Thursday, 19 October 2017

The Big Shut Up is coming



Superheroines are fiction for a reason


"Dude, are you doing the Weinstein thing now? That was so October 8th...?" Yes, I realise I missed the meme train, but it's better to be correct than be part of the debate, especially when there is no debate.

Go get the rum, we're going to need it.

No, all of the rum.


I

Newspapers are running wall to wall op-eds about Harvey Weinstein's grabby-hands, 90% of which are written by females. Yup, I checked. All of the articles.

One angry keyboard basher is New Zealand journalist Nadine Higgins. She's a nice person, I suppose. We both worked a trade conference once, she was the emcee and I was covering it. All I remember is her red lace dress and tight camisole. I shouldn't have to mention that, but when she wrote about the Weinstein scandal her clothing choice became very relevant:
"His sloppy drunken descriptions of what he wanted to do to me, up against the bar where we'd been drinking with our workmates, mortified me. I told him as much, and his indignant response is seared in my memory. 
"Oh, come on, you wouldn't come to work dressed like that if you didn't want it."  
Um, what? 
I offered my senior colleague a random selection of expletives in response. They sounded brave, but I felt like I'd had the wind knocked out of me. Was that how everyone saw me?"
I call bullshit, Nadine. You're lying. First, "senior colleague" is just code for "white older male." just say what you mean. Second, every attractive girl knows how she looks to men. Do you realise how much power men need to give up in order that you can refuse to engage with a man's perception of sexual relations in a bar? That guy had a point: how can you dress like that and not expect the attention? Are you just going to play dumb? I bet you have hopes and dreams about being seen as something other than a sexual object, don't you? Aren't you suspicious that the reason no man has corrected you on this is that they want to have sex with you?

Let's start from first principles: what does she wish to be true?

You notice her outfit, I notice they cropped away her wedding ring.
That's why you're normal and I write on this stupid blog
"Hey baby, nice dress" is one thing and groping another thing entirely, but sexiness isn't a homing missile, a woman can't select the targets. I don't know what Higgins (pictured) was wearing that night at the bar, and the dress was probably worn for not-him, but she knew there was going to be collateral damage.

Higgins is just a normal hot girl. She doesn't want to be seen as a sexual object but has no clue of the irony of her thinking. She wants people to have a certain thought, yet also demands they don't have a certain thought. She's trying to control other people's minds just as much as she claims men label her. As much as she wishes she could make everyone else accept the identity she's invented for herself of being a smart, capable journalist, the ugly existential truth is everyone has their own mind and they have decided she is a sex object. They may be wrong or correct, and she can certainly try and change this perception, but she cannot tell other people not to have it.

I'll accept she won't want to hear that I sat at her table because I wanted to see the shape of her neckline. I'll even accept I may be wrong to have thought like this. But I will not accept that my experience as a human and the information she was broadcasting led me to make conclusions about her that I am not allowed to have. No one has that kind of power, not even women.

She might retort that even if her sexual messaging was misplaced and I at least shouldn't conclude anything until I knew her better. But that's my point, if she knew who she was she wouldn't be playing multiple characters: eye candy and serious journalist. It may be wrong to expect a reporter to be sexy on stage, but if you say you have to be sexy as part of the job, you can't double back and say you weren't being sexy.

Hot girls are never told they are responsible not just for the words they say, but for what other people hear  not for the sexiness broadcast, but the sexiness received. Because if I were to ask if she'd like some magic to remove her hotness right now, she'll tell me to piss off. The things she wants are mutually exclusive, they cannot coexist. This is the root of her anxiety.

II

Why should I enjoy living in a world where being a man is a horrible thing, and no matter what a woman does, it's a wonderful thing?

Something bad happened to Gweneth Paltrow years ago, sure, but her aside, the real question is not how many women have ratted on Weinstein, but how many women haven't. Obviously, if some blonde from Nebraska agrees to follow him to his hotel room to "get a videotape" and Paltrow doesn't want to do this, that blonde will get all the good acting roles. Don't get angry about that. Paltrow is conveniently forgetting the Pretend Contract she already signed: we all make-believe her looks aren't part of the reason she gets acting jobs, and she pretends no one is looking at her that way.

The key is not to break that contract. Paltrow knows deep down the movie industry made big head goofy girls the standard of pretty. If she were a fat girl, she wouldn’t exist. She forgot that when a woman is chosen for certain reasons, she is also the kind of woman who wants to be picked for those reasons. That's the contract. You can't market yourself on looks and then pretend it wasn't the looks that go you here. You might wish people saw you as more, but you can't control what they see. No, yelling won't make this any less true.

Let me offer a contrary position, unpalatable but worth considering, and entirely invisible to Paltrow and Higgins: Harvey Weinstein needed to own and operate a multi-million dollar company, work for decades at a skill, earn a fortune and outmanoeuvre every other male competitor just to have the chance to have sex with a woman like Gweneth Paltrow. Do you see? He needed to lift his stature from a default level of zero just to get to the level a woman is already at by existing. And women complain that men control the sex?

In this world, a woman's sexual value is unbelievably overpriced, but it still doesn't give them any power. Put it this way: men have no ceiling on how valuable they can become in the eyes of a woman. But a woman can never be better than her vagina. What's enraging for men like Weinstein isn't that women are sluts, but that they are not sluts  that they are able to manipulate men and get what they want, without paying for it.

Weinstein shouldn't have done what he did, but his actions were only bad if you accept that a woman's sexual value is higher than zero by default. The answer isn't "teach men not to rape." The answer is to remove value from sex. All Nadine Higgins had to do was lower her vagina's sexual value to zero and her anxiety would disappear like the Madison Avenue-fuelled illusion it really is. That would be equality.

III

Higgins pretends to want to be free of male pressure, yet the pressure to look a certain way is actually much worse from women. A "patriarchal" controlling force, unacceptable if coming directly from men, is maintained by giving the whip to other women. Imagine if a boss man who isn't Weinstein said to her: "hmm, you should put on some makeup, doll yourself up a little bit." He wouldn't survive the time it took to pivot on his brown suede Hush Puppies. And yet women say this to other women all the time. Why is that less damaging? Don't show me the final calculation. Show your work.

But even if boss men don't tell Higgins to wear makeup, she does anyway. To her job. Why does she need makeup to host a trade conference? If women aren't objects then why is she painting herself? Makeup accentuates a woman's sexual attractiveness, so the only appropriate time to wear it is to look attractive to men. I'm not saying you have to look good for men, I'm saying that if not wearing makeup for men makes you feel better about yourself, you don't have a strong self. Everyone knows you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, now you're saying the cover of the book influences how the book feels about itself?

How is a father expected to raise a daughter in this reality?
Neither Paltrow nor Higgins can ever know if they succeeded in life because of their talents or because they have a vagina. That information is literally unavailable to them. Every day Higgins has to play a game in her head that men see her as an equal and not as a potential sexual partner, living in an exhausting state of permanent disavowal. No woman can ever know if it wasn't just a decision-making man who saw it as a chance for sex.

They want to both be part of the male world but retain their feminity, to exist in a state of "almost." Their complaints aren't part of a big power struggle. It's simpler than that. Women don't really like being women. They see men as unconstrained, free individuals, and themselves as constrained baby-carriers. And if they can't be free of their biology, then men can't be free either. It's the tri-force of ignorance, arrogance and resentment.

But embracing feminine sexuality can be a powerful thing when used correctly. Higgins and Paltrow should study former UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher. They could learn something important. Christopher Hitchens understood when he wrote about it back in 1997:
Yet, at the party conference and in Shadow Cabinet meetings and in Parliament, she regularly reduced these chaps to mush. It was at the annual conference that, as I stood in the body of the hall, it hit me. That feline smile, the composed but definite body-language, the voice at once stern and cajoling... to say nothing of the Valkyrie helmet of blond locks. My god! She has them in her thrall! And she knows it! The minx knows it! It was for writing this that I got into the hot water of what nobody then called political correctness.
Mark the sequel: Not long afterwards, I was at a reception in the Rosebery Room of the House of Lords. She came. (I’ll try and keep this brief.) A mutual Tory friend offered to introduce us. I agreed with some alacrity. The subject of the moment was Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe. I held one view on this. She held another. The introduction was effected. Did I imagine it, or did she recognize the name of the scribe who had hymned her feminine allure? At once we were embroiled in an argument on the subject of racism and decolonization. I was (I only mention it) correct on my facts as well as my principles. She was lousy on both. But what a bonny fighter! She wouldn’t give an inch. I found myself conceding her a trivial point, and bowing as I did so. She smiled.
“Bow lower,” she said.
Suddenly robbed of volition, I complied. 
“No — much lower.” 
By now near to drowning in complicity and subjection, I obeyed. She withdrew from behind her back a rolled-up copy of the Parliamentary orders of the day, and she gave me a sound smack before I could —how does one put this? — straighten up. I regained the perpendicular in some blushful confusion and difficulty, to see her swing away and look over her shoulder, the words “naughty boy” floating over me in my near trance-like state, as the journo witnesses closed in to say, “What was that all about?” I told them they would never understand, and — what do you know — they never did.
And if you're thinking, "eww, gross. How could anyone find Thatcher sexual?" then you're missing the point. Your mistake is to assume men think the same as women. They don't. Stop lying to yourself. Which brings me to my next point.

IV

Put Nadine Higgins aside for a moment. The male commentary on sexual harassment always makes the same basic mistake that men think women are just female versions of them. They think women are attracted to good looks and repelled by chubby, overweight men with shower fetishes. Wrongolongadingdong.

If your first thought about the Weinstein scandal was, "how could that man get those women" then I know for a damn fact you are both a man and have never been powerful, and more importantly, will never be powerful. A man cannot be powerful and think women are his equal. And I'll risk the blowback by saying a man cannot be powerful and think of anyone as his equal. You have to say out loud - "I am better than them/him/her." Say it straight to their faces, but say it righteously. The magic won't work if you don't believe it. They will eat you alive if they smell even a molecule of insincerity.

People want to be told what to do so badly, they'll listen to anyone. All you have to do is believe the message you're screaming. If your superiority isn't true, then make it true. That's how magic works. And do you know what happens once you think you're better than women? They like it. They respond to it. Women want a leader, they don't want to lead. They want to be able to look at their powerful man and say "he's mine." And if you think I'm only talking about women, then you're more broken than you realise. I'm free next week at 2 pm for a follow-up therapy session.

Most men don't know that women face an incredible amount of pressure to be looked at. The smart ones, like Thatcher and Victoria's Secret models, capitalise on this by trading their sexual attractiveness for resources and power. Which means we're not looking at the Weinstein thing correctly. We have to appreciate how the women who didn't complain see things. The silent ones.

Maybe they're silent because they're scared. Or maybe it's because women are attracted to what a man is, not what he looks like. An ugly millionaire like Weinstein can still get girls because of the status and resources he has, but an ugly female millionaire better have enough rooms in her mansion for ten generations of cats. She's gonna need the wall space.

Women and men aren't the same, even though that's the progressive narrative. But if this were true, did anyone stop to ask what the default desires would be? Would it be the males' or the females'? Why? If you're scratching your head, then try asking it from the system's perspective: which default mode would sell more consumer goods?

V

That's why I wanted to write this. All this talk of sexism and the patriarchy and culture wars are just distractions. The system doesn't care if you're a girl or a boy, it only wants you to act in the required direction. You gave the system you hate a spectacular blowjob, and then try to punish it by making it want you more. From the system's perspective, not only did it still get blown, it liked it even more. Why were these women fighting? "Is it freedom of choice?" Here's a hint, that's never the answer. Who cares what they were fighting for? All anyone wins is more ways to be obedient consumers. Wrong battlefield, ladies.

Men have been leering at women like Nadine Higgins and "abusing their power" for millennia and no one has ever done a thing about it. And yet this event, this stupid story, covered the headlines like a cold wind. Why now? I can't be the only one who noticed the curtain swaying.

Over the weekend, I watched the 1981 movie Quest for Fire. It's a French-Canadian film about cavemen. Shut up, I thought it was cool. Plus it got me thinking.

What bothers me about Higgins lying about her reality is I can feel the Quest for Fire coming out in men. Women keep getting louder and more shrill with their nonsense. Everybody is fake mad with fake outrage because they have nothing else to do. "I'm outraged!" That's such a vaginal term. Men never say that. It's all a game. No one should be "outraged" if they aren't shaking pitchforks. Anything else is just frantic energy.

Did you answer my question about consumerism? In all their "outrage," did Paltrow and Higgins ever pause to ask why so many women are allowed into historically-male positions of power and status? I assume they still believe men are in control, right? So why don't they tell me about the Great War of the Sexes when the Female 3rd Mechanised Infantry Brigade rolled their tank forces over the crushed and defeated Male Army and took power? I think I missed that part in the history books. Oh, wait, that didn't happen. Women didn't take power, they were given it. And now they're yelling? What happens next, ladies?

Did you see the wind move the curtain? I did.

That bitter taste isn't misogyny, it's just consumerism. The system wants you to be a battery. That's why you feel anxious. I think it's great when an individual woman succeeds, but I am asking, how does that help women in general? Female prime ministers reach that level because the system wanted her to. Affirmative action. Feminism. Civil rights. Gender equity. These "political" movements are only allowed to exist because they don't threaten consumerism. More women, gays and minorities as batteries? Sure, bring it on. Don't worry, they won't ever own the capital, and the minimum wage can be lifted gradually so long as the price of goods rises in concert. Oh, you thought that was to help the worker? Yeah, Girl Power!


How long would Paltrow last?

VI

People don't like it when I say this, but I want you to ask how much more money men need from women until they say: "Shut Up!"

Who knows what the maximum wealth of consumption really is? It could have 40 zeroes, or maybe 100. But that's not the end of the spectrum I'm worried about. The dangerous side is the minimum. Once GDP slips and enough people (men) go unemployed, this whole "emancipation" thing goes the way of the dinosaur right quick. Same goes for minorities, by the way. Or did I miss the Great Coloured Revolutionary War as well? Damn history books, always leaving out the good stuff.

Women and minorities don't notice the curtain swaying. And it sways for thee.

The men they keep messing with won’t take the whining forever. Women can yell and scream only because of the restraint of men. And they’re not giving us any credit for abiding by our social contract to choose not to slap them upside the head. Women have to understand that for them to be in positions of authority is not a guaranteed thing. It’s not natural. A few thousand years ago it was Quest for Fire everywhere. Men today are restraining themselves because consumerism rules the world. No one owns any of this, we're all just renting.

If women continue to put us in this little pokey spot with their harpy cackles of "misogyny," "sexism" and "patriarchy," one day men are going to stand up and say, get out of my face. Shut Up.

VII

I saw two tiny, 5'3 female cops walking down a street today. Tiny, tiny lady cops. And I thought: no one should be a cop if they can’t arrest me when they aren't wearing a uniform. Even some male cops are tiny, little baby cops. These people are police because I let them be police. I think all cops should be big enough to stop the largest dude in the city if he decides to get high on meth and start a rampage.

The only reason girl-cops can arrest me is if I let them. In any world of nature, there should only be giant cops. A small blonde lady telling me what I can’t do is just ridiculous. Sweetcheeks, you have five seconds to call two bigger actual cops, or I'm going to chew you like bubblegum. “Ten-four, there’s a guy treating me like a girl!”

At least that would force her to think about WHY calling the precinct solved her problem. In a world that reflects the nature of reality, the social contract and my respect for the law are the only reasons she gets to jab me in the ribs with her stupid stick. It used to be Quest for Fire. I can’t fight a cop. This has nothing to do with hitting females. The social contract stops me from hitting anyone who wears a blue uniform. If the lady cop thinks she has power, it’s only because of the uniform.

I really want you to meditate on what happens when GDP drops for too many quarters. I want you to comprehend what happens when enough men decide the social contract no longer makes sense for men. Because when that happens, there isn't a girl cop in the world who could walk safely by herself. Her authority is based on men allowing the handcuffs to be placed on him. This stuff you call society is really thin. And people like Nadine Higgins and Gweneth Paltrow with their nonsense want to scratch away at this veneer? I hope they know how to catch small mammals for dinner.

When women get a little power, they lose their minds and forget it can all go in the other direction. They are being allowed to invade male spaces because consumerism wants them there. Minorities and women will always feel anxious about living with white men for this reason. They have been given something that can be taken away. The freedom they have is entirely conjectural. It doesn't exist. It's a made-up theory. Deep down, they know this to be true.

The Big Shut Up is coming. You can smell it.

Artificial intelligence is a short con wrapped in a 200+ year long con

I approach this from a different direction: there’s a difference between doing work and doing a job. Jobs change all the time, but productive work is something everyone can do, even if people classify productive work in different ways. Success is defined differently by everyone.

The trick about the AI debate is that it says people should work for companies. Whenever there’s a problem in the market, it’s always the lack of jobs, not lack of work. Economic success is measured by the number of jobs. This makes people think success is being employed by someone else. Company owners don’t want people to compete and beat their company. So they are nudged in the wrong direction when the narrative is that AI will take away jobs. That’s called controlling the capital.

The question you should be asking is: how can I use the AI to monopolise an industry? Forget competition. Competition is for losers. The goal is always to own every property on the game board. I appreciate that AI sounds scary, but think about the competitive advantage to a person who shed that fear early? And how useful would it be if everyone else continues to worry about AI? You're not supposed to have this thought. Can you feel us being nudged in the wrong direction? I can.

I don’t know how much I buy the quasi-religious fears either, to be honest. AI folk display many hallmarks of the superstitious. Just because a person has four degrees in rocket science doesn’t mean they’ve escaped their human nature to see false patterns in noise. Smart people can believe irrational things just as deeply as non-smart people, they just use better arguments to convince themselves.

But nonsense is nonsense, and every generation thinks theirs will be the final one. People, especially in the Christian West, tend to start with the premise that humans are special and somehow apart from the natural world. So long as humans retain centre stage in the world, even if we think we’re destroying it, we’re happy. We have to be the main character in the story of life. But this is just a superstition. For all we know, ants might be the main character.

Also, every culture has some sort of idea that life exists after we die. Why would the “secular” crew in Silicon Valley be different? The AI folk tend to see its creation as both a terrible thing to be feared, while also hoping it will allow them to “upload” their consciousnesses into that AI, and therefore live forever. How exactly is this different from the twin ideas of God and Heaven? It’s the same thing, just with new names.

I don’t believe for a second Musk is an atheist. Nor is Ray Kurzweil. They’re both just crypto-Christians pretending to have transcended the natural human tendency and need for religious and narcissistic belief. Their desire to believe humans are important of course means they think AI will overtake human intelligence and threaten the universe (the universe, for crying out loud!!). The important thing for Musk is not that AI is a threat, but that AI is a threat that humans invented.

Wednesday, 18 October 2017

On manners, arrogance and the Game of Nations

George Friedman, who I really like, wrote recently about manners in the political system. It's worth the read. He’s not the first person to reprimand the nastiness, but he’s the first to make me want to write about it.

It's always interesting that Americans want to throw the tea into Boston Harbour while holding onto some of their "father" country's ideals. You've written before about how the American empire is in its adolescent stage with a long way to go, and I agree. The way Americans talk about upper-class and aristocracy is like a teenager yelling at his parents, but stopping short of leaving because they still need to play Xbox later that evening. You either have a revolution and emancipate yourself from the "oppressive" father, or you stay a dependant. You can't split the difference.

The British adopted manners and customs when they were improvements. But it also knew - not suspected, knew - its core customs were superior. It wasn't shy about this. Recall the Indian custom of suttee (sati) in which a widow is immolated to symbolically meet her husband in the afterlife. The British were outraged when they saw this and said to the men with torches it was British custom to execute a person who murders. Suttee stopped pretty quickly after that. When Americans hear this story they scoff and mention colonialism and imperialism, but they are wrong. There are actual inferior practices, manners and customs. The British were proud of their heritage and India is better because of their conviction.

Only an American could write: "...manners are the foundation of democratic life." This is the problem. Americans do not practice manners for their own sake, or because those manners are superior. Americans practice manners because it is good for a specific type of government. No wonder your manners are falling apart. If they depend on the coherence of government, and that political base ruptures, then so do the manners. That is simply not good enough. This is an adolescent structure, and it bothers me that it takes a non-American to see this. What is it about the American system that precludes it from seeing itself as it really is? Where are your mirrors?

It shouldn't matter what political constitution possesses a country. What matters is a shared understanding and acceptance that a particular set of cultural values is maintained. America is singularly bad at doing this. In fact, its elite class not only attack core American values on an hourly basis, it refuses to codify its own set of values lest it become like its "father" the British and allow an upper-class through the back door. As if that would be poison to the present toxic system!?

Instead, the American elite says things like this (Friedman in a response article to his subscribers) :
"The danger, of course, is that manners can be weaponized. They are used to marginalize and ostracize and to consolidate the power of a class. English upper-class table manners were not simply a means of binding society together; they were a method of identifying those who were not in the upper class and a way to justify their exclusion."
And I can feel the contempt for an upper-class oozing out. You don't even try to hide it. But why? What is so bad about an upper-class? Is it because not everyone could get in, by definition? Or is it because you might not get in, and if you can't, then it shouldn't exist? And yet no matter what the American elite tries, an upper-class exists in the US. Sure, it drapes itself with the semiotics of equality: philanthropy, gifts, grants, ripped jeans, baseball caps, driving its own cars, etc. But the poor know what's going on, they always do.

Americans are teenagers. They want to hang out with the underprivileged by day but return to gated communities before the street lights come on. They disparage upper-class manners in a paranoid fear of "dad" but know a lower-class can't exist without its counterpoint. Upper-class is inevitable, so it's up to the members to ensure its values are legitimate, proud and superior. Society depends on the aspirational. Consumerism depends on aspiration. Advertising is based on one thing: happiness, but it must be forever just out of reach. That's upper-class. But Americans are acting like Peter Pan without a NeverLand.

The only way manners can survive in America is if its people accept theirs are objectively better than anyone else's. It might be a matter of faith to believe this, but who cares? Everyone else makes that leap. Why does America always think it has transcended the necessary components of what makes a good society? Why does it fantasise about equality, when all the evidence says it is impossible? Millions of people risk life and limb just to get into the US. They don't do it because of Medicaid and SSI. They do it because migration is a vote with one's feet that the place you depart is inferior to the destination.

Here I have to point out that this specific American disease of cultural relativism has reached our fine shores too. A Chinese girl recently complained to me that too many Asians now live in Auckland, New Zealand. She doesn't like what this city has become and said the more Chinese living in Auckland, the more Auckland mimics China. She left China to get away from that culture. Now it follows her? She was the most defensive person of New Zealand culture I've met in a long time. She knew whatever it is that makes this country New Zealand is superior and should be maintained. I can't tell you the last time I heard that from a native New Zealander. This is a disease, and it's spreading.

That's why we need people like you, George, to confidently state that American manners and customs are better. No argument. State outright and proudly that the country you love must be maintained. Not because "democracy" is your political structure, but because American manners and culture are objectively better. And if they aren't, make them better! You already know how to do this. There's no need to adopt anyone else's.

If you can't do that, then not only will you have failed to learn the central lesson of the rise of Donald Trump, the "barbarians" circling your borders will notice and tear away at everything you love. You have to be arrogant in the Game of Nations. You have to think your culture is worth more. Otherwise, those with deeper cultural convictions and higher bravery will take it all from you.

It's time to grow up, America.

Tuesday, 17 October 2017

The Puritan origins of Trump hatred

To Americans, religious conflicts happen in other countries. The Sunni fights the Shia in Iraq, which is why the country is broken. Hindus don’t like Muslims (and vice versa) in South Asia, explaining the nuclear-tipped tension. And Russian Orthodox Christians still don’t get on with Roman Catholics in Europe.

Yet modern Americans think of themselves as "freethinkers" and “progressive,” reinforcing the narrative that faith is something other people do. But how is it that the US displays all the hallmarks of a religious conflict and yet simultaneously denies it? This hatred of Donald Trump is no ordinary revulsion. It deserves a better explanation than “racism” or “nationalism.”

Judging by intellectual descent, teacher-to-student, modern American progressivism is not a secular ideology at all. It is a Christian ideology. "Progressive" originates as an adjective to Christianity. Modern American progressivism is a Puritan revival, with roots in the Social Gospel movement of the late 19th century. There is no serious historical dispute of this – it is traced superbly over 350 years in George McKenna’s The Puritan Origins of American Patriotism.

The title is slightly misleading – it might as well have been called The Puritan Origins of Everything Everyone Believes, Or At Least Is Supposed To – and it focuses a little too much on the US and not enough on English thinkers. McKenna should have at least started at the Cromwellian period. But it’s a masterly intellectual history of the modern universe and it’s published by Yale, so it must be right.

Studies like this show left-wing “atheism” is really just an extreme version of the Puritan opposition to idolatry in religion. The Puritans hated Christmas for exactly the same reasons: as an idolatrous, superstitious festival. Removing the theological component once and for all is simply the natural last step in the Puritanisation of Christianity.

The conversion of American Puritanism – whose mainstream always has been, and always will be, whatever young people are taught at Harvard – from a Christian sect into a secular/civic religion is a fascinating process. Note, for instance, the political importance of institutions such as the YMCA a hundred years ago. The YMCA was holy when Washington was unholy. Now that progressivism has captured the Beltway, what is the YMCA? A gym.

Also, note separation of church and state doesn’t apply to progressivism because it is “atheistic.” Who cares where the lines are drawn, ask who draws the lines. History shows progressivism’s historical roots are in America's most prestigious and powerful form of Christianity – Massachusetts Protestantism. Only 60 or 70 years ago, this belief system was described as not just religious but fanatically religious.

The basic problem with conservative critiques of socialism is their refusal to recognise that socialism is fundamentally Anglo-American in origin. They focus on thinkers such as Karl Marx who, while born a German Jew, did most of his work in the British Museum and, when he wasn't leeching off Friedrich Engels, made his pay-check by writing columns for Horace Greeley's New York Tribune. Distracted by Marx's enormous beard, they miss the obvious (and much more embarrassing) WASP-Puritan connection.

Marxism has little to do at all with the modern progressive movement. Until the past few decades, the socialist and radical movement in the Anglo-American world was always associated with Christianity. Before the 1950s, the US as a Christian nation was generally accepted. But when the Warren Court revised this tradition by dramatically expanding civil rights, civil liberties, judicial power and the federal power, it had the letter of the law on its side. Effectively, progressivism rose to power through Christianity and then used that power to "pull up the ladder" – a classic Machiavellian manoeuvre.

It’s all the same Christian tradition. The details change. The details will always change. In French theologian John Calvin's day, they took Corinthians seriously that men with long hair offended God. Today, burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment. Logicians can argue either point. All kinds of evidence – biblical or scientific – can be deployed. But no progressive will ever conclude burning fossil fuel is good for the environment.

Religions should not be analysed by their doctrinal elements, which are constantly shifting and often intentionally confusing. It’s much more enlightening to judge them by the organisational structures they create in the real world. Only then can one understand this strange Trump hatred, and why progressives change the subject every time someone mentions Edward Bellamy's utopian novel, Looking Backward.

Thursday, 12 October 2017

A few thoughts on MMP and a constitution

I still don’t quite understand why we’re experimenting with MMP in New Zealand. It was imposed by Harvard and the State Department as a punishment for Germany after 1945. They did so to avoid a single party gaining power in that country through legitimate democratic means.

What cracks me up is that today the CDU/CSU and the SPD (its two main options) are pretty much the same party, but they can get away with forming a “grand coalition” only because they both comport with Harvard’s ideology and State's plans. So, in reality, the German system is set up like this because Washington doesn’t want certain types of democratic ideals gaining power. It’s a specific kind of prevention. Hmm, I wonder what those certain types could be…?

Why would NZ want a Constitution? Wellington already harmonises itself with Washington on damn near everything (at least, on everything important). I’m not saying I like being an American satrapy, but the point of a Constitution is to codify a government based on one’s own ideals, not someone else’s. And since NZ’s public policy “experts” aren’t anywhere close to being on the sufficient level to even begin thinking for themselves, a Constitution would just be theatre and unnecessary friction. Why bother?

And as far as I’m concerned, the longer MMP continues to fragment political power here and maintain the public illusion that voters “turf the buggers out” every three years, the better. Why? Because the system of government exported by Harvard is socialism, and socialism at its core is the rule of experts. So, under this structure, if "public policy" experts (mandarins, professors, journalists, etc) are able to get on with running the machine, the smoother it all flows. That’s the reality. Your vote is just a way to keep you busy. People don’t like it when I say this, but it’s true nonetheless.

Experts hate democracy like the devil and want politics shelved indefinitely. But there are still too many old people alive who believe in the WWII Allied propaganda and think democracy is the best of all possible governments.

It doesn’t ultimately matter because the civil service works on the scale of a full career, not 3-year cycles. Those officials will be around for 40-50 years perhaps. They’ve got plenty of time to chip away and side-line politics. We can already see democracy being belittled in the minds of younger people. For example, who hasn’t heard: “[insert politician here] is a [policy] denier! Listen to the [ministry] and [university]! They know best!”

The propaganda is simple: voting is good because it limits your political action to a single, benign action with zero consequence.

Wednesday, 11 October 2017

Secession and the art of government

Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont has asked the regional parliament in Barcelona to suspend secession to reach a negotiated solution with Madrid. He wants to move forward cordially, using democracy and peace, saying Catalonia has been denied the right to self-determination. Madrid ruled Catalonia’s independence referendum illegal in early October.

Democracy hides a quiet paradox. It’s supposed to be about listening to the people, but when the system mixes with nation-states, everything starts to unwind. Not every nation has a state, and not every state is a nation. The Catalonians want out, and fair enough. But what comes after? Should it still be nation states, or something smaller? If the latter catches on, then maybe it’s all over for democratic regimes.

There’s only one real reason to talk about secession: the exciting chance to create a new sovereign structure beyond the nation-state. The problem is the old regime always stands in the way. When it eventually dies, what will that moment look like? Is this why we’re supposed to be watching Spain?

The nation-state is looking old. Everyone feels this. Nation states are human organisations, not mystical institutions. They won’t last forever. It’s being kept in cryogenic suspension by the 20th-century idea that governance – thought for all of human history to be an art – is really a science called “objective public policy.”

Policy scholars are carefully selected for race, gender, intelligence and political reliability. They try to use the scientific method to decide action and none ever feel responsible for the success or failure of their policies. And even though public policy and science have no more in common than lawn tennis and dry-docking, the true rulers in Spain are still the professors, journalists and the mandarins. After all, who really runs the show in Syracuse? Dionysius, or the men who write his laws and speeches?

Catalonia’s core complaint is the same across the continent: "European socialism." They know there is nothing European at all about the EU, except that its offices are in Europe and most of its employees were born there. European socialism is the export version of American progressivism, the thinking of Harvard, of John Kenneth Galbraith, George Ball and others.

American public policy is purer in Europe because all its political enemies were exterminated in 1945. The US Army did not shoot all the professors in Europe, but the prestige of conquest is such that it might as well have.

Catalonia wants to secede not because the EU is a success, but because it is a failure. Spain is an excellent place full of excellent people with many assets. Madrid is not one of them. If Spain has seen any prosperity it is not because of Brussels but despite it. Freedom, like anything else in government, is an art. Catalonians know their life is made duller, more rigid and monotonous by the nation-state. And now they want their own? That’s not “wanting out,” that’s madness.

They argue that secession is a libertarian moral necessity. Little do they know, socialists also believe socialism is a moral necessity, and there are a lot more socialists than libertarians. This kind of revolt against progressivism will never succeed because libertarianism contains at its core a shard of pure Left. The Catalonians are using the Ring against Sauron. That will never work. It needs to think differently.

Freedom is not a function of "rights" or political power. It is a function of personal independence. Similarly, privacy (which is a form of freedom) is a function of personal security. Government is a wonderful and essential service and it works best when provided by dull people with no imagination at all. Merchants, judges, policemen, and if necessary, generals. Anglo-American political thought can’t handle this wisdom, but freedom achieved through authority is well-known in the East.

The Catalonians are mistaking disorder for freedom. They believe it is possible to make government smaller by weakening and dividing sovereign authority. That’s fine in the short term, but benign anarchy never lasts. Power is easy to divide and tough to unify. The nation-state mixed with democracy always leads to division, less unity of authority, and a bigger, nastier government.

If Catalonia really wants change, it should aim for smaller, more manageable government and get as far away from “public policy” as this green earth can take them. Right now, Catalonia’s “secession” is simply the reimporting of progressive government through the back door. It’s like injecting yourself with your own sarcoma and calling it a skin transplant. It’s time to think bigger, which means smaller, and to desire more order, which means more freedom.

Saturday, 7 October 2017

The West isn't collapsing, it's just getting warmed up

I've often wondered what feudalism would look like with modern technology, anti-biotics and dentistry.

So I'll paint an answer to whether the West or more specifically, the US, is nearing collapse. My interpretation will play with virology to describe why movements for change make just enough noise to become no threat. Just enough for catharsis. But never enough for proper change, because protests and conflict within the substrate always perpetuate the status quo. You have to come from truly outside the system to threaten anything and today there is no outside.

People say Western society is Judeo-Christian. That’s only half true, and not in the direction that helps any understanding. Morals are a dime a dozen because societies that embrace murder don’t tend to last long. Morals tend to align across cultures and over time as societies discover the most conducive ways of living with each other by stumbling on the natural limits of human interaction. But religion can’t flourish without a larger system to plug into. So, we have to go higher than just saying "God did it." (Besides, don't you want to know how God did it?) Instead, we have to ask about the system Christianity latched onto, or, more precisely, what system chose Christianity as a useful adaptation?

My answer is the system is Greco-Roman. Wow, big news. Stop the presses. Ok, hear me out. While I don't like starting the clock at some arbitrary moment, we have to start somewhere. So let's tentatively start with Christianity moving north out of the Levant with St Paul, who was a Roman citizen.

It then travelled through Greece, where it picked up the disciplines and ethics of rationality and logic, before landing in Rome due to the unhinged nature of a guy called Constantine. The Emperor was a superstitious dude who chose Christianity almost on a whim after seeing a giant cross one night in a dream just before a pivotal battle to decide who would rule Rome. He won the fight and codified Christianity into the Roman system from the top-down, effectively meeting a grassroots movement halfway. Christianity in Constantine’s day was an invasive political sect and it didn’t take much for Rome to realise that switching its persecution to control the tenets and overlay the belief onto the major sections of the system would be a good idea.

So, temples became churches, taxes became tithes (to an extent), priests became clergy, prayer to Mars became prayer to Jesus, emperors became popes (to an extent), etc, etc. Essentially, the Greco-Roman system played host to Christianity’s virus. And rather than killing the host, Christianity attached itself to the DNA like an endogenous retrovirus (ERV). In one description of evolution, organisms experience punctuated leaps in mutations as a result of viral exposure at the coding level. The core structure of the organism remains, but mutations introduce new features on the DNA strand and it eventually the animal undergoes speciation. Society acts this way as well.

Under my theory, the basic structure of the Greco-Roman system persists in 2017, having experienced a series of power flows between and amongst people living in that system. When one side wins, they capture the institutions of the Greco-Roman system and rename them. When names change, you can trace back to find the victor, and therefore locate the new virus as it latches onto the central strand. A few moments can be located.

For instance, the information dissemination mechanisms (let’s call them “repeaters”) of each power is useful because not only does it persist through time, it often functions as the renaming entity. The Romans located their repeaters in temples, which were eventually captured by the new power believing in Christianity who changed the repeaters to churches. Then Martin Luther came along with the Gutenberg Press and wrenched the repeaters away from the Roman Catholics towards the official press, which was an invention of the emerging “body politic” (civil service) largely owned by his Protestant Christians.

Later, the Industrial Revolution allowed the official press and civil service to fully take control of the repeaters from Protestant churches and to organise the state-nation, which became the nation-state. The culminating point of this flow was the invention of broadcast television between 1980 and 2000. Then at the turn of the millennium, the internet wrenched the repeaters from the official press and civil service and flowed them toward international business (part of the “extended civil service”). Today's new repeater controllers are carrying on a system that’s been alive for 3000 years. By the way, I missed out the part where lots of blood was spilt. History isn't pretty.

The United States is the nation-state that symbolises the new power over the Western institutions. It operates under the assumptions of the most successful strain of mainline Protestant Christianity called Unitarianism, aka Puritanism. After the ideological battle in Britain between Roundheads and Cavaliers, the Roundheads landed in the 13 colonies of the American east coast, took over Massachusetts, overwhelmed the rest of the Continental US, before eventually returning to Europe to challenge the competing Christian adversaries during WWI and WWII, before finally defeating the Russian version of Unitarianism (communism) in 1989. Today, control over the Greco-Roman system sits firmly in Washington with the entire planet operating under (or at least moving towards) the default assumptions of egalitarianism, equality, American-style democracy, fiat currency, parliamentarians, civil service bureaucracy, citizen-based revenue, etc.

The shifts in Greco-Roman power can also be registered in the constitutions of its society. The princely state evolved into the kingly state, which became the state-nation and then nation-state, before moving into the market state. The Treaty of Augsburg, the Peace of Westphalia, the Treaty of Utrecht, the Congress of Vienna, the Peace of Versailles and the Peace of Paris are other clear waypoints in these evolving constitutional orders. Ultimately, the underlying Western organism interacted with new viral exposures but stays alive, getting more complex each iteration.

The Greco-Roman system straddles the globe today. It has quite literally eaten the world. There isn’t a space in this world that isn’t a nation-state. Even the Chinese, our supposed “adversaries,” still turn up to business meetings wearing suits. Are those Sino sartorial choices? And what about international business China conducts every day? If you look closely, you'll see these are actually Western ideas, transmitted planet-wide, overwriting all competing modes of government. The West achieves this through hard power (masses of men and metal) and soft power (jeans and I Dream of Jeannie). It is so successful that angry people are always acting IN RESPONSE to Western actions. By doing so, they assume the West has agency, and they do not. This is how power works.

One day Islamists or Chinese will assume their traditional cultures (which have only been captured, not destroyed) are acting while the West is reacting. At that moment, you'll know the Greco-Roman system has collapsed. It's all about initiative. It might occur tomorrow or next year. But I wouldn’t bet on it. After all, the only thing that comes from grassroots is grass, and it doesn't really need your help. It just needs you not to have the time to consider planting something else. Power doesn't care about your motivations, so long as you act in the required direction.

The Greco-Roman system operates so that the institutions and repeaters self-organise along a synopsis, rather than rely on hierarchical instruction. For instance, when ISIS invaded Mosul in 2014, they were careful not to break the fibre-optic cables. Why do I point this out? Because the internet is the quintessential Western invention. It is flat, free, egalitarian, unstructured, business-run, open, global and written in English code. ISIS thinks it’s just a technology, which is why I knew the West already won. Using the internet forces ISIS to accept the default Western assumptions about living in a good society (flat, free, egalitarian, etc). ISIS is fighting on a battlefield chosen by the West. The group failed to see how "social media" is actually just a vivid metaphor for globalisation.

Really, there are two types of people in the US: old-style Christians and new-style Christians. The new-style are commonly called “progressives,” even by themselves. They are not only firmly in control of all the major repeaters (universities, official press, NGOs, civil service, etc) but despite what they promised, they never changed any part of the “patriarchal, oppressive” system they claimed to despise in the 1960s. Changing the system? Don't play its game. The system will spit you out as not digestible or subvert your movement from the inside.

All they wanted was power. And the used democracy to get it. Which means we have to look at democracy as a tool, not a separate form of government. Most have heard the maxim: if voting changed anything, they wouldn’t let us do it. Democracy is a method used by two or more aristocracies to gain power over the other. The victorious aristocracy then formalises into the natural mode of government: monarchy. That's just, like, what hominids do, man.

In the US, this formalisation is occurring. The new “progressive” version of Christianity has stabilised its control over the system and the new constitution of the Greco-Roman structure – the market state – is being administered by international corporates by creating a new body-politic/monarchist structure. That's why there's tension everywhere. We are living through the passing of the old constitutional order. Such shifts are categorised by epochal wars and a change in control of repeaters. I think the epochal war that boosted this present shift began with WWI, moved into WWII with the final decision being made at the close of the Cold War. They were the same conflict called the Long War. So we’ve already had the epochal war. And as I said above, the invention of the internet forced a change in control of Greco-Roman repeaters. This is the tension people worry about.

But let's look quickly at the civil service. It usually hides in plain sight, and yet a proper understanding of the system cannot be possible without appreciating the bureaucracy's power.

Since the world is basically a series of American-style governments with local characteristics, I'll use Washington as my canvas. The US has not one, but two, competing executive branches: executive A, the democratically elected "political" system symbolised by the White House, and executive B, a "nonpartisan" civil service isolated from "politics." The simplest definition of executive A is that it covers all political appointees. Executive B is everyone whose salary is paid by tax dollars and who is not in executive A. The two executives have almost no power over each other. The Hatch Act pretty much prevents civil service employees from being involved in "politics," while the Pendleton Act (ending the "spoils system" and enacting "civil service reform") prevents 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue from making personnel decisions in most of the executive branch.

The White House appoints some top-level employees in executive B departments. However, these "political appointees" have neither budgetary nor personnel authority. They are not analogous in any way to a CEO of a private corporation. All they can do is slow things down. And as we've seen lately, the White House does not really have management control over them either. (It matters whether the "people" elect a Democratic or a Republican president, but since the New Deal, the Democrats have served the interests of the civil service faithfully and without cease.) The one major department over which the White House has any influence left is DoD. And it tends to, um, overcompensate a bit.

Executive B is at least two orders of magnitude larger than executive A. For the last 60 years, the power of executive A relative to executive B has been decreasing, true also for New Zealand and Australia. In any conflict between executive A and executive B, the official press almost always sides with executive B. (In fact, the difference between the US and Europe, in which the official media is often a de jure part of executive B, is insignificant. Does the BBC act under a different set of incentives than CNN? I doubt it. The civil service is "responsible," which is just a synonym for power.)

In general, the employees of executive B are smarter, more professional and more competent than the employees of executive A (cough Donald Trump cough). If you want a counterexample in which a state operates an executive B, but no executive A, look no further than the mighty People's Republic of China. Close behind it is the European Union. Those two are far more evolved towards the new reality than the laggard US (pity for them this lead won't translate to any real power).

Executive B has no connection with "democracy" at all, but selects itself, as it has for the last century. With a construction like this, why bother with executive B and its version of the Truth? Why not just ask the Pope? After all, the Catholic Church has been selecting its elders from the ranks of its own not just for the last century, but for the last 20. The transition will dispense with the charade of an executive A eventually. Anyone who wants to get rid of this bureaucratic one-party state - executive B, - should know that electing Republicans with real estate experience is not the answer.

The way I see it, the US-led Greco-Roman global empire of progressive Christianity is like a human lifetime. A person goes through childhood, adolescence, adulthood, maturity and finally hits old age. I think the US is presently in its adolescent stage of its turn to administer the Western system. Aren't adolescents characterised by the emotional outburst, irrationality, poor foresight, lack of confidence, hatred of parents, etc? This pretty much narrates Washington's actions, I think.

The system of the Greeks and Romans grows stronger every day. It likes to nudge you towards the binary extremes so it is easier to control you. It wants you to have opinions, it wants you to "pick sides", "get involved", "take a stand." Anyone who thinks the profound changes happening in the world now are going to result in greater democracy or equality is not reading The Economist as carefully as he should.

Tuesday, 3 October 2017

Trump isn't my first Nazi scare, and it won't be the last

Apparently, the only people who recognise Nazis are people so obsessed with hating Nazis that they've studied every minute detail of Nazi culture so they can enrich their hatred with specifics. Maybe it’s the whiskey, but I think Nazis are being implicitly encouraged because the symbols favour the status quo. Propaganda doesn't try to get you to believe something, but to do something.

So let’s see what the system doesn’t want us to do.

At some point, people are going to have to rob these symbols of their power by appropriating them for some ironic purpose. Put the swastika on a pink t-shirt with the caption: "I am one of a billion Hindus. Please stop perverting our culture. Kthxbye."

Nazi symbols still seem to have a lot of power because we aren't subsuming them through ridicule into our culture. The Nazis and their ideology were annihilated over half a century ago and were are still running scared from them. Oh no, look, a Nazi symbol! Everybody, freak out!

Many civilisations have slaughtered other people. If they didn't do it on the scale and ruthless efficiency of the Nazis, it's because there weren't enough people and governments have never been efficient. The Spanish wiped out civilizations in Mexico and Central America. The Middle East and Africa is dripping with their own genocidal blood. You could play this game forever. Remember Carthage? No? Neither does anyone else after the Romans visited for summer.

Which means we have to ask why people think it’s acceptable to wear CCCP t-shirts emblazoned with the hammer and sickle. That's the symbol of tyranny, the oppression of billions, the murder of tens of millions and the symbol of a country that brought the world to the brink of annihilation.

Those SS-20 ICBMs weren't make believe. The Soviet Union effectively occupied half of Europe and in 1979 invaded Afghanistan in a push to get access to a warm water port through which they could sell oil and become as much an economic power as a military one. The Soviet Air Force shot down a passenger aeroplane, killing a US congressman, in 1983. Throughout the 80's they were building a nuclear arsenal. The US was trying to catch up to them. The Soviet Union was the "evil empire", when American's endorsed this view by overwhelmingly re-electing Reagan and electing Bush 41, and when nuclear holocaust was perceived to be all but inevitable.

In 1975, the US left Vietnam in utter defeat. It was reasonable for Washington to conclude then that if they couldn't defeat the Vietnamese, the Soviets would be an infinitely tougher fight. It's during this time that the symbols of Soviet power took on their meaning as "evil." That's the point, not that they were against the US, but that they had transcended that in the minds of Americans and became the absolute epitome of what Americans feared.

People need to learn how a culture deals with the leftover tension from a past foe or threat. The key is to take the symbols of the enemy and rob them of power by using them for something that neither it nor the enemy would countenance when the threat was real. No one wore CCCP shirts ironically in the 1980's (they did it for shock value, or because they believed in the cause) because it was not a small threat. People expected nuclear war. Now the Soviet symbol has far less power (the “highly educated” still believe in Marxism, so the hammer and sickle hangs around like an unpainted wall, half inside our consciousness, half-forgotten).

I think we need less knee-jerk reaction and more Mel Brooks, in my opinion. I'm not saying it’s a good idea to rehabilitate Nazis – I'm saying the opposite. They should be rendered impotent and ridiculous so no one can appropriate the symbols for the purposes it originally symbolised.

We were doing this with the Nazis and then it became unacceptable for some reason. Hogan’s Heroes depicted Nazis as entirely opposite of what they were. There was the chubby, genial, teddy bear guard who accidentally sees nothing, and the borderline paranoid, dependent officers. The bumbling incompetence of the Nazis increased as you go up the character’s rank and from the regular German army to the Gestapo. We beat them, now we get to rub it in.

Then at some point, progressives got hold of the joviality (no jokes, only hate!) and started to say Nazis were only evil. Yes, we know. We get it. Progressives need a permanent “enemy” otherwise America begins to look suspiciously like a one-party state. If Nazis aren’t actually hiding under the bed after all, then the Manichean view of the world kinda doesn’t make much sense. How can something be “good” if there’s no “evil” as a counterpoint?

Mocking the swastika is a deflation of its power because those who see it as having power will also immediately see it as having lost it. Those who see Nazism as a source of power will be forced to see it decontextualised. The message this sends to the contemporary flagbearer is that their ideology is laughable, absurd and – most importantly – impotent because in 2017 the symbolism is being used as a sign of strength for those who feel marginalised.

It’s like the prisoners who choose to “convert” to Islam while serving time, not because the religion is true and they believe in the Kabbala, but because for the society outside Islam is the modern-day demon idea and it pisses the “good society” off. Recidivists, in my limited experience, are trapped in a permanent state of arrested development anyway, in which society will always be seen as the father to rebel against.

See, the thing is, the Nazi and ISIS symbols are empty. They are just pictures. The past isn't real – it's a remembered thing. Fearing neo-Nazis is just doing what fundamentalist Christians do with Satan – holding it up as a kind of "sacred evil" to be feared and not tampered with. Mocking Satan, to some Christians, is blasphemous because it implies that he isn't real (and if Satan's not real, then what about Jesus?)

Symbols should never be given this kind of power because that keeps alive in the original context the very thing they symbolise. That doesn't mean Nazisim should be forgotten, it simply means Nazism is not sacred, it is precisely the kind of thing that in its modern form we should be mocking.

What bothers me is if we continue to peg the nasty end of the spectrum of human existence at the Nazis, we’re going to be blind to what a lot of tyrants are doing simply because they don't have the propaganda machine Hitler did. Ethnic cleansing is still going on in Sudan, Africa and the Middle East. People are literally working to death in forced labour camps in North Korea. But they aren't a dead empire from 60 years ago and don't have logos and scary leather coats, so I guess they aren't such a big deal.

And if you know anything about those atrocities, calling American Nazis just makes me want to dilute what I know about Nazis. Really? That guy with a Diet Pepsi and a short stick is the embodiment of evil? What does that make those Congo machete-wielders or ISIS shock-troops?

The US has a short and rose-tinted historical memory. The world is not now and never has been run by 5-year olds. Everybody screws over everyone else if there's treasure to be had. The more people subordinate their individuality to some collective identity – race, nationality, etc. – the more likely "screw over" involves killing, torturing, stealing, etc.

I'm not suggesting the Nazis weren't as bad as you think and we should lighten up. I'm suggesting that everyone else is worse than you think and it's odd and silly to single out Nazis for doing on camera and with a bureaucracy what everyone else in the world had been doing over and over for centuries before the invention of bureaucracies and cameras.

But I don’t deny that's powerful branding in America: in opposition to what you hate.

Tuesday, 26 September 2017

Deterrence and the China factor in North Korea

The North Korea problem continues to march steadily towards “ultimate negotiations,” as US officials like to say – whatever that means. North Korea’s foreign minister promises an attack on the US mainland is “inevitable,” while the US flew eight warplanes over the country.

Those US Airforce B-1B long-range bomber’s mission was to fly at night, without an F-35B fighter escort and tracked the farthest north of the Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) than at any time in the 21st century. Pentagon spokespeople said all of this “sends a clear message the [US] President has many military options to defeat any threat.”

Around the same time as the bombers, North Korea announced it wants to conduct atmospheric thermonuclear tests somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. It’s been 40 years since a nuke was tested in the atmosphere, and that was in a controlled environment within the national territory of China. Washington has tolerated previous nuclear tests, none of which had venting or showed concerns for environmental and regional safety. A Pacific test would be very different indeed.

But the whole thing sounds too much like hyperbole. What are the location details of the test? Will Pyongyang release a notice to mariners and airmen? Will it set up a closure zone? Or will it just take its chances? Who knows?

I've previously explained the broader dynamics in East Asia, arguing that starting the historical analysis clock at 1950 isn’t helpful. The whole thing is part of a much larger picture. But that doesn’t show why a country with the second-largest number of deliverable nuclear weapons (about 6,900) feels like it’s in existential danger from a country that might have eleven.

There are two proximate reasons for this: loss of US deterrence and China. The US has eviscerated its deterrence over the last ten years after it skedaddled from Iraq in 2011, set fake red-lines in Syria, speed-bombed Libya, talked tough on Ukraine and allowed five nuclear deadlines pass for Iran. Historians can decide the usefulness of any of those crises, but today its adversaries have judged that making threats without consequences is just plain stupid.

North Korea, on the other hand, enjoys pretending it is insane – a value when playing nuclear poker. It knows that deterrence isn’t easy when you’re willing to eat grass and lose your cities just to get a shot at Portland or Seattle. The lesson is deterrence works, especially when one side forgets how to do it.

Washington has had plenty of opportunities to correct its course and create deterrence. William Perry, the US Secretary of Defence with the Clinton administration, said the US could build an Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) system, but thinking that North Korea could ever threaten the US mainland was absurd, so he mothballed it along with the “Star Wars” ABM before his boss cancelled it.

Even Barack Obama was caught on a hot microphone in 2012 talking with the outgoing Russian president Dimitri Medvedev about how the US could be “flexible” about missile defence in Eastern Europe if he would just tell Vladimir Putin to behave until he got re-elected. Poland isn’t so happy about Mr Obama’s “flexibility” either and feels more than a little betrayed.

Back in East Asia, the ultimate winner of US fretting has been China. Beijing has clearly told its pet in Pyongyang to continue acting insane. Because the more Kim Jon Un throws his toys around, the less obvious will be China’s bullying of Taiwan, South Korean, Japan and the Philippines.

Beijing would like everyone to think it has little influence over North Korea, but Mr Trump isn’t fooled. He is calling China’s bluff by saying if Beijing isn’t an adversary and truly wants to be a part of the “international community,” then North Korea is a good opportunity to prove China can be a responsible power. Good move, Mr President.

Eating grass, losing cities
However, if none of the pieces on the chessboard moves, what else can the US do? Washington won’t commit to a pre-emptive strike just yet, especially when South Korea is reticent to contribute combat operations, and it’s getting pretty tight in East Asia. But again, the answer is to be found in China and in the US building up its deterrence capital.

One way could be to expel every member of the Chinese Communist Party from the US, along with their children, and encourage its allies to do the same. It could also freeze Chinese business accounts for every detected cyber-intrusion. And it could say if South Korea and Japan want to go nuclear to help with their own self-defence, the US will let them make that decision.

That’ll make Beijing listen. China doesn’t want South Korea, Japan and maybe Taiwan to join Russia, Pakistan, India and Iran as nuclear powers on its borders. That’s not a great scenario for Beijing. All this might sound far-fetched, but thinking creatively and thinking the unthinkable is the only way to avoid nuclear war.

Finally, all the talk about Russian collusion in the US election has discovered exactly zero evidence so far. It’s been one giant fishing expedition. But the major effect was that Washington lost the valuable Russian card in East Asia. The US can re-develop this relationship quickly by pointing out that Russia is just as averse to more democratic, pro-American countries on its border as China is.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of mess that happens when an imperial power refuses to accept that it is, actually, an empire. The American empire is in its teenage years, and everyone knows it’s difficult to get teenagers to take responsibility for anything. But the rest of us can’t wait until it stops hating its father and finds a job. It needs to decide what it wants to do.

Monday, 25 September 2017

Sex isn't all I want, unless it's all you have

Why are women unhappy with more privilege?

That's not the right question. The point is to ask why no one else thought of the interpretation that, once you read it, will seem to be the obvious one.

I grew up thinking it's a good idea to listen to women's advice on how to get women. But it makes no sense. It's just another woman-power thing and I think they have enough power in this game. The advice always makes men edit what they really want. "Don't talk about religion or politics on dates." Well, what if I want to? No offence, but who cares what women want?

Women think they're giving us shortcuts to her panties and so talking about politics will only turn her off. But ultimately there are no shortcuts. Shortcuts to her panties end up being longcuts to my life. The stuff women tell us to do are the things men already do, but don't want to do. That's why we're losing. Our existence with women is a complete lie. The game pivots around what turns women on because a vagina is valued far too high for what it is. All men are looking for is: "hey, how are you? Let's go in the back room for a bit."

Even women know they have nothing else to offer other than the vagina. How else do you explain the idea of chastity? Older women know men only keep them around for their sexual value, so once the wrinkles arrive men will want to switch to younger women because it's in our nature. Vagina ages like cars, not houses. Chastity is best seen as a corruption from the top down by older women whose vagina-value has dropped to zero. And since the older women want to keep their man, but have no skills to do so, they invent things like chastity or "slut-shaming" to corrupt every fresh generation of women irreparably. This is what happens when we lie to ourselves.

Men have different problems to deal with. We aren't attractive to women straight off the bat. Men have to star in movies, own a successful company or develop some amazing skill, just to get a woman's vagina. The vagina is considered to be at the same level as a man's lifetime of hard work and status. When you lay it out like that, it's actually ridiculous. An ugly millionaire man can get laid because of his money, but an ugly billionaire woman is in deep shit.

Let me put it simply: besides a vagina, what do women need to have to get a man? No guy has ever gotten sex simply because he has a penis. Do you see? We can't just go, "look at this dick, ladies" and have them stampede us. Men require a skill or charm. No woman has ever charmed her way into sex when a man didn't want to participate and she's never talked her way into something. It doesn't happen.

Without a vagina, women say they'd just use their mouth or ass to hold onto their man. That's what they say, not me. Think about this. Their worth is being collapsed down to sexual value, by themselves. No patriarchy could ever achieve this sort of control. But the truth is: after sex, then what? Why should men keep them around?

I am so tired of vaginas adding up a woman's whole value. The arrogance of bringing so little to the table with so many demands is infuriating. A man works his entire life to amass resources, but a loser woman can have sex with him today, just by turning up. I understand women have an evolutionary objective to have sex with one guy as much as possible, but they don't have any skills to keep him. If you say "marriage" I will put real corn in your cornflakes. A wedding ring is not a skill. It's just society's way of keeping everyone in line.

Men need to be good at something, but women want to be good something. And there's a world of difference between need and want. Men know they can't all win so they have to work like maniacs to get the best woman. But for some reason, even though they've been winning for millennia, women aren't happy with having such an easy time in the sex game and now they want men to think they have skills too. The sheer arrogance of it all...

Women have no clue how to make themselves happy. When a woman says she's happy having sex with a hundred different men, that's a lie because it's opposite to her nature to be promiscuous. Some will say they like sleeping around, but they're miserable when they're doing it. Why? They're pretending that they're happy doing what makes men happy because there's no satisfaction in the way they get sex. A woman can get sex just by pointing at her crotch, so having sex with a hundred guys isn't impressive when we know she could get a thousand guys if she said just yes more often.

This goes all the way to the bottom of biology. The difference in sexual dynamics is that men have an activity in which a few times a week we get to kill life. I can squirt life anywhere: on my girl's chest, in a sock, in her. It doesn't matter to us, it's all the same result. Yet there's no activity in which a woman can say "yay, there's an egg on the floor." The basic difference is that women don't know what it's like to be frivolous with their body. Having sex with a hundred guys won't make a girl happy. There's no gratification, no hunt, no satisfaction.

So without sex, why would men want women around? They don't even know how to be friends with each other, which is why they hang around us all the damn time. There isn't a woman I know who would hide a gun for their lady friend if that friend committed a murder. Women have so few skills that they aren't even better than men at making friends. Being a girl would be horrible. Fellas, next time you have sex, try laying back in missionary position with your legs in the air and get her to drive. It's embarrassing. And then try sitting down to pee. It's miserable.

Feminists say they want more female politicians or CEOs. They almost never encourage women to invent new institutions and refuse to invite men. All those roles were invented by men to get more sex. They think men wanted the jobs because it makes them happy, so women make the assumption that if they become CEO they'll be happy too. I think women steal male jobs and roles because they still secretly believe they are inferior to men. They don't want to be better women because they don't like being women in the first place.

Instead, women will try to trap us into making us think we want to love them. But men know the difference between love and lust. There have been times I thought I loved a girl, but the moment I had sex with her the feeling disappeared. She loves me, but I only lusted her. Men hunt for sex. If love happens, fine. But it doesn't happen just because we get sex. A man may be more depressed after a breakup, but that's because a woman can go out that night and get another man. He'll have to work his ass off and go back to being rejected six times a night.

Another thing that pisses me off is when women treat anal sex as a reward. The arrogance makes me sick. This attitude is for goofy guys. Why the hell should the ass be a prize? It's just another hole. Women will even say a girl who does anal sex has a lower status than a girl who has normal sex with a hundred guys. Try to figure that one out, fellas. They'll even say we shouldn't want the kind of girl who does anal anyway. The way I see it is if you're giving up your ass as a "reward" then, sorry, you are one of those girls. Why shouldn't a man like anal sex?

Anytime a girl tells you what she likes, she only likes it because some dude did it to her. If a guy doesn't try to get anal sex, women would never wonder on their own what it might be like. They don't have an exploratory mind. Nature made women the fuckee, not the fucker. They don't get to decide what a man likes sexually.

Way back at the beginning of time, women discovered their vagina was valuable and a man would give up his rocks and cave just to get it. That means men are lagging behind by about a million years. But we're getting tired of giving up everything for sex. Men happen to be the version that sends and women are the version that receives. Neither are special, it's just nature.

Islam in the West: this isn't the apocalypse you're looking for

I was sent this Geert Wilders piece in response to a previous post about NZ politician Winston Peters.

Mr Wilders has been on my radar for years. His concerns about Islam competition are accurate and it would be a terrible idea to let it gain power. But the West isn’t going anywhere. And I can prove it.

First, Islam has fully absorbed progressivism. It’s important to remember that progressivism is best understood as “applied Christianity.” You can draw a straight line from Martin Luther to the Roundheads to the Puritans to Marx to FDR and finally to Obama. Progressivism is the most successful form of mainline Protestant Christianity (specifically, Unitarianism), although it has evolved away its belief in the transcendent.

Second, when Islam swallowed progressivism, it adopted the default position that terrorism is the correct procedure to advance its political goals. But terrorism only works to enhance democracy, not undermine it. Terrorism assumes that power can be manipulated if people are scared by assuming that the people are the ultimate arbiters of power. Terrorism cannot work in a strong monarchy, for instance, because the king doesn’t care what his subjects think and the people have no access to policy-making. So, if terrorism is working (which it is in the Netherlands), then we can safely say democracy is getting stronger, not weaker.

Third, Mr Wilders cites a figure of 11% of Dutch Muslims are “happy to use violence on behalf of their religion.” I suspect a third of those respondents are full of shit and wouldn’t lift a finger (most male threats are just posturing), and a further third would only commit violence if it was already being done and they could get away with it. That leaves 3.6% willing to initiate violence. Sure, that’s not zero, but intelligence and law enforcement should be able to monitor them. And violence is a young man’s game. That 3.6 % will soon be too old to explode anything.

Fourth, Mr Wilders forgets about the 89%. If you ask them whether human rights are a good thing, the environment should be protected, democracy is a good idea, if sexual equality is useful, etc, the 89% would probably all agree. Sure, they might have caveats, but so do most Sikhs and no one complains about them. Because 89% of Muslims in the Netherlands agree with default Western assumptions, this proves Islam has been captured by progressivism’s single, overarching concept of what it means to live a good life. “Moderate Muslims” actually means “Unitarian Muslims.” Moderate Muslims are just progressives with Islamic characteristics.

Furthermore, if the 89% actually believe in core Islam, they would act like AQ, ISIS or the Islamic Republic of Iran (although Iran is getting more Western each day). Since one million people are not blowing themselves up in Dutch shopping centres and go to work in Western businesses, send their children to Western schools, learn English, read English media, use social network accounts, wear jeans, etc, etc, we can conclude 89% of Muslims are not Muslim at all. The game of power suggest the powerful use every means possible to defeat their enemies, the more effective of which is to convert or alter the psychologies of their enemy.

Fifth, there are two ways of avoiding the “collapse of Western civilisation,” a) return to the Westphalian model of classical international relations, or b) reinforce Western institutions. I prefer the former, but I’d be happy with the latter. To succeed with (b), we need Western repeater institutions (NGOs, transnational corporations, universities, media and the internet) to do their job. Their proper role is first to maintain the Western concept and to make money second. Propaganda only cares about how you act, not what you think. Did you vote on Saturday? Then propaganda has successfully told you how to act. It doesn't matter who you vote for, only that you limit your political action to voting.

Sixth, repeater institutions can only function if the operators believe in the concept they are repeating. That’s where Mr Wilders fails. He thinks Christianity itself is being expunged and replaced by Islam. Yet he forgets that Christianity is not monolithic. Mr Wilders is correct that traditional, God-fearing Christianity is under attack. It has been bashed, slapped and kicked around for more than 150 years. But the attacker is progressivism, not Islam. When progressives talked about “changing” the system in the 1960s, for instance, they really meant “take power of” that system. And they have been entirely successful, especially with capturing the repeater institutions (see above).

Seventh, if you’re worried about Islam, then go outside and change the psychologies of immigrants yourself. Don’t wait for the institutions. Invite Muslims over for dinner. Send them Christmas gifts. Set them up with an NZ Herald or NBR subscription. Give them a library card. Drive them to poll booths. Get them welfare. Buy them a TV or a computer. Enrol them at a university. Buy them deodorant to smell sexy. Take them to the bar. Help them set up a private car loan. Immerse them in every subtle form of Western social signposting and control as possible until their default assumptions about the world harmonise with the overarching concept of the good life – ours.

We’ve been doing exactly this for centuries, by the way. Islam has no chance because 89% of its adherents already believe in Western ideals. Anybody who says they’re concerned about the “End of the West” is immediately outed as old-power Christians. They are fighting a war that ended long before they were born.

Mr Wilders’ problem is he doesn’t see progressivism as the natural successor of mainline Protestant Christianity. The true enemy of the progressives is traditional Christianity because its remnants still prowl the edges (progressives euphemistically call them “Nazis,” but what they really mean is old-power Christians). Islam is being used by progressives to undermine, contain and break apart traditional Christianity. The real fight has always been between and amongst versions of Christianity. This is just another skirmish in the battle between Roundheads and Cavaliers.

Traditional Christianity has been defeated. If Mr Wilders worries about losing his civilisation by worrying about the decline of church attendance, for instance, he’s about 70 years too late. He needs to accept specific doctrinal defeat and switch to support the new model of Christian power if he actually wants to defend anything.

Christianity is in control of the whole damn planet. It’s time we all understood that.

Friday, 15 September 2017

On sin

It’s the framing of the concept of sin that intrigues me. Give me some rope here. This isn't canon, I'm just playing with ideas. Take it easy...gees.

First, we have to see how “missing the mark” assumes there is a mark, and that it exists as a goal towards which humans should stretch. It’s important here to remember the story of Eden where the human animal becomes the possessor of a specific understanding of life. Perhaps better than any other ancient origin story, the Genesis tale explains how humans were at one point in ignorant bliss, and then came the Fall, whatever that means.

My interpretation is that the story is a primitive attempt to explain how humans weren’t always humans. Endogenous retroviruses and other DNA evidence point clearly to common ancestry, which means as natural, evolving organisms we have to grapple with a time “before-human.” Back then, whatever creatures we were fit neatly into the world, silently like all the other animals. They all lacked human higher consciousness (although it’s impossible to say what kind of consciousness animals have). An animal life is like a cart on tracks, trundling along from food to sex to sunbathing to water to death – not necessarily in that order. This animal life is what is painted in first part of the Garden of Eden. Neither good nor evil. It just is.

Animals and the before-humans are said to have been close to “God,” before eventually falling away from that closeness. Genesis is one of humanity’s first attempts to explain how it came to consciousness, told through the eyes of a group of scared and cold people who had no way of knowing about DNA or archaeological evidence for life prior to human consciousness. To those quivering people, it seemed strange how they existed alongside animals but had no memory. It demanded an explanation, not least because humans are pattern-seeking animals by nature. It sounded perfectly reasonable that some magic force pulled them into existence out of non-existence. They then applied that logic to the rest of the animal kingdom and universe. After all, if you’re the only conscious being around, wouldn’t you assume this whole world was centred on you? It's the most obvious (false) pattern ever devised.

I find the early idea “closeness to God” intriguing because it seems to point not to an anthropomorphic entity “out there,” but instead to some amorphous Ultimate concept lacking specific boundaries – except for the boundaries inherent in being an animal. That’s really interesting. This is the concept of God, and it seems to be the early human’s attempts to define and locate the nature of reality. It’s an unsophisticated way of saying “now that we’re no longer simply animals cycling through our lives, what must we do?” God in the Garden is the comprehension of those limitations, “that which cannot be manipulated by action.” God is simply the nature of reality.

The Fall is a story about the emergence of consciousness. Up until an organism's specific brain matter clicked “on,” the world of animals was rolling along, unthinking and undirected except by their genes. And then it wasn’t. The human animal was suddenly confronted with the three Basal assumptions: the world exists, you can learn something about it and ideas with predictive quality are better than ideas without. It’s much easier to be a cat.

The Fall is a story of when an animal jumped the tracks. Suddenly, death/good/evil/suffering all manifest in human lives, yet kept hidden and unavailable from other animals. Humans could comprehend their own mind, and therefore other minds. Humans now know what hurts them, which means they know what hurts others.

And that is sin. 

Missing the mark is what happens when people act in a way that doesn’t comport with the nature of reality. Every religion has its own way of describing this, and ways of aligning and harmonising people with the nature of reality. Some get close, while some are terrible attempts. And many continually update their proscriptions and admonishments as technology and times advance. All have the same goal: to reduce suffering. Primitive people said sin was not doing the will of God. They know there is a box around humans, and that the box is called suffering. Suffering is something humans cannot remove, only reduce. You can’t defeat reality. Harmonisation is the only option.

Which means that sin is best understood as the unnecessary exacerbation of natural suffering. To commit sinful acts requires that an individual understand that good acts exist and that there is a mark. When you increase suffering, this is sin. It is missing the mark.

I think the point of life, broadly speaking, is to discover as many of the parameters of the nature of reality as possible, in order to reduce suffering in your life and the lives of others. It’s about finding the edges of the box, to understand both your limitation and freedom. Without an appreciation of the nature of reality, people will drown in their freedom. With too much limitation, people feel enclosed and constrained. The balance between freedom and limitation is bound up in the concept of a garden (nature balanced in a human-controlled space, order/chaos).

In the Garden of Eden, humans ate from the tree of good and evil and discovered they were a) vulnerable and b) limited. Animals don’t know this. That’s the human story. Being vulnerable and limited means axiomatically that actions are limited. Gods can act in any way, without consequence. Animals also can act in any way, but don’t appreciate the consequences. Human consciousness supplies the ability to challenge and transgress the limitations of reality, with a full apprehension of the consequences. In so doing, we discover we are neither Gods nor animals. That is our curse. That’s what it means for sin to "enter the world." It is knowing that the only thing screwing up your life is your bad decisions. It's on you. Find the edges of that damn box before it's too late.

What does this mean for us? 

Humans must work to hit the mark. To do this, they first must know there is a mark. They must then try to discover that mark and organise their life to comport with it. You do this by learning the reasons behind why boundaries were created by those who came before. This means appreciating why the nature of humans and the nature of reality led to the decision to create laws and restrictions, or permissions. Why is it that I am being encouraged to act in this way?

(A burqa, for instance, wasn’t invented to oppress women but to protect them from the nature of male sexuality in a world without police or a social contract. If you take those away, women return to being their natural state as a protected resource. The nature of maleness resides beneath our social contract. It has not gone away. The nature of reality can only be diluted, not abrogated.)

(A second example is a law against eating bacon. I suspect the law was enacted when human culture was attempting to increase sections of the social contract. All human cultures practiced cannibalism and the historical evidence is clear in this. The dietary habit regresses the mind, making the consumer more animalistic. To pull us out, elders restricted the eating of pork because when cooked bacon smells like human flesh. My uncle served for years in the fire brigade and to this day can't eat bacon, the memories are too vivid.)

Sin is a message. It is an encouragement to strive for existential power to control our lives and minimise suffering. It is a warning that the box (the nature of reality) will always exist. 

Listen here, Wildman. Figure out the edges of the box and harmonise yourself with them. Like Kung Fu, your life will be spent trying to figure it all out, but you never will – and then you'll die. That's fine. It's supposed to be that way. But make sure to turn around so younger people don’t fall into the same traps as you did. Your job is to remove suffering. it's to leave this earth a bit better than you found it. 

Now start reading old books!