Search This Blog

Thursday, August 25, 2016

Social media and kryptonite

The term hamartia derives from the Greek ἁμαρτία, from ἁμαρτάνειν hamartánein, which means "to miss the mark" or "to err". It is most often associated with Greek tragedy, although it is also used in Christian theology. Hamartia as it pertains to dramatic literature was first used by Aristotle in his Poetics. In tragedy, hamartia is commonly understood to refer to the protagonist’s error or flaw that leads to a chain of plot actions culminating in a reversal from their good fortune to bad. What qualifies as the error or flaw can include an error resulting from ignorance, an error of judgement, a flaw in character, or sin. The spectrum of meanings has invited debate among critics and scholars, and different interpretations among dramatists.
People are always getting in trouble because they brag about their latest triumph on facebook. People read what they've bragged about and then call the police. Or the wife. Or the boss. There are a sizable number of people on Earth who delight in the suffering of others. I don't know the percentage, but at a guess I'd say it's at least 20 percent. One out of five people that you know, would enjoy watching you being tortured to death. Now you might just think that this guess of mine is just the cynic in me making up numbers and accusing the world of being Hitler, but I would argue that your reflexive denial of Human evil is meaningless. Just because humanity has only experienced a few Hitlers throughout history is only because 99.999% of you don't have Hitler's talent for gaining followers.

I don't have a facebook account. I don't have a Twitter account. No myspace, instagram, Tumblr, Reddit, etc.

Hubris! Pride! Downfall. Failure, Woe. WTF is the matter with everybody? Social networking is nothing more than personalized braggadocio. I already listen to way too many commercials. Did you really think that I wanted to listen to yours? Do your job, drink your beer, and STFU!

Everybody has an opinion, and mostly those opinions are uninformed. Example: "I think Obama is doing a great job. Unemployment is down, and the Stock Market has never been higher. What more do you want?" That opinion is uninformed. The perpetrator of the above uninformed opinion reads the New York Times. (The Paper of Record) Let the record books show that if your sole means of discovering the state of the world is that particular stack of misinformation, then everything you know is wrong.

Why do you waste the time that you do on social media? You read what your "friends" or "followers" say. You reply with your own uninformed opinion. Do you realize that nobody cares? Why do you do it? What's the point? Half the crap you read on facebook can be characterized as chain letters. "Send this letter to ten people or your first born son will die." I don't know if this is a chain letter or Passover! If your self-esteem is informed by the number of friends or followers you can claim on some social media platform, then—my friend—you are standing on thin ice indeed.

People aren't coins. They're not stamps. They're not baseball cards. Why do you persist in attempting to collect them? Collecting "friends" must be the most asinine hobby in the history of the world.

You call me a hypocrite? You say that this blog is proof that I'm doing the same thing as you do on Instagram?

Why do I write these essays of mine every so often? I don't actually assume that anybody reads them. I guess that probably somebody does, but it doesn't matter. If nobody ever reads my website again, I'll still be here telling somebody—not my friend, not my follower, not my "audience," not some piece in my collection—what I think. Why? Why do I write? Why do I spend a few minutes every now and then thinking about the world and putting it down in words? It's not for you. It's because sitting here at my keyboard, letting my fingers do what they do, is how understanding begins. It's slow. It's uncertain. However, as the years pass, my understanding of reality ensues. A piece of honesty that your facebook friends will never tell you: I do it for me, I don't even know you.

Saturday, August 20, 2016

Race Realism by John Derbyshire

I don't have much to say. John Derbyshire says it all. I will say this though...WOW! The gloves seem to be coming off. Have the rose tented glasses been pushed up on top of the head? Has the politically correct moonbattery been losing its shine? Is reality finally at long last creeping in? How many times do you have to burn your fingers on the stove before you finally admit that when its hot, its hot?
This week we saw some more fruits of Midwestern Nice. By a pleasant concinnity, the scene was Wisconsin’s 4th Congressional District, right up against Wisconsin’s 1st, where Paul Ryan, the Dark Lord of Midwestern Nice, crushed his enemies in last week’s primary.

Those two Congressional Districts are considerably different. District 1, Paul Ryan’s, is 91 percent white, less than five percent black. District 4 is only 55 percent white, more than 33 percent black. By contrast with Paul Ryan, whose darkness is entirely spiritual, District 4 actually has a black representative, six-termer Gwen Moore—the first black congresscritter from Wisconsin ever when she was first elected in 2004.

District 4 includes the city of Milwaukee, which is forty percent black. Last weekend an armed black criminal resisting arrest was shot by a (black) cop. A black riot ensued, with cars and businesses burned and, of course, much looting. >Mrs. Clinton and her Social Justice Warriors want to bring in further masses of poor Third Worlders to enhance our nation’s diversity. A thoughtful observer might question the wisdom of this in light of our failure to make any progress coping with the diversity we already have.

Look: Next year is the fiftieth anniversary of the 1967 black riots in Detroit, Newark, and, yes, Milwaukee.

Fifty years—two entire human generations—and still they riot. Fifty years of fretting and fussing, of nagging and shaming, of affirmative action and contracting set-asides; fifty years of jobs programs, food programs, billion-dollar overhauls of school systems. Fifty years of pushing role models, black doctors and detectives in movies and TV, black athletes as culture heroes, black actors playing God. Fifty years of Martin Luther King Days, Black History Months, and Kwanzaas. Fifty years of black mayors, black police chiefs, black Attorneys General, a black President…And still they riot.

Wouldn’t prudence suggest that we hold off on importing more diversity until we’ve made some progress in getting blacks to stop rioting?

I guess Prudence doesn’t live here any more.

What has the riot got to do with Midwestern Nice? One manifestation of Midwestern Nice has been the Midwest’s pioneering of the welfare state. In the later 20th century Wisconsin had some of the most generous welfare provisions in the country. This was, however, just the point at which low-level factory employment drifted off to Asia; and what didn’t drift off was colonized by immigrants from Mexico and Central America, who were easier to manage than blacks and worked for lower wages. Blacks who’d come up in the Great Migration of mid-century, now with no work they could do, fell back on those generous welfare programs. Milwaukee now has this sullen mass of unemployable, disaffected blacks, just waiting for an opportunity to riot.


My own favorite headline came from one of the TV stations: [Headline] “St. Jude Sweet Corn Festival Shut Down Due to Reckless Children.”

Forget Milwaukee: Cedar Rapids Had Better Black Mob Violence and Denial, August 18, 2016

Since video clips of these events now show up on YouTube within a couple of hours, making it perfectly plain who’s doing the rioting, you have to wonder why the reporters cling so doggedly to their Narrative about raceless “teens,” “youths,” and, in the case of that TV station, “children.”

But that’s Midwestern Niceness for you. Rampaging Blacks Shut Down Nice White Festival would be a more honest headline. But it wouldn’t be nice.

When these riots happen, you get a lot of thumb-sucking pieces about why they happen, what causes them. Well, what does cause them?

You’re asking me? Well, I’m a race realist, so I’ll give you an answer in that vein. Then, in scrupulous fairness, I’ll give you some of the other hypotheses on offer, and compare and contrast them with mine.

My answer: Different races—different local varieties of Homo sap., that have followed different paths through evolutionary space for many, many generations, end up with different distributions on most heritable traits. That includes traits of intelligence, behavior, and personality.

So in a multiracial society that rewards certain traits and penalizes others, different races will precipitate out, average-average, at different social levels. American blacks, for example, with low average IQ, low average impulse control, and high average inclinations to antisocial behavior, will tend to pool at the bottom of society, in slums and prisons and criminal gangs.

The blacks thus pooled, being too dimwitted to understand anything about biology or statistics, will attribute their sorry plight to the malice of hostile agents. They’ll develop a lot of anger against those agents, the anger occasionally breaking out in riots.
There's lots more. Read it all. John Derbyshire is a racist. Or to put it more honestly, he's a human being who says what all of you are too afraid to.

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

America you have two choices. Give up or Die.

The cynic is telling you to give up. America is dead. Our rotting corpse has been used to further the plot. We, as a country, are literally living "Weekend at Bernie's." The cancer that killed us was diagnosed in November, 1955, the start of the Vietnam war. We died shortly afterwards. The corpse of our country has been moved around by various actors for seventy years, but today its limbs are falling off and the stink of it has finally become so noisome that everybody else—people who didn't know America was already dead—have begun to look at us, really look. "What is their problem? Why have they done so little. Why, with all that power, money, influence, and military might, have they done nothing?" ISIS is taking over a continent and rotting Bernie (Obama) simply looks on, with an idiotic grin plastered on his face.

Enter Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. AKA Week-end at Bernie's 2. This plot is so contrived and infantile that as we eat our popcorn and sip our sodas we watch as those around us—people who foolishly paid for a ticket—become so disgusted that they finally walk out, get in their cars and drive away. Sometimes, like with Chariots of Fire and Fantasia, the plot is so thin that even Oliver Twist wouldn't ask for another bowl.

Sunday, August 14, 2016

The case against immunization religiously and scientifically

You either believe in a creator or you do not. I think agnostics believe in a creator of some kind, because at some level they understand the impossibility of life capable of reproduction just spontaneously appearing as though by magic. Therefore allow me to dispense with all the various labels and stipulate that people are either believers who believe something besides random chance created life or they are Atheists who think we hit the 1 chance in 10390 lottery jackpot.

The argument against immunization about to be presented holds for both believers and Atheists. By the way, I capitalize the word "Atheist" for the same reason I capitalize the word Christian, because the names of specific religions should always be capitalized as a rule of grammar. Both Atheism and Christianity are religions. Both have believers who believe without proof. Both desire everyone else on Earth to share their own faith. Both have churches, but the Atheists deceptively call their churches, court rooms and class rooms.

My argument should trouble you whether you're a believer or a nonbeliever. If you think about it one way, taking a magic pill that protects you from harm forever seems like simple common sense. Less people dead, right? But if you think about it another way, taking that pill is a big mistake. Let's ask a teacher whether it would be a good idea to hand out diplomas like doctors hand out vaccines. Why is studying necessary? Why not just hand the kid his diploma and usher him out into the world? Why does a teacher flunk a child who cheats? The child hasn't done the work. He doesn't know the material. He's missing a critical set of knowledge that would have otherwise allowed him or her to move forward in his learning career. The teacher flunks the child not because he resents the cheating, he flunks the child for the child's own good. The student must actually learn the knowledge before he or she can move forward. Further study is only possible based on previously learned knowledge. Think about that. The teacher flunks the kid for his own good. The kid's better off not passing.

Now let's apply that same logic to vaccines. What is a vaccine?
A vaccine is a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.
If you're a believer, you understand that life is God's test. It's not supposed to be easy. It's supposed to test us harshly. God loves us, and wants us to be strong. He gave us an immune system for a reason. The human race has been cheating for several generations now. All of us are copying off somebody else's work on God's test. Our bodies haven't done the work. We haven't struggled to get through a disease. Our immune system is for lack of a better word, ignorant. Our parents likewise have ignorant immune systems, and so it was for their parents before them. Ask yourself, why does it matter whether we cheated immunologically? I'll give you the teachers answer: because we're not ready to go forward to harder lessons having not learned these. For generations, those who should have gotten sick and possibly died, didn't. Instead they passed on their genes and their ignorance to their children. None of us are ready for the next test. It may come out of China. It may come out of Africa. Who knows where the next big virus is coming from, but mark my words, as sure as you're born, so are viruses.

The same logic holds true if you're an Atheist. If generations of humanity failed to pass through the crucible of natural selection because we all were allowed to create antibodies from dead viruses, and because we never struggled to come to grips with a live virus, then we can expect that when a new deadly virus inevitably comes along—one that we don't have a vaccine for—then it's very likely that the vast majority of us won't be fit enough—both inferior genetically and in lack of immune system practice—to survive it. We're going to be as bad off as the Native Americans when they were first exposed to smallpox.

Thursday, August 4, 2016

Sanctimonious Khantroversy

At the 4:33 mark, Khizr Khan tells us that "We cannot solve our problems by building walls." Well isn't that special? I guess prisons are going to be a lot cheaper to build, now that we've discovered—through the wisdom of KeeKee—that prison walls won't solve the problem of keeping inmates from simply walking away from them. This is great news! Houses likewise are going to be so much cheaper, now that we've learned that we don't need walls to solve the problem of holding the heat/cool in and the roof up.
Trump's Reaction

Clinton's aides watching inside their workspace in the Well Fargo Center and at campaign headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, recognized what a powerful moment Khan's speech was. No one, aides said, expected Trump to respond the way he did.

"Who wrote that? Did Hillary's scriptwriters write it?" Trump said in an interview with ABC the following Sunday. "I think I've made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard." He added: "If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably -- maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me."

The interview drew instant rebuke from Democrats and Republicans, including GOP leaders who said it was unacceptable for the party's nominee to go after a Gold Star family. But rather than pull back, Trump doubled down.

"Mr. Khan, who does not know me, viciously attacked me from the stage of the DNC and is now all over T.V. doing the same - Nice!" he tweeted. But the Khans also refused to back down.

After Trump questioned why she didn't speak, Ghazala Khan published an opinion piece in The Washington Post, explaining her silence on stage that night: "Without saying a thing, all the world, all America, felt my pain. I am a Gold Star mother. Whoever saw me felt me in their heart."

Speaking at a church in Cleveland on Sunday, Clinton said Khan "paid the ultimate sacrifice in his family."

Trump, she said, had "nothing but insults, degrading comments about Muslims" and "a total misunderstanding of what made our country great -- religious freedom."

Later that day, Clinton told reporters that the controversy questions where the "bounds" or the "bottom" is in Trump's campaign.

"I think this is a time," Clinton said, for Republicans "to pick country over party."
I too thought it strange that she never spoke. My first reaction was she's not speaking because Muslims never allow their women any freedoms at all. They don't have the freedom to come and go, the freedom to speak their thoughts to strangers, and in many Muslim countries even the freedom to show their face. So, Trump's questioning of the oddly silent mother is entirely understandable. Later, the Khans continued the Trump attacks by sanctimoniously proclaiming once again their Gold Star Family status, and also claiming that her silence was the silence of pain, not the silence of a Muslim woman customarily expected to be silent.

I too thought that Khan's speech was overly DNC script-like. The uniter vs. the divider theme read just like it came straight out of some DNC hack's binder full of bullshit cliches. Was Kee Kee coached? I think he was. Did you notice all that pointing? Did they glue the other three fingers to his palm before the speech? Pointing like that is how you accuse. He was pointing at Trump as though he was the victim and Trump had wronged him. Did they coach him on that too? I think they did.

A complete stranger who doesn't even know Trump is attacking him from a stage and later on T.V. Nice! If somebody attacked me, I'd hit back the same way. The right of self-defense is a God given right. I don't care, and neither should you, about some tragic history the attacker may or may not have. If you come at me, prepare to be met. In typical Democrat-media collusion the tale is told in a way that demands! we be outraged that Trump would dare! attack a "Gold Star Mother!" Isn't it ironic that this manufactured Khantroversy is exactly the same situation as a different "Gold Star Mother" who was called a liar by Hillary, and this fact was met entirely by nothing more than crickets chirping. Where was the faux outrage then? Where was the storm of articles from the national press then?

The most laughable part of this whole faux Khantroversy, is this idea that Trump did anything unexpected. The CNN narrator tells us that the Clinton aides never expected Trump to respond the way he did! How asinine! Everybody knows Trump hits back, always. Everybody knows that this is nothing but the Democrat-media complex running another play from their dogeared identity politics playbook, expressing faux outrage and crocodile tears as well as over the top jumping the shark sanctimony. It's pathetic and it's even more pathetic that so many ignorant cretins will be tricked by it.

They pulled a Lucy. And Charlie Brown went for it. And nobody at all was surprised. You might think that going for it makes you an idiot. Just remember, Lucy's the evil one in this little morality tale. The more the Khans play the victim card, the more the evil witch cankles cackles.

Click on the CNN link above and read the whole thing. It reads like a fairy tale where everybody lives happily ever after. There's a long-winded section entitled "The night of the speech." It's written like the introduction to a play where the narrator first explains what virtuous and wonderful people the Khans are, so that when the evil Trump Troll attacks we will all hate hate hate him! The CNN narrator's glee is self-evident as each word unfolds towards the final denouement where we are finally presented with the carefully crafted finale and CNN's moral of the story. ["I think this is a time," Clinton said, for Republicans "to pick country over party."] I.E. If you really love your country Republicans, you'll have to hold your nose and vote for Hillary.

Cold Fury has a truly great write-up about the establishment Republicans vis-à-vis this Khantroversy.