Baby Boomers May Suck, But So Does Everyone Else.

In recent years I have found myself amused most drolly by the youngins  who refer to those of my generation as "Boomers", meant as a pejorative.  It is a bit childish, just as are all such weak attempts at insult.  But to those people, and all others on the planet, I do have something to say along those lines.

Despite being otherwise decent and intelligent people, my generation (baby boom) turned out for the most part to be horrible parents. They are, after all, responsible for the so-called "millennial", who in their turn gave rise to "generation Z", a raft of functional weaklings and toddlers in grown bodies who think they are smart, when in fact they are woefully the opposite, again speaking to the mean.

How did so bright a generation give rise to the utter wasteland that is the major portion of this most recent generation of "adults"? One major answer is actually quite simple: they fell for the bait of the likes of that scurrilous clown, Benjamin Spock, and decided they would be friends with their children, rather than proper parents, based on the false belief that it is important that they be liked by their offspring.  Few things could be further from the truth.  This may seem an innocent enough position to assume, but it is in fact the basis of the current destruction we are witnessing nationwide as the nation falls to wrack and ruin.

And so we have managed through our good intentions to muck the world up beyond all recognition, and possibly past the point of redemption. But being a low-IQ optimist, I cling to the barest hair-split of hope that this miasma of raving stupidity and abhorrently poor attitudes and habits may yet be corrected. But in order to do so, the first step will be to forgive each other: the young for our unintentional errors, and we, for their wildly misguided world views that, after all, were made possible due to our own errors in child-rearing.

Imagine the utter fit that Theye would have, were we, the warring parties to stop, shake hands, let bygones be bygones, and begin to rebuild the perceptual commons where decency, respect, good manners, basic sense, tolerance of the tolerable, and all the other blessings of freedom are the norm, the old becoming new once more. Theye (those in real material power in the world) would toss a colossal conniption and we would be able to confidently expect all manner of problems to arise, whether those of an economic nature, in finance, commodities, wars, and so forth, because the last thing they want is for you and I to shake hands and learn to become friendly. When that happens, Theye are finished, because without the manifold antagonisms that keep us divided, and therefore distracted, we would be free to come together as one in the political sense of recognizing who is the real enemy of humanity. 

It's not Republicans or Democrats, lefties or righties, conservative or progressive, men or women: it's the elite and we could de-ball them in very short order, were we to forgive one another and get to the business of restoring liberty to the people of planet Earth.

We don't have to all be in love with one another. Certainly our differences would not vanish, but our reactions to those differences would. Rather than wishing all manner of horrors upon one another, we would respectfully disagree where we differ, yet be generous enough to allow each other our lives and views and preferences. Such as development would drive the Tyrant mad with frustration and fear because he already knows that the moment we stop the back-biting, we might turn eyes in common toward him, his lackeys, and begin to divine what it is he has really been doing to us all this time.  In such a case, it would spell the end of things for them all, which means Theye must prevent it from occurring at any and all cost.   

There is no possible way, short of nuking or plaguing the entire planet, that Theye can successfully dominate us if we refuse their false authority; authority that exists in terms of real world effect only because we accept it as real, when in fact it is literally nothing at all beyond mere belief.  So long as we believe, we tend to comply.  So long as we comply, the false assertion of authority becomes effectively real.  It is a house of cards that stands because we fail to take in even the most meager breath, which is all that is required to blow it down to its very foundation.

Freedom is a heartbeat away, yet it is impossibly distant, not because it is itself impossible, but because we make it so when we play Theire game, nearly every one of us being in that diversion up to our eyeballs. Why else do we have so many people tearing out their hair with hatred for this one or those over there? Theye are whispering in our ears that the enemy threatens, whether it be horrible white males, black females, Muslims, Jews, Christians, and so on down the seemingly endless list of labels that provides objects of fear and hatred for every possible taste.

It's the gag-reel of all time; the biggest scam ever, and nearly every one of us have taken up with it hook, line, and sinker.

The most productive thing we could do at this very moment would be to stop playing, because participation is a loser by intent of design.

May 2023 prove better than 2022, and may we all forgive one another for our trespasses, real, imagined, and otherwise.  What is past is done.  Some of it has been indeed horrible, but when we think about it closely, most was really not so bad.  We differ.  We will always differ.  Can we not move on now to more profitable things, such as restoring the liberties that Theye have convinced us to cede?

Imagine not living in red-alert mode, day in and day out.  Imagine not being filled with rage, outrage, anger, and hatred, all emotions that have their places, but when taken in too generous measures soon becomes erosive of health, happiness, and liberty as we become prisoners of them.  Imagine having the power to recognize the real enemies of humanity and turning your justifiable ire upon them!  Imagine a world where courtesy reigned; where people were friendly despite holding differing opinions.  Imagine a world better than the one in which we are now all inmates in a prison of our own contrivance!

It is possible.  It is so close, you could kiss it if you chose to see.  But so long as we remain in hate-fear mode, Theye shall remain powerful while we remain effectively weak, and that is the greatest and most shameful irony of them all.  We, the humans from Earth, could end Themme in no time at all, even if the cost were to prove high.  It can be done, but not if we are at one another's throats.

May the blessings of liberty be with us all, and until next time please accept my best wishes.

For a lifetime I have borne witness to the endless rantings of certain categories of people about "NAZIs".  The saws are old and hopelessly clapped-out, yet such people never cease to hold up NAZIs as the ultimate evil, so far further down the pit of Hell that no other form of tyranny can compare.

Well, I have a surprise for such people.

The NAZIs were no worse than any of the other grand tyrants of history, They were certainly better than the Soviets and the Chinese, though the differences are ultimately irrelevant when one considers the tens of millions of people each had murdered in the span of a paltry few decades. 

At the end of the day, all tyrants are sufficiently equal in their rot and filth to warrant humanity scouring them from the earth. Sadly, those who cleanse in such ways invariably become the very tyrants whom they displaced, usually with copious amounts of hot lead and, later, the stretching of the right necks. 

The bottom line is this: mean humanity is beastly in its corruption. Our tolerance of the grand evils and stupidities that yield fruits of marginal and temporary convenience to us, have kept the human race flailing and foundering in the deep end of the septic tank basically since the walls of Sumer were erected,,  It is in the deep end where we shall stay because in all truth, we have no interest in becoming any better than that which we have always been: beasts of the lowest order imaginable. 

Were it otherwise, the world would be a very different place.

Saddest of all, we could change this in no time at all, were we to come to sense in the numbers required.  Alas, the Tyrant knows so well that the statistics stand overwhelmingly against this ever happening, and were it to occur, the chances of the good lasting more than a brief period are vanishingly small.  It has yet to have happened in our entire written history, so my sadly offered recommendation is that you not hold your breath.

May we find a better way, and as always, please accept my best wishes.

Your Thoughts

"Because the ultimate purpose of crime is to establish the endless empire of crime; a complete state of insecurity and anarchy founded upon the tainted ideals of a world doomed to annihilation." 

 

-Dr. Mabuse, Fritz Lang's "The Testament Of Dr. Mabuse"

I've found this most chilling a quote, due in part to its actual semantic content, but more so by the fact that there are people who will come to believe such things, especially the bit about being doomed.

Our thoughts form our realities, and our words form our thoughts. Though the words come first, there is eventually in each of us a feedback loop of sorts that evolves in our minds. The words we learn and get into the habits of using in the ways in which we as individuals do, shape the ways in which our thoughts form. Those thoughts, in turn, eventually take up their role in forming the ways in which our words are put together to form the sentences that express those thoughts. The words themselves, however, continue to have their effects upon the thoughts, the tendency being that word and thought reach an equilibrium of sorts, such that a more or less consistent and recognizable manner (a "style", if you will) of thinking and of word usage arises in the individual, perpetually maintained by this mutual reinforcement loop between the two.

That people come to believe in things such as the absolute inevitability of the utter annihilation of the human race is dangerous beyond my ability to convey. Our thoughts form our realities, and if the right people in the right positions of the right sorts of power come to believe such things, they then stand within the potential to turn those beliefs into the proverbial self-fulfilling prophecy. 

We should all of us take some time to think on that awhile, and do so with the knowledge that our own thoughts form our own realities.  This is especially worthy of our close attention when thoughts such as  "you can't fight city hall" arise, almost unnoticed.  By responding in an overly reflexive manner, leading us to give in as individuals, we give in as a whole - a collective, statistical gestalt - a "superorganism", as I have come to call them. In so doing, through our beliefs we come to halt our individual movements in the right directions.  This occurs regardless of whether the beliefs in question are true, and this is yet another point to which we should each turn careful attention and consideration.

Ask yourself this: what if key beliefs we hold about reality are in fact, false?  We see this happening on the so-called "left" with the entire doctrine of the "woke", not to mention the "transgender" phenomenon that has risen so suddenly.  Especially the latter, these developments demonstrate the power of belief, which is the power of thought, which in turn is the power of words.  Granted, in these cases the applications are unsound, but that is orthogonal to the point we make here: the power of word and thought.  Altering your belief alters you, and it can alter reality on a global basis.

We, the horde of humanity, could stop Themme (those in real and material power, worldwide) in short order, yet we fail to do so in spite of the clearly stated agenda they have of seeing the human populations reduced by non-trivial proportions in ways, numbers, and timelines that remain mostly held close to the vest. But we see manifestations, especially in recent years with chains of events that any actuary would quickly tell you are nigh impossible to occur without "help", and lots of it.

Your thoughts form your reality. Your words form your thoughts and your thoughts form your words. Changing thought can change the world. Therefore, if you change your words, perhaps you can change your thoughts, and if that happens, perhaps the world will change... for the better, I mean.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes, and may you find your way good and worthy.

Why Civilization?

What has so-called "civilization" brought to humanity on the whole? What is the net result? I submit that it has been nothing better than disease, misery, poverty, destruction, and death.

It is so very easy to dismiss my claim, what with so many people pointing to the "miracles" of civilization in the form of technology and concepts that presumably did not exist prior to men becoming civilized. But when one conducts even a comparatively cursory but suficiently noiseless analysis of human civilization, it becomes rather rapidly clear that these claims of the purported miracles are eminently questionable. 

Once again, words matter: they form our thoughts, and our thoughts form our realities. Depending upon the exact presumptions under which one chooses to labor, civilization may be deemed a blessing, a curse, any combination of the two, the kitchen sink, a barn door, and so on.

But what does it really mean to be "civilized"? That, too, may change depending on one's presuppositions. Let me not wax too pedantic and come to my own box of brass tacks. The very word itself, the verb "to civilize", to me means to domesticate; to bring to heel; to break the nature of.  Don't take my word for it, but let us once again consult several dictionaries.

Starting in economy class, dictionary.com puts it this way:

civilize verb (used with object), civ·i·lized, civ·i·liz·ing.

to bring out of a savage, uneducated, or rude state; make civil; elevate in social and private life; enlighten; refine: Rome civilized the barbarians.

The Oxford etymological dictionary says:

civilize (v.)

c. 1600, "to bring out of barbarism, introduce order and civil organization among, refine and enlighten," from French civiliser, verb from Old French civil (adj.), from Latin civilis "relating to a citizen, relating to public life, befitting a citizen; popular, affable, courteous," alternative adjectival derivative of civis "townsman" (see city). Intransitive meaning "become civilized" is from 1868.  

Samuel Johnson's 1785:

To CIVILIZE, siv'-il-ize. v. a. To reclaim from savageness. Wallor.

 So what, then, does it mean to be civil?

Dictionary.com:

adjective

1. of, relating to, or consisting of citizens: civil life; civil society.
2. of the commonwealth or state: civil affairs.
3. of citizens in their ordinary capacity, or of the ordinary life and affairs of citizens, as distinguished from military and ecclesiastical life and affairs.
4. of the citizen as an individual: civil liberty.
5. befitting a citizen: a civil duty.
6. of, or in a condition of, social order or organized government; civilized: civil peoples.
7. adhering to the norms of polite social intercourse; not deficient in common courtesy: After their disagreement, their relations were civil though not cordial.
8. marked by benevolence: He was a very civil sort, and we liked him immediately.

Oxford:

civil (adj.)

 late 14c., "relating to civil law or life; pertaining to the internal affairs of a state," from Old French civil "civil, relating to civil law" (13c.) and directly from Latin civilis "relating to a society, pertaining to public life, relating to the civic order, befitting a citizen," hence by extension "popular, affable, courteous;" alternative adjectival derivative of civis "townsman" (see city).

Meaning "not barbarous, civilized" is from 1550s. Specifically "relating to the commonwealth as secularly organized" (as opposed to military or ecclesiastical) by 1610s. Meaning "relating to the citizen in his relation to the commonwealth or to fellow citizens" also is from 1610s.

Johnson:

CIVIL§, siv'-il. a. [civilis, Lat.] Relating to the community. Hooker. Relating to any man as a member of a community. Bp. Taylor. Not in anarchy; not wild. Roscommon. 

We see the notion of savageness, barbarity, and wildness are referenced.  Therefore,

Dictionary.com:

barbaric adjective

without civilizing influences; uncivilized; primitive: barbaric invaders.

savage adjective

fierce, ferocious, or cruel; untamed: savage beasts.

Offensive. relating to or being a preliterate people or society regarded as uncivilized or primitive.

wild or rugged, as country or scenery: savage wilderness.

Archaic. uncultivated; growing wild.

wild adjective

living in a state of nature; not tamed or domesticated: a wild animal; wild geese.

...

uncivilized or barbarous: wild tribes.

...

undisciplined, unruly, or lawless: a gang of wild boys.

unrestrained, untrammeled, or unbridled: wild enthusiasm.

disregardful of moral restraints as to pleasurable indulgence: He repented his wild youth. 

Oxford:

barbaric (adj.)

late 15c., "uncultured, uncivilized, unpolished," from French barbarique (15c.), from Latin barbaricus "foreign, strange, outlandish," from Greek barbarikos "like a foreigner," from barbaros "foreign, rude" (see barbarian (n.)). The meaning "pertaining to or characteristic of barbarians" is from 1660s. Related: Barbarically.

savage (adj.) 

 

mid-13c. (late 12c. as a surname), of animals, "ferocious;" c. 1300, "wild, undomesticated, untamed," also "wild, uncultivated" (of land or places), from Old French sauvage, salvage "wild, savage, untamed, strange, pagan," from Late Latin salvaticus, alteration (vowel assimilation) of silvaticus "wild, woodland," literally "of the woods," from silva "forest, grove" (see sylvan).

Of persons, "indomitable, valiant," also "fierce, bold, cruel" (c. 1300); from late 14c., of persons or behavior, "wild, barbarous, uncivilized;" c. 1400 as "reckless, ungovernable," and by 1610s as "pertaining to or characteristic of savage peoples, living in the lowest condition of development." In heraldry, "naked or clothed in foliage" (1570s). The -l- often was restored in 16c.-17c. English spelling. 

wild (adj.)

"to run wild, refuse to be tamed," Old English awildian (see wild (adj.)). Wilding (n.) in the teen gang sense first recorded 1989. Earlier it meant "plant that grows without cultivation" (1520s).

 

 

Johnson:

BARBARICK, bar-bar'-ik. a. Foreign) far-fetched.  Milton. Uncivilized. Milton.

SAVAGE §, sav'-vldje. 90. a. [sauvage, Fr. ; selvaggio, Ital.] ;  Wild ; uncultivated. Milton. Untamed; cruel. Shak. Uncivilized; barbarous; untaught; wild ; brutal. Raleigh.

WILD §, wild. a. [úïld, Sax.; wild, Dutch.] Not tame ; not domestick. Shak. ... Savage; uncivilized: used of persons, or practices. Bacon. ungoverned. Milton. 

 

There are two things I would have you notice here.  For one, the difficulties apparent in these definitions.  One of them is that of circularity.  For example, to be civil is to be non-savage.  To be savage is to be uncivil.  Defining words in these ways is semantically dangerous in those instances where semantic rigor is necessary to proper and sufficient understanding.  Furthermore, these sorts of inadequacies in our words underscores the tenuous nature of our communications, which in turn make glaring just how tenuous is our grasps on reality, at least in terms of our abilities to think abstractly.  And yet, we manage to get from day to day without destroying ourselves; we manage to feed and house and recognize beauty and danger, love each other, avoid the destruction and other harming of others.  To my mind, this is all prima facie proof of the inherently miraculous nature of all that we are, and experience.  God is ever so real, and ever so omnipresent, even in the horrors of that which we deem our misfortunes.

We are, at our cores, wild animals. To believe anything less than this is to lie to oneself. It is this wildness that is the very embodiment of our freedom, that thing for which so many here claim to pine and to which they tell the world their honors and fortunes are pledged. But how can this be when most people fail to understand the most basic aspects of their own nature? Any suggestion of the true nature of men gives rise to the deepest and most violent revulsion in the vast majority, and that is the reason the world is what it is: people want pretty slavery and nothing whatsoever to do with actual freedom.

Even my Canon of Proper Human Relations is something of a fib because it compromises the true nature of men away for the sake of the illusions of peace and security, and that is the unvarnished truth. You want pure and wild freedom? I do. You, most likely, do not - but I shall speak for no other man. True freedom is largely terrifying. Imagine another man attempting to kill you for a stick of gum. While unlikely in a truly free world, it remains a real possibility. However, when we look at it more circumspectly, it is not appreciably more likely than under our current cultural circumstance. In point of practice, it may in fact be less likely for reasons I hope will become apparent shortly. Imagine it: we have literally millions of "laws" on the books and yet people still murder each other for the most inanely flimsy reasons. Law is NOTHING. Human nature and the decisions of the individual man are EVERYTHING.

The difference between being a savage and a civilian is almost precisely this: the savage assumes full responsibility for his every action, whereas the civilian renounces the greatest proportion of responsibility for that which he thinks, feels, and chooses, preferring to pass them off onto his fellows. But in doing this he abnegates his sovereignty, tossing his sacred freedoms to the wind because he wishes to live his life in the manner of an ill-bred child in preference to being an actual adult.

In a savage society, every man is free to do precisely as he pleases. If he wishes to walk up to a stranger and attempt to put a sword through the man's belly, that is his choice, just as it is today, all false appearances of "law and order" notwithstanding. The only difference lies in what happens next. In either case of savage or civilian, the intended target may not cotton to the notion of being run-through. The only question then remaining is, "who will prevail?", and generally speaking we may say that it is anyone's guess because combat is inherently non-linear.

But if we assume Johnny is successful in running his blade to the hilt into Tommy's belly, what then? In purest terms, nothing. Johnny is alive, if a bit blood-soaked, and Tommy is skewered. In more real terms, however, if Tommy survives, Johnny faces the risks and dangers of retaliation. Whether Tommy dies or lives, Johnny may in either event face the same risk of vendetta, whether at Tommy's hands, or those of Tommy's family, friends, or other agents on his behalf.

There need be no contrived legislation to pose Johnny's hazard, as is the case today. In the savage world, just as in the civilized, the only threats to Johnny in the wake of his choice are other human beings. The difference between the two worlds is that the savage is honest, whereas the civilized is endlessly otherwise. The savage society is honest about how such things work, whereas the civil society lies endlessly about justice, impartiality, and so on. What a sad and obscene joke.

I greatly prefer the savage world precisely because it forces people to be responsible for the things they think, say, feel, and do. The civilized world renders men as imbecilic infants, whose heads become filled with the most idiotic of notions that aim to treat their fellows with gross and often felonious disrespect without having to face any consequences for their perfidies. And they rely upon the machinations of men in suits to pass edicts that guarantee the ability to get away even with literal murder in more than the rare and passing case. The list of ways in which this has been made manifest could take us weeks or even months of dedicated discourse here in order to name, analyze, and discuss them all.

The civilized man has been taught to believe in a great and endlessly harmful raft of lies about the savage world. For instance, he has been taught that savages are wildly undisciplined maniacs with nothing but rape and murder on their tiny, misshapen minds, every second of every day. The most cursory analytic consideration of this assertion quickly exposes its raw and suppurating absurdity. Generally speaking, people like being alive and do the best they can to ensure they remain that way. In this, the savage is no different from the civilian. Given this, how long does anyone think a savage society would last if being savage meant endless killing and destruction? It would be over in matters of days; weeks at best. This has never been the case in general terms where savage societies have been concerned. They have survived the millennia just fine. Certainly they have many examples of one group wiping from the earth all traces of another, but this is no different from civilized people. Just consider the countless millions, savages and civilians alike, slaughtered by the Roman church, or the Pharaohs. How about the kings of Europe; the emperors of the various east-Asian empires including but not limited to China and Japan; the empires of South and Middle Americas? Africa? Middle-east?

Can anyone point to an example where a savage society has so much as attempted to do what Stalin and Mao did, much less actually accomplish it?

So far as I can see, civilization has been the grandest show of smoke and mirrors in all human history. People have fallen for the false miracles of architecture, technology, and the hideous idolatry thereby raised in so many forms. Truly, where civilization has been concerned, the medium has always been the message: pure power - don't mess with us. The typical modern man whines about "muh roads", "muh internet", and so on down a depresingly long list of things that, were they never to have to into existence, would not be missed by anyone. I cannot begin to count the number of people who have used these sorts of miserable examples as the justification for demanding that every man submit to their visions of pretty slavery.

The repulsive "leftie" demands not only to be allowed to engage in all manner of unsavory acts, but that everyone must praise him for it. The similarly repugnant "righty" defines freedom more broadly, but still ends up with pretty slavery as his vision of paradise on earth.  And damn it if most of them all want "muh gummint" to provide the force needed to compel the compliance of others, no matter who gets hurt or how terribly someone else's quality of life may turn out due directly because of said applications of force.

And just look at the pure absurdity of it all. For example, Obama signed an executive order, only to have Trump undo it all with the stroke of a pen. There's your "civilization"; back and forth like a lethal yoyo moving in whichever direction those currently in power decide it shall swing. It is pure whim, and as often as not, caprice. Few give a true damn about your rights. Most don't even care about their own rights, save to the paltry extents their limited and frightened little selves auto-circumscribe and build their own prison walls at the sadly narrow delimiters dictated by their willful ignorance, cowardice, avarice, and indolence.

Similarly, some people attempt to justify our slavery because it has provided all the miracles of modern medicine. Once again, the absurdity of this is of such a nature and degree as to leave the thinking man numb. For one thing, the attitude is reflective of the determination to squelch all risk from life. It's the same old rotten saw about wanting something for nothing; in this case, wanting all the perceived benefits of "freedom" without having to pony up for any of the costs. This is the mindset of thieves and dull, ill-bred children, rather than proper adults.

It is instructive to note that were all these miracles of modern medicine not available, several things would happen. For one thing, people would SLOW DOWN. Their physical movements would become more careful and deliberate in a world where a broken leg or even a cut could mean death. They would slow down their mouths greatly, the necessities of a truer reality driving them to put their brains in gear long prior to engaging their yaps. Why? Because to speak ill-advisedly could result in one becoming severely injured or even being killed. Death tends to be a wonderfully sound advisor, by and large.

A savage land would be different in so many ways precisely because the prospect of death or dismemberment at the hands of other humans, or even just happenstance, as the result of one's poorly considered behavior would teach one deep and abiding respect for his fellows, as well as the cold and hard realities that surround him. He would learn and practice REAL respect, vis-à-vis this thin and hollow gasbag shell so many today mistakenly conflate with actual respect. By "respect", I do not mean the modern and comparatively superficial notion of esteem and the sense of worth, but rather the more ancient meaning, which goes something as follows:

deference to a right...or someone...[recognized] to have certain rights...; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment

There are so many intertwining layers of the various aspects of this that I am certain a very large, laborious, and verbose tome or three could be written on the matter of what it means to respect another human being in the sense that is relevant to this discussion. It has nothing to do with bunnies, light, love, and running around in one's underwear while making childish noises. It has everything to do with recognizing the just and valid claims of other men such that one refrains from trespassing upon them with intent, and making whole that which has been insulted when done so by accident.

Suffice to say that this is a topic that is broad, endlessly deep, and goes on well beyond the horizon. For my money, civilization is more bad than good. Yes, without it there would be little to no modern medicine, but how many have considered the possibility that without the rest of the steaming pile that has been heaped upon us over the centuries, maybe most of the diseases we so deeply dread such as cancer, HIV, etc. may never have come to any notable rise in the first place? How much of that which we suffer can we give thanks for to our forebears who polluted the living hell out of the land, air, and seas? Are we so cock-sure that the ever climbing cancer rates are not attributable to such causes and would have come to what they are today, even if we had we forgone civilization, in favor of the savage life?

And I reiterate the fact that despite all these miracles and statutes, people appear today to be more miserable in their spirits than ever their savage forebears seem to have been. Civilization has done nothing as much as it has fought the natural order of the planet. Our technologies and medicine have resulted in a world choking on nearly 8 billion people. The idiotic religions of the civilized world have given rise to thoughts so poisonous, yet so deeply and I daresay terminally ingrained that we fail to see the folly to which we have committed ourselves. That, to me, is the insanity of civilization; it is the codification, formalization, and deification of raving, howling madness.

And for those Christians (just to pick on one of many prime candidate classes) who might chafe at the notion that their religion is somehow less-than sane in any aspect, I would point out that had men remained as savages, there would have been no need for God to send a messiah in the first place. Think on that awhile... if you dare do so honestly and with open mind.

But since we are as a species now hopeless committed to civilized life, it behooves us most powerfully to endeavor to make that choice as worthy as possible of our lives.  That ironically suggests making our collective ways back to savagery to the greatest degree possible, which means a return to liberty. I say turn your back to pretty slavery.  Do not allow the false idols of civilization to buy your soul at any price, much less on the cheap.  Certainly there are advantages to civilization, but having them does not have to lead to rank servitude.  Freedom and civilization are not mutually exclusive, but in order to have them both one must accept the less attractive aspects of liberty.  There is no other way, which is why so many people have in fact sold their souls cheaply to those who threaten and cajole, sabers rattling in hand and bellicose words spewing every which way against the man whose self-interest is his first priority.

The minority of one has written, and please accept his best wishes.

Why Do Tyrants Get Re-elected?

 In one of my other frequented forums, the question of the title above was asked, to which one answer was:

Because the tyrants count the votes. It's the illusion that your vote counts.

To which I responded thusly:

 

"That's only a partial cause. The broader issue is the human animal, so easily taking to corruption.
The mean man is rotten to his marrow. I know this is not a very flattering view, but one can judge only by the results, and those are net spectacular decay. We are the cause on both ends of the spectrum. On the positive end, we have the scoundrels not just of "government", but those who actively and with much salivation support said scoundrels. Those are the active criminals.

 

 

On the negative side we have the rest who, through inaction, enable the felons by tacitly approving their crimes. These are by far the worse of the two, and they are the vast majority of humanity. They are walking, breathing obscenities, and most of us fall into that category.

 

This is not to say that there are no good men, but we can say by all means that there are not enough of them. After all, good men also have families and, for lack of a better way of putting it, something to lose. Why should they risk all for the sake of a vast majority who are not collectively worth the cardboard match with which their hundreds of millions of gasoline-soaked bodies would be set to living blaze in one motion? This is especially valid when one realizes that there is currently no hope of prevailing precisely because armies of one have no chance against the seemingly endless legions of corrupt and IMO utterly worthless humanity who have at best allowed the world to be set to wrack and ruin insofar as our liberties are concerned. Small contingents are swatted like flies as a vast plurality cheer and applaud most thunderously.

 

I have mentioned this before and I will repeat it regardless of rolling eyeballs: I fully understand, and in many ways agree with the globalist view of the bulk of humanity as being nothing better than Kissinger's "useless eaters". If a man will not assert his claims (rights), then he has no basis for complaint when the Man tramples him. It is not that I wish terrible fates for these people, but I simply cannot in all reason get it up to shed a tear for their destruction. Is that destruction a horrific thing? Certainly it is, and when it comes I will not be able to help myself but to shed that tear because at that point logic will have lost most of its significance, leaving nothing but the raw emotions to deal with that dolorous reality. But because people will not stand up for what is theirs, logic barring all emotion leads one to see that those people get what they get as the consequence of having cared insufficiently for themselves to do what was necessary to preserve their rights.

 

A right unasserted or undefended is a right nonexistent. Rights do not exist in sé. They must be made manifest through assertion, and maintained via active defense. The sad truth of humanity is that there are far too many who would rob you of your rights, which is why one must remain ever vigilant, utterly intolerant of trespass, and strike with bitter venom all who transgress, are made aware of their violation, yet refuse to amend. Such people must be beaten with vast savagery, whether in courts, with words, or even physically if circumstance calls for it because such men understand naught but the strong man's retort.

 

 

Most people worldwide, make little to no assertion of their rights and most who do fail to defend those claims. In this regard I respect the psychotics of the "left" in that they at least act in both the assertion and defense of what they believe to be their rights, regardless of the fact that their claims are idiotic, prima facie, and their actions made ostensibly in defense of actual rights are nothing better than long strings of very serious felonies. But the fact that they will at least act, however incorrectly, still beats the living snot out of those who know better their proper rights, yet sit idly as Theye put them over the wood, over and over again. Indeed, the latter are the more despicable of the two precisely because they know better, yet are too corrupt to do what is right. Most humans should be ashamed of themselves to the point they burst most spontaneously into flame, much as vampires in sunlight.

 

The world of men could be so fine, yet we choose this."

I find it sad that it is to such things to which men have reduced themselves. 

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Don't Use Theire Made Up Words... Much

One of the major FAIL points we find in the average human being is the propensity to play the game of one's enemy. It never ceases to astonish me as I witness this phenomenon. We humans are like sponges in that when something - an idea, a WORD, is put out there, most of us are quick to adopt it and nearly all will do so in time. I, for one, make every effort to avoid this, save when speaking of a specific term.

Consider the abuse of the word "awesome".  Dopey "millennials" took a perfectly good word and semantically mangled it all to crap through their obscene ignorance such that today I feel constrained to avoid its use for fear that people will misunderstand my meaning.  And I will readily admit my annoyance when I hear some bubble-headed youngin' tell me "awesome" when I tell them something that they like to hear.

The use of the terms of one's opponents and enemies, as those adversaries would use them, is a manner of playing their game.  It is a loser's move, no matter how one tries to slice that mold-laced pie, unless one does so with great skill and a rather oblique strategy.  Sadly, both are skills well beyond the ken of the average man.  The moment you begin such usage, it is likely that you have already lost any argument you may have with them precisely because such use tacitly validates their terms and all that they carry, most of it tacit, vague, and ultimately wrong for any of a number of possible failings.  

Let me once more emphasize the importance of how such terms are used.  To use them as the enemy does, and would likely have you use them, is badness.  To use them in the manner of dismantling those words and exposing them for the frauds that they are, is just fine, and indeed at times necessary.   A key element in exposing and demolishing the Stupid in the arguments of others, is to expose their made up, phony baloney jargon.  So when a "progressive" or some similarly misguided sort comes at you with shrieks of "social justice", for example, it behooves you to get right to the root of such nonsense by dismantling the very notions that such terms connote.  Once you obliterate the conceptual foundation of the string "social justice", the rest of the demolition work should be comparatively simple and even easy... assuming of course that one is dealing with rational, intelligent, and decent human beings on the other side of the issue in question.  Naturally, that is a bit of a sticky wicket because more often than not, the rational man finds himself in opposition to ranting, shrieking, flailing balls of emotion (mostly raw terror and its attendant venom-laced hatred) that care no whit for truth, fact, or logic.  In such cases, arguing tends to rapidly become a fool's errand, so be careful in choosing those with whom you spend time in debate.

Using the terminology of the left like this is a very big mistake as it aids in normalizing their mental and moral cancers. The "left" makes up such nonsensical terms (and they are not the only ones, but the most egregiously guilty of it) such as "ableism" for several very effective reasons. One is that they always seek to run simplistic in their conceptual peddlings. This is absolutely essential to their success, because to use properly structured sentences to express their idiocies would expose the nonsense for what it is. But compressing a concept into a one-word slogan, or a simplistic phrase, enables them to deliver emotionallly-charged messages through obfuscation and innuendo, courtesy of the limited minds to which those messages are targeted. They plant the seed, the dullard filling in the blanks. This is a central pillar of Bernays' so-called "public relations", what we now know as "propaganda". This grosteque mockery and abuse of language is key to the gross manipulation of large populations' perceptions, and thereby their opinions on any matter one might wish to consider.

Therefore, I would highly recommend that people refrain from using the terms of one's enemies (and they ARE enemies, make you no mistake), for they were contrived with no other objective than to destroy those who would prefer to live freely.  

Tempting as it may be to do otherwise, I would refrain from taking the enemy's bait.  Don't play their game, but force them to play by YOUR rules.  With some learning and practice, taking command of inferior minds is really not that difficult, and if here I sound a mite stuck-up, I say so what?  The simpletons of the tyrannical progressives are typically not the best and brightest among us, but they are vast in number, live in strict lockstep with each other, and are by those virtues very dangerous creatures.

Teach yourself the principles of the psychological games employed (on ALL sides, because the so-called "right" is also not clean of hand), learn to recognize when someone is attempting to play you, and what you can do to neutralize and countervail their actions effectively.

Don't be anyone's chump.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

The Polidiot

 Yes yes, I've graced the world with yet another extraneous word that nobody needs.

Polidiot n. :  A functional idiot where anything political is concerned.

Polidiocy n. :  Thought and other behavior consistent with being a polidiot.

Polidiotic a. : That which is consistent with polidiocy.

Why, you ask, have I contributed to the noise stream of contemporary life?  Because.  Hell, everyone else is doing it.  

The mean American is a polidiot.  I hate to have to put it that way, but it is an observable fact.  I have witnessed polidiocy in a broad spectrum of political bents.  The per capita rate of polidiocy is all at once astonishing, deeply depressing, alarming, distressing, and just plainly pathetic.  The rank ignorance that American polidiocy represents is precisely that which the Founders of this still-great, but rapidly declining nation warned us.  People cannot at once be free and stupid/ignorant/morally degraded.  Polidiocy is founded upon all the latter and is repellent and abhorrent of the former.

America is drowning in polidiocy.  To the rest of the world who would snicker at this, I say "not so fast", because you are in the exact and selfsame boat.  

Polidiocy is a cancer of mind, attitude, and morals.  It is a terminal condition,  most especially for those who proclaim to be free, for even if they are (which they aren't, for there are no free people on the planet we call "earth"), they will not remain so for long, and for all the reasons that have been pointed out over endless repetitions, to no apparent avail.

There was a time when polidiocy might have been excusable - ancient times when valuable information about proper human relations might have been sparse, or easily perverted by tyrants for all the standard reasons.  But today, what with a global information network t our fingertips, not only is there no longer any excuse for being a polidiot, the risks of becoming and remaining polidiotic are far higher than in the not-so-distant past.

Tech-enabled tyrants pose a greater threat to liberty than any frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic king of the past could ever have hoped.  Now more than ever is it imperative that people give their polidiocy the heave-ho and come to sense about what is good and right between men.  Ignore this warning at the peril not of just your own self, but of everyone you claim to love and have affection.

All is yet not lost.  Awareness is the first step, and a necessary but insufficient one.  One needs to become properly educated as well, but most important is the shift in atitude, which is absolutely essential in order to become a Freeman.  Attitude is the single most important factor, the insufficiency thereof resulting in no hope for the individual.

Dispense with polidiocy.  Don't be a polidiot.

As usual, and until next time, please accept my best wishes.

One Thing The Left Almost Got Right

While I generally reject the left/right paradigm due to its nearly meaningless character, I use it at times as a conversational expedient.  I use it for that purpose here.

Broadly speaking, the left has brought forth a vast plethora of ideas either intellectually bankrupt, morally depraved, or both.  There is, however, one notion they have floated which at its conceptual core is valid: that of sexual liberation.  The strictures of the old world regarding sexual behavior may have been appropriate for ages past.  They strove to guard against unsupportable pregnancies, as well as the far more serious circumstance of sexually transmitted pathogens.  In the times prior to cheaply available contraceptives, the spectre of becoming pregnant stood as a very real and often terrifying concern for women, especially the unwed.  

The ravages of diseases such as syphillis were well known, the constraints set forth in those technologically less-capable times making very strong sense from the purely pragmatic point of view.

Of course, one must also consider the less beneficent motivations for such narrow tolerances, the first that comes to mind being that of political control.  But let us not dwell on those motives here.

Then there are the misapplications of the otherwise reasonable rules of conduct regarding such matters.  Over time, human practices generally tend to become distorted as the original reasons for their establishment become lost.  This is especially so when the practices and the reasons for their application are poorly understood.  Generations add their notions of what a given tradition or law or edict means in terms of purpose, and let's face it, the average man has far too strong a proclivity to becoming the taskmaster where such "laws" are concerned.  What may have once been a very reasonably administered cautionary rule of thumb for one's conduct pursuant to a goal of remaining safe from some real danger, gets twisted into an  authoritarian fiat, replete with punishments and other consequences that often dance right past the line of the draconian.

Having grown up with one foot in the old world, I am well familiar with what I considered the grossly distorted views on sexuality by the "west"†.  Even as a teenager my feelings on the matter were that this was some sort of terrible misapprehension of the sexual function in human beings.  Bearing witness to the bitterness and bile with which the topic was held by a shocking plurality of people left me with the unmistakable sense of something being deeply amiss there, but what did I know when I was 15?

As a young adult, however, my opinions on the matter began to become more clear, viewing the old ethics as some form of malevolent presence in the world.  I did at times blame the religious establishments for what I saw as a dolorous circumstance centered on one of the most basic of all human instincts.  With further time, I came to the understanding that the original purposes of these behavioral chutes may have been pure enough, as noted above, and that they may have been corrupted in time, as similarly noted.

In the course of those years, the so-called "sexual revolution" lit off and was charging forward as a mighty juggernaut of societal change, and it was a good thing to my eyes.  The basic idea that human beings should be free from shame and guilt in the exercise of their sexuality was, and remains, valid.  We no longer have quite the same level of concern regarding the risks of sexual activity, though even now overly promiscuous behavior can precipitate some very unpleasant consequences in some cases.  

This re-thinking of human sexuality came to us from mostly scientific advances in both medical technologies, pharmaceuticals, and our understandings of basic human sexuality from both the physiological, sociological, and psychological standpoints.  But the real impetus of change came from the so-called "left" in the form of books such as "Sex and the Single Girl", bra burnings, and so on down a well known list of events and activities that began to turn the cultural tide away from attitudes that had come to fail in serving humanity well.

To the degree that all this helped people go from muted, and perhaps shame-ridden huffing and puffing in jet-black darkened rooms, to far more ease- and joy-filled interactions between individuals and even groups thereof, the left indeed did the world a very big favor.  But as is so common a human error, the "left" wandered from the path of basic sense, continuing to push the envelope as they came to advocate for ever more extreme practices, choices, and notions that may never have otherwise even come into the thoughts of the average individual.

For example, the original and ostensible goal of the "gay movement" was that the world tolerate them such that they would no longer have to live in fear of being beaten, jailed, punished, and so on - a reasonable wish.  With the achievement of that goal, rather than being satisfied and living their lives, the next step became the expectation of acceptance, and from there approval, and nowadays, the demand that they be worshipped for what they are and what they do. 

Of late, the "left" has expanded upon what was once the "gay agenda" by adding innumerable, made-up orientations, void of meaning or validity, the purpose of which one may only guess.  Transexuality, gender fluidity, queerness, and all other manner of utter nonsense is now peddled as reality and everyone is expected to play along with raving idiocies, those refusing to be branded as "threats" to which the "law" appears to be inching toward some measure of punishment.

What began as a well-considered reformulation of general attitudes toward sexuality, has now been distorted in the usual human manners into something unhealthy, and I daresay dangerous in many respects.  The physical maiming of children, for example, pursuant to the "correction" of "gender dysphoria", is now in full swing; a burgeoning practice that stands to reap disaster for countless children whose well-meaning, but dangerously and perhaps feloniously ignorant parents, accede to the biochemical, anatomical, and psychological destruction of their own children.

In typical human fashion, the left has wreaked yet more harm by taking a fundamentally sound idea and mangling it into pure harm, perhaps for want of knowing when to stop.  Had they wisdom and decency, they'd have halted their advances decades ago after widely establishing the notion that sex wasn't "dirty", but that might yet lead to unwanted consequences in spite of our technological advances.  Is this malice or good intentions gone awry?  It matters no whit, as the results are the same: the normal and healthy functioning of humans being turned morbid with various taints such as violence, gratuitous homosexuality promoted as a validly virtuous lifestyle choice by those who, had they not been so indoctrinated, would have proceeded into normal and healthy heterosexuality.

Therefore, not quite everything brought the world by the left has been pure disaster, but only very nearly the case.  Credit where due, as with criticism.

Be well, be aware, make good decisions, and as always, please accept my best wishes.

† The "west" is by no means the only broad cultural tradition with "hang ups" about sex, but it is the only one to which I feel I can speak with any valid knowledge.

The Common Perceptual Sphere

 When I mention the "common perceptual sphere" is is to the vulgar reference frame to which I refer.  There is a psychological "ether" of sorts that exists.  It is very difficult to pin down in terms of its precise qualities, as well as how it works in the gory detail.  But there are readily observable generalities of which most people are aware, if even only tacitly and vaguely so.

Media, especially news outlets, seem to hold an inordinate level of influence in determining the shape of this sphere - of molding the forms of statistically measurable "public opinion" on any of a seemingly endless menu of issues, the vast majority of them ultimately political in nature.

This is the art and science of propaganda, and it is the common perceptual sphere to which it addresses its efforts.  By altering and shaping the statistically relevant proportions of mean perception, which is the realm of the sphere, vast power is wielded.  Where mind goes, Brother Ass follows.

One is well behooved to afford due respect to this aspect of widespread human experience.  It is a village commons of sorts, only far more significant in its raw power to alter the courses of human events.  It would serve us well to pay close attention and form our opinions in accord with basic sense.  In this case, awareness is at least half the battle.  When one is aware he is being manipulated, he is able to take corrective measures in his thinking, and thereby his actions.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Why Identity And Other, Properly Constructed Anchors, Are Important

When people know who they are, as well as other notions such as right from wrong, they cannot be messed about, save with the most strenuous and risk-laden effort.  That is because people have an anchor point - a reference frame or standard - from which to judge the actions of others.

They cannot be cowed and commanded; they may remain closely free, assuming the right standards.

Similarly, when the reference frames are muddled, or just simply wrong, it can be nearly impossible to pile enough dynamite to get people to relinquish the death-grips they maintain with such stubborn faith to even the most blatant idiocies.

The modern tyrant has discovered that pooching the meaners' senses is precisely the way to get then to go along with whatever tyrannical thing the would-be lord might have in mind. If you don't know right from wrong, you will not be able to effectively assess that which you are being commanded to do. If you don't know who you are, you can be lead to believe nearly anything. Why do you think the globalist/communist/totalitarian sorts rail against "nationalism" so wildly? If you know what it means to be American, or French, or British, the tyrant can go only so far in getting you to kow tow, beyond which you are likely to take a good poke at him.

The more lost the individual, the more easily "authority" can get him to do what he is told.

I was an independent consulting engineer for 20 years. At a new engagement, my standard practice on first meeting was to unzip, place my greatness on the conference table, and ask "any questions?" I was NEVER ONCE challenged, and so I was always in charge to the degree that my presence required. THAT is humanity in a nutshell. The meaner is almost always willing to cede his own authority to anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who will arrogate that very authority to himself through mere assertion. Furthermore, the more an idiot you can make of the meaner through the now tried and tested means of corrupting influences, the more easily you can cow him into doing your bidding. People handed tens and sometimes hundreds of millions of their dollars to me because I put on the air of authority, even when I had absolutely no idea what in hell I was getting into.  Being well capable, I always figured it out, of course.  But had my clients known the truth, they'd have had strokes.  But this is really the case in all such endeavors, but making the false appearances of being all-knowing experts has become de rigeur out of the necessity that arises as a result of what human beings have become.  All too often, we WANT people to lie to us so we are free to stop thinking about whatever might be the issue at hand.

This is how the "state" operates. They set conditions that lead to artificial Stupid in as many people as possible - ENOUGH people - and the rest is easy, so long as you are fast and willing, eager even, to show a willingness to apply brute force, if pressed. People just back down, most of the time. But I know the trick and I rarely back down, but I'm one guy in a sea of billions, so the tyrants can afford to ignore me, as well as those of a similar stripe.

The flaws of the human animal are easily exploited by any human animal with eyes to see, and the nerve to act appropriately for the sake of power. It's been this way since humans have been writing things down for posterity. As of this writing, it appears it will remain that way in ever intensifying character, well into the blue future.

IOW, we are most likely hosed in the most distressful way, the worst of it being that we have done all this to ourselves. We could break the tyrant's back in a day or two, were we determined to do so. But that takes a stomach which we apparently lack, because being actually willing to disobey, much less kill them, are the only solutions at this point that remain to us.  In a similar vein, a grim intolerance for any violation of one man by another seems a fundamental requirement for Freemen that the average Joe is simply unwilling to adopt.  Too much work; too much risk, potentially too messy, and so forth.   Humanity is so lost, it makes infinity look small. We are done, almost certainly.

I hope to be proven wrong, but my confidence is low at this time.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

A Catalyzing Moment?

As to the notion that we stand at a "catalyzing moment"in human history, I say that there is that potential, but as yet it has not been realized. The scent, however, seems very definitely on the air. What is clear, however, is that without follow-though to the bitter end, a so-called catalyzing moment becomes meaningless. Consider the catalyzing moment of 7 December, 1941. The failure of Japan to finish off America in Hawaii very literally lost them them the war, cost them their culture, as well as countless lives, and wild destruction on their home turf.

In this particular case, we are speaking of the reaction of the Dutch farmers to the globalist Tyrant in having been ordered to destroy huge percentages of their dairy and meat herds.  It was suggested in another forum that we, humanity that is, are witnessing a catalyzing moment.  While I agree that the protests of the Dutch farmers hold that potential for the entire human race, it remains only that until we the people follow through.  Thus far, nothing.

THAT is the problem with humans. For example, all the Dutch tyrants need do is back off just a wee bit from their aggressions, and chances are good that the Dutch farmers will go back to sleep. Same in all locations because that is the human proclivity. The usurper takes 100 units of whatever it is to which he is in no way entitled, you rage and arm up for war, he backs off 25 units, you go back to sleep, and the tyrant just got 75 units absolutely free of charge. You should have charged him and killed him and his entire clan, but failed to follow up because he backed off, and you misinterpreted that act as the cessation of the threat, and worse yet, as victory. Hooboy...

And for those of you who chafe at my idea (not really mine, but I am the only individual I know saying it aloud) of killing even the children of tyrants, of stamping from the earth an entire genetic line, you need to quit being so weak-minded and squeamish about such things. Using "unjust harm to innocents" as the excuse for dereliction of one's duty to the preservation of not only one's own liberty's, but those of his fellows, cannot be validly forwarded, much less sustained in reason. And be clear: I do not in any way relish such notions, but have come to realize that insane people understand very little, but they almost universally understand the threat of genetic extinction.

To be clear, the condition should be as follows: when you are choosing to assume the mantle of the public trust in service to that trust, you do so with the understanding that your entire family is brought within the circle of the responsibilities you assume when you give your oath. That is, your spouse and your children all become directly liable for your actions as a public servant. If those conditions are not acceptable, then do not step up. Otherwise, you place all the heads concerned into the noose along with your own when you raise you hand and give your solemn word of good faith and competent service.

It is only through the clear and present dangers of risk that your poor and felonious choices bring, do the free and sovereign men of the earth stand so much as even the least chance to hold the scoundrel tyrants at bay. When their genetic lines stand before the threat of immediate annihilation by rope and lead with every choice they make as agents of governance, only then will they have the clear incentive to keep things very real, upfront, and proper. No decent man would want to kill a child, but if that be the only threat that keeps the Maos and Stalins of the world on their properly foreshortened leashes, then I assert without equivocation that that is the price we must all pay to gain and keep our liberty, particularly in the face of the fact that we have indulged our individual corruptions to the extent that we so foolishly allow "government" to exist even to the least extent.

If you're not willing to accept such necessities, then I submit that you are not serious about liberty, but only like to talk as if you were.

Freedom ain't free, and there is ALWAYS some joker willing to commit the most heinous acts against the liberties of those over whom he presumes to lord. If the self-fashioned Warrior will not take whatever measures needed to ensure his liberty, regardless of how grim those may prove necessary, including the killing of a tyrant's entire genetic stock, then he is in fact not a Warrior at all, but a haughty-talking Weakman with mere pretensions that fold like cheap suits the moment his bluff is called. Thus far, we have all proven ourselves as the latter and shall not advance our statuses even a whit until such time as we alter our wills and begin harvesting those whose livings are made in shackling their fellow men.

In this way, most people who claim to love liberty are in principle no different from the Weakmen of the progressive left, in that they want all the perceived benefits of liberty without having to bear any of the burdens of being free. That dog don't fly and that plane don't hunt. This is FAIL^FAIL and anyone who says/thinks that they are liberty lovers need to come to terms with the truth of what it means to be a Freeman, who is a peaceable warrior ready to commit the most grim acts of physical violence when called upon to defend the Altar of Liberty of which the great Patrick Henry spoke with such poetic grace and eloquence.

Guard with jealousy, indeed.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

The Problem With Bitcoin is not Bitcoin

The problem with bitcoin is not with the technology itself, but with people. Because the problem lies with people, "government" in particular, there IS no remedy. So long as people kowtow to the tyrants and choose corruption over honor, we humans will cotinue to have the sort of chicanery from which we now suffer daily and in ever growing measure. 

Bitcoin is weak NOT because of bitcoin's inherent design, but because the entire class of such solutions cannot sail beyond the metes and bounds of human corruption.

That said, if ALL governance could be reliably put into the hands of an AI, and assuming said AI was sufficient in its knowledge, intent, and all other relevant capacities, AND it acted perfectly pursuant to proper human freedom, keeping its silicon nose out of your business, specifically your financial and other transactions in this case, then bitcoin would be strong... and irrelevant. The whole purpose of BC is to circumvent tyranny, but it cannot because it operates in a context that is controlled by tyrants who have the defacto power to alter the rules to suit their whim. 

The network is the lifeblood of what I will here call the "bitcoin class".  And who controls the network?  Themme.  Therefore, if and when Theye see fit to hamstring bitcoin transactions, it is as good as done.  It is possible that certain policy and technological changes would be required, but make no mistake about it that those changes are readily made.  I know this because I was up to my eyeballs in network engineering for long years with the telecoms, and have forgotten more about this sort of thing than most people will ever know.

This situation is what we shall characterize as the house having the deck stacked in its favor. The AI solution, were it practicable, might remove the relevant issues from human hands, thereby placing them beyond the reach of human corruption, once again obviating BC, though it might still prove convenient as a way of processing transactions, even if the security would be no longer necessary as a part of bitcoin persé.  The security would likely be better placed under the direct auspices of the AI.  But the privacy/freedom/rights issue would be rendered moot, all else equal.

Well, we don't have an AI that can do this, nor would I ever trust one to have my naughty bits in its hands, so we're back to all-too-fallible humans. Until human beings pop their heads from their backsides and decide they are going to be better men and women, nothing is going to change, save that we continue on the merry stride down the death spiral. I wish things were better than this, but they are not. WE are the problem, and only WE are the solution. We've foisted all this nonsense upon ourselves by allowing a tiny minority of well-motivated and well-heeled jerks steal away our liberties, the truth of which openly reveals our individual corruptions.  I maintain that we should begin with mass civil disobedience while simultaneously endeavoring to educate ourselves on the basics of Proper Human Relations, all the while screwing up our courage for the fights that such choices must perforce invite. We must be ready and willing to kill and possibly be killed for the sake of those liberties. This is what the 3% were all about. They were afraid as are we, but they fought anyway. That is called courage and I will never forget those men and women for the good they did in the face of overwhelming odds and the 97% who sat on their fat asses, fenceposts firmly inserted.

Looking to tech such as the bitcoin class is folly of the first order.  It is a nice-to-have solution that, in the face of bettered humanity, approaches irrelevance.  We are the seat of all human troubles, save those few extraordinary accidents of men and nature that occasionally wreak havoc... tsunamis, building fires, and the like.

We're in the shape we're in because we don't want to do what is required to improve our predicament. We want "freedom" (what we envision it to be, which is weak tea in the case of most people), but are unwilling to do that which is necessary to get it and keep it, the latter being the more difficult task. 

Without an alteration in our attitudes toward that of utter, and dare I say potentially VIOLENT intolerance for trespass of any form, in any degree, at any time, for any reason, we remain in a state of screwèdness.

The bitcoin class solutions are just more shiny objects dangled before men's eyes to distract them from the deeper and more important issues tat invariably revolve around and depend upon a better class of human being as the norm.  Thus far, precious few of us want to become that better class, and so here we are, flailing our arms wildly as we proclaim this new technology, or that, as the new wave of human salvation. It is all a very sick and sad joke that causes us to dishonor ourselves, our children, our posterity, and everything that is good between men.

Until we decide to change, you can wave all the trinkets you like before the world.  It will render us little improvement, if any, and the varlets will always find ways around those obstacles.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.