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.

Nice People

One of the more irritating and most often used items in the toolbox of the willing serf is his reference to the fact that there are so many "nice" people in the world.

Let us hearken back to some basics, namely that in life there are those things that are essential, such as food, water, shelter, and so on.  Then there are "nice to have" items, like that BMW, so very specifically in the teal paint scheme.  If you don't have a teal BMW, your world will not come crashing down around your head, despite the fact that some of us react as if it were the case.

"Nice" in terms of characterizing a human being is decidedly not an essential quality.  It is very much a "nice to have" element, and it is so only if the essential characteristics are present.

But what are those essentials in terms of human specifications?  Sadly for us, there is no standard list, but I will hazard a guess at a few with which I believe most will agree.  To wit:

• Trustworthiness

Well looky here.  Surprisingly, I find myself at a loss to go further with the list at this time, but the one thing with which I have managed to dredge from the vaults of my mind, is a whopper.  Seriously though, I could put up more, but this one alone is enough to subsume most of the rest, because almost all human interaction revolves around and is founded upon trust.  Without it, the world falls into chaos, stops dead, and people begin going terminally hungry in short time.

And so I ask the question: what value is my being "nice", if you cannot trust me?  "Nice" is nice to have.

From my perspective, I would rather as a friend an irritating, obnoxious stooge in whom my trust is comfortably placed, than the nicest person on the planet in whom I cannot be sufficiently certain that they will not shiv me one day while my back is turned.

In my world, and I would recommend this for yours as well, "nice" buys a man nothing whatsoever until he proves worthy of trust.  All else equal, would I prefer one be "nice"?  In some cases, yes, but in others, no.  "Nice" tends to cause people to soften truths for the sake of niceness, the core aim of which is to avoid upsetting others.  There are times when this is a prudent and kind approach to a situation.  There are also times where this is the absolute worst possible thing.  For example, a child's parent is dying or has died.  Do we lie to them for the sake of not upsetting them with the grim reality?  There may be exceptions, there usually are, but in general I suggest that the answer is a firm "no".  The child will learn of the fate one day.  Leaving them in the dark, so to speak, is detrimental from several viewpoints, not the least of which is the issue of, <AHEM>... trust.  

Imagine lying to the child in question only to have to tell them the truth eventually.  Imagine teelling them mommy is going to be fine and will be home soon, when in fact she has short time to live. Perhaps it's December and mom died in August.  You have lied to the child and they know it.  How will that effect trust?  Nobody can predict it, but chances are far better than any reasonable man should want to risk that the effect will be highly negative.  And so we see that niceness is not just mostly superficial and basically irrelevant to the affairs of the human world, we also see that it is potentially detrimental to what may be the single most prevailingly important factor between individual human beings.

Beware the Ides of Nice, for it is a multiply-headed serpent and deceiver of men.  It buys little, yet costs much.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.