In the Year 2525… [UPDATED]

 

UPDATED 3/28/2015: (Probably) not a Muzzie; definitely a frustrated, depressed loser.  Fox News:

The co-pilot Andreas Lubitz who steered an airline with 150 people on board into a French mountainside had been dumped by his girlfriend the day prior to the crash and was undergoing treatment for depression from a doctor, according to reports Saturday.

****

If I’m still around in 40 years, and if Western Civilization still exists in a recognizable form — both BIG ifs at this point — I’ll have a tough time explaining the Media Guessing Game to my grandkids.

Via Vox Day, the Germanwings mass murderer appears to be a Muzzie:

All evidence indicates that the copilot of Airbus machine in his six-months break during his training as a pilot in Germanwings, converted to Islam and subsequently either by the order of “radical”, ie. devout Muslims , or received the order from the book of terror, the Quran, on his own accord decided to carry out this mass murder. As a radical mosque in Bremen is in the center of the investigation, in which the convert was staying often, it can be assumed that he – as Mohammed Atta, in the attack against New York – received his instructions directly from the immediate vicinity of the mosque.

But as Vox notes, that’s vague and sensationalistic, and nobody hears him yelling “Allahu Akbar!” on the tapes that have been released so far.

On the other hand, this kind of thing is awfully consistent with Sudden Onset Jihad Syndrome.

On the other other hand, the Left and the media (BIRM) didn’t immediately start screaming “this has nothing to do with Islam!”, which is — so far– the surest tell that something is in fact all about Islam.  So maybe he’s not a Muzzie after all.

On the other other other hand (please allow me four hands for rhetorical convenience), the Left and the media (BIRM) also haven’t started screeching about misogyny, which — as Vox notes here — is the likeliest non-Islamic scenario.  If this guy were an airborne Eliot Rodger, you’d think we’d have heard about it by now.  So score one in the “probably is a Muzzie” column.

Of course, a third possibility exists — maybe he’s just a random, non-ideological psycho.  Alas, he’s German, so our completely objective, totally nonpartisan media is no help there.  Had he been American, of course, MSNBC would’ve called him a Tea Partier before the debris stopped falling.  At which point the usual rules would apply — if he ever complained about his taxes, he’d be Republican now and forever; if the words “Tea Party” suddenly disappeared down the memory hole, it would soon be revealed (on conservative blogs, nowhere else) that he was a card-carrying member of Communist Party USA.

So, yeah, kids… can you believe it?  In Grandpa’s day, you had to attack each and every “news” story like a deranged, coked-out archaeologist, jackhammering through seventeen layers of bias to finally figure out some rough approximation of the truth.  Because Our Betters in the media considered it their sacred duty to decide what us proles should and should not hear about events out in the world.

And that’s why your Granddad has been an alcoholic since 2008…..

 

I Have a Right!

Education is a human right. Share if you agree.

So this came across my desktop yesterday.

I think my head is going to explode.

Oh yeah. It’s free. *If* you’re accepted. And that’s a big IF.

Even in Europe, you have to be put in an academic track school by about age 12 to hope to make it in to one of these colleges.

Since this “Free in Finland” word has gotten out, Finland has had to clarify that while tuition is free, you have to pay your own way for room and board. And hey, if education is a right, aren’t food and shelter yet more basic rights?

Why does Finland HATE students????! “Finland Starves Students – Leaves Them in the Cold!” That would be the community organizing headline from the Chicago school of politics.

All colleges in Germany have had “free” tuition since way way back in … October. Jury’s probably still out on how sustainable it is, or the effect it will have on the quality of education you can get. As it stands, America pretty much has a headlock on top universities in the world so maybe there’s something to this not-so-public approach.


I think the main difference between America and elsewhere has been that your education was something you were expected to get — so much so that state charters mandated that a certain size plot of land in every township be set aside for a school which would be funded by the community. But the attitude was that an education isn’t something that is given to you or provided to you — since we as a people have required that you get one from the beginning, we’ve considered it a duty of society to provide the opportunity – up to a point.

I’d argue that we don’t have to provide you an opportunity for a degree in “Gender Studies”.

occupy girl2

It’s not “your” car anyway, because you didn’t build that.

This provision of opportunity is there with the expectation that you will be obligated, if physically and mentally able, to go out and pull your own weight when it is said and done – and perhaps if you do well enough create something that will help others pull theirs. But to the people at “US Uncut”, it’s about “rights”, not “obligations”. “Rights” mean somebody OWEs *me*. “Obligations” are for chumps. Now feed me or I’ll cr*p on your car. It’s not really “your” car, anyway, because you didn’t build that. Oppressor!

We do have an over-emphasis on a college degree as a credential in our society. College is fine — you can get a great education if you want one, and you can get lots of financial help getting one if you need it and show an aptitude for it. And I think there is something to a Financial/Education complex where they rub each others’ backs. Universities cost 5x more than they did in 1985, but inflation has “only” cut they buying power of a dollar in half. I think Universities charge more because they can get it, and banks make the loans because they can make money off the interest. Kind of like what health insurance did to health care costs.

The whole “10x what ‘they’ charge banks” thing is just emotionally charged rhetoric that takes advantage of, as someone once put it, “the stupidity of the American voter”. Any amount banks get charged for loans to them is ultimately passed on to the consumer, and student loan rates aren’t out of line with most other loan rates.

I think Mike Rowe & his Mike Rowe Works is on to something. Degrees are overrated, and inflated – in grades, cost, and subject matter. There is lots of honorable, even decent-paying work out there that does not require a college degree, and it’s work that needs doing.

Note the Contrast

For the second post in a row, I have nothing to say that Stacy McCain hasn’t said better, at greater length.  So please RTWT.  For my part, I’d just like to emphasize the contrast.  No, not this one:

The contrast between the paunchy, balding Mr. Hicks and the rest of the [condominium] complex’s residents was stark. Many were aspiring professionals and academics at a premier public university. Mr. Hicks was unemployed, taking night classes at a community college in hopes of becoming a paralegal. He spent long hours in his apartment with a collection of at least a dozen guns, including four pistols and a Bushmaster AR-15. Mrs. Hicks told her lawyer that Mr. Hicks would stare out the second-floor window, obsessing over neighbors’ parties, patterns and parking…

That’s from a New York Times thumbsucker about Craig Hicks, the guy who shot those Muslim girls over a parking space.  The media, of course, was really really really really really hoping he’d be a right-wing gun nut, but — surprise surprise — he was a militant atheist Rachel Maddow fan.  But since he did to the Religion of Peace what they so routinely do to us, they couldn’t just memory-hole him, or outright lie about him…. so in comes this Jonathan Katz hack to do some cleanup.*

The contrast I mean is with one Jared Loughner, who — surprise surprise — was also a leftwinger:

Remember the Tucson Massacre of 2011: Because the shooting targeted a Democrat congresswoman, it was instantly assumed by the media that Jared Loughner must be a right-winger. It turned out, however, that Loughner was a psychotic who had become obsessed with a left-wing 9/11 “Truther” video called Zeitgeist. Because I spent several days researching the Zeitgeist phenomenon in the wake of the Tucson Massacre, I can assure you that this would have been a fascinating subject for the New York Times or one of the major networks to do an in-depth report about. However, once it became clear that Loughner was not a right-winger, liberals instantly lost interest in his motive and there was never any real media follow-up on Loughner’s Zeitgeist obsession.

McCain says the media “lost interest” in Loughner’s motives because of their biases.  But it was much worse than that — they lied about him first, and so extensively that I have liberal friends who to this very day insist Loughner was a right winger.

McCain’s point — which is right, and sensible, and just — is that we should call these freaks what they are: Moody loners, Creepy Little Weirdos, psychos.  We should leave the politics out of it, because crazy gonna crazy, and the particular form it takes is usually random.  I’ve said as much myself — if The Bad News Bears had been playing instead of Taxi Driver when John Hinckley went to the movies, his psychopathy would’ve manifested in some other, totally different way… but he still would’ve been a murderous psycho.

This is an honorable thing, as I say, and if we lived in an honorable world it would be good and sufficient.  But we don’t.  The media is going to politicize these things for all they’re worth, because the media are Cultural Marxists to a man.  That’s what they do — that’s all they do — and if they can’t just bury it, as they do with even the most horrific black-on-white crimes, they will spin it into irrelevance (as with Hicks), or outright lie about it (Loughner).

Every time a conservative’s cell phone rings in a theater, somebody blames Rush Limbaugh.  We need to get in their faces.  Somebody needs to demand that Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, etc. denounce Craig Hicks.  We need to do this every day, until no lefty cultural figure, media stooge, or politician can step out the front door without being called on the carpet for Hicks’s “extremism.”

Turnabout is fair play.  Let’ make those fuckers play some defense for once.

 

*McCain says Katz has “commendably done more reporting;” I assume McCain’s tongue is so far in his cheek that it’s coming out his left ear.

This is How It’s Done

As I said, I have no dog in the fight, fiction-wise.  And the one book of Mr. Correia’s I picked up didn’t do it for me.  But oh my sweet Lord, THIS is how you do a fisking.  I really have to buy one of his books, even if it sits unread for ever, as a thank you for these posts.

My favorite part?  Oh, there are so many, but it’s probably this, when he’s comparing the “privilege” of a rich whiny Trust-Fund Trotsky to his “Portuguese Dairy Farmer Privilege:”

I know when I think of marginalized lives, I think of mooching off your rich friends while playing tourist.

I only say that because I grew up with all that fancy Portuguese Dairy Farmer Privilege, where I got to have an alcoholic mother and a functionally illiterate father (who is way darker skinned than Tempest), where I got to spend my formative years knee deep in cow shit at 3:00 AM, so that I could later work my way through Utah State (only after getting a scholarship for my freshmen year because I knew a whole lot about cows), to then spend my adult life working corporate drone jobs of increasing difficulty and skill requirements, all while writing on the side while I supported my family, until I could make it as a professional author.

Lecture us more about privilege, Tempest. It’s fascinating.

RTWT.

Take Wisdom Where You Find It III

Vox Day also runs a “Game” site, Alpha Game.  Wherein we find this handy checklist.  I can’t swipe the whole thing, but I will point out:

 

  • In the past year you can’t recall a single serious online discussion you were wrong about anything.
  • In the past two years you can’t recall one discussion with any friends or family in which you were wrong about anything.
  • When you are having an argument with someone and it appears you are wrong, the most common belief and defense is the other person simply doesn’t understand what you are saying.
  • When discussing matters with someone and you think you are maybe, possibly being shown to be wrong you start to get snarky, crack lame jokes, and immediately try to change the subject.
  • If someone holds an opinion contrary to yours, and you don’t think you have a good defense immediately to hand you start to look for unrelated ways to disqualify the other person as at least knowledgeable about the subject, and even going so far as to disqualify them as a good person or even a person at all.
  • Definitions are tenuous for you and words can be redefined at leisure during a discussion. If someone quotes the dictionary and it disagrees with your definition they are arguing unfairly and the dictionary is wrong.

Gosh, that sure sounds like some folks we know!  The “Game” community has an almost ivory tower-ish lingo, so it’s hard to determine just what “Gamma,” “Delta,” etc. mean (though I’m sure there’s a list somewhere, and that there have been doctrinal disputes to rival the Council of Nicea).  Let’s just assume that “Gamma” means “twitchy internet troll.”  Browsing through the category might give us some insights as to how these creatures develop, and how they think.

This is a public service announcement.

 

Take Wisdom Where You Find It II

Basically, let me give you my lecture on research. I don’t know if I should say this—but when I hear about all of these complex models that weight the evidence of 70 indicators, that is pure bullshit. I am old enough, I can say that.

Okay, now defend it.

First of all, I defy anyone to find 70 indicators that are specifically independent of each other and that have anything to do with stock prices. If you do, you get the prize. But even if you did, the model would be immense. Let’s just cut that roughly in half, to make it simple, and say we had a 38-factor model. Let’s make it simple again and say that there are only five ways to interpret each factor—very negative, negative, neutral, positive or very positive. So how many different patterns of 38 indicators would you have to recognize to understand the implication of each possible mix of indicators?

A very large number, I’d bet.

The formula is 5 to the 38th power. Now, there is a thing in statistics called degrees of freedom, which says that in order for a model like that to be anything but mush you would need about 2 million years of data. Even if you only have 10 indicators—which brings into the mix just about every macro analyst out there, there still are not enough degrees of freedom to say that the model is worth anything. This is what is so counter-intuitive—the effectiveness of a model is inversely related to the number of factors that are components of that model. The fewer the factors you use, the more reliable the model becomes. This is the exact opposite of what most people think, but if you start with just one factor and then add another you now have 25 different possible outcomes—and it’s possible to measure that accurately, if you have enough data. But if you add another factor, the potential outcomes go up to 300 or so. So my shtick on research is: “Find the one, two or maybe three factors that are the most effective.”

[From the comments at RWCG, here.  The original piece is linked here].

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I give not one single corn-laden shit about “global climate change.”  How many factors would you need to accurately model the temperature of the entire Earth?  A 38-factor model needs 2 million years of data; a whatever-huge-number-of-factors model would need a lot more.  And we’ve got, what, 40 years’ worth of actual climate data?  Even assuming the non-“adjusted” numbers still exist?

Not even Squirty can do that kind of math

Not even Squirty can do that kind of math

Take Wisdom Anywhere You Find It

I’ve been out of the meat market for a long time, so I have no interest in “Game” as a skillset.  But its underlying assumptions — that men and women exhibit biologically-programmed behavior — seem sound, and generate interesting conclusions.  Like this:

Framing is one of the most interesting game concepts, and it’s because it has applicability well beyond the context of picking up girls. The supposed leftoid love for uncertainty and ambiguity is just as accurately expressed as a leftoid fear of judgment. Which, when you think about it, makes survival sense. An effete liberal manlet benefits from a society that refuses to judge it unworthy of inclusion.

Though he’d piss himself if he knew it, “framing” in PUA lingo is pretty much identical to George Lakoff’s political version.  Lakoff, you’ll recall, is the guy who claims that

people view the world through the lens of their metaphors, which he thinks provide them with the framework of their thought. Since the 1980s, liberals have allowed conservative metaphors to take over their own metaphoric framework, so that all discussions or arguments about social policy are carried out on conservative terms. Liberals waste their time and effort in arguing from the evidence (conservatives, of course, can have no evidence); they should instead be working to get conservatives to accept a different metaphoric framework.

As epistemology, it’s junk — the set of policies called {Patriotism Plus} is exactly equal to the set of policies called {Socialism}, and will be rightly rejected by any sane person on the exact same grounds.  But as a tactic for fooling low-info voters, it’s pretty good, and as a tactic for picking up chicks — if the Chateau Heartiste guy(?)* is to be believed, it’s gold.

And, as we saw above, it’s pretty good for protecting the soft, squishy egos of liberal snowflakes, too.  If you assume that all human interactions are at some level contests**, then the person who controls the frame controls the outcome.  In this case, of course, the conflict is between the “effete liberal manlet” (such deliciously vicious phrasing!) and himself, but still — the (correct) perception that he’s a sexual marketplace loser must be beaten down at all costs, and so it’s not “fear of being judged,” it’s “tolerance of ambiguity.”

This “reframing” stuff could be quite useful in political discussions.  Not that it’ll change liberals’ minds, of course — if they could properly perceive reality, they wouldn’t be liberals — but it will cause them to flee in tears, which is the best realistic outcome (and schadenfreudily fun, too).

 

 

 

*The author(s) speak of themselves in the plural, but I saw somewhere that this was once the blog of one guy, who called himself Roissy.  Whether he’s added co-bloggers, or this is just a mocking use of the Royal We, doesn’t really matter.  But I don’t want to misattribute.

**As you’ll recall, this is Foucault’s fundamental (heh) insight.  See what I mean about the kernel of truth in this stuff?  Lefty professors convert kids by introducing beachhead facts — small nuggets of truth — then building giant edifices of bullshit around them.  Their facts are ok, but their conclusions are 180 degrees from reality.  Profs do it to get tenure; lefties in the real world do it because they’re malignant narcissists.

Are They REALLY That Stupid?

Do you even need to ask?

Lefties, who rend their clothes at every opportunity about how much they love The Working Class ™, say Scott Walker’s unqualified to be president because he doesn’t have a college degree.

That oughtta go down great in, say, the Rust Belt swing state of Ohio.  I can see the ads now:

“Are you a union worker?  Did you climb your way up from nothing, fulfilling the American dream?  Well, guess what?  Your own party thinks you’re stupid!  That’s right, my fellow blue collar Americans: Howard Dean said…”

But, alas — no matter how dumb the Dems are, the GOP is always dumber.  They won’t use this, because being The Stupid Party is always more important than actually winning elections.  Still, a fella can dream…..

It Begins? (UPDATE: Never Mind)

UPDATE 2/11/2015:  You can read my original thoughts, below, but they’ve been overtaken by events (as I thought they might; see #1).

From Vox Day:

“Included in his many Facebook ‘likes’ are the Huffington Post, Rachel Maddow, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Freedom from Religion Foundation, Bill Nye ‘The Science Guy,’ Neil deGrasse Tyson, Gay Marriage groups, and a host of anti-conservative/Tea Party pages.”

That’s the last we’ll be hearing about Mr. Hicks, as his Facebook likes clearly render even the “he was mentally ill, expand Obamacare!” storyline inoperative.  He’ll be down the memory hole by Friday.

 

___

 

The Left and the media (BIRM) have been openly drooling for an “anti-Muslim backlash” since 9-11-2001.  If this report from Fox News is even sorta correct, it may have finally happened.  3 things to note here:

1) Can anyone tell me how to do a screen cap?  Because I’m thinking this part is gonna disappear PDQ:

Police have not given a motive for the triple homicide, although a Facebook page in Hicks’ name described him as a supporter of “Atheists for Equality” and in a recent post he asked “why radical Christians and radical Muslims are so opposed to each others’ influence when they agree about so many ideological issues.”

That’s obviously wrong.  Clearly the guy is a Rightwing Christofascist (TM).

2) If true, that’s ONE incident in FOURTEEN years.  One.  In fourteen.  Despite the best — and often successful — attempts of jihadis to murder us pretty much around the clock.  Being rabbits, and therefore unable to grasp logical consequences, the rank-and-file Left will never understand that most people get tired of being called racists, sexists, Islamophobes, etc. on the slightest pretext.  And that certain folks operate on the principle of “If I’m gonna be accused of it anyway, I might as well be guilty.”  Alinskyites, however, know it all too well — which is why they’ve been banging this drum for fourteen years.  Which leads to

3) It’ll be extremely interesting to see who comes down on what side of this, should the media decide* to go with “anti-Muslim hate crime OMG!”  The usual suspects will blast off into hyper-partisan hyperspace, of course, but the cooler heads’ reactions will tell us a lot about how things will go after 2016.  The Alinskyites will press for more and more restrictions on liberty — that’s a given — but what will the people at large do?  I suspect that a lot of people will mentally shrug their shoulders and say “meh,” and a few will do so openly.  If large numbers of people openly say “meh,” we’ll know that the polarization of America is nearly complete.  That’s bad…. but it’s inevitable.  If true, this “hate crime” will tell us how advanced the process is.

 

*Yeah, it IS a decision.  Jared Loughner was obviously mad as a hatter, but the media decided to play him as a right-wing zealot anyway, for fun and profit.  But this guy has that whole atheist thing, the same way that school shooter — ol’ Whatzisface — was known as the campus socialist.  If this guy is an obvious Leftie — and how many evangelical atheist rightwingers have you met? — I expect the storyline will be something along the lines of “lone wolf psychotic gunman shows need for expanded mental health services; expand Obamacare.”

Explaining Academia: A Big Hairy Smelly WHAT?!?

I’d bet long money that every single person involved in this little dust-up has a graduate degree.

Warning: NSFW.  Not that there are pictures or anything — and thank Allah for that!! — but the big, hairy, smelly thing in question is what you think it is.  Male-to-female transsexuals, you see, claim to think of themselves as “real women” despite not having the requisite parts, and radical feminists ain’t havin’ none of that:

This is a struggle—laden with a hilarious level of acrimony—between men who insist they’re women and women who insist that the most crucial part of being a woman involves popping out of your mother’s vagina with a vagina of your own. The latter group is disparagingly referred to as TERFs—Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists—due to the fact that they feel male-to-female trannies are trying to party-crash their struggle against historical oppression. The TERFs argue that for men to pretend they’re women is insulting to real women. To them, it is a genital form of blackface.

And if that ain’t bad enough, there’s an argument about the smell:

The newly carved-out orifices of male-bodied transgenders do not resemble vaginas [and] create new microbial habitats in which infections develop and cause serious smell issues for their owners.

Ummm…. ok.

I don’t have much to add to this — Jim Goad sums it up pretty well, and Ace of Spades (from whence I got the link) has some funny commentary.  I’d just like to note that all of this grotesquerie is a perfectly logical outcome of fundamental ivory tower premises.

As we saw yesterday, the Enlightenment kicked the idea of essences, or fundamentals, or whatever you want to call them, to the curb.  It would never have occurred to, say, Condorcet to attempt turning a biological male into a biological female, but if you held his feet to the fire about it, he’d eventually have to declare that yes, this is within the bounds of science, because everything is within the bounds of science.  Only the rules of math are absolute.

Please note: This is the least repugnant position for an Enlightened to hold.

If you take it one step further — as, we’ll soon see, postmodernists do — you’ll quickly end up arguing that even the rules of math aren’t absolute.  They, too, are “social constructions” (no, really — read this Wiki summary of Paul Feyerabend.  Bring lots of Tylenol).  And if that’s the case, then yes, trannies are “real women,” because “real women” are whatever entities who lay claim to the title “real woman” say they are.

In effect, it all comes down to politics.  The “community of meaning” which prevails will eventually do so by forcing governments to pass laws, and forcing courts to interpret those laws.  The TERF wars are ultimately about who’s going to grab the political megaphone first.  Which, again, is perfectly logical given the initial premises.

It’s a tempest in a teapot, then, since all blue-on-blue battles boil down to the hand on the megaphone.  But it’s interesting for our purposes, in that for a moment the mask has slipped.  Normally, you’d only hear about something like this buried five layers deep in impenetrable academic jargon.  But just this once, the eggheads are speaking English… and it turns out that what they’re talking about is crotch funk.