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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

Chase the Brown Horse, Not the Golden Unicorn

23 06 2017

Washington, D.C.

More philosophical feed bag.  Free philosophical feed bag with the purchase of any fidget spinner.

John Lott, in FNC:  Political vitriol won’t get any better and will get worse, because its increase is nothing more than a function of both the growth of governments’ (all levels in the aggregate) spending as a percentage of GDP and its power.

A few points:

(1) Okay, then, Sweden is a country whose central government spends even more as a percentage of GDP than all levels of American government in the aggregate do.  In the last ten years, the range as been between 50% and 53%.  So, why aren’t Swedish politics that acrimonious and vitriolic?

(2) That points to how Lott is both right and wrong.  He’s right because he’s on the right track generally speaking, but wrong because he’s trying to find a golden unicorn to ride into town when there’s a perfectly good brown horse in front of his snoot.  The percentage-of-GDP argument is the golden unicorn.  The brown horse is that the American Federal government is both the largest spending institution in the world in terms of raw currency amounts, and the seat of what we all have to admit if we’re honest with ourselves is a global empire.  No, it’s not like the British Empire, one so neatly delineated and defined and you can see a map of the world circa 1900 or 1920 and London controls whatever is rose-colored, and a lot of it was rose-colored.  The American empire operates behind pretense and soft power manipulation, all backed up by the insurance policy of the world’s most powerful military.  For instance, a modern world map won’t indicate to you that the United Kingdom is an American client state, or that the Germany and Japan are somewhere between American protectorates and used to be imperial possessions in all but formal recognition, or that a panoply of American-sponsored NGOs and think tanks influence Presidential elections in France.  But it’s no less true even if it is tacit and not explicit.  Our non-formal empire operates entirely in the client/vassal/protectorate/softpower fashion, with occasional “police” response. And you can see how true it is when you have Colonel Sanders staring you in the snoot in Indonesia.

So, when you mash that up with the current reality that, at least superficially, the deep state notwithstanding, and I’ll get to that in a moment, those that run it are chosen by plebiscites organized around a partisan superficial duopoly, then it’s obvious that the partisan politics will sometimes extend to the hot lead level.

(3) In “the good ole days,” when American governments’ spending was a far lower percentage of GDP, there was often way more partisan acrimony.  The years of the John Adams and Thomas Jefferson presidencies made today look erudite.  The years and one to two decades leading up to the War Between the States — If you’re a St. Louisan, you’ve heard of Elijah Lovejoy, unless you haven’t.  If you want a really vitriolic election year, try 1884, not 2016.  The former year being the first in the era of mass print media.

(4) A lot of today’s vitriol isn’t conventionally partisan, it’s the domestic-foreign policy deep state circling the wagons around itself to try to repel what it thinks is an invading virus that has “Donald J. Trump” written on its birth certificate.  It’s just that, because Trump is a putative Republican, the deep state’s easiest route to trying expel this “virus” can be rooted through the other party.  However, it should be noted that the Congressional Republican establishment isn’t comporting itself well.

(5) Lott is kidding himself if he thinks that governments allow themselves to become weaker and spend less in a domestic tranquility sense, and he’s extra strength kidding himself if he thinks that today’s Federal government and state governments will just to satisfy his social science hypothesis.  Only after the conclusion of major wars has the Federal government’s percent-of-GDP spending decreased, but rarely and little the power it assumed for itself that it never had before to wage the wars.  This is one of many reasons why I’m #NRx — Under the current circumstances (racial diversity, empire, powerful/big spending central state), mated with the relevant range of reality (none of those three are practically going away other than a geopolitical calamity), the best (or least bad) option for white people is a nationalist-minded hereditary monarchy ideologically governing with some variant of national socialist ideology.

Somebody Else’s Sequitur

13 02 2017

Frankfort, Kentucky, et al.

Am I supposed to be impressed or mystified?

Something that a lot of people don’t grasp is that national politics, provincial politics and local politics are significantly different games, with different political centers, different homeostatic equilibria, different issue bases.  I could like or dislike a given politician on one level and then have the opposite feeling about him or her on another level.  For instance, I think Scott Walker is a pretty good Wisconsin Governor, but I don’t think he would have made that good of a President, (and you’ll remember he was briefly the Republican front runner before OCGE rode down the escalator, in fact, fulfilling the prediction I made at the time of his announcement, Walker’s was a heretofore top tier candidacy that Trump’s rise wrecked early in the demolition derby), because Walker’s agenda and accomplishments, while credible provincially, don’t scale well up to a national level.  Likewise, I pretty much despised Rahm Emanuel as a Federal politician or quasi-politician, but I think he’s been an okay even if not perfect Chicago Mayor.  Rahm is a liberal by national standards, but by Chicago standards, he’s something of a conservative, and he, as Chicago Mayor, gets something of the same level of heat that national conservative politicians get, for almost the same reason.

Another reason for the difference is that as you step up from local to state to national, the budgets grow by orders of magnitude, and the issue base transitions on the pedantic-existential spectrum.

To bitch about how national Republicans are bickering yet state-level Republicans are cleaning up pedal to the metal is about as reasonable as complaining that the basketball game lasts so long and drags on in real time in contrast to its clock time in contrast to the soccer game which isn’t much longer in real time than clock time.