Archive for June, 2007

mderpelding

Real economics:

You can buy a Krupp.

You can’t buy a Hitler.

Put another way:

An expert postulates the existance of “A.”
This expert builds a machine to sense “A.”
The machine dutifully senses “A.”
The expert wins public accolade because he has proven the existance of “A.”

The above is the template for most modern science of any sort.
Political, social, biological, whatever.

A recap…

Lots of people know who Hitler is.
How many recognize Krupp?

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

1 Comment

Dave

Anyone with real skills in science and research is unlikely to succumb to any type of bullying.

Political Correctness is a brand of bullying, that’s all it is.

There are two types of bullies. The first type is narcissistic. These are essentially juveniles (regardless of age) who are easy to defeat. This is because they don’t even know where power begins and are never realistic about what is actually going on.

The second type of bully is a realist. They are several orders harder to deal with. They are absolutely cynical and hard headed in everything they do. These are the true promoters of Political Correctness and any form of “correctness” will do for them.

The “Greatest Generation” had no street smarts, was favored by an affluence that was not of their doing, and accordingly was easy prey for the second type of bully. If life were harsher for them, they would have been more prone to stand up to the second type of bully.

I think one of the greatest mistakes that revolutionaries continually make is failure to accurately identify the second type of bully for attacks.

A policy of attacking only the truly guilty is critical and tragically almost always ignored.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

2 Comments

An Intellectual Exercise: Why Money Doesn’t Buy Power

As an experienced old man, I have a set of basic rules about human behavior which are useful for anyone to take into account. That is what I want you to absorb.

Let’s take “money buys power” and run it through my way of thinking:

1) A person who has little or no money will tell you all about how rich people get rich;

2) A person without power will be glad to explain to you about where all the power is, who has it, and how they got it.

3) A person who has neither power nor money will tell you that money = power.

4) NOW TO A REALLY BASIC RULE OF LIFE:

Any opinion which is explicable is probably WRONG.

We take this for granted every time we watch a commercial or an infomercial: This person is trying to sell me something, so he is not being completely truthful with me.
But since our Obedience Training in World War II, this rules ends right there. We have things called “professional objectivity” and “peer review,” both of which should make a rational person laugh out loud.

A lawyer or a doctor may not be trying to SELL you a specific product, but they have a very definite idea about WHO should end up with a huge share of the money and power. Social science professors are the same way.

In fact, my main view of the future is a battle I talked about in my first book over thirty years ago, but which no one is aware is developing. It is the war between social science and hard science.

This latter combines my rule on EXPLICABLE opinions versus simple truth. We all know that hard science is pretty reliable (Pace SysOps) until it begins to conflict with social science. Then the “scientist” who wants to keep his job bends over backwards and lies with absolute shamelessness. That is because the only excuse social scientists have for demanding power and money is their doctrine of Political Correctness, and since professors rule campuses, it has been easy for hard science to stay out of PC’s way.

Until now. But the power to bring endless life and happiness, once the province of the theologians and now the province of Political Correctness and Marxism or Libertarianism is becoming REAL. And hard science will have it.

It is as simple as that.

Just as science could not continue under the rigid rule of theologians, it cannot go ahead under the rules of PC. The conflict is just in a few areas now, and is hardly noticed. But what makes the future is NEVER noticed in the present.

Which leads us back to anther basic thought: Opinions which are EXPLICABLE are not true. Which is why the field of Futurology is a bad joke. What does Futurology EXPLAIN? Does it have anything to do with explaining the FUTURE?

Of course not! Futurology depends on funding and publication TODAY. A professional Futurologist must predict a future which will hit the mass media and appeal to the “peer review” committees that give out money TODAY. All Futurist predictions are explicable in those terms. I gave you a good example of this by telling you why demography is known among sane economists as “panic science.” Population predictions that make it to the media and produce movies like Soylent Green get fame and funding,

And this leads me back to the original subject. Why does money NOT buy power? For the exact same reason that Futurology money produces nothing but misinformation about the real future. Funding produces experts who tell rich people how to influence “the people,” but those “people” are as alien to real people as any E.T. They are “the people” Marxists talk abut, “the people” professors talk about, and therefore “the people” that the rich believe in. Just how many members of “the working class” she has talked about all her life has Jane Fonda ever LISTENED to?

This rule was stated LONG before Bob discovered it: “No one ever tells the truth to a rich man or a beautiful woman.”

.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

8 Comments

I Don’t “Talk Religion,” Theologians are on MY Turf

Presbyterians, Lutherans, United Methodists, they all laughed at the “holy rollers.”

But my father would point out to them that THEY began the same way. John Calvin and John Knox were shouters who brought their audiences into terror and tears. John Wesley yelled for sixty years, and even the hardened Welsh coalminers were rolling and crying.

I seriously doubt that Peter and Paul limited themselves entirely to quiet, sermonic reasoning in their hey-day.

My analysis of religion begins precisely where the theologian’s should end. My analysis of religion or any other ideological institution is pure heresy to most adherents of the Faith, because I know that most of it, be it Christian, libertarian or Communists, is exactly the same. CS Lewis said there was only one required Christian belief, the Resurrection. Thought JRR Tolkien was very upset at Lewis for becoming a Catholic after Tolkien had had so much to do with his conversion from atheism, the fact that the pope require belief in the Immaculate Conception for Salvation in 1870, after saints had argued over it for so long, was enough all by itself to keep Lewis outside the Pope’s jurisdiction.

Theologians qualify for their jobs by knowing all about the Old Testament, the Igubrian language translation of the Vermillion and the Syphilitic Monstrance.

According to Gospel, Jesus knew all that crap when he was twelve years old. Twenty years later, when his mission was serious, he was out reducing things to parables. Yes, he did say ONCE that he did not come to supplant the Law and the Prophets, so the Church put them on the same par with the Final Truth. Had Jesus said anything else, he would have been stoned to death n the spot.

And when his enemy’s asked him about paying Roman taxes he said that the right of Caesar to his property was as important as God’s right to his – if you translate his words the way the churches do on the Testaments.. Same reason: anything else and he would have been stoned on the spot.

So why are professional theologians so nuts about the Old Testament? Because you would have a hard time making a living out of what JESUS said. It is no accident that it was the Old Testament theologians who got him crucified.

All ideologies and all religions are ninety-nine percent the same. That is MY area of expertise, the development of HUMAN institutions, HUMAN politics. Theologians would like to lynch ANYBODY who exposed that fact the way Christ did.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

7 Comments

richard

Another thing I’ve noticed when spreading the word is the effectiveness of the label ’self-hating white person’. It really puts the brainwashed on the back foot. I think it works because it strikes at the core of their sense of self-worth.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

1 Comment