Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

Monthly Archives: February 2012

on Ethics

It used to baffle me that universities have such a thing as an Ethics department. I had read enough philosophy during high school to know that ethics is just one aspect of philosophy, and the hardest one to get any consensus. I also was under the Humean spell, namely that you can’t drive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. The fact is the only societal ethics that work are those enforced under the power of religious coercion; you make up some shit and kill people who don’t agree with it.

So I wondered: what are those Ethics majors doing? Well I still don’t know. The guys doing Ethics were mostly creepy dorks who I, desperate to get some poon back then, couldn’t afford to befriend. Still after some time I did get some appreciation for Ethics studies. The fact is ethic problems are huge conundrums against which the basic logic we use in our everyday lives seems quite useless indeed. The old aspiration of objective morality reveals its impossibility when asked the old switch dilemma: push the button and one person dies, don’t push it and 5 die. What is one to do? And why? Those puzzles are fun.

What’s more fun is that there’s some people who get paid for making up solutions for those puzzles. And as I was saying, those solutions are not based on any sound logic, because ethics doesn’t work that way. Ethics works by making up convoluted and unfalsifiable shit, throw it somewhere and see what sticks. Guys like this do the throwing:

I make up unfalsifiable shit for a living

This guy’s name is Paul Thompson. He gets paid, among other places, by the Center for Food Animal Productivity and Well-Being. I’m sure he’s fed his fat self with lots of meat from those animals whose Well-Being he cares about so much. Well, among the many convoluted unfalsifiable shit (sounds similar to politics, doesn’t it?) that he has made up, there’s the Blind Chicken Solution, which has the folks at the United Poultry Concern very pissed. The Blind Chicken Solution states that: Animal suffering is a bad thing, chickens in industrial farms are crowded in cages so they suffer. Well, blind chickens seem to be able to cope better with crowded conditions. So let’s blind all the motherfuckers. Clearly a genius. And he gets paid for saying that!

Well some dude at the Royal College of Art, as it happens, André Ford, thought of making that logic go to its necessary conclusion. If less sensory input decreases animal suffering, and that’s a good thing; well let’s just cut away the cerebral cortex, so they will cease suffering completely. If less is good, nil must be great. You can still grow their muscles for meat, and you could do it in a mechanized way which would be more efficient and thus ecologically friendly. And that’s a good thing too.

Now it sounds at first glance that the guy is just being tongue-in-cheek, wanting to make a statement about the absurdities some ethics experts say. Not so, the guy is dead serious. And he can talk too.

I think it is time we stopped using the term ‘animal’ when referring to the precursor of the meat that ends up on our plates. Animals are things we keep in our homes and watch on David Attenborough programs. ‘Animals’ bred for consumption are crops and agricultural products like any other. We do not, and cannot, provide adequate welfare for these agricultural products and therefore welfare should be removed entirely.

Earlier in the project I was proposing the chickens would be rendered unconscious, or desensitized by complete removal of the head but this has since been revised. Desensitisation will be achieved by a surgical incision that separates the animal’s neocortex, responsible for sensory perceptions, and its brain stem which controls its homeostatic functions. The head remains intact.

So in short, I would refer to this solution as pragmatic, not cynical and if the project does cause anyone to reflect on his or her dietary habits then that’s great.

Well the guy has a point doesn’t he? Still I have the hunch that he wouldn’t be able to sell his idea so well if he were talking of raising cows in the same way. Chickens are just at the bottom of the sympathy pyramid. But his logic is good.

He goes on:

An ancillary part of my proposal is to use the blood of the chicken posthumous, to hydroponically feed a nursery of rare orchids. The rationale behind setting up this unlikely mutualism is to display the similarities between these two organisms once the chicken has been desensitised. The unconscious chicken is just a different expression of the same chemical elements as in the orchid.

To answer the second part of your question – The project is overtly a hybridisation of nature and machine which is how I see the future of farming. Unfortunately, there is very little that is natural about the way the our food is currently produced. The monocultures and intensive farming systems upon which we rely are technological landscapes, harvested and processed using high-tech, and increasingly robotised machinery.

His vision of the future of chicken raising is this Matrix-ish picture.

Neo is one of these

Well there’s several ways of looking at this. The middle schooler inside me is excited that we have found a way of raising meat in space. I also got excited about aeroponics; any technology that can make Singapore a food exporter is awesome. Decreasing the value of land is a good thing in my view.

There’s also the ethics angle, i.e. making up convoluted unfalsifiable shit. Actually I’m quite good at that too, so I shall add my two cents. The fact is that factory farming exists, and selective breeding of animals has existed for millennia. Selective breeding has caused, by purely biological processes, a lot of special breeds of animals which are genetically defective, suffer of bad health, and are basically fucked up in many ways as a by-process of breeding for particular traits which people find useful. The same slow motion biological engineering that is mainstream today, is found horrible and creepy if done by mechanical means. People have a natural aversion towards plastic tubes it seems. Jim Kalb would tell you it’s not about the results, that means and processes matter too. Still is the fact is that when people see those braindead (literally so) chickens being fed through a plastic tube and muscles exercised via electric pulses they don’t like it. Hume said that morality was only about feelings, so we should leave it at that. But we are more curious that he was, and we want to know why people don’t like it. Well people don’t know. Tell your wife/girlfriend/mother about this thing, and ask her opinion. And press her, ask her to articulate the reasons why she finds it creepy. She most probably can’t. Nobody can actually, all we can do is make up some convoluted unfalsifiable shit to rationalize our feelings. I’ll tell you my evo-psy theory: people have a built-in mechanism against new stuff; especially about food. Present ways of feeding oneself have gone through a long process of trial and error; so you may assume that it’s safe. New stuff: industrial feed, GM crops; those are new, and we can’t know if they are safe. So they scare us.

Ok, I know you don’t care. As no one should. All this blabbing would be of no consequence if it weren’t for a small detail. Bureaucracy. You see, food has to be produced, and the government has to make some regulations about what processes are allowed. As Foseti will tell you, our laws aren’t made by our Parliaments but by the bureaucracy. But bureaucracy is about paper working, its about routine tasks. It’s not about decision making. What criteria should they use? Well they outsource that to experts. Experts like the fat guy on top of this post. The demand for Ethics students in University comes from the Government which uses them to justify their regulations. They need a fat guy on a suit to make up some shit so they can go on with their workload.

In other countries, Corruption is basically people with money paying off the bureaucrats to make regulations on their favour. But in the Anglosphere, the Cathedral, the people with money go to the fat guy on a suit, pay him some money to make up some shit, and wait for that to be reflected in some new regulations. Just by adding a fat guy on a suit, you eliminate Corruption from the system. Then you can get other fat guys on suits to make rankings of Corruption in the world, where your country is one of the cleanest and nicest, of course.

The problem with André Ford’s idea, which is strong, consistent, and quite elegant, is that he’s no fat guy on a suit, so unless some business gets interested and starts the influence-buying process, the Chicken Matrix won’t come to the market anytime soon. Population growth is leveling out anyway; the sort of people whose population is growing (only black Africans and Afghans by now) will never have the purchasing power to justify investing in his meat factories. It’s a pity. I enjoy the idea of a Blade Runner-ish city state with a huge population fed on skyscraper-sized Chicken Matrixes.

Smart Flight

A friend of mine accuses me of being a “hedonistic sob” (his words). That’s because I eat buckwheat crepes for breakfast, eat out in the weekends, and drink Masala Chai at home. I also watch international movies in a Macbook and own two smartphones.

My salary sucks, but I don’t have children, and my woman is low maintenance, which helps. But the biggest factor is that I live in a pleasant neighbourhood, and I don’t pay the rent myself. I couldn’t afford the rent of where I live right now. But once you take that away, life can be really good with little money. If you can cook (or your woman can) then eating reasonably well at home is cheap. Torrents and ebook readers mean entertainment is cheap, or essentially free. Socializing can be expensive; just cut the booze and meet your friends in their houses.

The root of all misery is rent. And for families, schools. Housing is hideously expensive anywhere in the world, there’s no safe haven. It’s expensive in North and South Europe, in America, in Asia, wherever you go. It’s getting worse in most places, bubbles aside. And schools also are increasingly expensive. That’s what makes life hard, what impels people to work long hours in pointless jobs, what forces women to work outside the home and make their families miserable.

Why housing and schools? They have something in common: the value of sharing them with good people. Besides the actual quality of the housing, the aesthetic value it may have, the real value of housing is being surrounded by pleasant people. Being low crime. Having nice neighbours. Or said plainly: avoiding proles. The value of avoiding proles is the most expensive thing on the planet. Not NAMs, just low IQ types in general. What we used to call scum, no matter the race. Of course each race has different distributions of scum, some are mostly scum, some have less of it.  But that’s not the point.

The point is that people out there are working their asses off, getting stressed out, having diseases and even dying because of the stress. And all for the only purpose of avoiding proles. Which means you need a house in a nice neighbourhood. And if you have kids, you will want to take them to a school without proles. And oh God that’s worth a fucking fortune. So the cycle of stress, and women in the workforce, and broken marriages, and just general shit goes on. All to avoid proles.

I don’t have the problem so my girlfriend stays at home cooking, I work the hours I wanna and we are honestly having a great time every day. I may not be an aristocrat in 18th century France, but I think I know the douceur de vivre. Life’s good in the 21th century. If you can avoid proles. Something like 80% of the money in any given economy is probably spent just on the desperate avoidance of proles.

And its getting worse, because the economy is getting worse, because dysgenics is causing an increase of the number proles. And immigration. Oh immigration. Immigrants being the purest form of prole, have raised the cost of living in the First World by an order of magnitude. I can’t even think the sheer amount of money that have been spent in changing homes and private schools by people desperate to get away from them. Someone should make a graph about it.

Or the children that weren’t given birth because the parents preferred not to having them, rather than having them live around proles. That’s by far the biggest reason behind the low fertility rate. As people’s income grow, their standards rise. The definition of scum also rises, and people prefer not having a family rather than give up upward mobility. It’s accepting the proles, or death. Most people choose death.

Eugenics is not only an idea from Darwinian biology. It’s an economics concept. The holy grail. Dysgenics depresses the economy. Eugenics would make it boom, if only by lowering prices. Prosperity by deflation.  Now if somebody could grab Krugman and the Chalupas guy and convince them of it.

The conspiracy of the GONGOS (and QUANGOS)

Theodore Dalrymple famously said that the communist propaganda machine wasn’t in the business of brainwashing its subjects. Its real purpose was to humiliate them, to pump out ever increasing amounts of bullshit just because it could, the most outrageous the lie, the better a show of its power. Orwell must have thought something similar when he wrote 1984, with its Ministry of Peace et al.

Well there sure is something Orwellian about NGOs. I mean what is an NGO? I have some expertise on China, and as an amateur sociologist I have found that putting myself in the feat of an average Chinese in a year X, gives me a good sense of perspective about Western affairs. Sociology was invented by Jews because of the detachment from where they could analyze Western society. Well China being a model of a statist society for millennia, imagine what your average local mandarin would have thought at seeing a British commercial corporation. What’s a corporation? An organization of people for the purpose of making money? And they can own property? If they have debts the owners are not personally responsible? What a bizarre thing that is. How does your government allow a group of people to organize themselves and make money, potentially amounts of money big enough to influence political power. You guys must be crazy.

But the crazy guys had a point, and they made it clear in 1840, when tiny Britain basically ass-raped the Celestial Kingdom. Greed is a powerful thing, and the Chinese government eventually learned to harness it, if 140 years too late. Well now picture yourself in the place of a newly capitalist Chinese official in the 1980s. You’ve been reading about the evil white traders who smuggled opium and shelled Chinese ports when forbidden to trade in drugs, all in the name of freedom of commerce. Well you have freedom of commerce now, sort of. So whitey should be happy? But oh no, they demand democracy now. Human rights! They demand that you give independence to all the random barbarian tribes inside your borders, which you are in process of aculturing, following the pattern of Western countries themselves. WTF is going on here? And the funniest part is that this time is not corporations doing the nagging. The governments nag a bit, but by far the worse of the naggers are this things called NGOs. Non Governmental Organizations. Non government…. yeah, that’s what those nasty corporations of the 19th century were. But these are different. These are groups of people too, but they aren’t working for profit. Then what in hell are they? It makes no sense at all.

It really does make no sense in a foreign perspective. What do this guys want? What do they care about our internal affairs. And where do they get their funding anyway? It must be expensive to go around watching for ‘human rights’ violations and workers conditions and whatnot. And they don’t pay taxes? Wait. They don’t pay taxes. Everyone knows the famous Reagonomics aphorism: “when you tax something you get less of it, when you subsidize something you get more of it”. So that must mean…

Speaking about Reagan, check this paper by Sreeram Chaulia about what these INGOs (International NGOs). It’s really eloquent.

The watershed that brought INGOs to the forefront of global democracy promotion was the Reagan administration’s decision to create the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in 1983 to roll back Soviet influence. With a stated raison d’etre of “strengthening democratic institutions around the world through nongovernmental efforts”

So you have the Government set up an organization to strengthen nongovernmental efforts. Ever heard of an oxymoron? They make dozens of those every day at the State Department. Mr Chaulia goes on:

NED was conceived as a quasi-governmental foundation that funnelled US government funding through INGOs like the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI), International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), and Freedom House. These INGOs in turn ‘targeted’ authoritarian states through a plethora of programmatic activities. NED’s first President, Allen Weinstein, admitted openly that “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

Gotta give some credit to that Weinstein guy for being so candid. Then again he has chutzpah in his genes.

The organisation was a deus ex machina in the face of scandalous Congressional investigations into the CIA’s “soft side” operations to destabilise and topple unfriendly regimes that embarrassed the government in the late 1970s. “An NGO helps to maintain a certain credibility abroad that an official US government agency might not have.”

So the US government simply changed the responsibility of foreign subversion from the CIA to the State Department. That somehow is an increase in credibility. These guys might think all of us stupid. And they are mostly right. A distant cousin of Mr Weinstein invented public relations after all.

Now on the details:

 97 percent of NED’s funding comes from the US State Department (through USAID and before 1999, the USIA), the rest being allocations made by right-wing donors like the Bradley Foundation, the Whitehead Foundation and the Olin Foundation.34 Since its conception, and despite the bipartisan structure, “neoconservatives have held tight control over NED’s agenda and institutional structure.”35 Senior George W. Bush administration figures who are signatories to the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which wears aggressive US foreign interventions on its sleeve, have officiated in NED.

You don’t say. I don’t see the contradiction in neocons and bipartidisim; it’s not like the Democrats are free of neocon infestation.

For our purpose, it is interesting to note that compared to humanitarian and development INGOs, which have often promoted US foreign policy objectives,41democratisation and human rights INGOs boast of a far greater preponderance of US government and intelligence operatives. This owes to the fact that democratisation is a sensitive political minefield with direct bearings on international relations. It is too important a foreign policy subject for the US government to hand over reins to the voluntary sector. Armed with the luxury of a sea of democratisation GONGOs (governmental NGOs) and QUANGOs (quasi-governmental NGOs), William DeMars says,

“The US government has a greater capacity than any other single actor in the world to keep track of them, channel them, thwart them, or ride them in a chosen direction.”42

So it seems clear that all of these NGOs that our hypothetical Chinese official was so baffled about, are something much more understandable: they’re a front for agit-prop controlled by the US State Department. I like the concept of GONGOs, an oxymoron made acronym, a symbol of something so evil that it insults even basic logic.

Read the whole thing. And also read this article from China Matters, from where I got the link. China Matters is an amazing blog, whose articles well deserve to spend a whole week of reading. It’s written by Peter Lee, who also writes in Asia Times, probably the best newspaper out there for foreign policy news. The more I read it the more I like the whole set-up. Asia Times is owned by Sondhi Limthongkul, a Sino-thai tycoon who is also a notorious reactionary (in Thailand that means being a monarchist, and anti-Thaksin, the demotist tycoon). The famous Spengler also writes there. I should ask for a job one of these days. That or RT.

See how Peter Lee compares the NED based GONGO network with the old Comintern, the original agit-prop machine. He states that the Comintern wasn’t very effective, but I digress. Communist parties became huge in all the world, causing great social havoc (the Spanish Civil war comes to mind, where workers marched while shouting “Long Live Russia! Death to Spain!”). While the Comintern didn’t actually cause any regime change, the GONGOs also haven’t really succeeded, but the social disruption they cause is also very important. The comparison is apt in great part because the Bolshevik Comintern and the Neocon NED can claim common ancestry: Trotskyism. I don’t know the specifics but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the same group of people just moved from the CPUSA to some QUANGOs and used their old ethnic networks to keep on with their old business.

The post is an old one, and Peter Lee links it to refer to the recent events where the Egyptian junta arrested and charged with subversion to all the America GONGOs in their territory. The USG cried bloody murder, and the media saw fit to emphasize that one of the charged is the Sam Lahood, the son of the USG Transport Secretary. How merry. It reminds me a lot, by cacophony I guess,  of that favourite character of Foseti, Corliss Lamont, another communist subversive whose father was a big fish in the USG.

Mencius Moldbug has this theory that Communism is an American invention that was exported to Russia, not the other way around. Well I don’t know if I buy that. I guess his ethnic background sort of impels him to make the argument, which is not a bad one, but a bit stretched as I see it. What sounds more plausible to me is that after Stalin purged the Jews out of the USSR, Trotsky and his movement moved to the US, where little by little they crept into the punditry and policy circles, and in Reagan’s administration they finished the colonization of the American foreign policy racket. Again I’m not saying theirs was a hostile takeover, America had already a long tradition of foreign messianism, see Monroe or Wilson. The neocons brought valuable expertise. And the media offensive we have been seeing for the last 20 years is proof of the new Comintern-ish modus operandi of the USG foreign service.

But they can’t fool China or Russia. Agit-prop is no secret to them. They were doing this stuff decades ago. And as well organized as the Chinese liberal movement or the anti-Putin groups might be, the governments are reacting quite well. Even Egypt is getting it. The day when Facebook will be banned of all non-western countries might be near.

Why bureaucratic control is a good thing

Foseti made himself a name by blogging about his experience as a high level civil servant in Washington. He explains in very clear terms how the bureaucracy works, and to what extent it actually rules the country. He doesn’t say if that’s a good or bad thing. But the common first reaction is outrage. Our elected representatives don’t enact laws?! What about democracy?  Oh wait. Democracy sucks. We are all agreed on that. So less control by elected bodies must surely be a good thing then?

Pretty much. As a prove, and referring to my last post, see how Viviane Reding, a Luxembourgish eurocrat  is pushing for the right to be forgotten. Namely that any content uploaded to an online service must be deleted (not pulled from public view) by request of the author. That means no more compromising Facebook pictures, gotchas about Twitter racist comments, etc. Such a law would protect any real dissenter from being cyber-bullied by the Cathedral and its mobs.

Of course the Anglo media, that bunch of sellouts, cries bloody murder. Scroll down and see how the media is describing the proposed law.

Telegraph: “EU ‘asking Google to censor web

WSJ: “E.U. is ‘Biggest Threat to Free Speech on the Internet’

New Republic: “A Grave New Threat to Free Speech From Europe

The argument being that would mean forcing Google to remove all personal information by request. And that’s a bad thing.

Is it? Cyber stalking is a human right now? The fact that the US is heavily invested in the whole new “social media”, which is little else than a huge private data mining machine with surveillance rights to the USG. And that must be protected at all costs! Google spying on unwilling customers and posting the contents online is the American definition of Free Speech. Well Europe could certainly do with a First Amendment, as you can go to jail by saying that Blacks or Arabs don’t belong in here. But the travesty of the Anglo media defending the Facebook/Google stalking machine is even worse. As it is, the US is a puppet of its big business. The EU is not, and the eurocrats at Brussels seem to enjoy routinely screwing with big American companies, c.f. forcing Microsoft to delete Internet Explorer from Windows.

That’s what a government is supposed to do. Assert its power. Sovereignty means little when some all your media and political establishment sell themselves cheap. Viviane Reding on the other hand doesn’t need campaign contributions. So she can do some good.


[typo edited. Mondays, you know]

Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you

The Cathedral is at least trying:

Secret Code in Color Printers Lets Government Track You

(H/T Voxday)

Since the Gmail privacy brouhaha earlier this month I’ve started to think a bit about my digital footprint, and with shit like this, damn it’s hard not to get paranoid.

Anomaly UK had this post talking about how to do dissenting blogging if the shit gets serious and the government starts to crack down. See how in the comments Jim, who seems to know what he’s talking about,  makes some suggestions. I also recall how zhainan made that great post about darknets.

In these moments I wish I had done computer science. But us humanities types don’t necessarily have to be hostages of the Cathedral.

Jim is right in that a good way of spoofing the digital trackers is routing traffic through non-Cathedral countries, say Russia or China.

Of course China tracks you too in ways closer than the US/EU is even trying to. But they have their priorities, and cracking down with English language blogs or Hollywood movie pirating is not one of them. To this day Russian or Chinese uploaders work as well as megaupload et al. use to work. Now if only North Korea could get some data centers working…

I don’t know what we can do, but God knows I’m getting a Chinese printer next.

Brief history of the last 70 years

From Steve Sailer’s comments:

A Leviathan sized government tacitly encourages dysgenia (cacogenics)by turning a blind eye and allowing unfettered immigration by lower cognitive types. The same Leviathan uses transfer payments to tacitly encourage dysgenia(cacogenics) amongst the unmarried in its expanding underclass.
Over the preceding forty years Leviathan puts policies in place, which demoralize, dispirit and disparage the nativist population. Slowly Leviathan creates, by regulation, second-class citizenship for them. The natives, the majority, lose hope, give up discipline and engage in criminality.
However the cognitive elite continues to thrive amidst the simmering cacogenic chaos. The ‘overeducated elitist snobs’ (Murray) continue to vacuum up high IQ conformist kids from the hinterlands. These conformist kids happily become Janissaries in the new Ottoman Empire of Brains. They preach their doctrine of universalism and SAT gained Life wisdom in print and media everywhere.

But there is a problem, the universalism which creates the rationale for these cacogenic policies does not really apply to the OES(overeducated elitist snobs). Waay too many of them come from a group that is overrepresented by a factor of 10 in most opinion influencing positions. Wow almost forty percent of billionaires are from this ethnic group that is only two percent of the population? Doesn’t sound so universal, numbers are hard to deny.
So that’s it, universalism with accompanying Cacogenic chaos preached by the government which is heavily influenced by a particularist group.

There ain’t a problem if you say it ain’t so.

Future time orientation

I’ve spent the whole week battling with the local bureaucracy during the day, and playing Civ 4 during the night. Time flies when you’re annoyed.

Still as annoying as the bureaucracy is, and notwithstanding the pressures to the public sector that austerity measures are forcing on them…

They’re aren’t going anywhere. See how German judicial bureaucrats mandate that their academic colleagues must earn a good salary. By force (H/T Walter Russell). Now the courts can determine salaries too.

In the new polarized society that will rise out of the ashes of the Recession, all interest groups will fight each other to get a hold on the new Privileged class that will monopolize the goodies. Many groups are positioning themselves to get themselves a cut of the pie. Many won’t get it. Worker unions? Hah.

But the bureaucracy will surely keep its privileges, and then some. They don’t monopolize power for nothing. I’m afraid that contrary to what The Economist and its banksta editors wish, China isn’t getting closer to us. We are getting closer to their mandarinate sovereignty. If you want a cute wife, you might need to get in the civil service.

You have been warned.

Making the world safe for corruption – Primaries edition

Say there is a power struggle in some country, and you don’t like who’s winning. How much should you spend, and how much influence can you buy?

Let’s say North Korea.

There’s the little fatso Kim Jong-un, and the elder fatso, Kim Jong-nam. Jong-un was the frontrunner, but he’s too young, and many people would like Jong-nam to be the new king. What can they do?

Nothing. Kim Jong-nam has long been an exile in Macau, where he is survives only because China, t protects him against his brother’s assassins. China being the guarantor of the NK regime. Kim Jong-nam has many friends in high circles in China, but even that didn’t get him in power. Nobody can influence the NK power process.

I spend a million every day in meals

Now let’s say the USA.

See there are this primaries thing going on. Obama doesn’t look too good so there’s a lot of attention in the Republican nomination. So far there is a Ned Flanders-went-investor guy as the frontrunner. A loaded Mormon. Fuck that. Let’s say you’ve got some spare dough and you wanna spend it in anyone but the Mormon. How much would you need to spend to make a difference?

One million dollars!

And the guy managed to win 3 primaries with the money. See how cheap democracies are? Attention too to the donor’s reasons:

No. 1, I think of all the guys that strap a gun on their backs and head to Afghanistan and Iraq to keep us free and safe and maintain what America has stood for.

And people complain when studies say that Republicans are stupid. The amazing is that stupid people can become millionaires in America. And buy presidential candidates! The American Dream for the left half of the Bell Curve.

As I said here, I increasingly think that the only real point of democracy is to lower the price of influence buying for rich dudes. Think of the hundreds of millions that all secret services must be paying to the Syrian rebels to topple the Assads, while some clueless redneck gets to influence the homefront with his spare change.

At least in Europe there’s still some dignity left (H/T foseti).

Pedigree and HBD

There’s a good proof of HBD here in Business Insider.

As I said earlier, BI is mostly crap, but they know their audience. Do you imagine the WSJ making an article on the Rothschilds? They’re not supposed to exist, you know. They’re a myth, a conspiracy theory, like Jewish influence in the USA.

Well they’re very real, and doing very well. Privilege! You may say. Well sure. But come on, privilege doesn’t make you a good violinist. Or it doesn’t assure that your wineries or horse collections don’t lose money. They are doing well because they are well bred. Well Nat doesn’t look very bright, but maybe that’s just me.

Regression to the mean. In looks.

I always thought that the so called ‘Regression to the mean’ was just the result of rich and successful people marrying beautiful women, who aren’t maybe that bright. So the offspring of a smart-but-horny father and a hot-but-dull mother is a regressed to the mean child. It seems that the Rothschilds have been choosing their mates well though. So their offspring don’t show much regression. As I said elites tend to attract good genes, which makes them stable. When they don’t, they decay.

But Jews, or at least elite Jews, care very much about how they mix their genes with. See Amy Chua’s husband, it’s a pity they didn’t have boys.

Do they teach HBD in the Talmud or something? In centuries time they will talk about the Era of Jewish Dominance, and they will attribute it to their ancient understanding of eugenics. They let their left half of the Bell Curve marry off and assimilate, while the elite kept attracting other ethnies’ elites and raising the children as Jewish. She couldn’t complain about their dominance. We should do what they do.

On Kindness

Professor Charlton writes that our society is very nice.

Modern society exceeds all previous societies in terms of its kindness – it is the least-cruel society ever. Naturally – if we focus on this single virtue to the neglect of all other virtues and sins, then we can regard ourselves as more virtuous than anybody else.

It caught my attention, not only because its rare to read Professor Charlton praising any aspect of modern society, but because it reminded me of a quote by the late Aldous Huxley, who said:

It’s rather embarrassing to have given one’s entire life to pondering the human predicament and to find that in the end one has little more to say than, ‘Try to be a little kinder.’

As much as I admire Huxley, I thought he was being too clever there. He never thought about kindness when he was young, and admired beauty and boldness. He only thought of it when he grew old, and needed people to be kind to him.

But the concept of modern society as kind especially reminds me of the last chapter in Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation series, which I blogged about a while ago. He talks among other things of the birth of kindness as a social value:

It’s an almost incredible fact, that in the middle of the 19th century there was no children’s hospital in London. And children weren’t taken into ordinary hospitals for fear that they might be infectious. (…) As I look at it I’m more than ever convinced that humanitarianism was the great achievement of the 19th century. We are so much accustomed to the humanitarian outlook that we forget how little it counted in earlier ages of civilisation. Ask any decent person in England or America today what he thinks matters most in human conduct, 5 to 1 his answer will be  kindness. It’s not the words that would have crossed the lips of any of the earlier heroes of this series. If you asked Saint Francis what matters in life he would, we know, answered chastity, obedience, poverty. If you asked Dante, Michael Angelo, they might have answered disdain of baseness and injustice. But kindness, never.

Quite true. Also you mustn’t go in the time machine to find people who don’t care about kindness. Just go abroad. Remember how the rebels shoved a knife into Gaddhafi’s ass while they beat him to death? Or all those honor killings of young girls who’s only crime is having some fun with a boy. But not only Muslims at all, see this article about a Chinese father who forced his daughter to eat shit as a punishment. Or the father who went on TV bragging how he beat his children into an elite university. Parents all over hired him to get the same results. They hire a dude to beat their children.

Not to talk about animal cruelty. In Hong Kong, a rich and developed place by any standard, a girl giggled while eating a fish fried alive. They call it 呼叫鱼, ‘calling fish’. It became a hit in all China afterwards. Or this weird Vietnamese festival, where they get a poor piglet and cut it in half in front of people, who rush to dip their napkins in the blood. I have a hard stomach but this was hard to watch. Poor cute thing. But again the concept of ‘cute’ is a relatively new thing.

These people beat the US military

I have little sympathy of the holier-than-thou vegans and animal rights activists, but seeing the Vietnamese piglet cut in half while the people watch in excitement just screams of barbarism. Yet our admired Romans used to do that all the time. Cruelty is a constant in human society, yet today kindness, the avoidance of making others suffer, seems the most basic requirement of Civilisation. Much of the disdan of leftist Europe towards the US is that Americans are not “nice”. Americans have no cozy universal welfare, and go around making wars that kill people. We on the other hand are nice and kind, don’t invade other countries, and accept Somali refugees. In fact our courts make kindness mandatory to the point of suicide. There’s lots to say against “kindness” from an anti-leftist perspective. But the fact remains that examples of cruelty such as the ones described above also seem beneath us. I guess its all about economic comfort. People insecure in their economic status don’t have time to waste on being kind to others, let alone animals. We on the other hand are (or used to be until the recent recession) secure in our welfare, so we have time to be kind and nice. As the economy declines cruelty is sure to make a comeback in our societies.

I just hope we don’t slash live piglets in half.

EDIT: I almost forgot mentioning this ultimate example of not giving a fuck about animals. See how in this restaurant in China they offered braised Koala, and quite cheap actually. No kindness towards animals, no sense of cuteness, not even a little respect of the value of an endangered species. Just cook the bitch and get some dough.