thinking what the state wants you to think. Freedom of speech (for those who speak the party line) is a hallmark of Marxist and fascist regimes. That freedom to speak is protected viciously by the State. Politically inconvenient opinions however, not so much.The experts believe that an opinion carefully crafted by experts must be the right one. How could it not be? If the smartest, wisest and most moral people craft an opinion, then having a different opinion is not only in bad taste but is actually dangerous. How far will we go to protect ourselves from danger? A very long ways. We’ve built a multi trillion dollar a year apparatus to protect us from every conceivable threat. So it’s not a big step to silence people who are actually dangerous. They’re a menace not only to society but to themselves. Such self destructive thinking must be controlled. The experts have deemed it so. With the existential threats the human race faces like, global climate change, man made viruses, and trans people barred from the women’s bathroom, we must act, there’s no time to debate.Wrongthink, if you think of it, is extremely dangerous. Any thought that’s not sanctioned by the experts in the bureaucracy, is obviously, wrongthink. We’ve already established that anything dangerous is subject to regulation, to protect us from the bogyman, so it seems clear that wrongthink should be regulated as well. Since the State doesn’t have telepaths, yet, to monitor our thoughts, censoring our speech, is the only way to protect free speech. Allowing people to spout wrongthink willy nilly would encourage wrongthink, and in such an environment, how could rightthinking get through? That’s why only State sanctioned speech can be allowed. Not just allowed but protected at all costs. You see how perfect the progressive’s logic is… if a bit orbital, machiavellian and narcissistic.Everyone knows, allowing doctors to practice medicine is very dangerous, that’s why we have expert bureaucrats to tell them how to do it. Doctors have a myopic view of their role. They see themselves as caregivers to the sick and injured. While a bureaucrat has a much wider field of vision. The bureaucrat understands that the role of all experts, is to move society from the political age, to the administrative age, the age of experts. All other considerations, like curing illness, alleviating suffering and saving human lives, are subservient to that goal. Any medical procedure that is politically favored, (moves society closer to the goal) no matter how detrimental to the patient is protected. Doctors that engage in politically inexpedient ones however, will have their license to practice endangered.In our new corporatist order of things, all your rights are protected by the full weight of the government, as long as they are in line with the government’s views. No stepping on any of them will go unpunished. God help anyone who engages in iconoclasm on a politically favored tag. Our experts in the bureaucracy will regulate every aspect of human life. All you have to do is agree. Jordan Peterson didn’t, and soon will either become one with Landru, else be ostracized. Donald Trump is getting his just deserts for standing up to the experts that run the State. If your with them, your rights will be protected, but if your against them, you have no rights. The logic is as perfect as it is circular… and is the core ethos of Marxist, corporatist and administrative states.Sincerely,John Pepin
SufferingDear Friends,It seems to me…How many hours do you spend worrying about suffering? Are you missing what the world is offering? As you spend hours at ease. Doing whatever you please. Then when you finally look back, your whole life at, will you remember the pain or playing in the leaves?We all need a modicum of afflict. Else we won’t grow up even a bit. Maturing never. Adulthood to sever. Because without something to endure, we simply can’t mature, and will remain children forever.Even time at work isn’t so bad. It distracts us from going mad. Deep in productive labor. We build a world in which to savor. But in the end, do you want to spend, time with coworkers or the people you favor?Of suffering life’s not full. There’s a lot of goodness and that’s no bull. But we magnify the pain. Then discredit the gain. Bringing past ache into the now, as if it will help us somehow, to be relived again and again.Illness can’t be ignored. Especially when you’re floored. The material becomes intense, so much we lose our sense. Though it usually only lasts a short time, and after that we’re fine, but the memories it makes are dense.The choice really is ours. We have the power. To remember the good. Not be caught in a torrent like a fragment of wood. The daily memory we make, hopefully for goodness sake, will serve us as best it could.Despair anger and depression, can become a consuming obsession. A comforting place. Where life’s joys we needn’t face. A hidden fortress, where we needn’t impress, and our magnificent suffering we can embrace.Though things may seem hopeless now. They will get better somehow. If we have not what we want. Know that change is a constant. It won’t come to you, without struggles not few, and then only in quotient.About your self centered affair, with deep and abiding despair. Before you have a fit. The world couldn’t care a whit. Though reaching great heights, can be quite a fight, especially from the bottom of a pit.Those that live in glee. They’re happier than you or me. Of jokes they may be the butt. Some may even cut. Made by people jealous of happiness, as if it makes the gleeful feel duress, and the hecklers are a pack of nuts.So remember this sage advice. Before dwelling on bad think twice. Life’s hard but we’re here. The wise don’t live in fear. Our joys out number despair, and most just don’t care, but life’s more than it may appear.Sincerely,John Pepin
Dereliction of Duty in American Politics “They should rule who are able to rule best.” – Aristotle Remember when in 1974, the Watergate scandal, forced Republican President Richard Nixon to resign? Let’s not forget the Democratic Presidential nominee Gary Hart’s scandalous extramarital affair with Donna Rice in 1988. Reaching a new low and not to be outdone, Democratic President Bill Clinton, in 1998 with one of the most embarrassing of all for “not having sex” with cigars and intern Monica Lewinsky causing him to be impeached for committing perjury and obstruction of justice. This incident is allegedly said to have caused real-life horrific Wag the Dog ramifications in bombing the Middle East during this presidential sexual scandal. Perhaps the most elementary was in 1992 by Republican Vice President Dan Quayle for his inability to correctly spell potato, basically ending his hopes of a presidential career. Then in 2004 came Democratic Presidential nominee Howard Dean with his overly enthusiastic flamboyant famous “yeah!” aka “the Dean Scream,” which cost him his presidential political ambitions. In 2006, Presidential Democratic nominee, John Edwards, the “pretty boy with perfect hair and smile," impregnated his mistress during the campaign, while his wife, now deceased, was battling cancer all the while supporting his presidential nomination. Edwards' narcissistic behavior cost him his political ambitions. And last but certainly the most infamous narcissist of all, former President Donald Trump. The twice impeached and four-time criminally indicted shameless former president who blatantly and lawlessly was seeking 11,780 votes, who sexually abused Jean Carroll amongst other crimes, and is still deceiving the people of America with false claims of voter fraud and a stolen election along with aspirations of four more years even though as I stated over a year ago, that by engaging, participating and or supporting the January 6th “insurrection,” Trump is disqualified from running for the office of president by Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. These occurrences, all of which have taken place as facts within the past 50 years, and we have not even begun to talk about presidents and presidential candidates prior to 1974. Many great presidents and nominees could make this list as well, but we cannot continue to cry over spilled milk when the very essence of our future is at stake.“Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play.”- Immanuel KantI was impressed with Vivek Ramaswamy until I wasn’t. After watching the GOP Presidential Debate, I came to the conclusion of just how naïve and ill-prepared Vivek is regarding foreign affairs. The American President has the power to issue executive orders, sign treaties, and determine foreign policy. Vivek’s answers were quick, some truth, some contradictive, some lies, and some, where it seemed he had learned repetitive knowledge without actual expertise or experience with a huge serving of governmental mimicking theatrical scrambled eggs. Basically, Vivek wants to be nothing more than a Trump wannabe, a Trump mini-me. Essentially, one can easily identify how corrupt a person, or mostly a politician is by the size of his bank account. Vivek gives me the Sam Bankman-Fried FTX Crypto guy vibes and there is no difference between Vivek Ramaswamy and Elizabeth Holmes from Theranos Inc., with the fraudulent blood tests scheme and Vivek’s fraudulent Alzheimer’s medication that did not work. Vivek is a copycat, a carbon copy of Trump’s divisive and failed politics. Even though Vivek claims he wants to bring the nation together using the same status quo, foreign policies have to be understood, believed, and executed without error or at least zero to minimal collateral damage and not just repeated rhetoric from someone’s political ideology. Is Vivek perhaps trying to appease the GOP and Trump to alleviate guilt from the guilty Trump cult that the GOP has become? Watching and listening to Ramaswamy, I couldn’t stop thinking about the character, Dr. Andrew Fassbach, from the movie World War Z. Dr. Andrew Fassbach was a young intellectual Harvard graduate who was an inexperienced, naïve virologist hired by the United Nations to find out the root cause of the virus that was destroying humanity. In the movie, Dr. Fassbach is arrogantly verbally trying to school Gerry Lane, played by Brad Pitt, who is a highly experienced retired investigator for the United Nations. Lane has the experience and has seen firsthand how the environment can destroy humankind and Dr. Fassbach only speaks of how Mother Nature can be the worst serial killer of all. To make a long story short, when Dr. Fassbach was sent into a real-life crisis, he manages to accidentally trip, shooting and killing himself within seconds of his first mission, never getting off the plane. The experienced Gerry Lane/Brad Pitt doesn’t seem at all surprised even referring to the Harvard doctor as “just a kid” earlier before departure. While Vivek is an intellectual Harvard and Yale businessman, he does not have the experience on how the political world works. It is one thing to be confident, but Vivek is arrogant and cocky. The irony of an 18-year-old excited wide-eyed Vivek in 2003 asking presidential candidate Al Sharpton a question regarding political experience or lack thereof. Verbiage, “written words are merely concepts and you must go through the experience.” – Saint Augustine. Knowledge is merely a concept of learned thoughts that become ideas, evolving into theories from education that can only be proven to be truths through experience. Experiencing said ideas and truths surpasses the knowledge of them. Letting Vivek run the country at this time is like giving the keys of a Lamborghini needing repairs to an overly enthusiastic, overzealous anxious teenager, who has never driven a car before. While knowledge always overshadows ignorance, experience will always overpower knowledge. Does America have time for a novice on-the-job training politician? The answer is no. Perhaps if the world was not already in such chaos, with war drums loud and constantly beating from Russia, Ukraine, China, North Korea, and Iran to name a few, Ramaswamy could be our guy. Years ago, America had to deal with a major crisis every few years here and there. But now, it’s around-the-clock chaos, crisis, wars, and rumors of more wars. Vivek is a little too excited, power-hungry, and naive because he is somewhat clueless regarding how the real world works amongst its leaders, dictators, global allies, and enemies. Unfortunately, his overeducated knowledge doesn’t equate to wisdom which comes from experience. Perhaps if he listened more and ran his mouth less, he might familiarize himself with world political affairs. The world is intertwined and for him to repeat Trump's rhetorical nonsense is beyond naïve. I do agree with a lot of what he said, but his ignorance regarding foreign affairs or policies is incongruous, to say the least. It’s not easy to run our own country, but as the leader, one must be well prepared, and well equipped to handle any outside crisis affecting our nation. To me, the most important job of a president is keeping America safe from enemies abroad and staying in tune with our allies is paramount. Vivek appears obnoxious and rude because he speaks over people, rarely letting others have a say. A leader must be not only a good listener but a great listener. Therefore, how can he possibly be a good leader? He has much to learn. Guess Harvard and Yale failed him in the social and listening skills department. Vivek believes a conspiracy theory that our own government was involved in the 911 crisis and suggests censorship was the cause of the January 6th insurrection which is ludicrous because Trump and his minions were the masterminds of the January 6th insurrection. When Vivek was being interviewed by journalists using his own words, Vivek shamelessly pushed back by insulting and telling them that their ignorance or misunderstanding was what the issue was rather than taking responsibility and accountability for his own words. It’s disappointing because I had hopes for Vivek. The more he spoke, the more I listened, and the more informative I was as a voter that he is not what America needs, at least not at this point in time. America is akin to the Titanic and is quickly sinking. Perhaps our only life raft is someone like Chris Christie or Nikki Haley. Unless God forbid, Kamala Harris finds a way through the backdoor by finding a way to find a way or Michelle Obama decides to run for president bringing back the Obama’s continuing decline of American morals. After Trump ran and won the first time, the door is wide open for any clown to waltz right in. I can’t get over that painting of a female president in the background of both the Democratic presidents and the Republican presidents by Andy Thomas which was shown in my article “Cruella” Kamala “de Vil”, First American Female President, Thinkspot, August 2022. “Our civilization will sink to a state like that which is found among the bees, ants, and other insects – a state wherein the male is ruthlessly killed off. In this matriarchal empire which will be established the female rules. As the female predominates, the males are at her mercy” – Nikola Tesla America is not short of political government theatrics, that’s for sure. That being said, electing someone who is ill-prepared and not experienced is hazardous to our country. Vivek says he will just find a way to persuade Putin to no longer be BFFs with Xi. Wow! Really? I guess Vivek hasn’t heard of BRICS. A well-established, organized, and powerful economic group of world leaders which was established in 2010. Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa are not to be toyed with and Vivek’s verbal “rapability” cannot dismantle BRICS. Vivek’s naïve outlook on Tawain and his misunderstanding of Israel’s importance is beyond comprehension. If he goes along with the Republican’s ignorant idea of going to war with Mexico in order to win the war against fentanyl, he is in for a rude awakening. It takes a special kind of stupid people to think that bombing Mexico is justified. It requires open dialogue with the Mexican Government, a strategic plan along with Mexico’s permission to fight the drug cartels and not its citizens or the Mexican Government. The ignorant Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Lindsay Graham, and John Neely Kennedy thinking they can just bomb Mexico proves American politics is run by morons. John Neely Kennedy once said, “Mexicans would be eating cat food out of a can and living in a tent behind an Outback Steakhouse restaurant if it were not for their nation’s proximity to the US and Mexico should be invaded because of the drug cartels.” Where do I begin? First, Kennedy’s disgusting and racist remarks to our allies are beyond ignorant. Perhaps the only one behind an Outback Steakhouse with a Mexican in a tent is his wife Rebecca because I’m certain the ignorant disgusting wrinkly old man Kennedy can’t even satisfy his own wife because he is full of hate on matters he knows nothing about. The war on drugs is more complicated because America supplies Mexico with guns and Mexico supplies America with drugs through the cartel supplied by China. Yeah, make that make sense. Drugs are brought in because the doors are left open by greedy politicians making millions supporting the NRA. And let's not forget Trump and Steve Bannon who pocketed the money and never built the wall. So, if you want to blame somebody start looking in the mirror. Good luck invading Mexico as they will fight you with the guns, we provided them. Secondly, if you go to war with Mexico, they might just reclaim their land that America stole many years ago so no need to worry about proximities. If these are the same Trump policies and agendas that Vivek will continue, the American people will not comply. The war on fentanyl is an American problem as well. The majority of the dealers are Americans. The manufacture of fentanyl begins in China. Work with the Mexican Government to fight the drug cartel, cutting off the pipeline from China and eliminating the drug’s high demand. There is only a supply because of the demand. Offer American citizens incentives such as jobs, skills, and education, giving them a purpose and aim for their own life without drugs. Experience matters and understanding foreign affairs matters even more. Therefore, Vivek Ramaswamy no longer has my vote. Vivek, I to play tennis when time permits. I’ve seen your moves and they don’t impress me much. I’m certain I will never run into you, but please put on a shirt when playing tennis because no one wants to see that chia pet chest hair of yours. On another note, the majority of my readers are probably wondering why I’m so hard on the Republican Party. I’ve been a Christian Conservative Republican my entire adult life up until Trump. I actually voted for Trump the first time only to find out he is nothing but a criminal, a fraud, and most devastating of all, is how he has deceived the church and divided our once great nation. Now I’m a Christian Conservative Independent. I cannot be a Democrat because my beliefs, values, and views differ. Republican Conservative Christians are supposed to know better because we are God’s people. We are supposed to be the party of law and order, fiscal responsibility, and Christian values. However, since Trump took office, the Republicans have become the party of hate. Republicans went from funding the police to defunding the FBI. Trump even wants to abolish the Constitution. Jesus Christ said to pray for your enemies not promote hate. The Democrats have already crossed the line and some have jumped over the cliff because they have a reprobate mind. The Republicans of today are following suit. There is no difference between the woke delusional moral deception and hate. Sin is sin and hate is hate. We are supposed to hate sin, not the sinner. Republicans now only hunger for Trump's chaos and divisiveness even when other politicians are offering a better way; a more down the straight and narrow line with the Republican values. However, Republicans are now rejecting what they once believed and stood for. They just want to fight fire with fire. The Republican Party has become too stupid to realize that common sense is needed more now than ever before. Go back to the moral basics in our modern times. Stand on truth, and everything else will fall into place. The youth of today cannot relate to all the daily nonsense and they see the GOP as a bunch of hateful lazy old rich hypocrites with nothing in common and nothing to offer. Humble yourselves to God and your constituents. In my humble opinion, it is my belief based on historical facts that the Democratic Party is advocating Socialism and Communism Governance while the Republican Party is promoting and advocating Authoritarian and mostly dangerous Fascism Trump Governance. “Without deviation, without deception, without any ifs, buts or whereases, freedom of speech means you shall not do something to people for views they have, express, speak or write” – Hugo L. Black However, both political parties have drunk the crazy Kool-Aid, just different flavors. The ideology that America has stood for freedom, liberty, and justice for nearly 250 years is on the brink of collapse. The current path we are on can only be stopped by those whom we put into office. We are running out of time. We need to wake up before America ceases being a free nation under God. We cannot lose the spirit of America. “The Spirit that prevails among Men of all degrees, all ages and sexes is the Spirit of Liberty.”- Abigail Adams
‘None of the 15 institutions rated annually managed to repair their images, with many remaining at or near their all-time lows.’Recent Gallup polls Normally, votes cast at elections are reflections of citizens’ values. But the infantilization of western citizens in recent decades makes it fair to wonder if voting has become as much a scramble at the pork barrel as an expression of social values. The exception is Europe, where the steady shift to the political hard-right in response to illegal-migrant-driven culture-smashing is clearly that, a response. Next: the Internet as an information superhighway didn’t happen. Instead, we have an instrument of government/corporate/left-wing-social-media control. This makes opinions-gathered-on-street-corners a less-tampered-with form of data. Google ‘gallup historically low faith in institutions’
Here are a
few of the reasons why this new feature rubs me wrong: 1. I came to
discuss ideas for ideas’ sake. I don’t want even the temptation to adjust, wink
or otherwise alter what I say myself or what I say to others because of how it
may affect the bottom line. I want my words to be true, not attractive.
Straight not bait. Now, I know everyone will claim that that is not the intent
nor the outcome. It is possible to speak truly and just be happy about whatever
windfall may come your way. But I think people are human and while this new
feature is intended to just monetize appreciation, I think the media really
does affect the message. It won’t obviously affect the transactions on this site,
but I think it will have a subtle and deleterious effect. 2. I don’t want to
be judged by how much money I offer or am offered. I am already carefully
scrutinized on this site. This place has no small amount of antisemites ready
to jump on my words as evidence of my communist leanings, my homophobia and
homophilia, evidence that I am a Christ-killer, or a fifth column. The last
thing I need on this site is to be judged as miserly or as over-compensating by
throwing my money around. Ya, I know, we all pretend not to notice. Whatever
you give is appreciated, no judgement attached. That may be true in the main
but I am sensitive to the exceptions. And it doesn’t take much to poison the
well and turn a nice way to say thanks into something ugly. My prediction is
that a norm will be eventually established, like service in restaurants. Once
that norm is established, it will be hard to deviate without judgement. I am
sure my favorite antisemites will already grumble with this post that I am both
a cheap Jew and anti-Capitalist. 3. And then there
is the grade school valentine card phenomenon. Someone is going to give you a nice
tip and you won’t reciprocate? All that serves to change a nice idea into a pathetic
competition of giving. It was always the ugliest girl in the class that wrote
the most “happy Valentine” messages hoping to get the same in return. 4. Intellectual
intercourse should be an intimate affair. I am often touched by good writing
and sharp questions. I leave an intense exchange genuinely affected by my
interlocutor. That person’s words linger in my mind, I walk around with them
thinking about them and what to say next. I hope I do the same with my writing
to others. I think it cheapens the exchange to monetize my appreciation. How
much is a good question worth? It really does feel like prostituting my
writing. It always struck me as a deep issue, not sufficiently explored, how
Plato’s dialogues turn into a literal love-affair with Socrates. 5. I am not rich.
I don’t want to have to think twice about reading a post or answering a post
for fear that I can’t afford the expected tip. And I really don’t want to think
more than I already do about what and how to write on Thinkspot. I weigh my
words carefully. I craft my responses with diligence. I can’t afford the added
time, mental energy, and expectation around tips. I prefer to eat where service
is included than where I need to start thinking about how much a really liked
my waiter and whether it exceeds my discretionary budget. I like clean
exchanges and tips makes everything more complicated and personal in ways that
I don’t think make us write better. Somewhere, I think Jordan Peterson forgot what its like to live on a tight budget. I assume many of you out there are middle income earners like me. Such is the fair statistical guess. I'd much prefer you "pay" me with your comments. A good question, a challenging attack. Even a compliment is appreciated. Just save your non sequiturs for yourselves. I could do without those. If you have nothing to say, it doesn't help to tip me as compensation for your lack of opinion. And if you do have something to say, that's so much more valuable than whatever small change you throw at me. 6. If I had enough
talent, I might consider busking at a subway station. It could be fun to open
your guitar case, play music and hopefully pay for lunch. The problem with tipping
on Thinkspot is that we are both the buskers and the buskees. We open our
guitar cases, but we are also expected to take those proceeds and fill everyone else's guitar case. We are the entire economy. Instead, I
recommend everyone keep their quarters in their own pockets and get down to the
business of Thinking. I think it is a better use of time and effort rather than
all the distraction of rotating all that money around, only to end up pretty
much where you started only with more heartache. 7. I'm not afraid to charge for my labour. I don't feel guilty taking money I've earned. Dr Peterson coaches people all the time not to be embarrassed about thinking your time is worth money. And not to fall into the angelic fallacy that everything would be better if we acted like angels and just gave of ourselves freely without thinking about that evil god Mammon. That's not my problem with tipping. I think economic competition is a critical method of quantifying value and that it is necessary and appropriate to subject yourself to the valuation of others. It's true that the merit of my work has something to do with what other people are willing to pay for it. I'm not free to set my own price and dictate to others what they should pay for the fruit of my hands. I'm subject to the strictures of the market. But I do get to choose carefully what market I want to be judged by. I get to choose who I think are worthy judges of my value added. The Hebrews weren't free to tell Pharaoh they deserve a raise or that minimum wage is a universal right. The one choice they had was to leave, to refuse participation in the Egyptian economy that treated them so poorly. I am not free to demand that this post is worth $500 - now pay up. I am free to say I'd rather your engagement than your small change. That this is not the proper market to judge the value of my comments in monetary terms. I'm not opposed to selling my essays for what I think they are worth while taking the realistic constraints of the market into account. But I'm not interesting in making a game out of it. Working and writing is serious business and I'm not subjecting the amount of my remuneration to the whims of this community. I'm too old to gamify my participation here. 8. Thinkspot is
trying to impose a new norm and I reserve the right to be a conscientious
objector. This is actually a very serious change of norms from the Thinkspot I paid
for and was enjoying just last week. Who gave Thinkspot the right to change the
rules of the game without asking us? And don’t tell me this is a just a feature
that I can use or not use at will. This is very much the same sort of
manipulations used by Facebook to affect our behavior by changing the way the
platform operates. It matters when a platform changes its currency from Likes
to Emojis, to Followers, to actual dollars. It matters how the algorithms
operate, what metrics are used and whether posts are now going to be ranked as “top
earning posts.” A move of this magnitude from a Platform that fashions itself
as freer and better than the alternatives certainly isn’t acting like that.
This is very much the sort of Big guys dictating the rules of the game to the
little guys I would expect from the Canadian government, from Meta but not from
something with the name Jordan Peterson all over it. Where is the transparency?
Where is the process? This is a meta-change that affects us whether or NOT we
choose to tip. The culture has been changed. I didn’t tip before and I still
won’t tip. But now my not tipping is opting out and ignoring that little dollar
sign accusing me at the bottom of the post. Thinkspot is trying to change my
behavior and I am a stiff-necked, independent thinker and I am not buying in
without a fight. I repeat – it is not enough to not tip. I resent the change of
norms and expectations that this sets up. I resent the pulling of strings and the expectation of us dancing to the beat of money. I feel very much the product. 9. I reject the non-tipper (NP) label. I am what I have always been, a VC - a Verbal Complementor and it is you Thinkspot that made that not enough. Once, this space was free of pecuniary compliments (like last week) and words were enough. It was you that insinuated that a non-tipper is not as good as the well spoken teacher who has careful praise and the well occasioned barb to dole out. I refuse to allow my positive approach to words and my belief that they hold value to be undermined and cheapened by this new economy which intimates that I don't really mean it until I put my money where my mouth is. Two
Suggestions: I am not
just a complainer but a Thinker loyal enough to make a practical constructive
suggestion. I don’t mind choice and if people want to offer and receive tips,
more power to them. But I want to let people know my choice as a non-tipper and
have people interact with me knowing that at the outset. I want the option to remove
the dollar sign from all my posts. I want my decision to be a non-participant
in this new economy to be global, consistent, and transparent. And I think
tipping should be OPT-IN. I think everyone should start as a non-tipper and
they need to set up their wallet and opt in to give and receive tips. And if I don't Opt-in don't label me in the negative - a non-tipper (NP). But give me a positive assignment - a Verbal Complementor (VC). It is funny but the abortion wars have taught that everyone needs to be Pro-Something. And I refuse to be cornered into a negative evaluation as the Non-Tipper. Yesterday, there was no such thing. Don’t get
me wrong, I would love to earn money by writing on Thinkspot. I already spend
too much time away from my contract work for which I am paid. But I am not
interested in hustling for a buck as a bottom-feeder in this large economy. If
somebody who is in charge of the $3 I pay every month, along with thousands of
others wanted to contract with me for the value I bring to this community as a
contributor, I would not say no. If someone with the sizeable budget clearly spent
on coding and web design said to me: we respect your writing and the way you
generate intelligent dialogue, and we want you on the team, I'd be interested in hearing more. Thinkspot invested
lots in the back end and now it’s time to put some time and money into the front
end. But they are not going to cleverly manipulate me into paying for that additional investment. I have enough hustle in my life. I would like my time talking
with you guys to be hustle free unless it was really worth it.
The world is growing more and more “humanitarian” every day. In fact, being a “human” has taken precedence over being a man or a woman or a citizen or an Asian. It is on a cosmopolitan plane that the modern man in search of his soul seeks his identity. Anything on a less macro level is seen as a “label”. A label to be put on as a costume at will, or ripped off like you would a bandaid, as an act of liberation, even if it takes some of your skin along with it. The usage of the word ‘human’ has risen consistently since the 1900s. I pinpoint the start of this to the Industrial Revolution. After reaping its gains in productivity, for the first time in the history of mankind, we saw the possibility that resources that had been scarce as long as man knew, could perhaps be in surplus one day. At least some of them. I wouldn’t say all of man’s desires can be satiated by increasing production, but man certainly thought so. At least then. In a sense, ‘the machine’ freed the human. The ‘us versus them’ mindset that had been in place since centuries, began to be questioned. For the first time, we could afford to think of ‘us AND them’. The social effects of the Revolution were countless and far-reaching. I am not going to go into them any further. I have no issues with the humanitarian movement, in principle. I credit an overwhelming number of the victories of modern civilization to this change in thought. But what happens when such an idea is stretched beyond practical principles or public policy, and gains a cult following? Everyone is eager to prove how much they care about humanity, how committed they are to humanitarian causes, and how sympathetic they are to the dispossessed. Worse still, they are eager to prove that others are not as compassionate as they are, and this makes them feel victorious. They point fingers at those they deem ‘less moral’, censor their books or cancel them altogether, making their views unacceptable for expression. This momentary moral superiority is the hero complex bursting forth in a generation that is not permitted to win at anything else.Not being encouraged to partake in the traditional roles that people played and excelled in, leads to a lack of individual striving on any front of life. Earlier man could ‘win’ at the tasks these roles called on him to perform. He could be the strongest warrior of his tribe. Or the most industrious farmer. Or an excellent father. A wise teacher. A committed citizen. A dependable husband. A devoted son. A faithful brother. And so much more. He drew meaning from doing right by his people. He derived his ‘humanity’ from his social relationships. Undoubtedly the Industrial Revolution helped us make great strides in preserving humanity. Ironically, in the process, we ended up undermining the value of human industry. With humanity made an inherent virtue rather than the collective fruit reaped by the industry of civilisation, with humanity as the means rather than the end, with the welfare state that acts as father to his children, what is man left to do now? He walks out on his wife and kids (that is if he marries at all). He abandons his parents in his old age. He does not know his neighbour. Human relationships are disincentivised. The rent-seeking behaviour of people looking to align themselves with bigger, popular causes to justify avoiding their personal failings and abdicating individual responsibilities is an act of rebellion by man’s unconscious after his refusal to the call to adventure. Putting the human above the individual, and above the family, even above the community, is not always for the greater good it purports to achieve. The result? A total collapse of meaning.
‘Genghis Khan was among many recorded warlords who would often employ the mass, indiscriminate murder of men and boys he felt threatened by regardless if they were soldiers, civilians, or simply in the way.’ ‘The Mongol army conquered hundreds of cities and villages and killed millions of people. One estimate is that about 11% of the world's population was killed either during or immediately after the Mongol invasions, around 37.75–60 million people in Eurasia.’ Was sitting in the garden just yesterday, listening to Dan Carlin’s podcast history of the Mongols. This morning, I read Pope Guy ‘praising the massive 13th-century state for its “absence of conflicts,” ’ Is it any wonder at all that trust in Gubmints and social institutions has fallen to all-time lows?
‘ . . . the number of trans people in the U.K. has rocketed.’ Readers, this project is about to change! Firstly, ‘trans’ is not a single thing. It is a cluster of phenomena. Secondly, we have been looking at ‘trans’ from only ‘one side.’ A Great Big Question has been starting us in the face: What are the attractions of ‘trans’?! We appreciate that there is a tiny group of real transsexuals. We can somewhat comprehend how loonie queer commies can and do railroad autistic kids into trans. We certainly understand that political radicals (like ANTIFA) would put on lippie and a floral frock to freak out the squares – epater le bourgeois. But that stills leaves whole swathes of trans territory unexplored.
Racism in American still survives among the left and the right, and especially at the extreme fringes of both. This article debunks the junk science of right-wing racists who want to believe that some races are genetically smarter than others. For an example of right-wing racists obsessed with such junk science, see this Emil Kirkegaard Substack article, which has fans among other Substack authors such as the anonymous individual writing under the pen name John Carter. Ultimately, these more recent efforts derive from the original obfuscator of junk racist statistics: Charles Murray in his infamous 1994 Bell Curve book. Race is 100% a Social Construct, Not Scientific While there are many problems with the junk science that these authors are obsessed with, their fundamental problem is the near-universal scientific consensus that “race” is 100% a social construct without a basis in biology or any other science. (Shiao et al. 2012. The Shiao et al. article actually argues against this scientific consensus, but in the decade since its release, it has apparently had no influence on the fields of genetics or sociology.) To actually be scientific and try to overlap with an attempt to make the category of “race” scientific, a study would need to draw data from three categories: (1) skin color genes, (2) genes that have a high correlation with intelligence, and (3) intelligence test results. The Emil Kirkegaard paper does not deal with genes for intelligence at all! Furthermore, at no point does Emil Kirkegaard claim that his genetic categories dataset includes any genes for skin color either! Even at this most fundamental level, Emil Kirkegaard lacks any connection with reality because none of his analysis uses actual genes for intelligence, or genes for skin color, or any genes for anything at all. Proper science ultimately requires hypothesizing and proving causal relationships, and unless these junk science racists want to admit that there are significant nurture causal relationships with intelligence, they are left solely with genes as their only possible nature explanation. But they do not even look at genes! Fundamentally, Kirkegaard’s Races Are Social Constructs Emil Kirkegaard uses two types of 100% socially-defined racial categories. The first he is honest about: Self Identified Race & Ethnicity (SIRE), an acronym he uses often. But then he pretends to get scientific and biological with his “genetic ancestry” race categories; however, at their root, those are socially-determined as well. Emil Kirkegaard’s analysis uses genetic data from the Illumina company, which itself uses a set of seemingly 1,000 quasi-racial/ethnic/something categories from the 1,000 Genomes Project that are 100% socially identified by the donors and researchers involved in compiling the genetic data. Really, these should be called “ancestry” categories. (Here are links to the project’s explanations of its genetic ancestry categories, and the part of the website where you can download those categories. The company refuses to permit the word “race” to be assigned to any of its categories; Emil Kirkegaard’s repurposing of those categories into races like “European” and “African” runs directly against the scientific consensus refusing to do so.) Because there are so many, the categories are very fine-grained combinations of multiple geographic areas as well as self-reported donor ancestry; one official example is “CEU means Northern Europeans from Utah”, which means that Eastern Europeans from Utah must be a different category. Critically, it is the “Northern European” part of these categories that make them 100% self-identified and socially-determined as well. Emil Kirkegaard also used “genetic ancestry” categories from the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP), which also uses self reported ethnic group categories combined with geographic origin to categorize its data. At no point does Emil Kirkegaard explain how his analysis transforms these many hundreds of purely socially-defined categories into the two that he uses: “European” and “African”, especially when it comes to the Americas were there is a lot more genetic mixture. Emil Kirkegaard has a triangle matrix of mixed ancestry measurements, but that’s a second-order mixed-ancestry measurement that uses the original socially-defined Illumina/HGDP/1,000 Genomes Project categories as the defining baseline. So what about the likelihood of pre-existing admixture in those original baselines, admixture that was lost with the self-reported identities that created the categories used by those projects in the first place? Emil Kirkegaard does not and cannot deal with that. As noted in the beginning, all racial categories ultimately are 100% socially defined. True, you can find some biologists like this Dr Jerry Coyne who argue that there are biological definitions to the term “race”, but funnily enough, they will insist that the biologically-valid definitions do not overlap with the “old” or “traditional” notions of race that Emil Kirkegaard, Charles Murray, and the other junk science racists use. To quote Dr Coyne: But what Dr Coyne is doing here is negligently using the English language by using the terms “race” and “ancestry” to mean the same thing in his article. Ideally, in science, different words should mean different things; there should be no synonyms. Synonyms are useful for poetry, not science. The term “ancestry” is a much better term because it does not trigger junk science racists to mistakenly believe that the science justifies their old concepts of race: African/black and European/white. Racists Use Viruses & Non-Gene DNA to Define Race The only remotely rational way to define race would be a specific set of gene alleles, which would have to include skin color alleles. However, 99% of human DNA does not code genes! Roughly 8% of human DNA sequences were originally from viruses! The Illumina/HGDP/1,000 Genomes Project use Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) nucleotide pair variations to profile the hundreds of categories that they use. SNPs are genetic errors. Odds are that 99% of these SNPs are not part of any gene sequences at all, and that 8% were originally virus sequences. In other words, almost all of the “genetic” part of the “genetic ancestry” that Kirkegaard uses to assert that Europeans are smarter than Africans has nothing inherently to do with being European or African at all, or with any genes, or with anything that matters other than the esoteric profiling that Illumina enables to assist with medical research. _______________ Support Non-Violence writing by tipping me at Ko-Fi.com, subscribing to my Substack, or by donating some Ether digital currency to me at this address! 0x5ffe3e60a7f85a70147e800c37116b3ad97afd5e _______________ These fundamental facts about the human genome are how junk science racists throw up a façade of genetic science legitimacy by talking about “ancestral genetics” while not actually dealing with genes at all — The SNP profiles subjectively categorized that Emil Kirkegaard uses are genetic DNA information, but NOT of genes! The SNPs and sequences are mostly non-coding DNA with nothing to do with intelligence or skin color. In fact, SNPs are genetic errors! Emil Kirkegaard, and the pen-named John Carter author at Substack, want us to define ourselves into races using genetic errors in non-coding and virus DNA! This is what the junk science racists have to offer up as a scientific, biological basis for race: errors & virus DNA! Way to go guys. Way to offer up an inspiring vision for humanity. Not. Improperly Conflating Genetics With Genes But junk science racists are not the only ones misrepresenting the groups of SNPs that legitimate scientists are using to group people into categories that do not overlap with traditional race categories. Here you have a retired biology professor, Dr Jerry Coyne, making the leap without evidence that SNP error profiles have real biological effects. Here is where this biologist makes the unproven leap: No, actually, it is almost certainly the case that these 326 regions create zero biological differences between self-identified race groups precisely because 99% of DNA involved is non-coding. None of those 326 regions are complete genes, and not a single study has ever tied specific genes of interest to racists (like intelligence) that differ within humanity with “biological differences” tied to the causal function of those genes that also overlap with traditional race categories. Categories Like Race Do Not Permit Overlap In fact, no one, not leftwing nor rightwing, who is obsessed with race can offer a truly genetic definition of race for the simple fact that exceptions can always be found. Suppose that a racist (leftwing or rightwing) were to make a list of gene alleles, some for skin color and others for intelligence, and then define a race by that list. It will definitely be the case that some people in the world with a different skin color gene will have the same intelligence gene. What will a junk science racist do then? just a nice image for this article To which racial group would an individual with a different skin color gene but the same intelligence gene belong? What are these junk science racists going to do about the fact that there are multiple light skin color genes, some of which Asians & Europeans widely share, but others that they do not share as much? There is no logically coherent way for a junk science racist to make a list of skin color genes, some of which overlap with other traditional “races” while others do not, to define a specific race. Nature AND Nurture, Not “Or” As mentioned previously, junk science racists need a way of measuring intelligence. Their favorite go-to is traditional intelligence quotient (IQ) testing. The original Emil Kirkegaard article that this take-down is critiquing cites studies that do properly focus on the nature and/or nurture debate. These junk science racists are running into the reality that almost everything about human characteristics is both nature and nurture, not just one or the other. Almost everything. Not literally everything. “Race” itself is 100% a social construct category, so it has no nature component, and it is not possible to form a coherent or rational genetics-based definition of “race” that in any way aligns simultaneously with traditional “race” categories like white or black. But intelligence very much is affected by both nature and nurture. Junk scientific racists want to completely exclude nurture. Well, then, how would they explain that excessive early childhood television viewing noticeably lowers IQ, and that racial minority children watch significantly more television? These two facts alone could completely explain any barely statistically significant difference in measured IQ between races in America. But Emil Kirkegaard does absolutely nothing to construct studies that isolate genetic/nature versus nurture causes. Nothing. Proving causation would require controlled studies, in which all the black subjects and all the white subjects have the same television watching habits, and same overall early childhood development environment in every other possible area of nurture that affects intelligence. _______________ Support Non-Violence writing by tipping me at Ko-Fi.com, subscribing to my Substack, or by donating some Ether digital currency to me at this address! 0x5ffe3e60a7f85a70147e800c37116b3ad97afd5e _______________ It is not surprising that Emil Kirkegaard did not do a controlled study, though, because he did not actually collect much or any of the information he analyzes, and controlled studies are more expensive than uncontrolled data collection. However much it is understandable that Emil Kirkegaard did not do any data collection himself, let alone controlled studies, the overall impact is the same: His analysis does absolutely nothing to prove causation, or to isolate genetic versus nurture causes. As a result, Emil Kirkegaard has no way of proving that the correlations he statistical claims to prove (between “race” and intelligence) are the result solely of genetic causation. The correlations he claims to prove could easily be happenstance: It is actually the nurture environment that is causing differences in intelligence, and the nurture environment happens to correlate with genetics as well. All of the correlations he claims to prove between “race” and intelligence could easily have nothing at all to do with genetics and be the result entirely of the nurture environment. Oh, and Emil Kirkegaard completely fails to deal with another significant influence on intelligence: epigenetics, which is actually a nurture/environment influence on the genes themselves! And Emil Kirkegaard completely fails to isolate away the influence of gut biome on intelligence either! Weaker than Weak Proxy for Racial Intelligence: Brain Size To provide some sort of actual biological basis for his analysis, Emil Kirkegaard correlates a frankenmonster of studies around brain size and intelligence that seem mostly, if not completely, to use self-reported racial identities (in other words, not even plausibly connected with genetics). Emil Kirkegaard admits that the correlation between brain size and intelligence is weak, and then cites a bunch of studies with very little talk of statistical significance (p values), effect size (d size), or the self-identified or genetic basis of various other studies purporting to correlate brain size with race. Weak (brain size to intelligence) times whatever (even if strong, correlating brain size to race) makes the overall meaning even weaker than weak. In other words, meaningless. Furthermore, none of the brain size stuff cited by Kirkegaard deals with what is probably the metric more relevant to intelligence, if even any of it actually is: the ratio of brain size to body size. Even more than that, not all areas of the brain are relevant to intelligence: Theoretically some brains could be larger in absolute size or by ratio, but it is the non-intelligence parts of the brain (like the brain stem, and some other non-frontal-lobe parts) that are larger. None of Kirkegaard’s research deals with these potentially very confounding variables. Finally, Kirkegaard does not acknowledge how much nurture can affect brain size. Nutrition, for example, significantly affects brain size, and African-Americans face greater malnutrition in the United States than many other groups. Kirkegaard does nothing to control for nutrition or other nurture effects on brain size in order to isolate genetic causes; therefore, Kirkegaard has no basis upon which to claim that it is genetics even causing any observed differences in brain size. Rational Groupings of DNA Exist What junk science racists are actually doing is taking advantage of the groups of DNA sequences that real geneticists are using and that the 2012 Shiao et al. article advocated to be called “clinal classes”. The academic authors of that article want science to admit that traditional race categories overlap with some ways of grouping DNA sequences. (For reasons this article has already articulated, it is not factual to call 99% of those DNA sequences genes.) This is trivially true because with millions of DNA pairs, there are bound to be some that can be completely contained with traditional racial categories. But those DNA pairs would almost all be non-gene-encoding, and 8% would be virus. The scientific community, however, has evidently not embraced the Shiao et al. concept of “clinal classes” in the decade since their article. The scientific community has almost universally refused to associate groups of genetic sequences with anything like traditional notions of “race”. Big Problem for Racists: Africa’s More Diverse Than the Rest of the World Combined And even if the scientific community were to embrace the concept “clinal classes” and accept the use of the term “race” in connection with them, the traditional notions of “European/white” and “African/black” could not co-exist in the same analysis. That is because Africa has more genetic diversity than all the rest of humanity combined. Any group of DNA sequences constituting a “clinal class” corresponding to “African/black” would be far larger than any group of DNA sequences constituting a “clinal class” corresponding to “European/white”. While the 2012 Shiao et al. article correctly observes that there are groups of DNA sequences that overlap somewhat (not perfectly, but somewhat) with traditional race definitions, what 2012 Shiao et al. fail to observe is that it is not possible for these DNA sequence groups to overlap with traditional race notions at the same level of resolution, but only at different levels of resolution. The 2012 Shiao et al. article uses an appropriate analogy, though, that does tease at this insight: watersheds. (Tangentially, establishing political boundaries using watersheds as the core geographic unit of self-determination could bring a stable, yet flexible, structure of peace to humanity.) Each larger river watershed contains many smaller rivers. Because Africa is more genetically diverse than the rest of humanity, comparing intelligence in Africans/blacks to Europeans/whites would be like comparing the mighty continental Mississippi river to a much smaller island river like the Thames river in England; those rivers are such different sizes, it would make more sense to compare the Thames to a tributary of the Mississippi like the Allegheny River in Pennsylvania that is the same rough size as the Thames. Earlier this article quoted Dr Coyne talking about genetic “groups within groups” to describe how genetics can overlap with identity. This is what he is talking about. If Emil Kirkegaard were to use scientifically-valid groups of DNA sequences that reside at the equivalent level of measurement abstraction, he would have to work on correlating intelligence genes to many different African/black subgroups separately to compare them with a scientifically-valid group of European/white DNA sequences that stands at the same level of resolution and abstraction. There could not be just one category called “African/black”. And if Emil Kirkegaard really wants to compare the intelligence of Africans/blacks to other groups of DNA sequences with the same level of diversity, then really what he would have to do is compare the intelligence of Africans/blacks to literally the whole rest of humanity. In the end, “European/white” and “African/black” could theoretically be valid scientific categories in which to put a group of alleles, but in order to use those terms with proper scientific validity in this context, they could never be used together because sub-Saharan Africa contains more than half of human genetic diversity. Genetics Without Genes: Fail Somehow Emil Kirkegaard wants everyone to take his analysis, which sometimes uses genetic categories, seriously even though none of his analysis uses actual genes. He wants to say that intelligence is genetically determined by race without looking at any genes for intelligence, or skin color, or anything like that. Somehow Emil Kirkegaard wants everyone to take his analysis seriously that relies upon weak statistical effects from other studies, and completely unscientific self-reported race identifications, for his brain size claims. Although Emil Kirkegaard sometimes uses what are called “genetic ancestry” categories, measuring intelligence is actually a part of the field of psychology. His total failure to deal with actual genes makes his paper really just a common psychology paper. It has become increasingly clear in recent years that the field of psychology as a whole is suffering from a legitimacy crisis for two main reasons (1) an obsession with showing statistical significance to (2) the neglect of articulating plausible paradigm-consistent hypotheses about causation, let alone get the point of testing or proving causation. Ultimately, Emil Kirkegaard’s whole analysis has no foundation in biology or genetics. It is just a psycho-stats game trying to define race without genes, and make claims about intelligence without any attention paid to genes affecting it either. It should not be surprising that the Emil Kirkegaard is nothing more than a statistics game because he and his two co-authors are all social “scientists”*, not biologists or geneticists, nor even psychologists! It is truly ironic that many on the American Right (mostly non-racists) have spent years properly trashing the field of psychology and sociology because of those two problems, and then the few among the American Right who are actual racists then do a 180 and use the same psycho-stats babble to try to prove their pet theories about racial superiority. And so we are back to where we started: Race is 100% a social construct. The authors of the 2012 Shiao et al. paper warn us about racists taking advantage of the genetic groupings scientists are indeed using and point out that what these racists are actually doing is foisting their own pre-determined social hierarchies onto misaligned genetic groupings. Emil Kirkegaard, the pen-named John Carter author on Substack, Charles Murray, and other junk science right-wing racists are doing exactly what Shiao et al. warned us about: Race is a social perception. We all have 100% free will autonomy to choose how we perceive it. What will your choice be? _______________ Support Non-Violence writing by tipping me at Ko-Fi.com, subscribing to my Substack, or by donating some Ether digital currency to me at this address! 0x5ffe3e60a7f85a70147e800c37116b3ad97afd5e _______________ *One of the co-authors is an economist in Russia.
Them platform is them bickeringI see youtube videos with compilations of our smartest people, great thinkers, speeking their viewes on todays seamingly hardest and most important issues. It’s about climate, religion, abortion, finance, guns, society, wokeness and more. All are fully compromisable issues that would allow us to move on, to focus on improving our world for the future of our kids.But these guys, and most of us, if locked in a room and not allowed to leave until the issue is settled would never come out.The incentives to find good enough solutions does not exist in our world. Working compromises would reap reqards to us all yet the discussion is not that. Todays food chain is a narrow corridor that keeps us locked into sides and opinions, no one even concidering how to agree, or why.Them platform is them bickering
Corruption Unpunished, Is Corruption RewardedDear Friends,It seems to me, corruption unpunished, is corruption rewarded. Because the advantage of corruption shows itself immediately, while the costs only later, and if there’s no punishment… there’s no costs. Under such a paradigm, the paradigm we live in, corruption is encouraged, promoted and it can’t be a shock when it becomes epidemic. That would be like going for a swim and being astounded we emerge from the water… wet. Even as we’re faced with the most corrupt administration and bureaucracy in American history, proven beyond doubt, there are elites calling to pardon the corruption. So the corrupt can engage in more corruption I presume. Forgiving the mountains of corruption, hasn’t resulted in the corrupt backing down, no, that forgiveness has resulted in the corrupt becoming more corrupt.When Hillary had an email server in her closet, that forwarded top secret emails to a CCP controlled account, then destroyed evidence, she was forgiven. The administrative state said it would be vindictive to prosecute her. When we discovered the entire Mueller investigation and Russia collusion narrative was a hoax, that cost this nation literally hundreds of millions of dollars, the frauds were forgiven. The DOJ certainly doesn’t want to be vindictive! All the liars, frauds and minions faced no consequences. Even Klinesmith, who literally fabricated evidence, so the administrative state could have court backing to monitor Trump… was given a slap on the wrist. Even as Trump attorneys are harangued and threatened with losing their law license. Clearly, not being vindictive has failed against the vindictive.The benefit of corruption is in the immediate public reaction. Any reaction after that is necessarily muted due to distance in time. So a lie, like the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, when they knew they were lying, that Biden really is that corrupt, and therefore those who lied to put a corruptocrat into the White House, are corrupt as well… had its effect at the time. The correction takes place after the damage has been done. The genie can’t be put back in the bottle. So the only way to stop such evil is to punish it. Like any other crime. Corruption is extremely destructive of societal cohesion. The crime of government corruption damages the reputation of government, increases crime and creates chaos. Since people follow their leaders, and ours have shown crime pays… expect more crime.There is an old adage, “What makes a king a king? Public opinion…” Once the public considers our leaders inept, liars and hypocrites… corrupt, we don’t consider them anything but stooges. Thugs worthy of nothing but contempt. That contempt can’t help but show itself to judges, politicians, and elites of every stripe. People who are universally hated can’t rule. No one takes seriously a joke of a man. And our leaders have made themselves laughing stocks with their self unaware corruption. Why did the maggot jump from the meat wagon? Biden’s motorcade was passing by. Giving up even the appearance of fairness, the FBI now assassinates old men in their underwear by SWAT, for making idle threats against Biden. Even as Trump and RFK get actual threats by the bucket load every day.When the democrats impeached Trump for crimes Biden was guilty of, as we now know, they corrupted the system to such an extent, no one believes there’s justice in the halls of power anymore. That action sullied the edifice of government more than any libel could. Even people who agree that Trump is so bad he has to go, no matter what, recognize in their ice cold hearts, what’s been done. The government crossed a Rubicon, and with the latest flurry of fraudulent indictments, they continue to march toward Rome. Our corruptocracy grows with every criminal act that’s forgiven, because the elite don’t want to be vindictive to people abusing power, (themselves). It’s not the least vindictive to abuse authority to swing an election, to the point of trying to jail him, and why not, corruption unpunished…Sincerely,John Pepin
Managed DeclineDear Friends,It seems to me, the elite want to manage America’s decline, and will brooch no exception to that paradigm. There’s a ton of money to be made riding the US into the ground. Then the global administrative state that comes after will be glorious. That’s why the idea of America in ascendance, is not just unthinkable, but infuriating to the elite. Those who seek to stop the decline are therefore, enemy number one, even as those who seek America’s fall are allies by default. They’re captured by the idea that if only they can manage the decline of America, so us grazing masses don’t notice, then they can grind it to dust, and restart a new world order from the ground up. In the image they find appealing. A global bureaucratic nanny state, run by experts, from which there is no escape.Any friend of America is an enemy of the elite. That’s why Trump is so despised by the elite. He doesn’t want to manage the decline of the US, he wants it to go into ascendance again! That rat! Moreover, when he was in power, he actually did it. That in and of itself can never be forgiven. Pointing out the ineptitude of the elite, whether contrived or true, is unacceptable. Plus it opens a portal for the victim class to see the mechanism of our oppression. A nation in ascendance, is by definition, not in decline. Since decline is what the elite seek, Trump and anyone like him, who would see the US ascend, is enemy number one. That’s why they’re willing to make up anti constitutional “laws” to get the man. They’ve become unhinged at the threat to their plans… to manage the decline of the US.Any enemy of America is a friend to the elite. You see this in the way the elite so love the CCP. Abetting the chemical warfare against our youth with open boarders. Nothing says, “The Fentanyl must flow…” like welding the gates to the boarder open. Speaking of open boarders, it’s no shock to conclude that American culture will be watered down by millions of people flooding into the nation. Just like British, French, and German culture is watered down by millions of illegal immigrants. Undermining the culture itself is a great way to create decline in a nation. Making inflation by shutting down the economy (creating supply shortages) and handing out stimulus (increasing demand) will force inflation, even in a world’s reserve currency… and thus manage the decline of our nations.A managed decline is very profitable to those who manage the decline. They know the timing of the absurdity and short the stocks of the industries they are bankrupting. Naked short sell an investment you’re demolishing by exploiting law as a means to destroy… ride them to zero, take the profits and hand back the worthless paper to the shareholder. I’m sure Nancy Pelosi could conduct a university level class on this tactic. The inflation angle is a historically tested way to transfer wealth from the bottom to the top. Print money and give it to the top. The top gets the utility of the printed money while the bottom pays the inflation price. Argentina has used this strategy to fleece the people many times. Like Lucy offering Charlie Brown a football, the Argentinian elite say, “This time…”We have to ask ourselves, do we want to ride America and Europe into the ground, or do we want to ride it to infinity and beyond? Because in truth those are our options. Every problem we have, is self imposed by the elite, to achieve their end game of a glorious new world order, where we’re ruled by experts with the unlimited authority they need, to make us do the right things. Because, the elite are better educated, smarter, and well dog gone it, just better people than us. Riding our nations into the ground using the naked short selling model. Borrow the shares (get power) use the power to destroy the nation, then cash out. If they can manage the decline of America and Europe, they could birth a CCP type world government. If they can manage the decline. To have my druthers, I prefer ascendance.Sincerely,John Pepin
‘There are no births. No children. No families.’Me, in a Post about Fausto-Sterling’s Sexing The Body. ‘Lee Edelman denounces . . . the liberal logic that includes the future of children as a fundamental consideration in any form of political reasoning.’ ‘ . . . my a**hole is on fire . . . deliciousssss!’Queer child slum-prostitute The perspective of the author of Minoritarian Liberalism would be hilarious if it were not tragic. This is not to say that it’s not a fine theoretical text. However, it reminds me of the party-communist comrades of the 1990’s: the commitment to completely remaking the world results in these theorists inhabiting what is, in effect, an alternative universe. And it’s in this alternative universe that parents aren’t ‘looking after’ their kids, they are ‘surveilling’ and ‘controlling’ them. Their commitment to raising their biological kin is ‘reinforcing heteronormative structures.’ So, we’re in the first person for this Post: in order to experience as much as possible, I have, over decades, interacted with a wide wide range of political organizations. ‘An animal activist group’s call not to kill mice plaguing rural parts of Australia in the name of “human supremacy” has been labelled “stupid” by politicians.’ The group in question was PETA – People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. I’ve spent a couple of days with them. In the case above, they wanted the plague-proportions mice to be released. Where? Put them in the farm pick-up, and drive them a mile from the house?! A Bolshevik I met at university – he described himself as a Bolshevik – explained to me over coffee how an actually-quite-small group of socialists could gain control of the Student Council, and its newspaper and funding, and then (I assumed) completely ignore the interests of the union-dues-paying students, and use that newspaper as an organ to foment communist revolution. Many readers have likely heard stories of separatist feminists: ‘The lesbian separatists of a generation ago created a shadow society devoted to living in an alternate, penisless reality.’ Will we ever be able to gain insights into How Stoopid Ideas Gain Traction? Why aren’t people with stoopid ideas always just laughed at? What particular circumstances allow stoopid ideas to gain traction? Why are some people so vulnerable to such ideas?Why do other people choose to stand about like potted palms while such ideas are gaining powerful traction?
A Few More LimericksThe Elite And The Nanny StateAn all powerful government is what they seek,Where the state is strong and the people weak,The worthless scumbag reprobates,There’s no law they won’t violate,Because the worst people are our elite. If you stare deeply into Xi’s eyes,There is one thing you may surmise,You can tell even from afar,As he eats honey from a jar,The man is Winnie The Pooh in disguise. Fauci is a man of decision,His will is an imposition,Believing himself god,He committed much fraud,And now he belongs in prison. The people there just never knew,They really didn’t have a clue,Their resources to be had,Coveted by the power mad,So the CIA sponsored a coup. Waging war is so much funEspecially when heroic tales are spunBut it spells your doom,When the only sane one in the room,Is North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. Some people think positive liberty’s great,To have so little of our lives left to fate,Others will pay,For our way,Because we want to live in a nanny state. The hypocrisy of progressivism,A dogma that can’t stand criticism,Willing to fight,So we’ll think alike,And enforces it through the ostracism. Sincerely,John Pepin
“Flee the evil desires of youth and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.” (2 Timothy 2:22-26 NIV)“But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.” (2 Timothy 3:1-5 NIV)“Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” (James 1:26-27 NIV)For most people, looking out at the world and seeing the direction it is going is both encouraging and disheartening. On one hand, the world is getting better and better, with technology improving the lives of many people involved. Most people living today would not want to change places with someone who lived 100, or even 1,000 years ago. Life today is significantly easier because of the technology that we have developed.However, the world is also getting worse and worse. Looking at the description given at the start of 2 Timothy, chapter 3, draws our attention to a world that looks identical to today. While this description might be applicable to other times in history, it seems that our world right now is racing towards aligning with this description like never before - and this is not a good thing. This letter instructs us to "Have nothing to do with such people."However, leading into this description at the end of 2 Timothy, chapter 2, we find some instructions for followers of God. We are challenged to flee evil desires, to avoid entering foolish and stupid arguments, and to avoid the appearance of being quarrelsome. Looking at the state of those who describe themselves as "Christian" in their bio-descriptions on various social medias draws attention to a whole bunch of people not following this advice - at least online.James tells us that if we consider ourselves religious, but don't keep a tight reign on our tongue, we deceive ourselves. I suspect the same is true for what we write and share online. While it is quick, easy, and painless to hit share to spread a message, not all messages are worth spreading, and many that are true are still not worth sharing because of how the truth is presented. Helping those who are in need - especially those who are unable to help themselves - is the purest form of Christianity, provided it also includes keeping yourself from being polluted by the world. (James 1:26-27)While the world tempts us to ally with it, we are challenged to stay true to Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith. Staying connected to Jesus is the only way to eternal life, and the only way our lives will outlast sin. Let's together focus significantly more energy on helping the helpless, on staying pure, and on avoiding the foolish and stupid arguments that cause quarrels. ✝️ 🙏 📖 ✅
‘a study that is still having repercussions today' If you found famed sex-researcher Dr. John Money in a basement, doing to children what he did to the Reimer twins, you’d call the Kiddy-Sex Police. But because he was a bleeding-edge ‘behaviorist’ at a time when such anti-human-nature perspectives were very much in vogue, he got away with a very great deal: ‘Postwar, in any case, there was a move away from people being innately, biologically, inherently anything . . . . We'd just seen Nazism, [where] the emphasis had been put on the idea that certain people were innately evil - Jews and gypsies, among others - so the emphasis on culture and society fitted well with social democratic ideals.’ Colapinto’s As God Made Him details the case of Brenda/David Reimer. This case is known in at least basic detail to anyone who as studied nature-nurture: a male baby loses his penis in an accident; famous Dr. Money arranges to have the baby raised as a girl (beginning with rudimentary sex-reassignment surgery); the result is publicized as a success that proves The Theory; it takes decades for the world to understand that the whole thing was a ghastly failure/a proof that being male has a genetic basis. And here, readers, we side-step to that aspect that concerns us: Lysenkoism. The above was happening in the 1960’s-70’s – the era that we are calling the ‘second Lysenkoism’: anti-human-nature but pre-postmodernism. However, if we compare these events to what we’re experiencing today, there’s an astonishing similarity. A political zealot gains a central position in academia. She/he ruthlessly advances her/his agenda. And ridicules and punishes anyone who produces counter-indicative material. And a cohort of fellow zealots uncritically follows her/his lead. No matter how badly the whole thing ends, none of the zealots admits any error. PS This is an utterly absorbing book. It and Inventing Transgender Children are the two books I recommend most highly so far.
The term ‘neoliberalism’ is being used by the new generation of left-wingers in the same way that the last generation would have used the term ‘capitalism.’ Recall that we’ve discussed at length ‘devolution’ – how a revolutionary program can be run within the structure of an existing nation-state (rather than a communist party outright seizing control of that nation-state in a revolution). Now consider the reformist left. It taxes capitalism rather than seizing control of it. It regulates capitalism rather than seizing control of it. Perhaps there’s been a shift from ‘We are revolutionists, and we hold that capitalism is bad!’ to ‘We are devolutionists, and we hold that neoliberalism is bad, which means that we regulate and tax ‘capitalism’ when it suits us; and we shut down certain ‘capitalist’ ventures when it suits us; and we are best friends with ‘capitalism’ when it suits us. Perhaps we’ve shifted from revolutionists hating capitalism to devolutionists hating neoliberalism.
‘Racism in American still survives among the left and the right, and especially at the extreme fringes of both.’Taminad Crittenden ‘Racism . . . survives [on] the left’ – this is an admirably astute insight: the political left is racist. But whether you’re being called ‘racist’ or ‘proto-fascist’ or ‘fascist’ or ‘revisionist’ or ‘counter-revolutionary’ or ‘menshevik’; or it’s ‘inauthentic preferences’ or ‘pre-revolutionary consciousness’ or ‘internalized homophobia’; or you’re an ‘anti-vaxxer’ or a ‘conspiracy theorist’; or a ‘sexist’ or a ‘homophobe’ or an 'Islamophobe' or an ‘ableist’ or an ‘ageist’; or just ‘neo-liberal’ or ‘bourgeois,’ the historical practice of the political left has been, ‘as the revolution develops,’ to demonize more and more of those not in the hyper-zealot core of the movement. Think about this, readers. This is Stalin’s purges in the 1930’s. This is the Chinese Cultural Revolution. This is The Shining Path in Peru. This is Cambodia. And today? You’re a racist if you don’t wanna sit through corporate LGBTQI DEI indoctrination sessions. You’re a racist if you even wanna discuss the trans industry. You’re a racist if you say that the average Muslim man is a sexist homophobe. Whatever. The fact is that the citizens of the west are now rapidly dividing into just two factions: ‘Burn the world to the ground!’ and ‘Stop them burning the world to the ground!’In closing, two Notes. One: to discriminate against a group that discriminates against you is entirely defensible. The marker of the group may be a uniform or skin color or something else. Doesn’t matter. This is a fact of (human) nature, of the which the left is entirely ignorant.The addition of black and brown stripes to the Pride Progress flag is an unequivocal public declaration of some form of racist intent/program. Two: an academic named ‘Przeworski’ has an excellent definition of authoritarianism: lies, fear, and economic affluence.Now, it’s the economic affluence thing that most folks would miss. That is, folks will put up with demeaning crap like LGBTQI indoctrination sessions until the economy collapses.
📉 Short-term bond yields have surpassed long-term ones, signaling an inverted yield curve. This often suggests investors foresee a downturn, expecting future interest rates to drop. Every U.S. recession since 1955 has been preceded by an inverted yield curve, usually with a lag of around 12-18 months before the recession hits.
Just for fun: one of the interesting things about ‘the information environment’ in Jakarta, Indonesia, in 1997, when I was living there, was the simple fact that everyone who wasn’t a card-carrying member of The Party of The Dictatorship knew that everything was a sham. The vaunted ‘tiger nations’ economy, the press, the tedious speeches, the parliamentary proceedings, the flags and songs, the wide range of pro-regime organizations – all bogus. But as you were getting about on the smoke-belching wrecks of buses that plied the city center, Ukulele Guy would hop aboard. Ukulele Guy was usually a ragged uni student. He’d flit aboard at the back of the bus while it was stopped at the lights. Then, as the bus lurched off, he’d sing a little ditty, something like: “It’s all bogus!Indonesia corrupt.President corrupt.President family corrupt.Bogus bogus!Gotta have change now.” Then he’d zip up and down the aisle, collecting a rupiah or two in an empty crisps packet, and step down into the crowd the moment the bus stopped at the next lights. The fantastic reality of the republic at that time – thirty-two years into the dictatorship – was that everyone knew that whispers and gossip and Ukulele Guy were as good as it got. PS Google: ‘Film Dokumenter Tragedi Jakarta 1998 Gerakan Mahasiswa’Although it was only a baby riot – there are no camera men or ambulances at real riots -- from 19:20 to 19:40 is not a bad insight.At 17:44 there’s a shot of the fence of the university. I’m on the inside, about twenty feet to the right of the guys in the shot. Was there all afternoon and evening.Wrote up my journal at about two a.m. the next morning, still on campus. Here’s the page:https://imgur.com/WDh3Ns1
The other day I heard this idea that had no name to it.It goes something like this.Nobody lives more than 120 years. Essentially every 120 years we are all replaced by a new batch.Everyone alive today, from the oldest person to the newborn baby will not be alive in 120 years.I had also recently seen the movie, "Oppenheimer" and there was a scene of the bomb being dropped in the dessert- the bright light enveloping everything in its radius. I thought of the idea that we are all going to experience this nuclear event, in fact, we are, but it is happening gradually.It happens everyday when we hear in the news, for example, that famous actors are passing away.We've heard of "immune escape" explaining the idea of a new covid-19 virus that has mutated enough, or enough in the right place, to no longer be recognized by the immune system and, therefore, we are no longer protected from the shot or from having been exposed previously.Is it possible to have 120 year batch escape?Biblically, 120 is a significant number. Moses, one of the most saintly people in the Torah- not perfect, but as good as it was able to get- died at 120.Also, in Genesis, it says, "My spirit shall not abide in man forever, for that he also is flesh; therefore shall his days be 120 years."In Judaism, 120 years is considered to be a lifetime. "ad (until in Hebrew) 120" is a common birthday wish you give, "May you live until 120".And we don't, on average. So there is work to be done in health and life development to get to that without it being a contradiction to G-d's words in Genesis.However, the drive to live longer does not recognize any boundary. When you are 20, you don't necessarily feel like you need an extra year in your old age but when you are finally there, wherever there is for you, you would still want one more day. To not want another day of life is suicidal.Some things break the barrier of 120. The bible is a good example. It has existed, unaltered, for thousands of years. It has achieved 120 escape.Anne Frank did not live past 16 years of age but her diary apparently will achieve 120 escape.Writing in general, is an attempt to achieve 120 escape and beyond. My attempt here to coin the term, "120 escape" is an attempt to achieve 120 escape.Writing carries the counter party risk of relying on the physical components of things like paper, or electricity and server space, and password preservation, in combination with the non-physical medium of word of mouth transmission.Word of mouth transmission is a medium that allows for ideas, both true and untrue, both good and bad, to achieve 120 escape. For example Sigmund Freud, if not for his professional connections and awareness by the masses would not have achieved 120 escape. He might have been more right than wrong, he might have had novel ideas and useful ones. But if he were completely on the outskirts of the academic/ professional community, if he was not recognized, as a homeless person is not recognized, his ideas would not have been recognized. There are a lot of people with new or "crackpot" ideas. They are everywhere, In cities, in rural areas. Nobody has a monopoly in interesting people that have interesting ideas and theories on things. But Freud's power wasn't only in his ideas in isolation but in the ideas being able to be transferred effectively to those that would consider them and to find that they had merit.Does a communication live if it is in book form, stored away on a high shelf? It may not live today but it is potential to live in that form. Art achieves 120 escape. Van Gough's painting of himself has achieved it. The Mona Lisa has achieved it. Even if the painting itself falls apart, it will have been preserved in electronic form enough it an accurate copy that, even if it is manipulated, there will have been enough of the original disseminated into the awareness of the masses that the original will have been maintained.If the whole population were extinguished in one moment, like a collective candle of all humanity being snuffed out in one second, there would still be the potential for potential for life of the Mona Lisa so long as the other components of the painting continued to exist, i.e. the painting itself or some electronic representation of it were still powered.However, there would still be 2 ways it could die. All mediums that it existed on were destroyedIt was lied out of existence in the first place (canceled)The drive for significance is a powerful one. It is to say, "I was here." by either writing it on the wall graffiti style or by leaving your mark on the world Mark Zuckerberg style by supplying the world with virtual walls to write on.This writing in this place is an attempt at 120 escape, just as having a baby and having a family full of babies is.Eating well and exercise or taking a medicine that you need is life drive and is also an attempt at 120 escape.Collecting things is an attempt at preservation. 120 escape.Hoarding disorder is, in part, an attempt as 120 escape. There is life drive threaded into it although it is also death drive as it is avoiding facing the papers.Ultimately, as the bible says, we will not escape the limitations of this physical universe as we are, in part, physical.As the universe expands, it seems that, over tremendous amounts of time, eventually everything will be pulled apart until even the smallest of the smallest things in existence will be pulled apart. We may achieve 120 escape in the foreseeable future but even if we could preserve life itself or a message to transcend gaps in life, gaps in time or gaps in groups of living beings that are alive, eventually we will no longer have living things to transmit the message to nor will we have media with which to store it.So therefore, the significance to our lives does not lie in what mark we leave on it, but rather on the choices we make. The choices are recorded in a non-physical, heavenly book that is not subject to the physical limitations of space and time. The choices are not measured based on their impact on the physical world because the physical world (universe - same word in Hebrew = olam) is limited, will not exist one day and therefore doesn't matter, ultimately. People get discouraged because they feel like they don't have enough power to change things in this world. But this world is not the thing that needs to be changed as it is not going to last. It is as temporary as the use of the plastic water bottle. Once you had the one event when you drank the water out of it, it will be tossed into the garbage or "recycled". Point is, the bottle served its purpose and lost its value once its relationship with you in the moment of the drinking from it finished.So too with this world. It is amazing. It is a gift to be enjoyed. And, most importantly, it is a gift for you to have this moment to make a good free will choice.You are your choices. The record of those are the only thing that live forever. How can I prove it to you? I cannot think of a way to prove a non-physical thing in a physical universe. But only something non-physical has the chance to live forever.You can't take it with you, whatever it is, everything that it is, because it is not you.You can't even take you with you.But you give birth to your choices and that is why you (and we) are here.Those babies live forever.How do I know it?I don't matter.You know it. You've always known it.Therefore, if you choose to write a book and put it away under lock and key, if it then gets damaged beyond recognition due to breakdown over time or if the process is hastened due to flooding or what-have-you, did it still matter?If a tree falls in the middle of the forest but nobody was there to hear it, did it fall?If you don't write a book or a word but go out into the forest and speak to G-d, did you speak?Yes you did speak.If you speak to nobody identifiable, the very act of speaking means you spoke to somebody.Speech is a communication to somebody. The message in the bottle may never reach its destination. But speech is always heard by the Listener as are thoughts and prayers.
It’s me, I’m the guy they talk about, I’m the one who did his own research. I am an amateur virologist. I have no credentials to display and no achievements to boast of, and no one will write me a recommendation. I cannot find work in virology and never will, I will always be an amateur. Direct at me whatever slings and arrows the amateur virologist is due, for I am one.But I am an amateur virologist with an acute appreciation for the professional virologist. I do understand the difference. I know firsthand how hard professional virologists work and how much respect is properly due that work. My father was a surgeon, a professional surgeon, and I know how hard he worked to become one and to remain one. I saw it every day in my own house. I do know how hard the professionals work.When I was in the first grade my father asked me if I had been taking any tests at school, and I said sure, we take a spelling test every Friday. He asked to see them and I said I still have the one from last week and brought it back. I was six years old and no one had ever told me to try and get the highest score on a test. No one had told me, it did not naturally occur to me, and I found tests boring. I had a very low score. This did not sit well with the professional in the house.My father kept me at the kitchen table late into the night and made me practice spelling each word on the test, starting at the top and going down, until I could spell it perfectly. When I could spell one word on the test perfectly each time he would go to the next word on the test and we would start over. He made me repeat each word on the test over and over until I could spell it perfectly without hesitation over and over again. Then I would have to do the same for the next word on the test. When I could finally spell all the words on the test perfectly there was no reward or praise. Perfect is just barely good enough, it’s what you should always score on a test, and being perfect doesn’t mean you can celebrate, it just means you can stop now and go to sleep. Because perfect is just barely good enough.I was young, but I understood what my father was teaching me. He was not teaching me how to spell. He was teaching me the family business. We lived in a nice waterfront home and took nice vacations and had nice things, because my father was a successful surgeon who could afford them. He was born poor and started working after school in a factory when he was twelve, he worked every summer in college and medical school and he worked his whole life. He made something of himself by graduating first in his high school class and getting a scholarship. A devout Catholic, he always dreamed of attending Notre Dame, but they wouldn’t come up with the money. There are dreams and there is reality.My father made a very comfortable living as a surgeon because he did well in his residency, and he did well in his residency because he did well in medical school, and he did well in medical school because he did well in college. But before that my father was a child and he practiced the questions on tests over and over again until he could do them perfectly, because perfect is just barely good enough. My father did well in life because he practiced skills and knowledge over and over again until he could do them perfectly without hesitation over and over again. He made his money as a surgeon, but he was a surgeon because he practiced skills and knowledge over and over again until he could repeat them perfectly without hesitation. Because perfect is just barely good enough.What my father was teaching me that night was the family business, the source of the family money, the waterfront house, the nice vacations, all of it. The source of all this money was repeating things over and over until you could do them perfectly. This is hard work and not everyone wants to do it. Everyone wants a waterfront home, but not everyone wants to repeat things over and over until you can do them perfectly. My father wanted to repeat things over and over until he could do them perfectly. He was teaching me how he made all that money that I got to spend, and he was teaching me the family business which he wanted me to continue in. He was teaching me how to learn and to work and how to hold yourself to the highest standards so I could be a surgeon as well. Because perfect is just barely good enough. It doesn’t mean you can be happy, it just means you can stop now and go to sleep.I never became a surgeon, or even a very good student. This wasn’t going to be my path through life and eventually my father accepted that. But he gave me the choice, he let me know how to become a surgeon, if that is what I wanted. You do it by repeating knowledge over and over again until you know it perfectly. You do it by work. A surgeon is a surgeon because of work. Everyone is what they are because of work. I did my own kind of work in my own way, but my father gave me the opportunity to be a professional virologist if I so chose. I understand what my father was teaching me. Every time a neuron fires the threshold for firing is lowered and it becomes easier to fire on the next try. A neuron, the nerve cells in your brain that control your thoughts and actions, will only fire if the threshold for firing is reached. Every time you make that neuron fire the threshold is lowered. This is why things become easier with repetition. Each repetition lowers the threshold for firing. This is why speaking a foreign word or using a new skill is so embarrassingly difficult at first, but with enough practice it becomes easy. It becomes easy because repetition lowers the firing threshold on the relevant neurons to the point where getting them to fire and make the action occur becomes easy. But it is never easy at first. Repetition is always needed to lower the threshold, in the beginning it is always hard and remains hard until you put the work in. Everything is because of work.Professional virologists have put the work in. They have repeated skills and knowledge to the point where the firing threshold is so low the skills and knowledge are easy for them. They have changed their brains through work. They are professionals because their neurons are different from the amateurs and their neurons are different because of work. The amount of prerequisite knowledge needed to be a professional virologist takes a lifetime to master. It requires a lifetime of repeating skills and knowledge until the firing threshold on countless facts has been lowered until you have mastery of the subject. The usual estimate is that students learn two million facts in medical school. That is two million sets of neurons that have to have their firing threshold lowered through work. This is something to be respected and I do respect it, more than most. I respect the professional virologist.Health is a life or death concern and so perfect is barely good enough. Professionals have to spend a lifetime reducing the firing threshold on countless facts and skills. No one in a short time or as a part-time pursuit can lower the firing threshold on enough facts and skills to be good enough for something where not being perfect means someone else not being alive. Perfect is just barely good enough, and perfect requires a lifetime of work mastering countless facts and skills. No amateur can do this.I’m a smart guy, I have confidence in myself. I can learn things quickly and I have confidence in my conclusions. When Covid hit and so much of the official story seemed odd and lacked coherence and explanatory power I immediately suspected the official version and began studying the topic on my own. I became an amateur virologist. I knew it would be difficult, but I have great confidence in myself. I trusted my own sense of what is right or wrong and began forming conclusions.Many of those conclusions turned out to be wrong. They were wrong because I am an amateur virologist, not a professional virologist. Once I learned that Covid enters the cell through ACE2 on the cell surface I became fascinated by this, it seemed like the fundamental key to understanding Covid. I learned how the body needs a certain amount of ACE2 on the lung cell surface and Covid uses this to enter the cell. The Covid vaccine produces spike proteins that interact with ACE2 the same way the whole virus does. I thought to myself, if the body has a need for a certain amount of ACE2 and the vaccine is making spike proteins that use up the ACE2, won’t the lung cell make even more ACE2 on its surface to compensate? Won’t this increased amount of ACE2 make the lung cell even more vulnerable to viral entry?I thought to myself, is the lung cell upregulating ACE2 expression in response to vaccination and thus making things worse, not better? For months I looked for research on this and found none. I thought I had figured out a puzzle no one else had, I had discovered something new. Because no one was talking about it in the scientific literature and the logic seemed obvious to me, so I thought I was the inventor of a new and useful idea.Everyone wants to be the inventor of a new and useful idea. Having a new idea is easy, having a new and useful idea is very, very hard. Everyone wants to be known for discovering a new and useful idea because everyone wants to be known for doing something that is very hard, something that most people can’t do. Human nature desires recognition and praise, this is not a weakness, it is a normal part of being human. No one has to be ashamed of wanting to be proud. The desire for recognition is normal and universal. Wanting to be known for doing hard things is normal, no criticism is due. And I thought I had discovered something new and useful. I was very happy about this.The body needs a certain amount of ACE2 and I could see a way the vaccine would be using up that ACE2, making the lung cell make more of it, and since ACE2 is the door the Covid virus walks in through, this would make things even worse. I thought I had done something hard: discovered a new and useful idea. I looked and looked and found no information against this. For months I was very happy. But I was wrong. I am only an amateur virologist. The reason no one was talking about the effect of the vaccine spike protein on ACE2 upregulation is because the professional virologists already asked similar questions with SARS in 2005. These questions that came to my mind had already come to the minds of the professional virologists and they investigated these issues and by 2006 they knew the lung cell down regulates ACE2 in the presence of a virus that uses ACE2 as the door into the cell.I was wrong and the reason I could find no discussion of my interesting idea in the scientific literature is they were discussing new questions, not an old question that was already answered in 2006. A professional virologist has to master mountains of information, they have to lower the firing threshold on the neurons guarding countless facts until they can access them perfectly. The amount of prerequisite knowledge needed to come up with a new and useful idea in virology is beyond what the amateur virologist is capable of. I was wrong and it took me months to learn I was wrong. This is why I am an amateur virologist and not a professional.I understand the difference between an amateur and a professional. I know how hard the professionals work and I believe they are due great respect for this, and also waterfront homes. Anyone can do the work, but only someone does. Everything that is so, is so because of work. Professional virologists are professionals because they did the work I never chose to do. I had the opportunity, my father showed me how. But I chose not to. And so it takes me months to learn no one is talking about my questions because this is 2020 and those are 2006 questions to the professionals. And I am an amateur.I do understand how hard the professionals work. Every professional in every field. No one wants someone to watch what they do for a living for a few minutes and start giving advice. Everyone wants the time and effort they spent lowering the firing threshold on the skills and knowledge they need to do their job respected by others: because work is nearly the one thing in the world most deserving of respect. Effort is a result of choices and choices are the only things about us deserving of respect, and the choice of learning things until you can do them perfectly is the choice deserving of the second most respect in the entire world. Because everything that is so, is so because of work.Everyone wants recognition, everyone wants to be thought well of. I am part of everyone, I hoped my idea about the threat of ACE2 upregulation in response to ACE2 consumption by the vaccine-produced spike protein was both new and useful. It made me feel happy to think I had done something both new and useful, two of the hardest words in the world to put together. But I was wrong. It hurts to be wrong, no one wants to be wrong. Schoolchildren are taught that real scientists are just as happy with a null result as a positive result, but obviously that isn’t true. Scientists are human too and they want a positive result, they want proof that they discovered something new and useful, because that is hard to do and everyone wants to be known as someone who can do hard things. The desire to be seen well by others is felt by all and is one of our strongest desires.When I realized my idea was wrong, it did hurt. You want people to see you in a positive light, you want to be successful and have a position in life, a waterfront home. But you can’t lie. It hurts to be wrong, but you have to be adult about it and admit it, and move on. You can’t hide being wrong because you want to be seen well by others, or you want a waterfront home. You simply have to tell the truth, even when that means telling that you were wrong, or that you fell short in some way.I am just an amateur virologist, I have no job offers in virology coming my way now or in the future. But I understand how to learn. It is just work, you repeat the skill or knowledge over and over again until you have mastered it. I haven’t learned enough about virology to be a professional virologist. But I have put a lot of work into this. The Covid era feels like forever, but it's been four years of our society being obsessed with this. I am an amateur, but I know how to learn. I know how to examine an idea for its explanatory power, meaning its ability to explain the past, its internal coherence, and most importantly its predictive power, its ability to explain the future. I know how to tell if something is true. And I can do this for any field, given the time to learn the prerequisite knowledge to the question. I am smart, and I can work hard when I want to. I have put a lot of amateur virologist hours into Covid over these years, and I know that ACE2 is the fundamental determinant of comparative risk. ACE2 is the door the Covid virus uses to enter the lung cell. It has to find a door into the lung cell before the immune system kills it. If a virus takes too long to enter the cell it will be found by the immune system first. If a virus easily finds entrance into host cells it will rapidly proliferate. For Covid the key to all of this is ACE2. The more ACE2 your lung cells have, the more doors for Covid to enter before the immune system finds it. The virus is racing against time, it has to find a door into the cell before the immune system finds it first.Relative ACE2 levels are the fundamental source of relative Covid risk. Those with the most ACE2, the most doors into the cell for the virus, are at the most risk. And those with the fewest doors are at the least risk. No one has fewer doors than children. I am an amateur virologist, but I know this to be true.Children are born with very low ACE2 levels in the lung. The nose and throat cells of all people have high enough ACE2 levels to become infected and test positive for Covid, but the lung is all that matters for risk of serious injury, or death. Children are born with very low ACE2 levels and then the levels increase with age. This is the real reason the elderly are at such risk of death from Covid, they have the highest ACE2 levels. For the elderly the virus can easily enter through this door before the immune system has time to find it.But for children, it is the opposite. Children’s ACE2 levels are so low that they are at no significant risk for injury from Covid. They can generate positive test results because ACE2 levels vary between cell types. Not all cell types have ACE2 on the cell surface, one of the ones that do is gametes and this may matter. Nose and throat cells express ACE2 on the surface and their levels are different than the lung, everyone has a nose and throat that can get Covid, not everyone has a lung that can get Covid. Most children do not, and maybe even all children. The ACE2 levels of children are simply too low to be at a significant risk of injury.I am just an amateur virologist. Nothing I know is unknown by the professional virologists, nothing I can do in this field is better than what a professional can do. But I do know how to learn, and I know how to judge truth. I can examine ideas for explanatory power, coherence, and above all predictive power. I can come to understand the fundamental relationships that govern the behavior and form a model from which I can answer novel questions and integrate novel data, this type of modeling is the ultimate goal of all learning. I am only an amateur virologist, but I do know that because of ACE2 levels children fundamentally have almost no risk of injury to Covid in comparison to adults.All we are in the end is our choices. We can choose to do the work, or we can choose to not do it. But we can all choose to tell the truth or not. I am not a professional virologist, but I know how to judge comparative risk for Covid. I know some of the professional virologists are lying. We all want recognition, we all want to be seen well by others, and we all want a waterfront house. In the end, we have to choose if we are willing to lie to get these things. The right answer is no, do not lie. The right answer is to tell the truth. You should always tell the truth. Perfect is just barely good enough.I am an amateur virologist, I do my own research. The professional virologists are better than me. This is because of my choices. I did not choose to do the work, and they did. I respect that. All we are is our choices and the choice to do work is the second most important thing to show respect for in this world, and I respect the work it takes to be a professional virologist. But the most important choice we make is the choice to be good people, and to tell the truth. This is the one choice that deserves the most respect. I am just an amateur virologist, but I am an honest amateur virologist. That is just barely good enough.
Modern Crimes Against HumanityDear Friends,It seems to me, the elite today appear to be guilty of some mighty serious crimes against humanity. The circumstances, were the suspect you or I, would be sufficient to get us charged. Moreover, as the crimes go unpunished, they get worse and more blatant. The election of Donald Trump seems to have been the trigger for the real insanity. During his inauguration progressive agitators burned down most of Washington DC, to the silence of the media, police and courts. Then there was the Russia collusion hoax, leading to the release of Covid. That crime against humanity was followed up by suppressing safe effective available treatments, for unsafe ineffective DNA altering clot shots. Impeaching Paxton to punish him for doing his job. Culminating in the Maui fires where 2000 kids are missing.The creation of Covid was itself a crime under international law. The excuse, they’re creating chimeric viruses, to have vaccines on hand should they emerge naturally… is like saying, “I’m launching these bowling balls ten thousand feet into the sky, to deflect incoming meteors…” Though, given the likelihood of a Chinese cave bat getting aids, is non existent… making the second example is far more likely to work. Plus, bowling balls falling from the sky is far less dangerous than forcing humanity to take an untested and as it turns out, harmful shot. We know the technology was transferred to the CCP by Fauci and the NIH, that Covid was gain of function, the vaccine doesn’t work, masks make it worse, and they were forced on us by the elite, at cost to our careers. All crimes against humanity.The disparate application of the law is an example of a late stage civilization eating itself. The founding documents are used to justify the ever growing authority of people who detest the ideas in those documents, as well as the people who wrote them, and so are dedicated to their destruction. Abandoning the foundational myth is the death knell of a nation. The US foundational ethos was, equal treatment under the law, freedom of expression, to keep and bear arms, of religion, in our papers and persons, to privacy, to own property, to farm that property, to start a business, etc… every one of these freedoms are now subject to license, regulation and arbitrary rule. Backed up by the courts. The same courts that stopped Trump as President from reversing unconstitutional edicts of prior Presidents.The open and obvious election fraud, mail in voting, sending ballots to random addresses, zero signature matches, not to mention the video of illegal counting, covering the windows and ejecting republican election monitors, etc… then fabricating a false flag on Jan 6 to cover it all up… are the actions of evil people. People that will stop at nothing. Villains who would start a fire to steal land from the folks that live there, forbid water to stop the fires then put up police road blocks, forcing the victims back into the flames. Fiends who would cover up the fact 2000 children are missing from those fires. Are they little piles of ash, or are they now the playthings of pedophile elites? Who knows? I wouldn’t put it past them… would you? Both options are crimes against humanity that need to be punished.With each crime, the crimes get worse, and how much worse are we going to tolerate? Now the elite in Texas are impeaching the only Attorney General to stand up to the corruption. They’re making an example of him so no others will dare stand up to them. Until the elite are given an opportunity to prove themselves not guilty, I and all sane people will hold our elites guilty for these crimes against humanity. They would force you or I to prove our innocence, on the flimsiest of charges, to our great expense. Why are we allowing them to get away with literal murder, child molestation, and egoistically exploiting their power? Our power is our voice. Write them, ridicule them, and let them know just what you think of them. From the top to the bottom, let the elites know, we hold them equally guilty.Sincerely,John Pepin
My girlfriend loves gardening. Feet and hands in the earth, planting, weeding and watering. As close to Mother Nature as you can be.You’re outside in fresh air, sometimes sun and you are convening with the life force. There is something visceral about it. It’s not an intellectual experience. It’s more than that.But you don’t reap what you sow. You sow and hopeMost gardeners in my experience will tell you there are guidelines, but no rules. Sometimes it’s bountiful and sometimes just a bunch of weedsThere is no failure, there is only giving up or trying again. There are too many variables and too many things beyond your control to predict successSuccessful long term gardeners accept this. Unsuccessful gardeners quitIf you persevere, you get better and soon you’re eating your own foodI played sports my whole life. I was considered an “athlete”I remember learning how to ride a unicycle with my older brother when I was arund 12. My parents bought us 2 unicyclesWe took them out back and opened the garage bay doors and proceeded to let go and fall down, let go and fall down, let go and fall downAs I recall we took turns with the one because it became immediately apparent that both bikes would not survive the learning curve.After hours of falling and getting up, we started getting half way down the driveway, then all the way and then down the streetIt might be a wishful exaggeration, but I’m pretty sure by days end we were both jumping curbs and covering blocks of territory. It was exhilaratingSo many times during the day we could have quit…should have quit. I don’t remember breaking for lunch or to pee. I don’t recall why, but as you now know, the memory has lasted a lifetime. I’m certain part of the reason I remember is that I didn’t quitI was thinking I would say “I raised 3 beautiful children”, but on second thought it’s more accurate to say “I’m raising three beautiful children”.My “kids” are in their 20’s and 30’s, but they’re still my “kids”I remember in a dark time for me saying to my father “dad you don’t have to worry about me” and he said, “I’ll tell you what Mark, the day you wake up and stop worrying about your kids, you give me a call and I’ll stop worrying about you”If you have kids, you know it’s the most wonderful and responsible thing you can do. The responsibility of keeping them safe while preparing them for an unsafe world and equipping them to make the world a better place is good work. And it never stops unless you give upYou’ve probably had someone at some point say to you, “how do you do it”? You just do right?It seems evident to me now looking back that you do as much as God asks of you.A soon as you think you have as much as you can handle, you discover that you can handle a little bit moreIt’s the same game. Most of it is beyond your control. Attention and love you can control. Good luck with the restParticularly with respect to our kids, we can handle as much as they need. Our capacity is astounding. Give yourself a pat on the back.Business is no differentIt might be a bit less personal (maybe not), but it’s a similar challenge. You build the best systems and processes you can to suit your goals and then you trust.You adjust as the battles and results require and then you trust againIterate and adjust. Iterate and adjustThe only way you fail is if you give upDon’t give upMy good friend Jim and I have a podcast we have fun with called “The Imperfect Mens Club Podcast”. We talk about our life and business experiences and have a few laughsIf you want to chat about what has you stuck professionally, that’s what I do. Grab a slot on my calendar and let’s see if/how I can helpIf you’re struggling with your job search and having trouble getting in front of decision makers, you may want to check out my workbook “How To Get In Front Of Decision Makers”
Criminal GovernmentDear Friends,It seems to me, while some people are criminals, all governments are criminals. By criminal I mean breaking the classic laws of any nation, murder, theft, and fraud. In fact, most people don’t engage in any of those things, yet all government’s do. What’s war but State murder? What are taxes but State theft? Moreover, if I lie to my government it’s a felony, but if my government lies to me it’s politics. A government agent rarely opens his or her mouth without lies oozing out. Such as half truths, total fabrications and withholding exculpatory evidence from the victims of lawfare. Even as those who we know are criminal, state actors, demand those of us who don’t break the law, turn over more power to those who do… themselves. In what universe does that makes sense?“Come on now,” I can hear some of you saying. “Taxing is not theft. Perhaps civil asset forfeiture is, but taxes surely aren’t?” The same argument is made for war and lying, they protect national security. You don’t want the Russians or CCP knowing what we are up to, would you? The Russians and CCP know everything our government does! Heck, General Miley even told the CCP he would dime out Trump to them if he considered war. National security is to keep us from knowing. Does anyone think national security would be endangered should the JFK murder files be opened? If something is illegal, criminal and immoral for the individual to do, that individual can’t then delegate a State to do it. We can’t delegate that which we can’t do, including theft, fraud or murder. The state then is criminal.People who do criminal acts are criminals. That doesn’t seem to be a controversial statement, except to criminals who want to justify their crimes. Since all governments engage in criminal acts those who abet those crimes are criminals. If you steal money and I find out, and don’t tell the government on you, I am guilty of abetting after the fact. If I even bring you food, when your surrounded by IRS agents for not paying income taxes, I’ll be sent to prison for abetting the standoff. Any act that helps the furtherance of a crime is itself a crime. Therefore, every member of government is a criminal. As long as that government continues engaging in crime. If a government were to stop engaging in crime, it’s no longer criminal. Just as, a person who stopped robbing banks, stops being a bank robber.Disarming those who aren’t criminal serves no purpose but to protect the criminals. Since empirical evidence proves, we’re ruled by criminals, protecting their brothers in villainy only makes sense. Other regulations like bans on collecting rainwater, minimum wage laws and limiting what can be grown on someone’s land, only serve to crush the little guy and elevate the big guy. Taxing and spending, despite the sales pitch, moves wealth from the bottom to the top in a myriad of ways. A few are, increasing inflation, the top is close to the purse strings, and the top has accountants to get out of paying taxes in the first place. They usurp power and claim we delegated it to them, when that’s patently absurd, we didn’t have that power to delegate. The elite are smart criminals.Once you understand that government and most of what it does is criminal, then it’s actions come into focus. Spastic court rulings make sense, like rewarding people for breaking into homes, paying BLM arsonists for the indignity of being arrested, as those same courts throw Jan 6 protesters in prison for decades. The insane regulations, power grabs and the way the elite treat our Constitution like toilet paper, is a sure sign they’ve abandoned all pretense of justice, and have gone full retard. It’s immoral for me to murder, steal or defraud people, so I can’t delegate those powers to the State. The State then is a criminal fraudster that has convinced us it can do anything, because we “delegated them the authority through our Constitution, and it’s in our best interests…” say the criminal liars.Sincerely,John Pepin
‘Roughly one in five adults in Generation Z . . . identify as LGBT.’ ‘Transgender individuals . . . [are] more likely to be non-White (40.0% vs 27.3%)’ If an apology is due, I offer one. For months, I’ve been head-down-tail-up with CAH and AIS and 5-ARD and Turner’s and Klinefelter’s. We need to profoundly ‘re-frame.’ But into what? Not sure! (This is maybe the fifth draft of this Post.) But ‘pride’ has morphed into an openly anti-White-racist movement. And the number of members in this movement is growing rapidly. But ‘it is clear that many trans people are not seeking surgery.’ So . . . ?? And the core of ‘trans’ cadre are classically radical: ruthlessly anti-democratic, flagrantly dishonest – and now backed by massive funding. And the less-radical left seems content to trundle mutely along behind the radical elements.
Modern economies struggle to contain inequality. Headlining most political manifestos, the fight to halt, or at least subdue, the flow of wealth from the bottom to the top, while promoting the advancement of humanity, is a universal aim. Despite the application of copious cognitive capacity, and repeated, interminable political speeches on the subject, the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.This concept was dubbed ‘The Matthew Principle’, named for the book of the Bible in which Jesus told his gathered disciples, “For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.” It is likely that this effect permeated societies for millennia before the time of the New Testament. The anthropologist, David Graeber’s book, ‘Debt, The First 5000 Years,’ supports this view.Misconceptions and ignorance appear to play a major role in the apparent political impotence on conquering inequality. A large majority of politicians and economists, in a position to influence policy, seem to perceive the economy through an unnecessarily narrow frame. Viable options are outside this frame of reference and rendered invisible.The main weapon in the economic armoury, to control the distribution of resources, is taxation. In modern times, (the last 5 decades or so), low tax policies have dominated, irrespective of which party was in office. UK individuals in the highest tax bracket, in this time, have their wealth reduced by less than half of that lost to HMRC in the post war period. With the rich retaining wealth, to balance the economy, one would think that Government would want to increase spending at the margins, to improve the living standards of those at the bottom.Politicians, advised by orthodox economists, have an aversion to Government spending without the balancing effect of taxation. The ideal, to this school of thought, is a balanced budget. It is easy to understand why the politicians believe this to be the case. From their understanding of business or household economics, the idea that spending is constrained by income, is completely rational. There are no such excuses for economists.The reality is that a balance between Government spending and taxation, in an economy, like the UK’s, causes a downward spiral of living standards of the most vulnerable in society. The missing link, is the fact that the Government is the monopoly issuer of the national currency. There is no purely monetary limit to Government spending. Without this knowledge, it is easy to see why politicians find the Matthew principle so hard to counteract.In the non-Government sector, the situation is very different. No private sector actor can add to the net financial assets of the private sector. It may appear that commercial banks create money when authorising loans or mortgages, however, each additional deposit of funds is counter-balanced by the liability of the repayment agreement.It may be useful to visualise the metaphor of a vortex to describe the private sector economy. With the public in fixed positions distributed at random through the contours within the whirlwind, currency is sucked towards the centre. The citizens are both buyers and sellers as they constantly work and spend to supply their daily needs and desires. At each transaction some tax is whisked out of the vortex completely and destroyed. This occurs at every contour of the vortex.People who work to provide goods and services receive regular wages against the flow of the vortex, however, the encouragement to take on debt through mortgages or loans reduces the ability to save. Marketing influences the public to spend to their limit by the hinted temptation towards hedonistic thrill-seeking and the fulfillment of desires. Thus, most of us become stuck in our own seller/buyer – seller/buyer cycle within the vortex, as we sell our labour and buy, what we perceive as, life’s essentials.Crucially, for our investigation of the Matthew Principle, at each transaction in the private sector economy, a percentage of profit is made. This behaves in a very different manner to the taxed or earned money. Profit is, an arbitrary addition to the true value of a product or service, justified by the idea that business owners require an incentive to innovate and develop technology with the aim of improving the population’s standard of living.It appears that profit creates money out of thin air - a form of alchemy. This is not the case. The truth is, profit is a re-distribution of the fixed money supply. In the vortex, at each transaction, the percentage of profit is sucked towards the centre. Over multiple daily transactions, at the macro level, currency is sucked inwards, being gathered at the inner layers by an elite few.It should be obvious, from the vortex metaphor, that a balanced budget, where any Government spending into the economy is balanced by taxation and borrowing is a flawed concept. The outer contours of the vortex, the most vulnerable in society, require the net Government spending to mitigate the magnetic draw of funds to the wealthy heart of the whirlwind. Without a net input by Government, the rentier sector must impoverish those with least, over time.It should also be evident that Government spending alone, will not solve inequality. The spending must be targeted to those in need. The UK currently runs a sizable deficit, but still, the wealthy thrive while poverty increases. A look at the way the Government ‘offsets’ this net spending, reveals a reason for the persistence of the Matthew effect.At present, the UK Government has a (completely unnecessary) policy, of balancing all deficit spending with the sale of gilts to that value. Gilts are UK Government bonds, sold to “borrow” back some of the money government had already spent into the economy, in the days when pounds were convertible to gold. Those days are long gone, and bonds are now a policy choice used to manage debt and liquidity, and support the policy interest rate, however, they do play a lead role in the Matthew Principle story. Gilts are interest-bearing forms of money, slightly less liquid than a cash deposit, but still relatively easy to transfer into cash if required. This interest portion is a form of UK Government deficit spending. It is money that Government spends into the vortex, and it is targeted. However, these interest payments are targeted at the very centre of the vortex. This money goes to the already wealthy in direct proportion to how much wealth is held. In 2022 UK Government debt interest payments totaled £111 billion.The UK Government deficit for 2022 was £137 billion. Therefore, only £27 billion of net Government spending found its way into the economy outside of the interest payments on gilts. Admittedly, institutions like pension funds and insurance companies invest in gilts, so there is a pathway for a percentage of the spending to find its way into the main economy.The sad fact is, that this system of paying wealthy people for having money, not only perpetuates the Matthew Principle, but exacerbates it. If we are serious about defeating inequality, there are several steps that must be taken. By introducing a fixed interest rate, at zero or just above zero, then bond issuance becomes obsolete and can be stopped. Over time the interest payments will fall to zero as the gilts are paid off.Economists will argue that manipulation of interest rates is the Government’s main tool for inflation control. The reality is that there are as many ‘tools’ for inflation control as there are reasons for inflation (which are numerous). The policies with most influence in conquering inequality would be a job guarantee scheme, as described by Pavlina Tcherneva in her book, ‘A Case for a Job Guarantee’, and an increase in state pensions to a rate that would provide reassurance, security, and comfort for all in their later years.Government spending would be targeted to the precise areas of need in the economy and will, over time, reduce the width of the vortex and with it the distance between the privileged and the most vulnerable.Just as poverty is a sign of a dysfunctional economy, so too are billionaires. The Matthew principle is society’s canary in the coal mine. When the effect is obvious, society is in danger of breaking down. Instead of complacently ignoring the growing inequality in the UK, it may be worth questioning whether we, the UK public, should carry on acting like hedonistic teenagers, or whether it is time to get a grip and seek a bit of maturity.
Constitutional ConsequencesDear Friends,It seems to me, the reason breaking a law has consequences, is because a law without teeth is a mere suggestion. What would happen if a bank robber who was caught… only had to give back the money that they hadn’t already spent? Everyone would rob banks. It would be stupid not to. The same holds true of constitutions and constitutional law. There are no consequences for violating our Constitution, in the most vile of ways, so our elites violate it all day in every way. The worse that could happen is the power they usurped, and are using now, will have to be given back. I propose a better paradigm. Give our Constitution’s teeth. Write in a few consequences for violating it. Let’s make violating our Constitution at least as punishable as growing one hundred acres of wheat.If a constitution is a contract, where only one party is held to it, while the other is given free reign, it’s not a contract, it’s slave papers. In a contract both parties give something and get something. Moreover, it’s an established precedent that any ambiguity, goes against the party who wrote the contract. In the case of our Constitutions, the elite write them, enforce them and violate them at will, because the elite don’t punish themselves. When was the last time you turned yourself in for speeding? Even as the elite interpret any ambiguity as giving them more power. That’s how they expanded the Commerce Clause to give the administrative state unlimited power to regulate. Because a farmer grew too much wheat on his land. That ambiguity led to Wickard v Filburn and the exponential growth of the bureaucracy.Laws without punishment have no effect, just as constitutions without teeth are useless, and have proven themselves worthless for multiple centuries. Take the Magna Carta, when King John was forced to sign it, the elite thought they had done a great thing, and had slashed the power of the king. That was far from the truth. Even today in the British commonwealth, a “constitution” is a slave document, instead of a charter of basic human rights. How do we know this? As in Canada, the people have no rights, only those the elite randomly grant. Take for example the rounding up and prosecuting of the truckers in Canada… or the arrest and prosecution of people engaging in silent prayer, facebook wrongspeak and for carrying chefs knives to work, in Britain. Not the actions of limited governments.What sort of teeth should we add to our constitutions? Criminal law has something to say here. Fines, jail, and even capital punishment are in line for violating our Constitutions. Fines for first time “minor” violations, jail for habitual offenders, all the way up to the death penalty for those actively engaged in a conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution. Obviously, politicking to change the Constitution within the parameters set forth in the Constitution, would not only be okay, but protected by the Constitution. Just as trying to change a law by writing op eds, running for office and creating special interest groups is legal. Only violating Constitutional limits would be punishable. Every government official, under this system, that called social media to censor Americans, would be fined, and some might go to jail.History has proven that sooner or later, the elite will ignore any limits in their constitution, and usurp power. It’s human nature. Moreover, not one elite has ever been punished criminally, for violating a constitution. Especially the US Constitution. Instead, they’re rewarded with usurped power to wield, increased political favor, and everything that comes with the first two. All of our Constitutions have become slave papers instead of contracts. The elite have made it so. They do as they please, while we’re limited by unconstitutional regulations, monitored, and taxed to pay for it. It’s past time to add teeth to all our Constitutions. Put in large fines for minor violations and jail time for greater violations, even execution. Then enforce them, as zealously as they enforce their arbitrary edicts, on us.Sincerely,John Pepin
Since my girlfriend broke up with mei have more time to do things, and more money to spend on whatever.Whats the point though?
In the first Post on As Nature Made Him, we noted that ‘No matter how badly the whole thing ends, none of the zealots admits any error.’ The dates here, concerning the Reimer case, extend from the 1960’s to the turn of the century. But it gets very interesting if we compare those to some dates in Brunskell-Evans’ Inventing Transgender Children. By 1998, piles of data that contradicted Money’s claims were coming to light. But by 2005, groups like ‘GIRES’ and ‘Mermaids’ were already major influences on the U.K.’s National Health Service. That is, the zealots didn’t even break stride.
Lonestar Holsters are renowned for their durability, elegant design, and dependable function. They provide leather gun holsters and flexible custom made leather holsters for the handgun holsters, with appropriate dimensions and reliefs for a secure fit. Our clients can easily adjust the leather ammunition belt fit using the changeable function, making it suitable for various body types and carry postures.
LimericksDear Friends, The Stupid Elite…Those residing at the acme,Often eschew true reality,Throwing down a saw,Preferring a log,To fell their very own tree. Crime In NYC…NYC had become a cesspool back then,But Rudy drained the swamp fern to fen,He cleaned up the crime,Made NYC safe and fine,And the progressives have made it a cesspool again. The Legendary Dower Londoner…Were Londoners always so cross,Or is it a new thing that they’re a frost,The old movies they were inviting,And they said things quite exciting,But now the culture has evolved to dross. Dogs…Proof that we are loved by God,A companion friend and clod,Angels in fur,Never a cur,But most of us call them a dog. On Decolonization…The logic of decolonization is thin,It’s all about getting a political win,Debating who’s truth is justice,But what it all boils down to is,How many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Paxton Impeachment…There were representatives in Texas,Supposedly rock ribbed republican jackasses,Looking for fame,A RINO in name,Impeaching him because to the corrupt Paxton is a menace. Kamala…There once was a veep named Harris,Wearing fashions that came from Paris,She said with a broad smile,I’ll sleep with you for a while,But remember it’s power that I cherish. On Our Replacement…Calm down there’s no need to panic,Or running around like a frantic,Everything’s fine,Drink your wine,And move to your new deck chair on the Titanic. Sincerely,John Pepin
‘Many of us [name of group withheld] would feel physically sick if we found ourselves around homos.’ In case anyone wonders if I’m going soft, here’s a heads-up: my approach to stymieing ‘trans’ is probably the most radical of anyone on this forum. This is in part because ‘trans’ is the ugliest non-revolutionary left-wing campaign I’ve ever seen, and in part because ‘trans’ has become the poster child of the suppression of free speech. However, it niggles me every day, for example, that anti-left elements that I am working with have their positions on ‘trans’ joined at the hip to other simply startlingly out-of-touch social notions. The positions of these particular folks strikes me as ‘We refuse to study the issues. We demand that everything stays exactly as suits us.’ And this is what makes a ‘postcolonialist’ analysis at the very least worth looking at. The elephant in the room is how very much less traction ‘LGBTQI’ would have had if basic civil liberties for non-heterosexual people had been allowed decades before it was. Sorry, I don’t think there’s any doubt about this claim at all.
The daily argy bargy of trans vs. anti-trans should be ‘moored,’ but is not ‘moored,’ to an understanding that All This is utopianist. Radical feminism, open-ended affirmative action, Californian reparations for slavery, rampant nanny-statism, financial stimulus in response to GFCs and Covid lockdowns, the elimination of university-entrance exams, gender theory – these are all, in one way and another, not about making the world a better place, but about making the world a perfect place. So, a brief and simple Post. Historical conservatism accepted inequality. Classical liberalism advocated a level playing field. Left liberalism advocated a level playing field and help for those who hadn’t gained access to that field. (Singer’s expanding moral circle is in the background here.) The revolutionary left has always been utopian, and the contemporary devolutionist left is no exception.
Everybody loves conventions. But do they? The Consumer Electronics Show. Comic-Con. DreamHack. Oatakon. ValleyCon. The Fort Lauderdale International Boat Show. The Atlanta Scout Show. The Wanenmacher Gun Show. The North American International Auto Show.
There’s some kind of convention for everyone, right? So why do I get dirty looks when I wear my favorite convention shirt? They get to have their conventions. Why can’t I have mine?
Bringing up a Convention of States always draws very emotional responses. “Oh no! We can’t have a Constitutional Convention. They might do anything…”
Well there you go. We certainly can’t have that. And yet these same people will righteously complain that it is way to difficult to amend the Constitution. How they can’t see the contradiction is utterly amazing.
Let’s straighten out a few misconceptions. First, it’s not a Constitutional Convention. That term is used to scare people. Constitutional Conventions are only used when you want to replace the form of government you already have. Generally speaking, those who want to change our country into something else are perfectly happy manipulating the government we already have. A Constitutional Convention does not suit their purpose.
Second, the purpose of a Convention of States is very specific. It’s used to *propose* Constitutional Amendments. It doesn’t matter whether Congress proposes an amendment or a Convention of States proposes an amendment, it still has to go through the approval process which works the exact same way. The proposed amendment is sent to the states for their approval. At least 75% of the states must vote in favor of the amendment, for it to became part of the Constitution.
Third, and most important, only politicians are ever involved in the amendment process. It does not matter whether were talking about Congress or a Convention of States, they are all politicians. Anyone who says it’s “safer” to have the politicians in Washington make these decisions hasn’t thought it through.
All politicians are dangerous. Trusting the ones in D.C. to make all your decisions for you is the path to disaster. The politicians who represent you at a Convention of States will be appointed by your state government. In case you haven’t noticed, it is much easier to vote out a problematic state politician than a national one. Your state is going to do everything it can to keep you happy by sending politicians to the Convention of States who will represent you well.
Personally, I think the Constitution doesn’t need any major changes although some clarifications might be nice. Let’s clarify the General Welfare clause, the Commerce clause, the Necessary and Proper clause, and the other clauses that have been used to expand federal power beyond the limits enumerated in the Constitution.
Regardless, a Convention of States can’t fix the biggest problem with our Constitution because that problem is not within the document itself. Despite its short length, most people have never read it. Many of those that have read it don’t understand its purpose and meaning. This lack of understanding leaves the public open to the machinations of politicians who use such ignorance to their advantage. In the end, the key to having a functional constitutional republic is having as many citizens as possible who understand and actively support their Constitution.
Magic mushrooms are one of the most potent plant medicines in the world, when used responsibly they can be a highly effective treatment for many different mental health issues, such as addiction, depression and anxiety, just to name a few. They do not mask symptoms or temporarily numb pain but can potentially assist people in overcoming and conquering their mental health issues for good. Organically grown magic mushrooms do not contain any artificial substances which means that they do not lead to many of the negative side effects associated with pharmaceutical drugs, such as dependency, disease or death, you cannot become addicted to, or overdose on magic mushrooms. Yet even though they are far safer and more effective than pharmaceutical drugs they are surrounded by hesitancy, resistance, excessive precautions, fear, stigma and prohibition. This irrational behavior is not due to any predictable risks of danger or injury but is mainly driven by unconscious fears. The issue is not that magic mushrooms are dangerous, but that the psychedelic experience that they induce triggers three unconscious fears which are present within most human beings, these are the fear of the self, the fear of the unknown and the fear of the sacred. This is why psychological development and self-knowledge are so important, without an understanding of your own psychology you are bound to be ruled by unconscious forces. Those who lack self-knowledge are not only ruled by unconscious forces but highly susceptible to self-deception as well, a man cannot think freely or independently unless he has individuated, until then he will remain bound to the collective and his thinking, words and behaviors will be constrained to the limiting beliefs and prevailing narratives of the collective unconscious. What is interesting about this phenomenon is that it doesn’t matter if you are a highly educated and distinguished professional or an uneducated and utterly ignorant fool, both can be just as influenced by unconscious forces in the absence of self-knowledge, the study of psychology is indispensable. The fact that people can remain unconscious to such a large degree, before, during and after being educated in Western society is egregiously concerning. The psychedelic experience is one of the best ways to raise your consciousness and free yourself from the fetters and limiting beliefs of the collective unconscious. Having psychedelic experiences on a regular basis can result in massive expansions of consciousness in relatively short periods of time, one psychedelic experience may induce a greater expansion of consciousness than what may have otherwise taken years of concentrated effort to accomplish without the use of psychedelics. This can enable you to become aware of, and activate the multi-dimensional aspects of your self, affecting you mentally, emotionally, physiologically and spiritually. Magic mushrooms are often referred to as teachers or guides, they appear to have a mirroring effect which reflects the level of consciousness and state of mind of the individual, giving them only what they are ready for. The study of Jungian psychology can be used as an additional form of guidance for exploring the self through the psychedelic experience and is also a powerful way to raise your consciousness in and of itself. Combining the two can act as a powerful catalyst to the initiation, amplification and acceleration of psychological development, promoting massive expansions of consciousness with a strong sense of direction and understanding. This is not to say that you should rush the process of raising your consciousness, you should always start by taking it slow and finding your own pace, going too fast can potentially overwhelm you and may lead to various psychological disturbances and imbalances. Again, this does not necessarily mean that magic mushrooms are dangerous, because you can just as well induce these psychological issues by raising your consciousness too fast through the study of Jungian psychology, even without the use of magic mushrooms. Jungian psychology and magic mushrooms are invaluable tools in the journey to self-hood and should be utilized by anyone who seeks self-knowledge. The biggest barrier that people face in relation to the psychedelic experience, psychological development and raising their consciousness is fear, fear hinders growth, progress and development keeping people’s psyches in a state of default. Many of the mental health issues and psychological problems that people struggle with can be greatly alleviated or even resolved by facing their fears. Arrested psychological development, fear and unconsciousness are so rampant in society that they are not only viewed as normal and acceptable, but even demanded through conformity, those who are unconscious are pathologically hostile and resistant to those who are not. One of the first steps to overcoming your fears is to become aware of them. By learning about the three great fears of the psychedelic experience you can gain great insight into yourself and how much these fears may be affecting you; this can also enable you to grasp the magnitude of how influential these fears are in dictating the behavior of entire societies. It is very easy to notice these fears in other people, and although we can learn much from observing others, we must guard against projection and avoid getting distracted from ourselves. Far too many people get caught up in projection because it allows them to judge the shortcomings, flaws and folly of others while ignoring their own, and it always happens that what they tend to notice in others is exactly what they should be addressing within themselves. Or as Jung stated, “Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”. In order to better understand these three great fears and the level of influence that they have on human behavior I will share a brief summary of each, but keep in mind that unconscious fears are complicated, they may be viewed from many different perspectives and in various combinations depending on your level of understanding.1-The Fear of the Self Why is the fear of the self so rampant in modern societies, is it because the societies themselves are structured in a way that promotes materialism, vanity and triviality, naturally leading people to become identified with their persona, while completely neglecting or rejecting their true self? Or is it possible that the collective fear of the self has actively influenced and shaped the structure of modern societies, creating a superficial role-playing environment which is congenial to those who lack self knowledge and are only conscious of their persona? One persona is usually insignificant and will rarely play much of a role in changing or influencing the structure of a society, but millions of people who are identified with their persona can shape and mold the structure of a society to an exceptionally large degree, even if it is done unconsciously. The persona is like a mask that ‘individuals’ wear mainly for social purposes and personal presentation, and although it is an important aspect of the self, those who are solely identified with it are predominantly unconscious. One must consciously pursue psychological development and look within to explore the self, unfortunately most people choose to shun, ignore or reject themselves out of fear, keeping their psyches in a state of default and remaining unconscious of their inner world. When an ‘individual’ chooses to shun, ignore or reject their own self, they become a puppet to unconscious forces which often turn them into their own worst enemy, wreaking havoc on their life, health and relationships through their own unconscious driven thoughts, choices and behaviors. Carl Jung summed up this phenomenon beautifully when he said, “Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.” This avoidance of the self is not only driven by the fear of the self, but also by a refusal to take responsibility, by remaining ignorant of the self the ‘individual’ is also choosing to remain unconscious which enables them to assume the role of a blameless victim. Unconscious ‘individuals’ are slaves to their lower desires, driven by greed, lust, gluttony, pleasure, distraction, etc., they will choose things, associate with people, engage in behaviors and put themselves in situations that lead to sickness, disease, depression, guilt, shame, turmoil, pain, suffering, danger, injury, abuse, etc., but will rarely ever acknowledge that the terrible things that befall them are the result of their own poor choices. Magic mushrooms may act as a solution to this because they can reconnect you to your true self, expanding your consciousness and leading you to self-knowledge, but only for those who are willing to face themselves, even in the presence of fear. Carl Jung summed up the fear of the self best when he said, “People will do anything, no matter how absurd, to avoid facing their own souls.”. Rejecting the self is not only an act of cowardice but a betrayal of the self as well, it leads to feelings of guilt, shame, regret and often drives men into states of mediocre stagnation or degenerate decline. Although the path to self-knowledge, growth and change can be challenging, it is well worth the effort, especially when you consider that the alternative is a type of unconscious self-induced hell. As hard as the journey to self-knowledge may be, it is not all bad, it is also empowering, energizing and invigorating, it can lead you to better health, vitality and a more meaningful existence. The difficulty for most people is that they have a lot of darkness that they must embrace and work through in their journey, this darkness may stem from repressed emotions, trauma or unresolved conflict. However, the most important darkness that an ‘individual’ must face is their shadow, the shadow is the dark aspect of the self which contains the qualities and traits that have been rejected because they are deemed to be bad, evil or unacceptable. Most people are not consciously aware of their shadow because they have not even begun their journey to self-hood, their shadow is usually completely repressed, if they do become conscious of its influence or presence they attempt to ignore or suppress it, but suppressing the shadow is a form of self rejection that can turn you into your own worst enemy in the same way previously mentioned. The shadow must be confronted and integrated into the personality, which is a vital part of the individuation process. The amount of darkness that an individual must embrace in their journey to self-hood will determine the potential brightness of the light that they will find in it. In this way darkness can be viewed as something good and beneficial because light could not exist without it. Or as Carl Jung wrote, “No tree, it is said, can grow to heaven unless its roots reach down to hell.”. It is one thing to fear the darkness within yourself, but many people are just as scared of their own light, or as Plato said, “We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.”2-The Fear of the Unknown The fear of the unknown is one of man’s oldest and most powerful fears, people will go to great lengths to ignore, dismiss and deny the existence of certain subjects, information or ideas that may trigger this fear. The collective fear of the unknown has played a major role in the formation of Western academia and its doctrines, many subjects are foolishly dismissed and treated as taboo, not because they are illegitimate or have been discredited, but because they frighten people and cause discomfort. This fear of the unknown is triggered by magic mushrooms because the psychedelic experience is in many ways an embodiment of the unknown and mysterious. The reaction to the psychedelic movement that took place in the sixties can give us insight into how the unconscious fears of the collective can stifle and hinder the progress and advancement of everyone. Rather than embracing and integrating these plant medicines into society, the unconscious fears of the collective and the authoritarian tyranny of the state led them to be demonized and prohibited. Much of the unconscious fear around psychedelic plant medicines has been greatly amplified by deceitful propaganda campaigns that persuaded millions of people to believe that they were dangerous drugs that would lead to addiction and self destruction. Part of the reason that these campaigns were so successful is because the fear was already present. It seems that the state may have even strategically exploited the collective fear of the unknown in a way that enabled the population to cower from their fears with a false sense of righteousness and a facade of superiority, believing themselves to be better than the “criminals” and “degenerates” who use these “dangerous” and illegal “drugs”. This behavior between the state and the population resembles that of the relationship between a narcissistic parent who shields their child from reality, this overbearing protection prevents the child from growing up, causing them to become weak, docile and delusional. Only in this case it is grown men and women who are choosing to remain in unconscious ignorance with an infantile dependence on the state to protect them, telling them what and how to think even into their old age. These conditions of safety, comfort, and ease are the very breeding grounds for what Nietzsche referred to as “the last man”, a man who lives a meaningless life of ignorance, hedonism and laziness. The most dangerous aspect of this last man lies in the fact that he is the rule, he is like an ocean of mediocrity that threatens to drown all exceptional individuals in unconsciousness and triviality, one must be a strong swimmer to endure his superfluous presence and overwhelming influence. This is why it is so important to face adversity, many men instinctively know this and seek to challenge themselves through activities that promote strength, stamina and endurance, such as weightlifting, martial arts, boxing, cold exposure etc., this is also why many men prefer to work jobs that require hard physical labor. Physical strength, stamina and endurance are extremely important, but the greatest strength we can ever attain comes from within, and it only comes to those who are willing to face their fear of the unknown. Facing your fear of the unknown in this way can be seen as a form of mental adversity which will enable you to cultivate fortitude and grit. The psychedelic experience is naturally feared because it is unknown and mysterious, but when you combine that with the fear of the self and the fear of the sacred it becomes a powerhouse of unconscious fears. Facing each of these fears through the psychedelic experience should be viewed as opportunities to become stronger by overcoming them. Fear is a great robber of life which can prevent you from reaching your highest potential, or as Joseph Campbell put it, “The cave you fear to enter holds the treasure you seek. Fear of the unknown is our greatest fear. Many of us would enter a tiger's lair before we would enter a dark cave. While caution is a useful instinct, we lose many opportunities and much of the adventure of life if we fail to support the curious explorer within us.”3-The Fear of the SacredThe fear of the sacred is the greatest of these three fears because it encompasses the fear of the self and the fear of the unknown simultaneously. All life is sacred, including the self, but most people have become so disconnected from the sacred that they have grown to fear it, if by chance they do encounter or experience it they often interpret it as something separate from themselves, as something unknown. Magic mushrooms trigger this fear because the psychedelic experience that they induce is, or at least has the potential to become sacred depending on the nature and intention of the individual. Taking a full dose of magic mushrooms, which is 5 dried grams, may lead to what is referred to as a religious or mystical experience. These experiences are unique to the individual and usually difficult to articulate, but they can be broadly summed up as a powerful reconnection to the sacred aspects of reality, which include the self, the earth, nature, the cosmos and the universe. These experiences often lead to massive expansions of consciousness, psychological rebirths, personal transformations, spiritual awakenings and miraculous healings. They are usually described as the most powerful and meaningful experiences that the individual has ever had. Reconnecting to the sacred may be unfamiliar, strange and even terrifying for certain people, the further one drifts away from the sacred, the more their fear intensifies. The collective fear of the sacred is so powerful and prevalent in Western academia that it has virtually eradicated the knowledge of, relationship to and even the capability of having belief in the existence of the sacred. Much of the atheistic materialist reductionist doctrines of the West are the products of defense mechanisms within the collective unconscious which are meant to protect people from their fears by pretending that they do not exist, a type of denial through self-deception which masquerades as intellect. Hannah More described this cunning trickery when she said, “The ingenuity of self-deception is inexhaustible.”. Atheistic doctrines are naturally popular because they resonate with the collective unconscious, they offer the same type of protection to the masses that they do to those who create and/or regurgitate them. This is not protection from any danger or threat, but protection from fear, from facing truths, realities and subjects that trigger discomfort and uncertainty. This is why science has degenerated into somewhat of a religious cult, it is used as a haven by those who have chosen to shun the sacred out of fear. The fear of the sacred is particularly intense amongst the indoctrinated, they do not have the capacity to think beyond their education, this is the degrading and dehumanizing nature of atheistic doctrines, they mislead people into believing that they are an insignificant fluke, a product of chance in a universe with no meaning, which is a perfect recipe for nihilism. Logic would dictate that this fear of, and disconnection from the sacred would be absent in religious people, however, it is often just as strong in them as it is in their supposed opposites – atheists. Carl Jung shed some light on this paradox when he stated, “One of the main functions of organized religion is to protect people from a direct experience of God.”. Those who cling to atheistic materialist reductionist doctrines are not very different from many of those who cling to religion, their behavior is simply driven by unconscious fears. Most religious people use organized religion as a form of protection from their unconscious fears in the same way that others use science. They will go through the motions of going to church, listening to a priest, reading religious texts, etc., but will avoid any deep or meaningful religious practices, such as contemplation, introspection, meditation, ceremony, ritual, etc. What’s even worse is that many of them will criticize, slander and attack those who are involved in these deeper religious practices, foolishly labelling anything that triggers their unconscious fears as witchcraft, summoning demons, evil, etc. Atheistic academics do the same thing by referring to such religious practices as superstitious, imaginary, hallucinatory, etc., they also do this to their scholarly opponents and critics by labelling them as pseudo-scientists, quacks and conspiracy theorists. This is how unconscious cowardice defends its delusions, through dismissal, denial, and slander. People of this type are always compelled by programming and driven by unconscious forces; fear, conformity, tradition, convention, public opinion, political correctness, the need for acceptance, the desire to appear “good” to others, etc. What these types of people fail to realize is that until they raise their consciousness and begin to attain self-knowledge, their thoughts, opinions and perspectives are irrelevant and worthless in the presence of truth. The indoctrinated are often arrogant and narcissistic, when they can no longer rationally justify their position they resort to personal attacks, they will mock, scoff, ridicule, slander, sabotage and mischaracterize anyone who challenges their delusions. At this point objective truth becomes irrelevant and civilized discussion impossible, the mob will stand behind whoever affirms their delusions and embodies their ‘values’. This is why almost every position of power and influence in Western society is occupied by incompetent, mediocre and delusional men, democratically elected leaders are the epitome of the unconscious mob. Or as H. L. Mencken stated, “Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.”. Being disconnected from the sacred is a disease and shunning its existence out of fear is cowardice, the reason people are so resistant and hostile to the truth is because they are scared to face reality. Or as Friedrich Nietzsche put it, “Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.” Nietzsche was well aware of man’s propensity to shun reality by creating phantasmagorical worlds in which he could shelter himself from his fears and from truths which he was not willing to face. In The Will to Power he wrote, “Metaphysics, morality, religion, science – they are portrayed in this book as nothing more than different forms of deception; with their help we can believe in life. ‘Life is supposed to inspire confidence’; the task thus imposed is tremendous. In order to solve this problem, man must already be an inveterate liar, but he must above all else be an artist. And so he is: metaphysics, religion, morality, science – all are mere artefacts of his determination to create appearances, to lie, to escape from ‘truth’, to deny the ‘truth’. This ability, man’s artistic ability par excellence, thanks to which he violates reality with his lies – he has in common with all that is. After all, he himself is a part of reality, truth and nature; how could he help but share in its genius for lying!...”. Magic mushrooms and the psychedelic experience can assist you on your path to healing and growth, but only if you are willing to face your fears and embrace change. Psychological development forces you to take responsibility for yourself because the more self-knowledge you gain, the more you begin to realize that you are in control of your life, and that it is your own thoughts, attitude, behavior and conduct which are continually shaping it for better or worse. The psychedelic experience can enable you to explore your own psyche in more depth, this is symbolized by the hero’s journey which leads to the fight with the dragon and the treasure hard to attain. This treasure is the inner wealth which can only be attained through self-knowledge, or as the Master Yeshua said, “But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty, and it is you who are that poverty.”. The implication here is that rejecting your self will lead to an inner state of destitution which can never be alleviated by anything external because it is the very absence of your own soul. It should become clear why some men can have everything they desire; money, power, influence, fame, women, yet they can still become depressed and even end up committing suicide. This is not to say that it is bad or wrong to be rich and enjoy material possessions, money can enrich your life and empower you to a very large degree, but if you are infatuated by these things and your life revolves around them, then you are merely a slave to them. The idolization of riches and material wealth is a sure path to bondage and desolation, or as it says in Mark 8:36, “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his soul?” One of the biggest problems with Western society is that people are encouraged and programmed to value and strive for money, wealth, luxury, comfort, fame, etc., as if attaining these things would lead to some kind of fulfillment, as if they were the very goal of life itself. These things and conditions can be useful for those who know how to use them, however, most people who attain them for their own sake are spoiled and corrupted by them, falling into decadence, weakness, degeneration, hedonism, perversion, sadism, arrogance, false pride, conceit, despotism, meaninglessness, nihilism, etc. In modern societies money is the most valuable asset that a man can attain because it is the only way for him to shelter and provide for his family, historically these tasks were far more difficult, they required physical strength, stamina, endurance, courage and survival skills, these were not optional traits that you could cultivate in your free time, they were instinctual necessities demanded by the conditions of nature. Living in safety, comfort and ease is antithetical to the nature of men, it disconnects them from their instincts and masculinity making them soft and weak. Men should learn to embrace adversity and view the challenges and obstacles that they face as opportunities to become stronger, no matter how daunting they may be. They should strive to excel in their physical strength, mental acuity and spiritual health through the pursuit of self-knowledge and personal development. Magic mushrooms can be used as the keys to personal evolution, but only for those who seek to evolve.
When the philosophy of America is no longer about building up but of tearing down, the “Great Experiment” is over. This situation is the major reason that Obama won in 2012 (aside from massive voter fraud, of course). His comment about voting being the “best revenge” startled and horrified older Americans who still view the nation according to its founding principles of opportunity and liberty. But Obama wasn’t speaking to them. He spoke to the voters who gave him the White House: the young who see life as an “us vs. them” scenario, minorities, most of whom believe that somehow their rise depends upon someone else’s fall and single women who often find themselves because of the cultural assault on the traditional family, one failed relationship from poverty. Generations of propaganda pressing the economic concept of the “finite pie” has instituted permanent class envy together with its ongoing war between the supposed “haves” and “have-nots” while ever more people—whatever their social and economic situation—consider themselves among the latter. America has gone from a “classless society” in which an individual could rise to whatever heights his talents and efforts would take him, to a culture in which people find themselves assigned to their respective classes—wealthy, middle and poor—from which the chances of “moving” higher—minus some great stroke of luck or the efforts of the government—are virtually nil. Interestingly enough, when we were a nation without classes, more people than not moved up, poor to middle, middle to wealthy. But in the new socialist environment, such is no longer the case. Indeed, the only class that seems to be gaining in numbers is the poor and the only one shrinking daily is the middle class. All of the political and economic warfare against the wealthy has done little to lessen their numbers or their wealth. It seems only to have made them more entrenched and less open to the influx of those lower on the economic ladder. The present American philosophy of class envy and economic warfare will produce the same sorry results as every other socialist “experiment.” Nonetheless, it will continue to play out because the majority of Americans have forgotten the lessons of the past, abandoned the concept of opportunity and effort and embraced the desire for revenge against those whom the government with its media allies have presented as their enemies. In a way, the current emotional atmosphere in America is akin to the mindless rage motivating those who think that killing large numbers of innocent people will somehow satiate their desire for personal vengeance. Their rage is directed outwardly but it is really the result of personal failures for which they cannot or will not take responsibility. Their intention is to destroy anyone and everyone whom they perceive as being “responsible” for their situation and whether they do it with the bullet or the ballot, the results are the same: the death of a nation.
Experts Deference To ExpertsDear Friends,It seems to me, there’s a devilish nature to the excuse du’jour of the progressives, that they can’t answer a basic question because they aren’t experts. Like, they can’t discern a boy from a girl, because they aren’t doctors. That answer sidesteps the question, distracts and gives the false impression, experts are always right. Historic evidence of their being wrong most of the time notwithstanding. When asked their intentions, good people tell them, while evil people change their story, fog the air and attack. Claiming ignorance because one isn’t an expert does all three. It changes the story because they claimed to be experts before claiming not to be, fogs the air by changing the subject from the question, to whether it takes an expert to answer it, and attacks by putting the question on the defensive.One way to not answer an inconvenient question is to side step it. Have you noticed how often politicians don’t want to answer straight forward questions, especially progressives? Instead they use every conceivable means to distract, by changing the subject, attacking the question and answering a query they weren’t asked, doesn’t speak well of their intentions. If someone has been caught lying, over and over, plus they can’t give you a straight answer to any question, they’re probably hoodwinking you. Well, that’s not actually true, they’re definitely hoodwinking you. If someone claims they’re so smart they should be a supreme court justice, for example, but can’t discern that which a toddler can, you have to question their discernment, judgement or their intentions.With today’s inversion of morality, where truth is villainy but hypocrisy is heroic, responsibility for one’s actions lays in the view of others. Today’s elite’s claim they’re such whizzbangs, they can change the weather, but cleaning up corruption, fixing government spending or showing up to work sober, are outside their capabilities. The captured media is agog with how our experts have done such a wonderful job. Giving the experts credit where credit isn’t due. Politicians claim to be so smart, they can regulate every action of the individual, by the bureaucracy. For our own good. If things go wrong they can blame the bureaucrats. Even as the bureaucrats blame the politicians but consider themselves the real power behind the throne. No one takes responsibility but everyone in government vies for credit.No notion could be more pernicious or counter productive than the false belief in the experts. History doesn’t pull punches when it comes to the credibility of experts. From bleeding to draw out our bad humors, to mercury to cure syphilis, experts have been consistently wrong. Today’s experts brought us the Covid virus, made in a lab by experts for our enjoyment, mandated the vaccine that neither stopped the spread nor was safe, and now they’re engaged in undermining elections, to save democracy. Experts have arrogance in common. They’re arrogant, and why shouldn’t they be? They are the smartest people in the room. Their the best educated with university degrees. Plus, they have a more nuanced morality, than the common herd. So why shouldn’t they have unlimited power? Or so the logic goes.All three fallacies, sidestepping a question, avoiding responsibility for one’s actions and deferring to experts, lead to evil. Even if done by saints toward a Utopian goal these tools lead to bad outcomes. Because no one is omnipotent, except God, but usurping the role of God is the point, isn’t it? It’s one of the reasons the experts do these things. Villains don’t tell their victims, they’re going to be victims, beforehand, that makes victimizing us harder. So, villains sidestep questions, attack the questioner and distract. Since we know this in our hearts, and now know it in our heads, when you see an elite distract, differ to experts or attack the question, you know they have no good intentions. They’re villains who’re planning to victimize you, so take heed, and act accordingly.Sincerely,John Pepin
LimericksDear Friends,Justice…Seek justice I know not where,Certainly not in the lion’s lair,It may seem abrupt,But our courts are corrupt,As the hegemonic faction practices lawfare. Forgiving College Loans… Who cares what the cost,Political expediency is no loss,Favor the favored,Follow the herd,And now the worker subsidizes the boss. School Choice… On students government will foist,Public school without a voice,The Kool-Aid drink,It’s wrong to think,Because that would make you pick school choice. Inflation… Shut downs in aggregate supply,With stimulus on the demand side,Who could have seen,Inflation would be so keen,It’s like the elite took us for a ride. Nanny State… Big government is really great,We can’t leave it all to fate,Bureaucracy will grow,And let the world know,We want a global nanny state! Unions… I never begrudge a man his wage,After all who am I to gauge,Although they’re a blight,Those worthless parasites,Rent seekers who are the elite of our age. Covid Vaccine… The FDA thought it knew what was best,But their rhetoric didn’t stand the test,The FDA lied,People died,And no villain will pay a price for this mess. Sincerely,John Pepin
The Mechanism Of ImpeachmentDear Friends,It seems to me, our elites are using the impeachment, like Pericles used the ostracism… to do the opposite of their reason for existing. Pericles, the ancient Athenian ruler, exploited his arbitrary power to get any would be rival, ostracized. Like the progressive faction uses the impeachment to go after political dissidents, to establish a one party state. Both examples use a power given to limit the power of the elite to oligarchy, and especially a single elite from becoming a tyrant… to abetting those very crimes. The establishment went after Trump twice, once to hide the Biden crime family’s crimes in Ukraine, the second to further the crime of election rigging in the 2020 election. They also went after Ken Paxton for standing up to their unconstitutional edicts, rulings and regulations.Ken Paxton stood up to the administrative state during the Covid fiasco. With the passage of time and cooler heads, as it turns out, the administrative state was wrong about everything. From the mask mandates, to the vaccine mandates, everything they did was wrong and led to worse outcomes for humanity. Not to mention creating Covid in a lab in the first place. So when a State Attorney General, Pen Paxton, stood up to them, they had to do something. They were outside of Constitutional limits by a long shot, and they knew it. So, like any rabid dog, they attacked. They called their bootlicks in the Texas House and ordered them to impeach Paxton in the dark of night… without evidence. So they did. Just like Pericles, they used a mechanism to control corruption, to forward corruption.Soros Prosecutors, Like Big Fanny, and Alvin Bragg, who use their positions of authority to abuse the electoral process, are why the founding fathers put impeachment into the Constitution. As a mechanism to remove obviously corrupt players, like them, from positions where they can damage our republic by their corruption. That they are immune to impeachment, but those who stand up to the deep state are subject to impeachment in the dark of night, is a sure sign impeachment is being used to the opposite of its intent. Exactly as Pericles used the Ostracism to silence his political adversaries, today’s progressives are using impeachment, as well as licensure and reputational destruction, to silence theirs. If that doesn’t work, they simply censor, and the US Supreme Court stands behind their censorship.Now that one of theirs, Biden, is under investigation to impeach, in full view of the public, not in the dark of night, the progressive faction is freaked out. They claim McCarthy is weak because of it. I agree, weak because he couldn’t hold the conservatives from impeaching the obvious criminal. Biden is on the face of it, guilty of influence peddling, all other crimes are subservient to that. Yet he isn’t charged with influence peddling? I wonder why? The clues are obvious, we have evidence of Hunter putting Dad on the phone to Burisma, the discussion of payment for getting rid of the prosecutor, Biden got rid of the prosecutor, and then more phone calls discussing the consequences of not paying up. That is prima facia evidence of influence peddling, bribery and a host of cascading crimes to cover them up.Impeachment was instituted to stop corruption, as Solon implemented the ostracism, to stop arbitrary rule. Yet both have been turned to their opposite. Pericles, while ostensibly avoiding politics, exploited the ostracism to vanquish his political foes. Our modern versions of Pericles have used their authority to silence, intimidate and destroy those who wouldn’t parrot their lies. Make no mistake, that’s exactly why Trump is under indictment in several states and the corrupt federal district of DC. That’s why Paxton was impeached in the dark of night and is now the subject of an FBI witch hunt. Wouldn’t it be more practical to use the impeachment against corruption instead of to promote corruption? Impeaching corruptocrats like Biden, Fanny and Bragg is why the Founders put it in our Constitution.Sincerely,John Pepin
‘Detransitioners speak of trauma from experimental drugs and surgeries, of having been manipulated and deceived by adults, and of being abandoned by adults when they detransitioned. I have seen them abused and defamed on social media, accused of being transphobes and liars, and of trying to keep genuine trans people getting the treatments they need. In fact, most are simply urging caution, and have no desire to stop others living as they wish.’ ‘[The detransitioners] bought into an ideology that is incoherent and constantly shifting, and where the slightest deviation is ferociously punished.’ ‘One consequence of opening women’s spaces to males is to recast two common male sex crimes as rights. Exhibitionism – non-consensually displaying one’s genitals – is so common that many women will tell you that the first time they saw a penis was when a stranger flashed at them. Voyeurism – non-consensually viewing someone in a state of undress – is known to be a precursor to contact sex crimes. Entering a changing room constitutes consent to see and be seen by the other occupants while undressed. Women grant that consent on the basis that these occupants will be female; gender self-identification removes that basis while denying that it does so. It therefore turns facilities intended for women into places where males can commit exhibitionism and voyeurism with impunity.’ Research projects like ours have certain patterns. One is that notions that seemed crazy at first – because the political front-of-house crowd are shouting that they are – become underpinned by more and more quality references, and thereby stop seeming crazy. Helen Joyce’s book Trans sets a new standard, as it ably navigates far more complex issues than other (also very useful) books have done. I must be careful about over-enthusiastically recommending books for readers. Brunskell-Evans’ text Inventing Transgender Children is excellent because its divided-into-chapters format allows you to poke about over time. Abigail Shriers’ text Irreversible Damage – three years old now – is a good place to get a first sense that ‘this trans thing’ is way more complex than has been explained to you. But Trans is fabulously good, and we’ll be poking about it in forthcoming Posts.
‘Autogynephilia is the arousal that comes from
imagining yourself in the role of the opposite sex.’ ‘If you had asked, “are you a woman inside?” I would
have replied, “I don’t think so,” ’ she says. What I always knew is that I
wanted to have a woman’s body.’ If you are just passing though, welcome! Readers, we’re going to bracket off autogynephilia. It’s written about in Joyce’s
Trans, Murray’s The Madness of Crowds, and Stock’s Material Girls. However, the notion is hotly contested; and as it’s
a subset of a subset, it’s not an easy thing to define in brief. Whatever. We will work it out; and one reason we want to work it out is that the trans industry doesn’t want
autogynephilia discussed. Next: ‘The notion is hotly contested’ is code for
‘Trans activists are insane.’ Everywhere we look – activists infiltrating
government, activists infiltrating think tanks and NGOs, activists meddling
with parents’ rights, activists contacting children directly – we find the repetition
of brazen untruths (sin of commission)
and the suppression of counter-indicative material (sin of omission). That is, our
thesis of a ‘third Lysenkoism’ is lookin’ good! Second Last: wow! We’ve been working together for
nearly a year. The Posts must total twenty-something-thousand words. We have some framework in place; but we also have a
mind-boggling amount or material in the offing: Foucault, Butler, John Money,
Gramsci, Marcuse (Eros and Civilization).
There’s DSD’s. There’s gender-diverse cultures.
There’s a two-volume encyclopedia of fascism in the mail. And
we want specific data – like Dr. Miriam Grossman’s – on activists’ untruths.* Final: hitching home from town, I met a guy who works
in the mines here in Western Australia. Married with kids. No time for
research. And although this guy knows little about ‘LGBTQI,’ he
loathes the now-regular company sessions at which – and I quote – ‘They stuff
this sh*t down our throats!’ *There are some great stats in Stock’s Material Girls.
It is not the case that a concern with the minutiae of ‘trans’ is the same as being soft on trans. It may be the case that the most ardent opposition to trans is undertaken by those who think that some sliver of individuals are ‘trans’ in some definable way.
IneptocracyDear Friends,It seems to me, we live in an Ineptocracy. Where the inept rule the adept with an iron fist. It didn’t start that way, ineptocracy is born because the adept are distracted. Once the ineptitude of the ineptocracy becomes apparent, the inept must become despotic and corrupt. Otherwise they would be quickly replaced derailing the gravy train. As the ineptitude leads a nation to inflation, war and a collapsing standard of living, the adept start to notice. That leads the inept to have to censor, to protect themselves from the adept, destroying journalists like Julian Assange. Most of all though, the inept absolutely must exploit the authority they’re trusted with, to crush any dissent. This strategy works for awhile, but remember, we’re dealing with inept people here, so it eventually fails, taking down the nation.Ineptocracies can develop because while the adept are busy doing things… the inept seek power. What other option do they have? Would you hire them? I wouldn’t, they’re inept. That’s why you always see a concentration of inept people around the seats of power in any nation. The capital cities are full of them. The most expensive homes in any country are found in the suburbs of the capital city. Lived in by the ruling inept. Where else could someone so inept get that kind of gig? No where. Unlimited power, money and prestige, without having to do a thing. Now that is magnetic to the inept. While the adept would rather build, innovate and create. Once the ineptitude oozes from the top down though, even the firms in the technical spheres become inept… like Boeing.The problem with ineptocracies is that they lead like a dog. A dog only wants to be in front. They don’t know where you’re going, how you’re going there or how fast you want to go, so they have to constantly look back to see. As a result, they’re constantly underfoot, and getting in the way. Else they race off after a distraction and get lost. Ineptocracies are the same. They get caught up chasing a squirrel and get lost, perhaps they’re so concerned with public opinion they’re constantly underfoot, or since leading is so important to them, they get in the way of everything with their inept regulations. Leading like dogs. Eventually, these qualities so reduce the output of a nation that country becomes impoverished, regardless of it’s natural resources… like Argentina.The very nature of an ineptocracy is instability. Leading like a dog and tripping up the adept, eventually leads to a fall. The ruthlessness of an ineptocracy increases with age, until that ineptocracy becomes despotic. Corruption is an ineptocracy’s twin brother, born at the same time and growing together, only separated by epigenetic changes in life. Then there is, of course, the ineptitude of an ineptocracy, at doing the basic functions of government. That’s why ineptocracies have out of control budget deficits. The people follow their leaders into ineptitude as well. Evolving the whole of society to become inept. All these qualities of an ineptocracy make it unstable. No matter the nation, currency or people, ineptocracy leads to a fall.Ineptocracies form and collapse rhythmically, like a pulsar, Cepheid variable, or pounded thumb. Once an ineptocracy falls, it’s replaced by the adept for awhile. Then the adept are slowly replaced by the inept, as the adept go onto other more interesting enterprises, in the private sector. Where innovation is valued instead of conformity. Eventually, government is run by the inept, without any adept people at all manning the ship. Then, sooner or later, the inept steer the ship into a shoal, and blame the adept. Because they were distracting the inept with comments like, “Watch out for that shoal!” Based on the description I have given, would you say the US and indeed the whole of the West, is in the adept phase of this cycle… or the end game of an ineptocracy?Sincerely,John Pepin
Rams’ Horns and CultureOn a hike in the French Alps, I saw an awesome sight. Two rams on a mountain ledge battling for dominance. They reared up on their hind legs and crashed their helmet horns against each other. The sound reverberated over the range, and I felt the pain of impact even from my safe distance. And again, reared up in boastful defiance, both contestants faced off. But with this crash, the one on the right was pushed back and hurt more. I could see that even from my distance. And yet, he came back and faced his opponent once more. But we all knew it was over. Crash. He was down longer, came up slower and tapped out. In peace, the defeated ram humbled off the ledge. The champion had no need to inflict further injury. Indeed, his ascendance secured, he might have use of that brother, adversary turned ally. Some might say I have over anthropomorphized this mountain drama. But I think we have under appreciated the ways in which our football matches, our locker-room banter, our office politics, our sports cars and dance moves speak a language that is a piece with the animal kingdom. We tend to place man and his power of language, his cultural gifts as a sign of how far he is raised above the animals. I would rather explore how the ability to substitute, to symbolize a victory runs deep into the essence of life itself, is a law, a necessity as old as creation. One ram is stronger than his rival. Maybe not yesterday and maybe not tomorrow but today one ram has the ability to defeat that other. How does a ram demonstrate both the ability and the willingness to kill his rival without the waste involved in doing so? How do both rams figure out which of them is stronger today without it costing a life? How can the ability to kill be ascertained without the actual need to kill? Solving that problem is so important and basic to the effectiveness of any group of living things that even animals have developed strategies for substituting ritualized battle for actual battle. Even rams understand the symbolic significance of bigger horns without having to play out the effect of those bigger horns to a bloody end. After Avraham has demonstrated his readiness to kill his son Yitzchak, God says, that’s enough. Now I know that you fear God. Many people are troubled by a story in which God could demand such a thing. Others find philosophic difficulty with a God that could command one thing and then reverse it. Christians tend to view the story as the ultimate triumph of faith over reason. How we must sacrifice that which is most dear and intelligible in order to receive something mystical of even greater value. For them, it is a willing step into the absurd. I would rather read the story as the most elemental fact of culture and language, something so deep even animals get it. It is possible to ascertain a truth, to establish dominance, kingship without demonstrating the full force of that rulership. This is the gift of a symbolic existence, and it is a powerful gift indeed. When I hear the Shofar (ram's horn) being blown for me this Jewish New Year - Rosh Hashana, I will be thinking about that ram that took Yitchak’s place. Probably a ram that just lost a match on a mountain ledge and instead of battling stupidly to the point of injury, read the signs correctly, walked away and acknowledged he was not the better ram. I will say to God with my Shofar blast, You are King. King of Kings. With the ability to snuff out my life in an instant, to reverse all my blessings or double them at will. I acknowledge this ability with words and symbols and pray that is sufficient; that I can express Your Sovereignty without needing to experience it. I will say to God with my shofar blast that I know I am not the better man. That I have erred and wasted potential; compared to who I could be, I have fallen short. I pray that You accept this acknowledgement. But more important, I pray that I accept this realization that I could be better, without needing to experience the real pain and price of those failures. It is an unfortunate human truth that nothing educates like pain. It is near impossible to mobilize all the energy and conviction necessary to make real, hard and difficult changes for the better without a very salient and immediate sense of the pain waiting if these changes are not made. The price of failure has to be clear to generate the genuinely difficult actions necessary to avoid that failure in the future. I pray with the symbol of the Shofar blast, while the books of life and death lie open, that this alarm bell, this wake-up call makes sufficiently clear to me the need for change, without God having to exact the actual price of my failures from me. May you all be inscribed for a healthy, happy, successful new year.
You are free only to take a shit and to pee and if they decide the opposite not even thatBy Alessandro CarosiThey made us believe we have freedom and living in a democracy, they told us that we need a passport to move around and money to do things ……https://anextraordinaryandordinarylifeblog.wordpress.com/2023/09/16/you-are-free-only-to-take-a-shit-and-to-pee-and-if-they-decide-the-opposite-not-even-that/and money and you can’t go anywhere and buy anything …… only at that time repeat with me ……. I’m a free human being and I have freedom !!!!!!!You are free only to take a shit and to pee and if they decide the opposite not even that. ….. https://anextraordinaryandordinarylifeblog.wordpress.com/2023/09/16/you-are-free-only-to-take-a-shit-and-to-pee-and-if-they-decide-the-opposite-not-even-that/
LimericksDear Friends, High Speed Rail… High speed rail seems swift,Funded by government grift,If others are building rail,We have to seek the grail,And follow them over a cliff. War… Lurching from debacle to defeat,Until the collapse is complete,We’re almost in range,For a nuclear exchange,Brought to us by the corrupt elite. Atheism… Some people new ideas they will resist,Nothing’s outside of science they insist,Twisting facts inside out,Believing without doubt,And praying that God doesn’t exist. Espionage… Calling CCP spying espionage is silly,A cute notion from a pretty little filly,They have a better in,If the CCP wants information,All they need do is call General Milley. Saddiq Kahn… We live in such strange times,Things can change on a dime,People wig out,When stabbings are about,And vote to change the paradigm. Jan 6… The elite acted without reluctance,Charging crimes without substance,Elections without integrity,And there will be no equity,Until the elite get their comeuppance. Sincerely,John Pepin
One: we’ve neglected to note that perhaps the primary reality of ‘trans’ is that most people have no idea what is really going on, and don’t much care anyway. Two: an increasingly visible group is that of women – academics, journalists, conservatives, concerned mums, and feminists (both heterosexual and lesbian) – who are bravely publicizing the negative impacts that trans is having on women and girls -- ‘erasure’. So, do we not welcome their efforts? Three: some Bud-Light-boycott anti-woke-corporation sentiment is vaguely evident to me. If any reader has a grasp of this, please do post. Four: legal backlashes and de-transitioning are also gaining attention. Five: although wild conjecture is all we can manage today, there seems no doubt that resistance to ‘trans’ will merge with resistance to other disastrous left-wing policies, particularly in the U.S. (and the U.S. presidential-election cycle starts quite soon). Note that the seven-years-delayed backlash to the policies of forcing massive numbers of illegal aliens on European populations is well and truly underway. Six: the Why-is-trans-attractive? project: conservative Switzerland has six times as many LGBTQI folks as conservative Hungary. Say what?! Seven: Christians and Muslims standing shoulder-to-shoulder against trans zealotry is a thing to ponder. Finally: the concern of Big Gubmint is only ever Bigger Gubmint. Covid was a godsend. It behooves us all to keep an eye out for whatever lunacy is incoming. Guvvy Corp efforts to control the impacts of inflation? And is anyone following neuro-diversity?