Sunday, July 6, 2014

Gary Oldman is better than you.

Enough said.

Thursday, May 29, 2014

On the Lines in the Sand

Michael Anissimov’s point that we should draw the line on social-conservatism may strike some as going too far.  After all, they might say, he admitted that he was a progressive himself prior to coming over to our side.  But if you read the context of what he is saying (though it is badly worded, while still well-explained), it is obvious he means drawing the line on those who do not switch fully to the right when they switch; those who wish to maintain a semblance of social-liberalism while adopting an anti-democratic hierarchical mode.

He is correct.  Civilization is our purpose and is the primary reason we believe in hierarchy and do not believe in democracy.  Civilization’s main keystone is tradition and we are not upholding tradition if we are not socially conservative.  I was once socially liberal myself (being one of those libertarians he spoke of) and began to doubt the goals of the diversity-cult I was once a part of.  I came to neoreaction and social-conservatism simultaneously.  In fact, I might have become a paleoconservative instead, had I not discovered Hoppe and, subsequently, Moldbug.

The point is, while it may be acceptable to allow entry of those who have run in socially liberal cliques, it is not acceptable to allow entry of those who intend to remain socially liberal.  Any neoreactionary who claims to reconcile neoreaction with social-liberalism (a part of the egalitarianism cult we have rejected) is no reactionary at all, neo or otherwise.

In other words, while the "patchwork" that is to be the consequence of our efforts is for everyone, the club making said effort is not.

While I'm agreeing with the point he is making, I believe Anissimov is wrong about the people he is intending to make this point about.

Other than Land.

This quote from Land:  The fact that “social conservatism” has quite recently emerged as a criterion seems odd.

Okay, I could see it as odd if the thing that is "odd" about it is "recently", but I'm pretty sure that that's not what he's saying, in which case it is Land's confusion that I find the most odd.

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Gun ownership statistics to make liberals stfu with

If you go by ratio of gun ownership, rather than gun laws, you see that many of the most violent countries have a lower per capita gun ownership. Honduras has really permissive gun laws, but is 88th in gun ownership and is probably the most violent country in the world. El Salvador is second in violence and 92nd in gun ownership.

The states with the highest per capita gun ownership has the lowest per capita crime. Do not use absolute number (more gun owners = more crimes), since they are dishonest reporting and have more to do with high population numbers than gun ownership. Always look at RATIOS.

On the flip side of country ownership rate vs crime rate look at the following high gun ownership nations (all are based on per 100 citizens):

Switzerland (45.7 gun ownership.  0.7 homicide rate)

Cyprus (36.4 gun.  1.7 crime)

Finland (32 gun.  2.2 crime)

Serbia (58.2 gun.  1.2 crime)

Sweden (31.6 gun.  1 crime)

Iraq (34.2 gun.  2 crime)



Yemen (54.8 gun.  4.2 crime)

Saudi Arabia (35 gun. 1 crime)

Uruguay is the only country of the top ten gun ownership to be higher than our 4.2% crime rate and they're still at 5.9.

Whereas Honduras has 91.6 crime rate and 6.2 gun ownership (compared to our 4.2 crime rate and 88.8 gun ownership rate.

For the sake of fairness, here are the lowest gun ownership nations (crime = intentional homicide):

Tunisia (0.1 gun.  1.1 crime)

Ethiopia (0.4 gun. 22.5 crime)

Ghana (0.4 gun.  15.7 crime)

Solomon Islands (0.4 gun.  3.7 crime)

Bangladesh (0.5 gun.  2.7 crime)

Eritrea (0.5 gun.  17.8 crime)

Fiji (0.5 gun.  2.8 crime)

Indonesia (0.5 gun.  8.1 crime)

Singapore (0.5 gun.  0.3 crime)

Haiti (0.6 gun.  6.9 crime)

Update: An earlier version of this was misleading by listing stats as percentages, incorrectly.  Instead, they are per 100,000 citizens, with regards to homicide and per 100 citizens, with regards to guns.  Also, the "gun ownership" stat lists the amount of guns owned per 100 citizens, not the amount of gun owners.  I apologize for any confusion.  The fault was entirely mine and not that of the sources I drew the information from.

References

 http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/publications/by-type/yearbook/small-arms-survey-2007.html

 www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/Homicide_statistics2012.xls

I'm certain neither source would approve of how I used their statistics here.  Cest la vie.  Facts are facts.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, October 25, 2012

My Letter to the ODIHR


With all due respect, (I'm sorry, I can't say that with a clear conscience, you haven't earned such a statement), the United States, just like every other country isn't obligated to do jack shit. Or do you misunderstand the meaning of the word "obligation". Let me define it for you, from Webster's.


If it is in contract to allow your observers, it is an obligation. Is it? Not that I've heard of. I believe you have confused precedent with contract. Former good relations between have continued despite the International Community's continuous capitulation to human rights abusers, such as China and Iran, whilst attempting to paint the United States as some cartoon villain. We have worked with international groups, despite constantly being painted as the bad guy by them, because it is in our nature to forgive and to simply accept the blame for things which aren't even our responsibility. We've simply become used to being the punching bag of the world and are strong enough to take and too "civilized" to retaliate. You see, unlike other parts of the world, the United States doesn't consider a perceived insult as sufficient justification to kill.

But, when the United Nations threatens to boycott our nation's industry for nothing more than trading with one of our strongest allies, we get a little miffed. And when your own organization refrains from any sort of comment on actual video documented corruption from ACORN, video documented voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers, and electoral fraud by Patrick Moran, but jump as soon as the SEIU, AFL-CIO, and ACLU (who don't stand for any kind of liberty or justice, since they typically only stand up for the free speech rights of left wing causes - everyone leaning to the right has to go to the Institute for Justice or the American Center for Law and Justice, or even if you just happen to have an issue that isn't free speech related or related to minorities in some way) bring you nothing more than their biased opinions on the nature of center-right watchdog groups, like True the Vote, forgive us if we become a little bit suspicious of outside groups.

Whatever you do, please refrain from lying to the international community about some obligation you made up, just to garner publicity for you group.

Monday, March 5, 2012

Sandra Fluke may or may not be a slut, but that's not the point.

As a slut is literally defined as a promiscuous woman, it would be accurate to claim most modern women are sluts in a technical sense. However, nobody uses that standard anymore. The point here, is that she defends the administration's indefensible attack on the first amendment by claiming there are medical uses for contraceptives and it is, therefore, needed. News flash...it's available. The fact that certain religions have a rule against it does not mean you won't be able to get it. The fact that the government demands that certain religions put their beliefs aside and abide by the wishes of the government IS unconstitutional and a blatant attack on the freedom of people to practice their own beliefs.

Monday, December 12, 2011

Do Not Use WOT

Or for that matter any other program that judges the reliability of websites by user reviews. The liberal youth culture prevalent on the internet (whom are often pretentious no-it-alls and as dishonest as can be imagined, for the sake of protecting their "cool" credentials) means that these very reviews have a fraction of the trustworthiness of the sites they are reviewing. Hacker sites with terrible security receive rave reviews (because the reviewers download their torrents there) and right wing novelty sites with good security but conservative opinions receive the kind of ratings you would expect from bit torrent sites (you can also look at "comments" by the reviewers, which leads you to a string of "hate speech" or "hatemongers" claims from the reviewers). The only good thing I drew from my experience with WOT is the empirical proof that these net-generation kids are far from open minded; uber-popular conservative magazine, National Review, has no rating, at all. This leads me to believe these punk have never even been there. Any program that can lead people to believe a site is unsafe, because the reviewers disagree with the content is basically facilitating unregulated libel.

Don't rely on these programs. Rely on your anti-virus and malware blocking software instead. WOT can, and will, lie to you.

P.S. This is not to say that this was how the developers intended this software to be used, so I give no blame to them. It is simply an untrustworthy method of determine trustworthiness.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, October 31, 2011

Winners and Polls

Mitt Romney at one of his presidential campaig...Image via WikipediaHerman CainImage via WikipediaPolls show that Mitt Romney leads the GOP against Obama. Polls also show Americans favor OWS, by about 40ish percent.  That doesn't mean I believe America is going to rush to go join OWS. In fact, these polls being done that pit GOP candidates against Obama are nonsense, as the people responding to them aren't watching the candidates actually going up against Obama; they simply have no frame of reference. It's like polling people on the way to Wal Mart and asking them what they're going to buy. We seldom end up getting exactly what we meant to get when we go to Wal Mart.

There are factors to winning an election (which is basically just a protracted argument about who's the better leader) that have nothing to do with polls. I always go back to the gold standard of logical argument, Aristotle. In Rhetoric, he listed a trifecta of factors that relate to winning an argument.
(http://rhetoric.eserver.org/aristotle/)
1) Logos - This is the ability to make a logical, consistent and convincing argument. We all wish this won the most argument, but the truth of the matter is that it matters very little. Most voters could care less whether one candidate or the other makes sense. If this was the case, we'd have Newt Gingrich as the nominee and the race would be over.

2) Pathos - This is the argument to emotion. We know this works. Aristotle knew it worked and basically disapproved of it. This is one of the reasons he disapproved of a pure democracy, as any argument by emotion could sway the entire assembly, even if were entirely moronic. But even this wouldn't fly by itself. Some people are actually turned off by this tactic and could potentially use logic to make that statement, as long as they can pepper it with some emotional language. This includes demagoguery, but also catchy slogans that get people energized. Michelle Bachmann seems to be the strongest on Pathos but, since it's all she has, she ended up turning the voters off.

3)Ethos - As long as you have this trait in spades and no one else does, you win. The primary way of winning anything that involves decisions or votes by outside sources is by being likeable. Now, if all candidates are likeable, you may have to have good logic, as well. However, ethos, or personality, can win all by itself. This is why we have a Hurricain. Granted, ethos is actually more complex than that and refers more to moral fiber than likeability, but in our modern society moral fiber has gone out of favor in place of likeability, so I don't think I am wrong in defining it this way.

Now, lets look at the two major candidates (since polls have third place at a distant there - yes, I know I'm bringing up a poll, but this is not a predictor poll, just a poll on, like asking someone what they're buying while they're actually shopping).

First is Romney:

Logos - His arguments and plans are so ephemeral, there's really no plan there to judge as logical or illogical. The primary "logical" argument used in his defense is that he's middle-of-the-road and can appeal to independents and undecided.

Pathos - How can you win arguments of emotion, when you show no excitement for your own ideas. He doesn't even know how to spin to energize people, though he can sure deflect. In the scheme of things, deflection isn't good enough.

Ethos - This is the only thing he gets ANY points in and it's still not good. He appeals to some as smooth and cool, others as slick and slimy. Basically, Romney has found his audience and won't gain any. Once the general election starts, his numbers vs Obama will probably be nearly exactly what the polls are showing and is way too close within the margin of error for my comfort.

In fact, since Obama has about the same style of Ethos as Romney, it is likely that his knack for demagoguery and pathos will win over undecideds and a nomination of Romney is a de facto nomination for Obama.

Now for Cain:

Logos - Believe it or not, his 999 plan is rooted in logic, whether you disagree with it or not. The primary arguments against it are emotional, such as the fear-based "but that's more taxes to potentially go up!", even though it's actually fewer tax modes than in use now, and the sympathy-based "the taxes will go up on the poor", when in fact they probably will and that is for the best, as no one deserves, by right, services they don't pay for. But that is me using an argument of pathos, when the logical answer is "so, that's how you broaden the base and lower taxes overall to fuel growth."

Pathos - 999 may be rooted on logos, but it thrives on pathos. Its critics have called it a gimmick. Yep, that's exactly what it is and that works.

Ethos - From his winning grin, to his simple mannerisms, to his deep booming voice, Herman Cain is the most likable candidate in this race, even when compared to Obama, whose likability is equivalent to Romney's. No one can doubt this, it has often been attributed (sometimes negatively) as the primary cause for his recent rise in the polls.

Conclusion - Romney will be competitive with Obama, Cain will win. If we choose Cain as our nominee, he will be our next president. If he is not the nominee, no matter what Republican takes the stage (my personal favorite, even; who happens to be Newt Gingrich), Obama may very well win.
So, I support Cain because he is the only candidate in this race that Obama doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of beating. Hell, I don't even think he's the best for policy reasons. I disagree with his stance on TARP; I get annoyed with his gaffes; his lack of experience will make for a clumsy first year or two in office. But, I reiterate, he will win if he gets the nomination.


Enhanced by Zemanta