Tuesday, January 2, 2018

Progressivism



The "philolitical"† war between "progressives" and the rest of the world, raging for decades, is now heating up to a potential not seen in a very long time. Furthermore, the acceptance of "progressive values" appears to be greatly on the rise.  The great absence of understanding of what progressivism is, broken down into identifiable, distinct, and readily assessable elements which, has done humanity no favors.  Were people cognizant of them, many would likely run from it, screaming.

Let us begin by making it clear that progressives cannot be truthfully said to be wrong in all ways and on all points; and yet the sting of disagreement by some is of such a pitch that they lose sight of the clear picture of their opponents, usually zeroing-in on one or two single issues and ignoring all else. While perhaps understandable from a purely emotional point of view, this is ought not be acceptable for any Freeman, one characteristic of whom is his personal integrity, which implies his honesty in intellectual matters, as well as his patience. Being honest, he gives credit where due, even to those with whom he may bitterly disagree. Being patient, he takes the time necessary to get what he needs to paint himself a proper and accurate picture of his opponent.  He does this not for the sake if his foes, though they may benefit in some measure from it, but for himself.

Ideals aside, there is a practical value in such practice of intellectual honesty: knowing thy enemy  in sufficient truth. It is one of the great errors of human beings to mistakenly measure one's opponents, whether due to blinding hatred, lassitude, or any of the other sundry reasons people do so. And as a matter of pure strategic and tactical utility, finding points of commonality also serves well in the battle for hearts and minds.  Holding a partial or otherwise inaccurate picture of one's opponent has proven the downfall of many a man in humanity's long and checkered history of mutual conflict.  It is high time that we, as men with amply available examples of our long history and presumably good intelligence, choose the path of learning, holding close those lessons from which we stand to best benefit as Freemen and as strategists seeking victory over those who would subdue us, and to maintain our practical abilities to live as such without uninvited interference.

To such ends, a sufficient analysis of the statistically mean progressive becomes a valuable tool in understanding how they think, perhaps why, and how to use such knowledge to one's advantage in showing them the better way which we call "freedom". It is to such ends I write in the hope of modeling the progressive pursuant to that improved understanding, giving credit where due as well as objective criticism.  It shall therefore be our goal today to give progressivism a good analytic scrubbing.

In order to begin, we must have a definition. Perhaps unsurprisingly, finding a suitable one is not quite as straightforward as one might hope. For instance, one source†† defines it as follows:

Progressivism is a philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition.

Stretch as one may, this definition does no justice of truth to the political reality of the contemporary progressive, however boldly they might protest otherwise, which brings us to one of the key characteristics generally present in such people: they tend to lie about, or are of such mangled perceptions that they actually believe their protests to this effect. As we shall see, progressives tend to have deep perceptual troubles, as well as those relating to honesty and personal integrity.

The same source also carries an entry††† for "Progressivism in the United States", to wit:

Progressivism in the United States is a broadly based reform movement that reached its height early in the 20th century and is generally considered to be middle class and reformist in nature. It arose as a response to the vast changes brought by modernization, such as the growth of large corporations and railroads, and fears of corruption in American politics. In the 21st century, progressives continue to embrace concepts such as environmentalism and social justice. Social progressivism, the view that governmental practices [sic] ought to be adjusted as society evolves, forms the ideological basis for many American progressives.
This hits closer to apparent truth, yet still falls short of the reality we find. However, the reference above to so-called "social justice" is a key element of contemporary progressivism.

As with "progressivism", definitions of "social justice" are vague, greatly unsatisfying to thinking men, and for the same people most likely to give rise to the need for an air-sickness bag.  To wit, from wikipedia.org:

Social justice is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges. In Western as well as in older Asian cultures, the concept of social justice has often referred to the process of ensuring that individuals fulfill their societal roles and receive what was their due from society. In the current global grassroots movements for social justice, the emphasis has been on the breaking of barriers for social mobility, the creation of safety nets and economic justice."

They ways in which this definitions fails are numerous and in some places spectacular.  Since it is not our purpose to tackle social justice, we shall leave things at that for now, perhaps to be addressed in its own rite at a later date.

Another source defines progressivism in equally vague terms:

Progressivists believe that individuality, progress, and change are fundamental to one's education.


This definition is either an outright lie or the vast majority of people who identify as "progressive" either fail to understand the basic concept of "individuality", or are being dishonest in calling themselves "progressive" when in fact they are anything but. As may be readily observed, progressives are staunchly set against actual individualism in strong favor of a hive-like mentality where dank and mercilessly banal uniformity are the cornerstones of the altar of progressive virtue at which they worship. That which they label "individualism", in those minority cases where they are not cursing the very word, is but a mangled and maimed shadow of that which constitutes true human individuality.

And so it goes down the line of definitions, all to one's great dissatisfaction. But if this is the best we can expect, then let us work with it and see where the road leads.

We shall work primarily from the definitions cited, but may bring in others ideas as necessity requires. We will not slavishly devote this discussion to the definitions, but rather to the actual practices and other behaviors of those who self-identify as "progressive".




Self-identification is one of the first places where one finds trouble in many individual human beings. Where the moniker "progressive" is concerned, those adopting it appear to be particularly stricken with an apparent absence of understanding of the term.  For example, in may cases it appears that the individual describing himself as "progressive" has little to no understanding of the meaning of the term as political or philosophical jargon.  Many people stridently proclaim, "I'm a PROGRESSIVE!" where continued discourse with them reveals an almost complete absence of understanding of the specific sense of the term.  It seems that they get hooked by the more general notion of "progressive", relating it very naturally to the notion of progress, or advancement.  The tacit bit there, of course, it the idea that we as a species should advance and evolve, the further and far more deeply tacit implication being that such evolution should yield better people - improved people.

And there you have the core of so-called "progressivism": the notion that we can make people better.  This concept was explored with some depth in the film "Serenity", where a drug had been put into the air purification systems on a colonized planet.  The fictional drug was called "G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate", or "Pax" from the Latin for "peace".  The intention behind the act of foisting the compound upon the people was superficially noble enough: to reduce aggression in the population - to pacify them.

In the film, the drug worked.  It worked so well, in fact, that people stopped doing anything, including eating, and simply laid down and died of inactivity.  The link to progressivism is this: all acts have consequences, many of which are unintended and ultimately unwanted.  Human history is befouled with endless examples of this, the example of the Pax being one from a fictional, yet not far-fetched, story.

The two central messages of Serenity were these: people want to be free, at least in the ways in which they conceive freedom, and humans cannot be improved by such external and forced means.  Yet, the latter is precisely the tack that virtually all progressives take, in one form and degree, or another.

One other very important point made in the film is that, given enough time, despite the spectacular failure on the planet "Miranda" to the tune of over 30 million lives, someone, somewhere will almost certainly try again in the belief that they will succeed where all others had failed prior.  This is a predictably repetitive habit of humans.  The immediacy and depth of effect of first-hand knowledge is invariably lost over time.  This is why women in labor, screaming and calling for the gore-laden deaths of their husbands as they experience the agony of pressing new life into the world, soon forget the immediacy of the experience.  Without this, no woman would agree to doing that beyond the first time and the human race would steadily extinguish itself through the attrition of "no way, buddy".

Unfortunately, this characteristic of fading immediacy appears to occupy a front and center position in all human experience.  While very useful in helping us cope with tough events, it would appear to have gone somewhat wrong with us such that we forget the lessons of our mistakes and go right back to making them over and over again, often by the same people in the same lifetimes, and always from one generation to another.

The progressive tends to display another characteristic in vast common: the inability, unwillingness, or other basis of failure to found his opinions and the desires that arise therefrom upon any definite principles of proper human relations, his idea of the latter being a grossly mangled notion of it.  His opinions and demands appear to issue from a basis of unchecked emotionalism.  Proper logic and reason have no apparent place in the world of the progressive.  The reason for this is clear to any man with an inclination toward observable truth: the adept and proper application of logic to one's emotions often dictates that the kibosh be applied in cases where said emotions stand to lead one into trouble or other forms of error.

When a man is overwrought with emotion, his decision making process is often impacted in some undesirable manner and degree.  Being overwrought, the man often either cannot see his compromised state, or has no inclination to it.  This is where reason and logic can very often save the day.  This is also precisely why the progressive hates, despises, and vehemently rejects correct logic and reason: they interfere with the narratives of their raw and unbridled emotions which dictate their opinions, desires, accessions, and physical actions.

One final aspect of progressivism that must be grasped well and recognized for its unparalleled power over men: appeal to the base impulses of every human being walking the earth.

Being a Freeman is very difficult, for freedom demands much of the individual; everything, in fact.  Contrariwise, being a Weakman, of which the progressive is perhaps the ultimate and most common example, is relatively very easy.  Where freedom demands great strength, fortitude, intellect, sensibility, and integrity, the peddlers of progressivism demand only fealty to them, the carrots including lots of "free" things like education, medical coverage, being able to copulate with anyone or anything and in any manner dictated by impulse or fashion, do whatever drugs fit the bill and so forth, all without any call for personal responsibility.

Little Johnny uncaringly impregnates little Janey, for example, and it is no problem at all because abortions are freely available, neither party to the event to be called to account for their actions, or to pay the costs, even if dear little Janey puts it off until late in her eighth month.  Don't worry, be happy.

This is all an appeal to entropy - to the path of least resistance and decay in one's day to day routines of life.  There is no judgment of the actions of others, just so long as they minimally adhere to the orthodoxy, such as it may be from one day to another.  The other virtue of the progressive orthodoxy in terms of its appeal to young people, is that it is easy to be compliant because it demands so little of one.

Why, prithee tell, would a child choose the path difficult over the way of sliding by without effort or accountability, especially when stupidity is awarded with praise, free stuff, and freedom from consequences?  In the vast majority of cases, they would not.  This is where parents must come in and force things a bit - not to the point of being abusive tyrants, but only to that of getting a child over that initial hump of difficulty for seeing the virtues of the Freeman's path.  There are rewards no child is able to see due in part to the fact that their minds have not developed to that capacity, and in part due to the lack of ever having been exposed to such virtues before.  They need our help and they want it.  But if we fail as the adults to guide them through what no reasonable man would deny are great difficulties for them, then we relegate the children to a doomed and mere existence of always just getting by, forever hatefully aversive to the joys of true accomplishment, which almost always come only with great effort.  This is what some have called the "tyranny of low expectations".

We now hold in hand the basic architecture of the average progressive:


  1. Progressives tend to be possessed of an unrealistic, and in many cases infantile idealism that drives a deep and relentless determination to "fix" the race of men in order that all individuals adhere to and comport themselves in faithful accord with what is usually an ill-defined ideal of social order.
  2. Progressives are notoriously weak-minded, overly sensitive, and eager to find offense in even the most innocuous expressions of others, especially non-progressives.  They seek things out over which to make loud and objectionable noises.
  3. Progressives are, ironically, some of the most intensely parochial people in existence.
  4. Progressives accept and advocate for the application of forced measures to compel individual behavior in accord with the approved schedule of improvements as dictated by the vaporous ideal-du-jour.
  5. Progressives tend to manifest an out-of-hand and intensely vehement rejection of anything that would constrain their thought, opinion, and ambitions.  Logic and reason are at the top of this list.
  6. Progressives are penultimate pragmatists.  The only principle to which they seem to adhere is the attainment of that which they demand of others.  Everything else is negotiable, but only on their terms and under their conditions, all of which appear to follow no rhyme or reason beyond their mood at any given moment.
  7. Progressives tend to form their opinions based upon very selectively flawed [re]definitions of terms.  The gross and flagrant abuse of language is a hallmark of progressive behavior, the apparent purpose being to bolster their goals and other desires.
  8. Progressivism founds upon an orthodoxy of low expectations of the individual.  This standard is, therefore, comparatively very easy to hold and is correspondingly very attractive because it promises free things with very little accountability, asking little or nothing in return beyond minimal compliance.
In short, the progressive is an individual of ostensibly good intentions.  Those intentions are, however, based upon deeply flawed ideals of human social order, which issue from a place of what are apparently profoundly troubled emotions and where the guiding restraint of logic and reason is unwelcome.  They reject positivism out of hand completely anywhere that it fails to accord in even the least measure with progressive ideals.  Progressives are particularly fanatical and obsessive/compulsive about this.  The progressive world-view issues from typically narrow and grievously flawed normative ideals of human relations.  Far worse, progressives make zero allowance for variance with their views, which is particularly ironic in the face of the endlessly strident and unceasing emphasis on "diversity" for which they are notorious.

The typical progressive is a mass of apparently conflicting impulses, driven to force the goals he deems fitting for him upon the entire world, not content to realize them for himself or a circle of like-minded individuals in voluntary cooperation.  Despite his incessant rantings about diversity, he rejects it any time anything offends his hyper-delicate sensibilities, at which point a monster of a truly epic and frightening cast arises such that it will, if possible, see the greatest and most draconian punishments meted to those who offend.  An example this brand of venom and vitriol may be seen in the recent fad of wishing cancer upon those with whom they disagree.  No decent human being would wish such a thing upon another, no matter how deeply and bitterly he may dislike or even hate the other.  This phenomenon demonstrates just how perfectly the progressive is willing to cut himself free of any restraint where his unbridled and apparently pathological emotions are concerned.

History, particularly that of the early twentieth century, reinforces these assertions.  Consider the Soviet Union and Communist China, both having been bastions of progressivism as it is known today.  As many as 200 million people were butchered in the various purges, and possibly more.  Those people were not killed with the neutrality of the just man who undertakes such action with deep reticence and sadness at the necessity and only to the degree absolutely necessary under a circumstance.  Those people were murdered with the heat and glee of a base form of hatred that wishes to see others destroyed in the most cruel and hideous ways possible precisely because they are perceived as "other"; as not on board with the agenda at hand.  In many cases, simple personal hatred underpinned the acts, masquerading as the likes of concern about "counter-revolutionary acts".

Progressivism tends to be many things at once, few of them good.  On the one hand, it stands as an appeal to all that is base in the human animal, though almost exclusively in manners tacit or otherwise oblique.  On the other, it founds in a very real human desire to see good triumph over evil in the world.  The problem lies in the gross and dangerous distortion of the definitions of "good" and "evil".

Progressivism makes no allowance for degree.  One of the central policies of the typical progressive is that of so-called "zero tolerance", which they appear to believe represents a moral high ground of some sort, taking into no account basic human nature both in terms of impulse, belief, and the simple fact that we are prone to transient error.  The progressive demands ultimate punishment for even the least infraction of one of their lofty, better-than-thou ideals.  The average progressive represents a penultimate poster boy for unvarnished, ravaging, rampaging, murderous tyranny over those of his fellows who fail to accept his mandates to the world.

It is a woeful thing to think that we have lost entire generations to the soft and often quiet horrors of progressivism - having tempted our young people with the pathetic standards of virtue that is represented by the high entropy of low expectations.  Few things can I see as matching this degree of spectacle in human failure.  Where with a little effort even the average man could fly high and achieve heaven only knows what, we instead cripple our children by asking so little of them.

What, then, is the upshot?  Awareness and understanding first and foremost.  These should serve as gateways and guides to recognition of this terrible affliction in others, as well as in the formation of one's own views, and as a means of motivating oneself against being so stricken.  May it also help Freemen in devising the will and the means to fight the spread of this corrosive mindset that leaves little more than destruction, poverty, and misery in its presence and wake.

Understanding the essence of progressivism is the first step in driving it back from making further inroads to acceptance.


† Contraction of "philosophical-political"
†† https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism
††† https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Mass Murder

Earlier this week we were treated to the worst mass shooting in American history with nearly sixty people murdered and hundreds wounded.  The bodies weren't counted before certain interests were already screaming for more "gun control", as if that were not readily predictable.

Naturally, those same interests are quick to point out that this is a "mostly" American phenomenon, the implication being that the reason for it is that there are so many guns in America.  A more deeply tacit implication is that mass murder doesn't really happen in other nations, which is a bald-faced lie.  But it is not my purpose here to go into the facts about what happens around the world in that regard, but rather to point out a very simple observation in the form of a question: why is it that broader questions regarding possible causes for such horrific events are never raised?

Certainly, we never hear the questions raised in major network media.  Why?  Because they raise the possibility, I daresay the risk, of leading to answers not in good keeping with an agenda of vested political interest that would see the American people disarmed.

What sort of question could this possibly be, that it would be so religiously shunned by those whose ostensive raison d'être is to raise such questions, if only editorially?  After all, such questions are asked by media to the point of people no longer not wanting to hear them when the answers bolster the aforementioned political interests.  This most simple question could be couched in many ways, this being but one of them:

Has anyone considered the possibility that the reason we are seeing more massacres of apparently ever greater magnitude is because of the general environment of repression in which people are being forced to live at the whim of tyrants whose actions have been to circumscribe the rights of men with ever more severity?

 It is not my purpose here to go into a long-winded analytic exposition, but just to raise what I believe to be a most salient question of our time.  While perhaps no causal relationship has been revealed - certainly not in any analysis of my own to date - there appears to be a very strong correlation between political repression and the growing frequency and severity of individuals and even organizations lashing out against either those perceived as their tormentors, or even just anyone perhaps out of a level of sheer frustration and anger that they are no longer willing to contain themselves.

Do we really need a twenty-year, "government" funded scientific study to the tune of billions of dollars to conclude that perhaps the "rats in a cage" phenomenon applies to human beings as well?  Does it require rocket surgery to figure out that when the "state" imposes conditions of repression upon the very people whose liberties it is supposed to protect, some of the individuals are going to one day decide they have had quite enough and lash out?

A shooting occurs and what do we hear from media, "pundits", and so-called "experts"?  "He was mentally ill... blah blah blah..."  and "There are too many guns on the streets; they should be for police and military only... yadda blah blagger..."  That's about it.  In a world heading toward eight billion individual souls, those in media and other corners boil down the most extreme of the expressions of human dissatisfaction to these two hopelessly simplistic lies... and just about nobody seems to notice.

How is it that so many people accept (or reject) these two idiocies as constituting the entire universe of the broader question as to why some people end up "going postal"?  Even the brighter contingent who reject the media inaccuracies and outright lies about mental illness and too many guns fail to ask the deeper question as to why these things happen.  They fail to ask whether perhaps the general conditions under which we are forced to live on pain of the sword's edge might have something to do with the fact that people are "going crazy" with seemingly increasing frequency and severity.  This represents a failure of monumental proportion and so long as it stands, the people of America, not to mention the rest of the planet, will continue down the death spiral as they flee life in a mad race toward mere existence.

It must therefore at least be asked of every man to stop an honest and sincere moment and ask himself whether the ever greater constrictions placed upon the rightful prerogatives of inherently free beings might possibly have some causal place in a scheme of things that leads more and  more people into acts of desperation. Do not depend on network media to do this lifting for you because what I believe to be the clear answers do not lend themselves to the agenda of universal civilian disarmament and even deeper restrictions upon individual freedom.  The collectivist demands the individual be stamped out in favor of the hive.  He will allow nothing that might lead to rearward motion in terms of thought.  This is what "progressivism" actually means: the progression from freedom to full-suit slavery, which in turn requires ever deeper suppression of individuality, resulting in ever deeper anger and frustration as basic human nature is violated ever more cruelly.

Learn the math.  Put two and two together in connection of the dots.  Don't take my word for this, or anything else: learn to do it on your own.  I promise you that you are capable of good analysis.  All it requires is the will to the goal, and that first step of asking the question nobody seems to want to put out there.

Truth will come if you seek it, but you must do so honestly and with courage because the potential always exists that your world view may end up on the ground in shards.  But have no fear, save for the possibility of continued ignorance.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Thursday, August 31, 2017

Reality Check Time, 31 August 2017.

This is an exchange I had on another site, for what it is worth.  The intentions of the original poster are all well and good, but they do not accord well with today's reality, I am sad to say.  But read and decide for yourself.  The gist of the OP was that those who seek freedom need to get out there and be more active.  My responses are in non-quoted text.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Originally Posted by *************** 
We have to stop being keyboard warriors
Good luck with that. The one thing for which credit must be given to the snowflake generation is this: they are getting out there in pursuit of what they believe to be right. The wholesale fallacy of that for which they stand cannot erase credit due.


and make small changes that we can repeat all across our nation to make real change.
(Good luck with that.)^2 Had we engaged in such action 50 years ago, hell, even 20 or maybe even 10, we may have stood a chance of succeeding. Now, I just do not see it. Either we have crossed a barely sensible threshold, or are about to at any moment. Once that boundary is violated, we no longer have the option cited, the choice having become binary: fight or cave. It is possible we're not there yet, but I would be surprised to find it was so. And even if we are still on the other side of it, I'm not seeing the sorts of talk that will put our circumstance in better footings. Quite the opposite, in fact. Sure, the "white majority", who are now openly vilified with the most outrageous lies imaginable, are beginning to push back. In the last three months, for example, I have seen presumably white people calling black ones "******" (« there goes that childish filtering crap again!) more openly and unapologetically than I have in the past 20 years. It is remarkable.

This is the sort of talk that drives us further toward the precipice from which nobody wants to fall. And yet, here "we" go, pedal to the metal as we speed headlong for a result some of us think we want. What few seem to realize is that the affairs for which so many seem now to pine (open warfare and other very serious physical conflict), is that the non-linearity of such engagements guarantees nobody the win. Besides, what does winning even mean here? The "right" would have a better sense of it than the "left", I admit; but would it be satisfying once achieved? I don't know. The "left", of course, in its typical way has no clue.

Consider BLM and their calls for the extermination of the white race. Even if they could affect that result, which is just this side of laughable, they seem to labor under the ill-considered impressions of what the aftermath would be like. Let us now speak plainly in dispense of all PC nonsense: most black people in America would die in a few short months absent the infrastructure upon which their knowledge-bereft lives depend. Who among them would know how to maintain the roads? Who would build and run the CNC machinery that produce the goods to which they feel entitled? Whence their food? Medicine and medical care? The list is long, their knowledge very short. Shorter still, their motivation to avoid devolution into their African roots of rape and pillage, rather than to become knowledgeable in the various professions, arts, and crafts that have kept men alive for millennia. The post-white BLM world would be a nightmare that IMO would as likely lead to their own extinction as to any more positive (in their eyes) result.

The same broad analytic result stands for the other "left" leaning groups such as antifa. Without the presence of the people whom they hate with such bitterness, they would not be long for the world - certainly not the one they think they want. Just consider the reality once again: they claim to want a world where people are not "RAYcis", and so forth down their dreary litany of unicorn-poo virtues; the ones for which they would see you dead in order to have. This is a presumably orderly world, but order requires not only discipline, but knowledge of very specific skills that produce that order. I see no evidence of those abilities in any of these rioting, tantrum-pitching infants. The only thing holding them together is their vaporously ill-defined hate. It appears to be literally the only thing they possess. I have yet to witness a coherent and sufficiently constituted account of the vision of the world they want. "Income equality" doesn't quite cut that muster.

These people, much like the ISIS folks, and all other ravening revolutionaries who are willing to put to a sword any and all who do not comport themselves sufficiently with the new orthodoxy, always end up turning on one another. When ISIS gets their Islamic world, will they be able to turn off their mad lust to saw off heads? Highly unlikely, meaning they will always be on the hunt for apostates. Antifa, BLM, and so on are no different because in this way people are no different.

Some might be tempted to cite Cuba or China, but they would fail because those states are precisely this way. The "state" is ever present in the lives of the common man in ways few want. Step outside of the orthodoxy - hell, just APPEAR to - and it is off to trial with the predictable guilty verdict; then off for execution, long prison stays, or the ever popular "reëducation".

So guys, if you want to murder all white people, fascists, what-have-you, then by all means have at it. If I live long enough through it, I know I will have the opportunity to sit atop my little mountain here in WV, laughing until the tears gush as I watch you either lose your bid, or fall into the most predictable end of mass autogourmandization.

So go for it. You never know, I might be wrong on every point.

End digression.


We can't do it bottom up though.
Top-down? This presumes facts not in evidence.


We need tangible results to present to any elite that this is a bad course we are on, and it must change.


Now THIS is top-grade foolery. An elite, almost by definition anymore, gives no shyte about what YOU think, want, feel, etc. Theye are, again almost by definition, mad as hatters. Where once Theye appeared to possess rationality and some form of sanity, today it seems they have walked away from all that. Granted, it could be all smoke and mirrors (prob. is IMO), but what if it is not? Going to your ultimate murderer with the "facts" makes as much sense as two monkeys humping a football.

The presumption that those in Congress or wherever, would be open to facts, reason, and sane rationality is FAIL^FAIL. It is senseless. Yes you have your Thomas Massies, that population countable on two hands with fingers left over in a sea of 500+ federal legislators. Do the arithmetic. States may fare better, but how much so, especially when from the other side of the coin you have the baby-brigade screaming for unicorn-poo and threatening to light the world ablaze if they don't get it? To whom does anyone with an IQ in the positive integers thinks that the "elites" in question are going to choose your side over the other? On what basis do you believe it?

Consider again the reality: if Theye ignore you, pretty well nothing happens... at least not immediately. Ignore the brigadiers and it's instant rioting. Even an honest "elite" does not want to be viewed as the guy who brought us burning cities. Therefore, he rightly gets on his knees and services the far squeakier wheel. When, in living memory, has it ever been different with any significance? Right.

Why would they want to rule ashes?
One man's ash is another man's paradise.


That's what their adherence to the prog system is. It's power but it's civilizational suicide.
If it's suicide now, it was suicide back when. So long as you can hold off the day of reckoning until three seconds after you pass from this life, all is good in the eyes of the insane.


We can only find a patron if we have something tangible to show them. We have ideas, we need programs and we need the practice.
This flies right into the idiotic. The FAIL is strong in this one, I see. Firstly, the dependence on a "patron" fails. Even the Ron Paul crowd has failed in this self-same way. Looking for a messiah is FAIL^FAIL^FAIL. It is ultimate FAIL and the reason why Empire societies are apparently inherently incapable of living anarchically. Put people into an Empire context and they go crazy in this way, always seeking to pawn off their responsibilities upon the shoulders of others. This is the prime example of a division of labor FAIL. This is why some form of authority is necessary in order to keep the general population from devolving into a race of tantruming infants. It is a sad, sad truth about the human animal. But then, there is the problem of corruption of those in positions of trust. Mr. Rock, allow me to introduce Mr. Hardplace.

The only hope, then, lies primarily in the attitude of the people. Clearly, however, people cannot as a rule be trusted not to go down the rocky path of entropic decay in terms of attitude. The temptations of entropy are just too great. Therefore, if we are to retain the basic Empire societal schema, a proper structuring of the conceptual elements regarding governance is, IMO, absolutely essential. This brings us back to notions such as a Canon Of Proper Human Relations, as well as a sacrosanct corpus of specification and rules for governance and how to deal with violations of the public trust.  This is all doable. I've done it, which proves the case. But without proper attitude, even that ultimately fails.  But I also believe there is a way to best ensure the survival of attitude in synthetic social arrangements that are by their nature anathema to such world-views.

One of them is mandating two sessions of primitive living, one during childhood and once again in adulthood. For a full year, you live in poverty.  No cell phones, no supermarkets, nice clothing. In short, you live like a cave-brute, scratching out an existence for yourself with no guarantee of survival. If you survive, chances are fair to middling you will have come to a greater appreciation of not only your freedoms, but of the results of the free cooperations between men. And on the off-chance that you might lose sight of those lessons, you are once again called to spend another year as a young adult, prior to age 25 perhaps, doing it all again just to make sure you've not fallen into any badness.

It's not a perfect solution, but perhaps it is the best with which we can come up because if people have proven nothing else about themselves, it is that there is no bottom too low to which they will not fall, given the chance.

Just a thought, anyhow.

The storm is growing. Be a lighthouse.
Now with THIS I am fully on board.


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

End Text.

So there you have it, for what it may be worth.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.



Monday, June 26, 2017

The Method Of Rule By Policy




“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”
― James Madison

My knowledge of history is far from complete, and while I do not know when men began employing the Method of Rule by Policy, I do know that the Romans used it.  The Method fell from common use after Rome's fall, but appears to have regained popularity with the rise of the so-called "nation state".

The kings of yore were typically ill-educated and generally lacked a sense of long term, all-encompassing strategy to ensure their legacies survived the ages, despite the efforts of some to establish perpetuities.  Therefore, their dynasties rarely lasted beyond a very few generations.  It was not until the rise of the nation-state, which corporatized governance, that governmental "dynasties" began to stabilize over many generations with the potential to continue in what for all practical purposes is perpetuity.  The Roman Church is perhaps the preeminent example of the potential for longevity of well managed corporate governance.  The Third Reich is an equally good example of what happens when such governance loses its way, or comes against forces it cannot resist, despite seemingly very promising beginnings.  The Soviet Union and Red China are examples of how flagrant tyrannies are able to accomplish endless horrors and maintain themselves for extended periods well beyond the span of an ordinary lifetime.

As is typical in basically all cases of political power, governance becomes corrupted in one way and degree, or another.  The motives are as numerous as the stars and though we may generously assume the best of intentions, the propriety of the plots driven by such intentions is rarely very good.

The one thing that tyrants have had increasingly in common since perhaps the seventeenth century (just a rough estimate) is the use of the Method of Rule by Policy, to which James Madison refers in the opening quote.

What is the Method?  It is simply this: the drafting of bills so voluminous and/or incoherently worded, that once enacted, the "state" stands at its leisure to interpret its meaning as it pleases.  Rule by Policy provides tyrants end run around any more definite notions of "Law" that would otherwise limit power and hamper political designs that would otherwise rest in clear violation of such Law.

So-called "Obamacare" is one example of the Method in practice.  It is both voluminous, thousands of pages in length, and in places worded in such ways as to become practicable only through the "guidance" of state interpretation, which leaves those in power with leeway far broader than would otherwise be the case.  Sarbanes-Oxley is another relatively recent example, many of its specifications worded so vaguely that mere changes in policy from one moment to the next is all that is required to enable administrators and other instruments of the "state" to radically alter the practical mandates forced upon the people.  In effect, the Method allows for governance by whim, which is all that policy has ever been, and can ever be.

The Method, while powerful, is not quite perfect.  Courts, for example, can prove a great fly in the ointment of capricious and tyrannical fiat in governance.  There is a considerable body of examples where the capriciously altered requirements of a given act have been challenged in court such that those courts have ruled the legislation void and without force of law due to vagueness.  Similarly, courts have in some cases zeroed in on a single, far more specific interpretation of legislative language such that those in seats of power have become visibly displeased with the rulings due to "wrong" interpretations, as well as greatly narrowed channels of political power.  This is part of the risk that tyrants run when using the Method, but overall it appears that it has been a marvelous tool for foisting the most egregiously and dangerously violative idiocies on people.  On the whole, the Method has yielded benefits grossly outpacing the comparatively few and meaningless losses.

Therefore, one should keep his eyes focused for such bills, knowing what they are when encountered.  Nothing good can come of such legislation and every effort should be made to thwart all efforts to enact them.  Be neither fooled nor intimidated by the seemingly esoteric language found in virtually all legislation.  Learn to read the jargon of political nonsense and chicanery, and know without any doubt whatsoever that any time you encounter bills longer than a few pages or written in language most PhDs are unable to decipher, you have on hand an example of the Method of Rule by Policy, without a doubt an instrument whose enforcement will result in nothing good for everyone, save perhaps a select few.

If you are one not to believe in the conspiratorial nature of the legislative process, then consider that the only alternative is that those who draft such legislation are at best incompetents lacking the most basic qualifications for such work, and who merit nothing better than immediate impeachment for their gross and flailing ineptitude in such matters.

Be certain of one thing: men of good character and proper ability draft legislation that the average man can read in a short time and walk away with a strong and unambiguous understanding of what has been written.  So long as you hold on to that fundamental truth, you will almost always be able to tell when you are being sold a bill of goods by "government".

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Friday, May 12, 2017

Freedom And The Meaner

Today I would like to address a subject most people avoid the way men attempted to escape the Black Plague: Freedom and the Average Man, what I call the "Meaner".

Freedom is a two-edged (or more) sword.  Flight is a great illustrative analog.  On the one hand, there is the thrill of non-restriction - soaring high above it all in whichever direction one chooses, the ability to go where one wishes, when one wishes, taking the path one wishes, and usually with a dispatch that earth-bound transit will not allow. Those are what we might term as the basic thrills of flying.

Then there are the "costs" or "demands" of flight, which would include the various responsibilities and risks associated therewith.  For example, one must maintain minimum velocity and a sufficient awareness of his position in relation to the earth and other objects including other possible air traffic, lest he fall from the sky or  crash into another thing, resulting in grave injury or even death to oneself, others, and property.  In order to fly competently, one must be ultimately responsible for his state of mind while flying, as well as the attendant actions.

Bringing us to the issue of practical human flight, which requires aircraft and other human artifice,  the question arises as to why so few people so much as learn to fly, much less engage in flight on anything that could be called a regular basis.  One thing of which I can assure is that it is not money that keeps people from flying, but rather all the other costs associated with it, including fear.

The Meaner has no interest in flying sufficient to motivate him to learn because the thrill of the freedom it represents is far and away outpaced by his aversion to the demands it places upon him.  The practical human pilot must be well disciplined through his training.  He must understand the basics of aerodynamics, as well as navigation, communications, emergency procedures, and legal issues regarding restrictions upon his prerogatives as a pilot.

The artifice of human flight carries with it risks that strike great unease, if not paralytic fear into the hearts of average men such that they could give the least damn about the freedom to be found there.  Such men prefer the lie that is the false sense of security provided by their earthbound, foot-shuffling confinement to the ground.  The thrill and exhilaration of the freedoms of flight hold insufficient charm for him because it demands that which lies beyond the timid metes and bounds dictated by his morbid addiction to lassitude-driven convenience, his aversion to responsibility, and his crippling fear of, and aversion to risk.

And so may this analog be extrapolated to map to the broadest senses of human freedom.  The thrills and the potentials of actual freedom hold no sufficient allure for Johnny Average because the associated costs he regards as too high.

To be free is to be wholly accountable for what you think, do, and feel.  This demand of accountability is perhaps the most prominent element to which the Meaner blasts his fear-riddled, anger-laden voice of rejection.  The justifications he concocts pursuant to his counter-blasts represent such creative fecundity that, were he to make the same applications to his other pursuits, I daresay the great maladies of humanity would have fallen away from his shoulders long ago.

And so the mean man has contrived for himself this elaborate system of lies and other false reasons for rejecting freedom in favor of systems of slavery and their associated tyrannies.  He furthers his crimes against himself and his fellows with the added mendacity of calling the prisons into which he relegates himself and those around him, "freedom".  The irony of it burns with a hateful misery in the eyes of thinking men of integrity and honor, to drive them to the edges of despair.

Men's individual notions of "freedom" are almost as manifold as their numbers.  The one thing such notions carry in vast common is their false quality.

In a properly free society, men stand in apprehension of their positions in the grander scheme of things on  planet earth.  They know they are owed absolutely nothing, save that gained through their various acts of valid labor, whether singly endeavored, or severally.  They know that if they succeed at whatever it is to which they apply themselves, the fruits of endeavor are theirs and nobody else's.  They know equally well that if they fail, no man is compelled to render aid and assistance.  Therefore, they understand and accept the risks (a form of cost), of their freedom, as well as the benefits.

By extrapolation, they understand that not all of their fellows will "make it" in life, whether in pursuit of success in business, or even their ability to physically survive for another day.  Being generally decent sorts, average men chafe at the prospect of their fellows dying at the hands of circumstance.  The difference between today's Meaner, who is a Weakman, and the Freeman is that the latter understands that there is no conceivable social good that lends the least authority at any time to one man such that he may lord over and restrict the rightful prerogatives of another.

People of just about any stripe one might care to name appear readily willing to violate the property rights of their fellows pursuant to their pet social cause, whether it be hungry children, roadways, national security. "social" security/order,  natural disaster, religion, or any of a great host of other transparently false justifications for the violence-laced expropriation of property and violation of rights.  They care no whit about that, so long as they get to ease their consciences at someone else's expense.

The timid "liberal", quaking in bladder-emptying fear of potential violence, is more than willing to employ cruel and rampaging terror against his fellows through the instrument of "the state" in order to quell the riotous machinations of his fevered mind, running amok with panic and alarm.  Hence, he is wildly eager to see "gun control" legislation enacted in violation of a man's sacred right to the means of defense, as well as a vast host of other statutes in similar violation of the rights of men in order that his delicate sensibilities be spared the horrors of reality.

The so-called "social conservative" would have the homosexual censured and perhaps even imprisoned for having the temerity of upsetting his white-picket-fence vision of the social order.  Once again, his delicate sensibilities prove more important to him than any sense of equity and respect between men.  After all, we know all too well that the scourge of the queer presents a clear, present, and mortal danger to all and must, therefore, be stamped out sans the least hint of equivocation.

The clue-bereft "environmentalist", apparently oblivious to the hypocrisy of his pseudo-Luddite positions would see the world reverted to stone-age conditions for no other reason than to ease his falsely troubled mind regarding issues of habitat that he has taken from what is reasonable and dragged into the distortions of ignorant extremes, the rights of those around him be damned.

The so-called "social justice warrior" (talk about irony) would literally see his fellow men slaughtered in waves to make the likes of Mao Tse Tung and Joseph Stalin weep tears of bitter envy for sheer numbers, pursuant to their petty and tepid visions a perfect world devoid of risk and hurt feelings.  Heaven forbid anyone utter a word that meets with his disapproval.  Best to see such utterances met with the most draconian response, rather than so much as risk someone's feelings being nudged.

We could go down a very long list of groups whose visions of social paradise readily call for the restriction, violation, and even destruction of what is often vast numbers of their fellow men.  Fundamentalist Muslims cry for the extermination of Jews and other "infidels".  Some Christians would impose their beliefs upon all, as would some Jews.  Communists, socialists, scientologiests, flat-earthers, "futurists", Luddites, animal-rights activists, Democrats, Republicacns, men, women, gays, lesbians... the list is long, arduous, and representative of mankind's worst and most dangerous enemy: itself.

Such people are steadfastly opposed to accepting freedom from the one side of their mouths, while spewing "we're FREE!!" from the other.  They want only that which appeals to them, vociferously and often violently rejecting all that holds no shine for their eyes, no matter what anyone else might think or want.

So long as Joey Meaner gets what he wants from life, the rest of mankind can go straight to hell, willing to use whatever means he deems fit to oppress the rightful prerogatives of those around him and whose desires might vary beyond his narrow-between-the-eyes notions of what is desirable.

In this, human beings are almost universally corrupt.  I can think of but the smallest handful of individuals with the vision and decency to allow others their lives, so long as the rights of all are held sacrosanct by each.  That in part means accepting the horrors of life, as well as the beauties.  There is nothing wrong with helping those in dire straits.  Crime comes not in rendering aid, but in forcing one's neighbors to do so where the inclination is absent.

Will people ever learn the Golden Rule, which is nothing fancier than "live and let live"?  I cannot say for certain, but if our history is any indicator, then I must conclude that the prospects do not look good.

Freedom is at once both beautiful and horrifying; appealing and revolting.  The weal must come with its attendant woe; the benefit with the cost; the right with the responsibility.  As we engineers learned in all our studies of energy systems, beginning with thermodynamics, "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." (TAANSTAFL).  Everything in this life costs.  Everything.  That includes freedom.  If one wishes to enjoy the thrills of flying high, one must accept that which is required in order to be able to do it, and accept the associated risks.  There is no one without the other, no matter how hard one might wish it to be otherwise.

Things will always go wrong; people will always abuse or otherwise act wrongfully.  There is no possibility of eliminating such developments.  Furthermore, I boldly assert that were it possible, such a world would be so boring a place that people would go out to injure themselves or others just to escape to drabbery of it.  Yes, I just made up "drabbery".  Get over it. :)

The sooner men of more ignorant and/or timid bents come to accept that life is not all bunnie, light, and unicorn poo, the more quickly will the world of men heal and come to optimum realization of its best potentials.  Until that time, the human fabric will always be significantly less than what if might become.  Fear, Avarice, Ignorance, and Lassistude (FAIL), no matter how devotedly one may cling to them, will never produce the results so many think possible.  Our reflexive approaches to "improving" the world are akin to feeding salmonella cultures to those dying of food poisoning with the intention of curing them.  It is not even remotely possible.

Life requires courage, lest it be reduced to mere existence unworthy of its own appellation.  It requires generosity of a sort that leaves people their rightful prerogatives intact, as well as smarts and a certain brand of industry, if it not to devolve and decay into an affair of poverty, violation, disease, chaos, misery, and living death.

Freedom is the only path that can optimize the human condition.  It is beautiful, but it can be scary, demanding, and outright horrifying at times.  But it is the only path toward humanity's apex, all others leading to Davey Jones' locker, whether sooner, or later.

So please, be of a generous spirit toward your fellows.  Be generous toward yourself through the rewards of courage, strong and honest intellect, and the drive to achieve for yourself, not to mention the will to allow others to do the same.  I promise you on my sacred word that this is the only good way forward.  It is the way of the Freeman in rejection of that of the Weakman.

Be free.  The payoff is well worth the cost, one hundred-fold.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Friday, May 5, 2017

Super-Organized Societies And The Warrior Culture

Human societies have existed for a long time, between 100,000 and 200,000 years, if the archaeologists are to be believed.  For the vast temporal majority of our tenure, people have lived in simple tribal societies, if the current interpretations of the anthropological record are to be taken as credible and true.  Once again, depending on whether the anthropologists have it right, so-called "super-organized societies" did not come into being until comparatively very recent times.

Even if we assume that the settlement at Çatal Höyök in modern Turkey was a super-organized society, that would place the emergence of such entities at only 9,500 years, a comparatively small chunk of humanities time on earth, thus far.


Today I would like to address the concept of the "super-organized society" and discuss the advantages, as well as the drawbacks of such entities.

First, we must have on hand a definition for "super-organized society"(SOS).  This definition is not quite so easily conjured, but let us begin with the notion of a "superorganism" which one dictionary defines as:








noun

1.
a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes.
2.
a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran.
3.
any organized body or system conceived of as analogous to a living being:

As is readily apparent, the definition may include almost any "higher" living creature, including individual human beings.  We will have to pin this down with greater specificity.  However, definition 3 appears to com very close to that which is pertinent.

It is of some value, however, to note that such organisms are generally constructed with components that are both specialized in their functional role as part of the greater body and that they are generally not well equipped to survive on their own, having become highly dependent upon the totality.  These characteristics are readily identifiable in the super-organized society in that there is a division of labor to such an extent that survivability of any randomly chosen individual is likely to be low in the extended absence of the whole.

Therefore, we may provisionally define "super-organized society" as one of such an architecture where we see specialization of knowledge and skill taking the place of generalized abilities in the individual pursuant to serving the various roles required toward the achievement of super-human endeavors, which are themselves defined as those not readily accomplished by individuals.

One might call it a step in the evolution of men.  Of course, others might call it something very different.

If we take this as the absolute minimum sufficient definition, we may then have a bare minimally sufficient, if still somewhat vague, notion of what constitutes a Super-Organized Society.

For the sake of clarification through comparison, consider the "primitive" society of the tribal anarchy where the populations tend to be small, usually counted in the hundreds or even less, and where the division of labor and the attendant specializations are far less evident.  In such societies, while there were certainly the hunters, as well as a small number of other broad specializations, these were very few in number when compared with what we see today.  Where, for example, the "medicine man" of ancient times embraced a broad avenue of responsibilities, today's analogs inhabit and one of a fairly large number of specialities such as oncology, podiatry, internal medicine, pediatrics, gynecology, ear nose and throat, nephrology, and so on down a considerable list of divisions.

When considering these differences, we see that one of the advantages of the SOS is the vastly augmented base of human knowledge.  Our technologies, whether medical, engineering, or what have you, could not be maintained in a tribal anarchic society because the body of knowledge is itself far too vast for such small numbers to retain in both memory and the ability to apply.  Even with modern cybernetic technologies, a general practitioner of medicine does not break out a how-to video and suddenly find himself capable of performing brain surgery.

When knowledge crosses some foggily defined threshold in terms of volume, complexity, and subtlety, it becomes necessary for humans to pick and choose relatively small chunks of it as vocation in order to be able to accomplish the goals of practice.  A brain surgeon's bailiwick is so complex and subtle, despite being so narrow in the grander scheme of human medical practice, that few if any are able to engage themselves in other specialties precisely because the demands of mastering the needed skills are so very high.

Super-Organization has lead to super-human capability where SOSs are taken as gestalts.

The disadvantages of the SOS are at least as significant as the advantages.  Loss of independence is a major problem from several standpoints.  Firstly and most likely is the fact that interdependence has been very effectively used as a means of political coercion.  Menacing a highly specialized man such as a brain surgeon with removing his ability to purchase food would be a literally life-threatening act. How many brain surgeons do we know who are also capable hunters and gardeners, able to raise their own food?  How many such men would be able to manage both the professional demands, as well as those of their continually emptying stomachs?  Few, if any.

Besides the high potential for political chicanery, there is also the threat of natural disaster.  When such events occur, the specialized people of the SOS are often helpless in the aftermath, incapable of performing for themselves the most basic life-sustaining tasks such as securing food and shelter.  Disasters such as hurricane Katrina bear stark and frightening witness to the dire nature of the straits in which typical men find themselves when all of a sudden the supermarket shelves are empty or no longer accessible.

Broad but relatively shallow knowledge is more valuable under circumstances where self-sufficiency becomes the primary factor in determining one's survival.  Narrow and deep knowledge holds greater value when circumstances are "normal".  Men can take greater risks because the means of minimizing the consequences of failure are at hand.  By this virtue are men able to accomplish greater things.  But when the fundamental infrastructure of the SOS is disrupted sufficiently, the highly specialized knowledge of the average man threatens to become virtually useless to the purposes of one's immediate survival.

And let us once more reiterate the threat posed by tyrants in pursuit of that which they desire.  Such men will use the weaknesses of super-specialization against individuals and even communities in order to have their ways, in the event such people prove resistant to the will of "authority".

Empire is an example of super-organized society.  Empire must perforce be of a super-organized architecture precisely because of the power required to establish and maintain such a society.  One cannot engage in the erection of huge edifices and monuments on individual bases, though there appears to be one or two examples extant where single individuals have managed such feats be means that remain unpublished.  That being the wild outlier, it is safe to say that temples of stone, huge statues and the sort could not have been erected without not only large numbers of bodies, but also very specialized knowledge of various crafts such as stone quarrying, cutting to dressed size, transport, and so forth.  We will, therefore, refer to such activities as being of a "super-human" nature, for the most part.  That is, they require capabilities beyond those of individual men.

Acquisition of all the resources required for the undertaking of super-human endeavors is no mere matter of wishing them into existence.  Gathering them takes work that in early times could be done only by other men, as well as draft animals; most often lots of them.

Human nature being what it is, most people undertake a given activity only if there is some payoff for doing so.  Working for a lifetime cutting stone for a temple is not an easy life.  Therefore, the payoff for choosing such a path would likely have to be pretty good for the average man.  That, or the threat to his life sufficiently grave.  Slavery of one form or another has been one of the key and defining characteristics of the SOS since time immemorial, or so it seems.  Empires undertook vastly superhuman endeavors, whether building temples and monuments, or conquering other people.  Only super-organization  can provide the power necessary to the exercise of such volumes of power, and when the average man was predictably reticent to become involved, the strong man became the tyrant and enslaved him by one means or another.

There appears some question as to whether the earliest walled cities such as Sumer were built with forced labor.  It is certainly arguable that it had not been, for in those days it seems that all a man needed do was walk away in the night, for there were perhaps no cages yet into which to place reluctant men, and by definition there were no walls.  But even if the earliest cities were built on a purely voluntary basis, it seems that some men rapidly expanded their wills to include the use of force to build the monuments in honor of themselves, if nothing else.

The seemingly necessary enslavement of the populations of Super-Organized Societies has, in fact, become its obscured hallmark, which remains to this very day.  We have, as yet, failed as a species to contrive a super-organized societal architecture that does not base itself upon a hierarchical master-slave paradigm.  To this very day there are those who claim authority over the rest, all disagreement be damned.  And where the disagreement crosses a line scribed in the societal sand, most often arbitrarily and with capricious vicissitude, "authority" responds with violence in some form and degree.  It is a pattern as predictable as the phases of the moon.

This, then, raises the question of whether there exists the potential for establishing a culture where the freedoms of men are fully respected while delivering all the promise of super-organization.  To that, I suspect the answer is "yes".  But in order to realize such a social order, one must have in hand the basic knowledge required, as well as the will and integrity not only to make it so, but to maintain it in the face of the unavoidable less-pleasant aspects of freedom, which most people appear overly eager to escape.  Few men are even aware of such considerations, much less possess the knowledge, but that is a discussion for another day.

Another requirement for such societies is abundant energy for all that is so low in cost that it is effectively "free".  Coupled with this is the need for sufficient advancement of human technology such that most, if not all, of the various labor-intensive endeavors to which men apply themselves would be carried forth to realization by machinery, rather than flesh and sinew.

We could, of course, return to a hunter-gatherer paradigm wherein each man did his thing, the division of labor was very broad such that most men were jacks of many trades, and live the simple life of our distant ancestors.  The probability of that, barring a Reset Event (meteor strike, Jesus returns, genocidal warfare, aliens landing on the South Lawn, etc,), is vanishingly small such that we can call it impossible for all practical purposes.  Therefore, if we are to live as free men without the hobnailed boot of some random tyrant upon our necks, we absolutely must evolve our technologies such that our hunger for "advancement" can be satisfied without trampling upon the lives of men in the process.

But that is only a necessary condition, being by no means sufficient.  Sadly, some people seem to have been born with the gnawing need to run the lives of others, no matter how materially wealthy they might be.  Call it a defect of character, genes, or whatever you wish; it matters not.  What counts is that such people would continue to work toward the acquisition and cultivation of political power in order to call themselves "boss" such that they bark and the rest jump.  That brings us to the notion of the Warrior Culture, which I will be addressing in some detail at a later date.

Warrior Culture is one based upon the principles of the "true" warrior.  Adjectives such as "true" have proven very sticky wickets in the past, but what I have in mind here is very specific and shall be defined and described in full detail elsewhere.  Suffice to say that in a Warrior Culture, the very notion of one man attempting to subdue the rightful claims of another, whether by force, fraud, or any other criminal means, would be regarded as utterly intolerable.  Any such violations of one man by another would be met with unequivocal resistance, up to and including the taking of life in cases where the perpetrators show continuing determination to commit violations against another despite having been warned away.

While political chicanery would not likely be eliminated in a Warrior Culture, it would take on a rarity so great and a character so different from that to which we are currently subjected, that the deeper threats posed by today's political machinery would be rendered effectively extinct.  This is because the skullduggery so common today would become so immediately and existentially risky for anyone attempting even the most innocuous seeming (by today's standards) usurpation, that they would fear for their lives at the very thought of it.  The cost of violating the rights of another would become so high in comparison to the reward, that nobody in their right mind would so much as waste their time thinking about such things.  Those who did would be taught rapid, harsh, and potentially fatal lessons in social Darwinism.

Not every man would have to be a warrior, but the more such men there were, the better.  There would, however, have to be a critical mass of such men who would act as the guardians of the rights of all.  I speak not of police or anything "governmental", but strictly of those who would make certain that the principles of proper human relations remained sacrosanct and in full, unyielding force.  Any man could be a warrior.  Any child, as well.  The more warriors, the merrier, so long as the understanding of equal authority to act remains clear and unchallenged.

In such a society, for example, rather than having police who enforce the arbitrary statutes of some equally arbitrarily constituted body claiming authority over the rest, all men would in effect be able to act as police in the defense of the rights of not only themselves, but of all their fellows as well.  There would be no special privileges or arbitrarily assigned super-authorities doled out to uniformed and badged men.

But such a social order would require great dedication to the principles in question, which would in its turn place significant demands upon the individual that the current trend of self-absorption cannot support.

Super-organized societies enable men to accomplish that which would clearly be impossible through individual effort.  Super-organization was necessary to the bootstrapping of human technologies much beyond flint-knapping and stone hammers.  However, the paths taken to super-organization by nearly all "leaders" has been rife with force, violence, and the threats thereof.  Why this has been the nearly universal historical case remains open to discussion, but is irrelevant to the question of whether force is necessary in order to achieve and maintain super-organization.  It is clearly not necessary, which means that given the proper knowledge and political/cultural will,  states of super-organization can be achieved and maintained without reporting to coercion in order to marshal the resourced needed for achieving super-human objectives.

The other issue remaining revolves around the question of who should motivate, implement, and manage the establishment of human super-organisms.  Assuming such organizations are both desired and justifiable, should the "government" create and manage such social structures, or should their establishment and dissolution be left to individuals who choose to come together and, perhaps, go their own ways?  Perhaps there are roles for each in such matters, so long as men are not coerced into action or by prohibitions unworthy of a land characterizing itself as "free".

So long as super-organizations conduct themselves in accord with the principles of proper human relations, there is no need to fear them.  The issue of self-regulation has, of course, been problematic, failures having prompted government interference which have proven deleterious to the quality of men's lives, on the average, bringing us right back to the importance of Warrior Culture.

Without a population properly oriented to freedom and dedicated to living their lives in accord with the principles that best support it, tyranny shall continue as our daily reality, all good intentions to the contrary notwithstanding.  That is what is required in order to live in super-organized societies while retaining our freedom.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

The FAIL-plex

I've been using this sparingly for a few years, but am now of the opinion that it should be spread far and wide.

Ladies and gentlemen, may I introduce the FAIL-plex, denoted as FAIL^FAIL.

What is a FAIL-plex, you ask?  It is the ultimate in FAIL, both in quantity and quality.  It could be called "ultra-FAIL" as well.  It is infinite amounts of the most intense FAIL possible in this, or any other, universe.  

Ultra-FAIL used to be an uncommon phenomenon, but with the dawning of the "modern" age (makes one wonder what "modern" actually means) it has become ever more prevalent, now to the point that it threatens to become the new normal.  

In times past, deeds that qualified as a FAIL-plex were usually of a self-correcting sort.  That is,  those who engaged in such acts usually did not live long enough to tell the tale.  Today, however, the vast infrastructural web now protects most people from the fate that Darwin's theories would dictate: extinction from the gene pool.  It shall be interesting to see where this all leads, ultimately speaking, and for how long we as a species shall be able to maintain the conditions that allow the individual to indulge in such acts without suffering the natural and rationally expected consequences.

This growing rate of the instances of the FAIL-plex has behooved me to introduce the world to this heretofore obscure term.  Where an interface will allow it, the superscripted "FAIL" should be entered as such, but where that is not possible, "FAIL^FAIL" will be acceptable.

Consider this part of my bequeath to humanity.  

You're welcome.

As always, please accept my best wishes.  Methinks we are going to need them.