Climate Hysteria, Explained

23 01 2020

Davos, Switzerland

When you believe in a cause that 99% of the people believe in, you’re not being edgy or avant-garde.

Therefore, the only way you have to distinguish yourself is to be increasingly extreme, ridiculous and outlandish in the advocacy of your cause, and then point to others’ lack of extremism, ridiculousness and outlandishness as “evidence” that they are secretly on the other side.

To wit:  Greta.





Nobody Proofreads Anymore

24 07 2018

Cologne, Germany

ABC:

Germany: sharp rise in number of anti-government extremists

Germany’s domestic intelligence agency says the number of extremists who reject the legitimacy of the German government has increased sharply.

The BfV agency said in its annual report Tuesday that the Reichsbuerger movement increased to about 16,500 people by the end of last year from about 10,000 in 2016.

The agency says most of those counted are male, over 40 and strongly attracted to firearms. But it says only about 5 percent are considered far-right extremists in the classical sense.

The Reichsbuerger, or Reich Citizens, movement doesn’t accept the rules of post-war Germany and adherents often clash with officials and police. Many identify with the German Reich of 1871-1918 or assert a form of self-rule similar to the sovereign citizens movement in the United States.

Nobody proofreads anymore, I get it.  Which means I can also forget about anyone actually thinking things through in a deep philosophical sense.

But if you’re pining for the Kaiserreich, then you’re pretty much the polar opposite of an American-style sovereign citizen.

Note that reichsbuerger as a common noun concept literally translates to “citizens of the empire.” Casting one’s self as part of a greater even if extinct national entity is the total opposite of trying to cast yourself as a pure atomized individual who has zero links to or heritage with other people, as is the habit with the American sovereignist movement, to wit: Adam Kokesh.  Meanwhile, Reichsbuerger as proper nouns are vaguely nationalist and vaguely neoreactionary, in contrast to the hyper-individualist extreme libertarianism of American-style sovereign citizenism.

I can understand them pining for the Kaiserreich, because the Bismarckian Empire was Germany at its best and most genuinely progressive.  If one makes the case that it was the best place in the world to be an average sort of working class white person during its existence, I would be very hard pressed to refute you, when its competition was Britain and the United States.  It had to beat back warfare waged by three different countries that would eventually border it (Denmark, Austria-Hungary, France) in order to attain unification, hence the single gold figure topped column in the traffic circle about a mile west of the Brandenburg Gate, to commemorate the Prussians beating back those three invasions, which were waged to prevent German unification.  Then when the Kaiserreich got really potent and a Top Three player on the world stage, guess who got really interested.  That’s right, just across the channel, the country that has for many centuries and as long as it could affect it, has had as a policy never to permit that powerful of an entity on the continent.  Of course that is understandable, because it seemed to them, with some good evidence, that every time some continental entity got that powerful, Britain got the works.  From then, the secret treaties piled on top of secret treaties got so Rube Goldberg-ish that we all know how the assassination of a minor royal in the Balkans made Europe wage war against itself, twice, the second being largely the unfinished business of the first.

This continues with my rhetorical question I wrote in my final post on the voyage, from Darmstadt, wondering how it came to pass that Germany isn’t the global hegemon today with its unsurpassed past and present of scientific and engineering progress.  And it points to one of the ultimate answers.

Also one should read this story with a cynical side eye.  The BfV is underneath Interior, and Horst Seehofer runs Interior.  He also runs the Bavarian CSU Party that’s the lesser permanent partner with the CDU.  I mentioned him several times in posts here during the voyage in regards to the news of his manipulations that threatened Angela Merkel’s power.  That’s because Seehofer wants Merkel to knock off the Merkel’s Boners.  Partly because he is something of a genuine immigration patriot, but also because he’s worried about the AfD flipping Bavaria.  CSU is a Bavaria-only party, so if it loses Bavaria, it loses everything, and it would be losing everything at the worst possible time, because they recently built and moved into a new building for its HQ in Munich, and I’m sure the mortgage nut on it isn’t cheap.

All this is Seehofer dog whistling:  “Don’t vote AfD.”





Monday Pains After the Saturday Workout

16 04 2018

Your Blogmeister’s Secret Hideout

I asked on Saturday, yet not many of you were in the philosophically conversationalist mood.

So I’ll pay it off now, but in this a separate post, instead of just a long comment on Saturday’s post, because I think I’m about to unload some profound brilliance on your heads.

I’ll ask the same question in a slightly different way:

Let us suppose there is a book, that (1) Everyone owns, (2) The version everyone owns is carved in diamond, meaning it is physically indestructible, and (3) Everyone has read it.  How would it be possible to burn such a book for the sake of censorship?  Because it would still be possible even with all three of these conditions.

I’m about to open my toolbox of hints.

FIRST HINT

When I first learned of the dystopian genre of relatively modern literature, I of course read 1984 and Brave New World, back to back.  While most people think that 1984 is a more tedious read than BNW, I sorta thought the opposite, that 1984 was a more fun read than BNW, even though I understood where those who thought 1984 was more “tedious” than BNW were coming from.  However, what I understood after getting through both was that there was just something about BNW that made more sense than 1984.

After that, I didn’t give it really any thought.

Until several years ago, when I encountered this illustration of a paragraph from a 1985 book, author and title are cited at the bottom of the illustration.  That gave rhyme and reason to my initial bias toward BNW over 1984.  Huxley just had a better read on human nature than Orwell did.  At that point, I re-read BNW and then kinda skimmed 1984, and all the pieces fell into place.  At that point, BNW became more of a fun read, because I knew this the second time around what I was supposed to be looking for.

This the first hint actually has the least relevance to the answer to my question, but it’s worth throwing out there anyway.

SECOND HINT

My post of about two weeks ago where I analyze the ExploreMOhealth zip code database.

In it, you will read my frustration upon figuring out that data are only as good as the biases of the official people who have the official duty of officially interpreting them.  Nobody from on high is censoring this data — In fact, it’s freely available on a public website, and I’m sure no internet filters compiled by the Pro-Defamation League are blocking this website and the data.  Instead, we get a situation where all the official officials peddle the notion that zip codes have magic dirt and tragic dirt.

That led me to write a fresh new axiom for my list, see #71.

THIRD HINT

Stay on my axioms post, and scroll up a little bit to #68:

If Stalin was an early 21st century American instead of a mid-20th century Soviet, he would say that what matters to him isn’t who casts the votes or who counts the votes, but who interprets the results.

The real Stalin said that it didn’t matter to him who casts the votes, but it mattered to him who counted the votes.  I took his bon mot one step further, making it plain that the real power in today’s society is interpreting the results, namely, the official officials who are given the official power to make official interpretations for the political class.  If you can control that class of people, largely TV talking heads, media hacks and non-profit foundation and think tank paper pushers and spreadsheet junkies, then you have the inside track to controlling American politics.  More than that, I think this kind of thing actually has been going on for a long time.  Largely at the behest of and for the benefit of Jews, corporatists and plutocrats.  Meaning there really isn’t that much voter fraud — Because there doesn’t have to be.  The official election interpretation class is where the public’s expressed will for the desire of populism and nationalism through the democratic republican process is officially snuffed out and contorted.

FOURTH HINT

I lost the URL, so you’ll have to take my word for it.  But, some time earlier this month, it was either Matthew Yglesias, or one of the big name writers at Vox, wrote an article proclaiming that he actually got around actually to reading The Bell Curve, and then went on to analyze it for what everyone else who has read it knows it is not, that is, a polemic fundamentally about racial differences in intelligence.  The fool read the whole thing, (so he says), and still walked away from it not understanding what it was plainly about.

FIFTH HINT

A fundamental precept of communication is that the intent of the messenger and the interpretation of the recipient are often different.  Ten different people can read a plain language sentence, and there can still be ten wildly different interpretations of it.

***

Do you see where this is going?  You should probably have a good line on the answer to my question by now.

The way to burn an unburnable book that everyone has read is to control the official societal mechanisms of interpreting that book.  This way, nobody will walk away from the book with the author’s intended interpretation, and everyone will wind up interpreting it in the way that those who control the official societal mechanisms of interpretation want us to have.  The message has been censored, but with no literal physical censorship necessary.

One of the points I make often in my life’s great unfinished dissertation on powerology is that, when given the choice between the two, the potential despot should choose quiet discrete non-obvious ways to exercise power rather than showy loud obvious ways.  You the despot get what you want in terms of policy enactment, but none of the blowback that comes from it being obvious to everyone what you’re doing.  Better yet, best that next to nobody understands the despotic level of power you have — You know how that goes, uneasy lies the head.  Baraq Obama was a master at that technique, obfuscating his policies in such a way where he harvested the positive consequences (if any) but never got blamed for the negative consequences (of which there were many), usually finding a way to channel and offload public blame on others.

Netting it out:

The Jews don’t need to censor any books, because they have a pretty solid control over the official mechanisms of interpretation.

With that, I can already see the face palms of incredulity coming from Queens and East Tennessee and Portland, Oregon, and maybe other places.  I know you all are screaming “POST HOC” and “A POSTERIORI” at your screens right now.  Yeah, maybe this brilliant profundity of mine does suffer these problems.  But I also think those problems don’t preclude its general accuracy.





Saturday Philosophical Workout

14 04 2018

Your Blogmeister’s Secret Hideout

Yes, I’m begging a philosophical discussion, in which I will very likely give you a sneak peek from my life’s great unfinished dissertation in powerology.

How is it possible to burn books without actually burning books?





Shakespeare or Schrodinger

13 02 2018

Granada, Spain

I hate myself, therefore, I love myself.





The Fundamental Chronic Long Term Problem with the Alt-Lite

15 12 2017

Your Blogmeister’s Secret Hideout

I’ve finally figured it out as I’ve watched in the past handful of weeks one prominent Alt-Liter after another cuck out right before they reach the event horizon.

The Alt-Lite wants to have its cake and eat it too.

They want to have fun with the Alt-Right’s memetics, and/or harvest an audience off of lightly or mildly touching our issue base and concerns, but they don’t want to have to defend the Alt-Right’s base fundamental contentions, because they don’t want to be in the parentheticals’ direct line of fire.

To put it another way, and in light of and also extending my proposed definitions of Alt-Right and Alt-Lite, the Alt-Lite will play games of footsey with anti-egalitarianism, but they’ll do it carefully:  They’ll do it enough to make enough people think they believe in it, in order to garner an audience and make a few coins, but never enough to make the important people in society for whom anti-egalitarian politics are a full frontal threat think that they actually want to endorse and implement that agenda.





As I Pursue My Ph.D. in Powerology

30 11 2017

Your Blogmeister’s Secret Hideout

As a continuation of my post of a few minutes ago about the fourth full month of recovery, I can already discern how my brain is rewiring itself, which in turn means how my cognitive sensibilities are already different now than they were before July 19.

Cut to the chase:  I’m less interested in the kind of day to day events that interested me before July 19, and more interested in big consequential profundities.  To allude to the old trope that great minds ponder ideas, average minds think about events, and small minds gossip about people.

Which means that you probably won’t be reading many posts in this space going forward along the lines of “zomg dindu murked other dindu on ghetto street corner lol” and instead posts about how cognitive stratification is ruining civilization.  Less New Nation News, more Social Matter, por favor.

That said, I can give you a preview of coming attractions, knowing where my rewiring brain seems to be taking me.

One of my near-lifelong serial ideological interests has been in the concept of power.  The nature of power, the essence of power, the acquisition of power, the use of power, the abuse of power, the mechanics of power, the loss of power, the deceitful manipulation of power, the transmission of power, the disguise of power, the gamesmanship of power, power competing with power, power clashing with power.  I started having this interest at the age of thirteen, which means you all can deduce the wherefore of the biological imperative.  The trigger was that I was on the school bus and saw that some cop had some driver pulled over, and I started wondering if there was some answer other than the practical one to why the driver pulled over.

It took me a quarter century, but I was finally able to boil everything about power down to the hard rock bottom of the matter.  At a base and individual level, I have power over you if you somehow have decided that you are better off than you otherwise would be if you allow me to make some of the decisions about your existence that you would otherwise make for yourself.  Scale that kind of thing up to the collective level, and a person or institution has power over a society if on a base level the people most skilled at wielding weapons, munitions and ordnance think that they personally and the society they live in are better off than they otherwise would be with said person or institution making important decisions, and secondarily but just about as importantly, if the cognitive elite of the society have come to the same conclusion.

“You got all that from some cop pulling someone over back in 1990?”

You betcha.  And isn’t this so typical me that I’d see something that most people, much less most 13-year olds, would just disregard, and turn that into a quarter century intellectual crusade to come to the same conclusion that some second-rate Athenian Golden Age philosopher probably already came to around 2,500 years ago?

Back to the point, it has probably been the case that I was headed in that direction in terms of my posting interests in recent years, and I’m guessing that many of you can attest to that, but my being so rudely interrupted in July and the resetting my brain is doing because of it only ices the metamorphosis.  So much so that I actually worry that the concept of power will for me transition from a mere serial interest to a dangerous and pathological obsession.

That said, I have an admission:

I want the pen and the phone and the nuclear football, and I know just what I have to do to get them.  It’s just that the odds are extremely long against me.