Buy this book of the millennium Uncertainty: The Soul of Modeling, Probability & Statistics.
ELLE Magazine put out this horrible video of an eight-year-old boy who has has been taught it’s ok to be a drag queen at his age.
The video is quite disturbing.
They interview little Nemis and his mother.
His mother says when he watched ‘RuPaul’s Drag Race’ and realized drag could be an ‘art form’ he decided that it would be his life.
Who knew that television propaganda would work? I’ll tell you: everybody. Everybody knew and knows. Solution? If you’re in desperation for entertainment, read an old book, or put on a musicale.
The syllabus for Selena Lester Breikss’ “Women & Popular Culture” class says:
Gross generalizations, stereotypes, and derogatory/oppressive language are not acceptable. Use of racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, classist, or generally offensive language in class or submission of such material will not be tolerated. (This includes “The Man,” “Colored People,” “Illegals/Illegal Aliens,” “Tranny” and so on – or referring to women/men as females or males.)
Students in Breikss’ class could be kicked out or flunked if do not comply with her edict on “oppressive” language.
Who saw the gross generalization and stereotype of these proscriptions on Reality coming in a women’s studies class? One wonders what dying one’s hair blue would do in the way of earning extra credit.
Watch “Speak No Evil,” only on News 12, starting Tuesday to learn about the modern-day magic and ancient rituals at the center of their faith. Tune in to meet some of the most powerful witches in New York and see what happens when they come together to perform a white magic ritual and summon sacred spirits.
There is a video at the link. A lot blue hair, as somebody relying on generalizations and stereotypes might expect. It isn’t only the Hudson Valley which is seeing this increase, but everywhere. It’s mostly LARPing at this point. But these things have a way of solidifying. Note the emphasis on “white magic.” Which implies the existence of, I take pains to mention, it’s opposite (in the minds of these people; whereas to us, it’s all one).
This weekend, leaders from Ole Miss Greek life convened upon Camp Hopewell in Lafayette County for a three-day retreat designed to build leaders and bring campus closer together. The retreat was cut short Saturday night, however, after three black students found a banana peel in a tree in front of one of the camp’s cabins.
The students shared what they found with National Pan-Hellenic Council leaders, sparking a day’s worth of camp-wide conversation surrounding symbolism, intended or not. In the midst of the open and sometimes heated discussion, senior accounting major Ryan Swanson said he put the banana peel in the tree when he could not find a trashcan nearby…
That’s right, a random discarded fruit peel ultimately led to the cancellation of an entire weekend event “designed to build leaders” which instead ended in “tears and frustration” as organizers “didn’t feel safe”. And then of course came the inevitable university action plans, flurry of letters exchanged, and sensitivity meetings. Bleary-eyed and shaken students had to text friends and family to come pick them up early (sounds like Kindergarten carpool pick-up time).
If I could draw, I would draw a diapered Ole Miss slipping on a banana peel and then bawling.
If a mere banana peel—will bananas soon be banned at universities?—could spark this much splenticism, imagine what a kumquat rind or, Lord help us, grape seeds would have done.
There still exist defenders of p-values. The largest class, the superstitious, are those who remember nothing about p-values except that they must be wee. Let us in haste pass by these amateur magicians.
The hardcore cadre of p-value champions are our concern. These fine folks do not recognize that every use of a p-value except one results in a fallacy. P-values cannot discover cause, nor “links”, nor tell you the probability any hypothesis is true, nor judge the goodness or value of any model. They can do one thing alone: they can tell you the probability, given the model and an ad hoc test statistic and assuming the parameter or parameters of that model are set equal to some value, of seeing a larger value of the statistic also given you were able to repeat the identical “experiment” that gave rise to statistic an infinite number of times.
P-values rely on the ad hoc model choice. They rely on the ad hoc model error choice. They rely on the ad hoc statistic. Change any of these, change the p-value. There is no unique p-value for any set of observations.
P-values do not answer questions people ask. Most ask, “What is the probability of Y given X?” P-values say, “Don’t ask me.” Other query, “What is the probability the parameter lies in this interval?” P-values say, “It is forbidden for me to answer.” Still more want to know, “If I give this patient the new treatment, what is the chance he improves?” P-values say, “Let me be wee!”
Given all this, why are there still p-value champions? Because of their quite realistic fear of out-of-the-box Bayesian procedures.
For one, P-valuers disagree (or most do) that probability can be subjective, as most Bayesians say it is. Probability is not subjective. If your evidence is “There are 99 green states and 1 yellow state in this interocitor, which must take one of these two states”, then it is an unimpeachable statement of subjective probability to say, “Given the evidence, the probability of the yellow state is 82.7578687%”. If probability is subjective, and given there are no such things as interocitors, how can you prove this assessment wrong? Answer: you cannot.
Probability is not subjective, but is instead a deduction, not always quantitative, given evidence.
Some Bayesians, however, are “objective”, and reject subjectivism. P-valuers still dislike these Bayesians. Why? Because of “priors”.
Both P-valuers and Bayesians begin by proposing an ad hoc model, usually parameterized on the continuum, or on a segment of the continuum which is itself continuous. A regression, for instance, supposes one set of observables (the “Xs”) relate in a certain linear mathematical way to a parameter or parameters of the main observable (the “Y”).
The next step, also agreed to by P-values and Bayesians, is to specify the ad hoc model error. The regression supposes the central parameter of the observable can take any value from the limits of negative to positive infinity, and that every value in the continuum is a possibility.
This is convenient mathematical approximation, but it is always an approximation. Nothing infinite actually exists, and nothing can be measured to infinite precision. No process or sequence goes on to infinity, as the math of the continuum insists. (It remains to be seen whether space itself is continuous in this sense.)
These ad hoc models are not strictly needed. Finite, discrete choices aligned with measurement exact models exist, but they are not in wide use; actually, they are mostly unknown.
It is at this point the P-valuers and Bayesians split, the P-valuers to their hypothesis testing fallacies, and the Bayesian to their priors. These are the ad hoc assumptions of the uncertainty of the ad hoc parameters of the ad hoc model.
P-valuers complain that the posterior probabilities of the parameters given the choice of prior depends on that choice. But this is a feature, not a bug. It is a feature because all probability is conditional on the assumptions made. It cannot therefore be a surprise that if you change the assumptions, you change the probability, but P-valuers do express surprise.
They do so because frequentist theory says probability exists in the ontological sense. P-valuers know their models are ad hoc but they also believe that by imagining their data could go on forever, the ad hociness vanishes in some mysterious way. Which is false.
Now almost all Bayesians stop at talking about posteriors of parameters, as if these parameters where of interest. They too have forgotten the questions people ask.
That means, as should not be clear, there is a third choice between frequentist and Bayesian theory. And that is probability: plain, unadorned, matter-of-fact probability, not about parameters, but directly, about observables themselves. This is the so-called predictive approach.
Try, when possible, to use a finite-discrete model, deduced from measurement process. These is the least ad hoc approach of all.
How to do that is detailed in Uncertainty.
Nations are built upon citizens. Empires are built upon slaves. Furthermore, nations must grow internally to survive, whereas Empires must grow externally, else they die. Now if these propositions are true, then perhaps we have a means of assessing the relative state of the world, especially as it relates to this past year. More to the point: has America made any progress towards re-claiming her nationality? And conversely, has Russia made any further progress in her intention to replace The Empire? Because, I contend, those are the two overriding issues of the day. Everything else is small potatoes.
Really, the two are one. Why? Because if America were to actually walk away from her Empire in order to regain her national character, then that would open wide the door to Russian imperial expansion. It’s a zero sum game in politics. No vacuums allowed. Here’s the choice, America. Regain your past, or lose your future. Choose your purpose and you will define your choice. You can be one of many legitimate nations upon the earth. Or be master of the universe. Which will it be? It’s the same choice all nations face. Rule your own home, or else rule your neighbor’s home. You can’t do both. Maybe you can for a while. But not forever. Just look at the list of empires and their duration. The clock has pretty well run out.
Historically speaking, it seems pretty clear. If you chose to rule your neighbor, you will lose your own home. If you choose to rule your own home, you at least might survive. Is the grass really that much greener on the other side of that fence? It’s a funny thing. Slaves tend to outlast their masters. Just look at the Russians if you want proof. And funnier still is the fact that she now wants to risk her survival by becoming the ruler of her former masters. All of them. Khazars, Swedes, Pechenegs, Mongols, Poles, Frogs, Germans, and everyone else. Especially of course, the Anglish. Her tormentors for 300 years. The masters of the Great Game. The game we have inherited.
Conversely, if America does not attempt to rule her own national home (to the exclusion of others), then she must be prepared to defend her empire. She must prepare to confront her neighbors. All of them. And here’s the problem; her neighbors may have the same idea in mind. That’s the problem with the Imperial idea. There’s no copyright. It’s an infection, and anyone can catch it. So, it seems to me, the choice comes down to this, will we choose humility or hubris? Are we homebodies, or busybodies? Either choice is painful. But one will come at a much higher cost.
So here’s where we’re at. The fork in the road. Which way will we go? You might recall that in July of 2016, I had remarked that Donald would win and that he would deliver the keys of The Empire to Vlad. The question then is this: do we still want to be an Empire, where we have no recognizable and peaceable neighbors, or do we want to be a nation again, with our own individual personality, living amongst other legitimate sibling nations? Even if it means someone else will be the new master?
We have seen at least half of this prediction come true. Donald has won. Has the second half been accomplished? Has he delivered the keys? Let’s have a look. But to do this, we have to understand Donald, if that is possible. I’m not always sure he understands himself, but that isn’t important at the moment. The key is to understand the conflicting positions he has taken. When he says he wants to make America great (again), we have to ask, ‘Which America’? America the nation, or America the Empire? We can’t be both, because the definition of nation and empire are antithetical to each other. We have to choose who we want to be before we can affect the necessary change. You can’t be Romulus and Remus at the same time, Komrade.
You may ask why these two choices must be exclusive. And I will refer you to my opening sentences. I contend that nations grow internally, whereas empires grow by external expansion. If a nation is experiencing positive population growth (without immigration), it is relatively healthy. If it is not, it is dying, as Japan is. And most European nations are doing the same. And admittedly, a nation truly can admit immigrants without harming itself, but only if the immigrants are restricted to being a numerical minority and if they are congruent with the host country’s culture. That is to say, in harmony with the underlying foundation of the host country’s belief system. And no, I’m not talking about political systems here. I am referring to cultural beliefs. And as we all (should) know, a culture is the outgrowth of a cult. That is to say, a religious belief. A case in point was Europe during the existence of Christendom, or approximately 800 to 1500 AD.
In this epoch, an immigrant from France was able to peaceably live in Germany, Britain, Ireland, Italy, or nearly anywhere on the continent, assuming he was Catholic. His own national culture was subordinated to his spiritual culture, even in his home country. As long as that was the case, he could generally get along with his new neighbors in his new country. He could even intermarry without worry, as there would be a presumption of commonality in the most important questions of life. Because, you know, a man has only two important decisions to make in life. The first is, who will he marry, spiritually? And the second is, who will he marry temporally? Screw up one, and you’re in trouble. Screw up both, and you’re toast. But if you make the right choice, you can leave all the rest to her. Her, as in The Church. Her, as in your wife. Be faithful to the first, and the second will be faithful to you.
‘Do these drapes look good?’ Sure, dear, whatever you like. ‘Do you like the color of this paint?’ Of course, honey, I think it looks swell. “What would you like for dinner?’ Whatever you cook, baby. I love your cooking.
Yes, all the man has to do is make the basic choices. But then he has to stick with them. That’s the hard part. But if he does these two things correctly, everything else will take care of itself. So, let’s look at the first decision; that is, who we will marry spiritually, and see where we are, as a nation. Let’s start at the beginning and ask, has America ever had a homogeneous spirituality? The answer is no. Unless, of course, you accept the hodgepodge of Protestant belief systems as a unified whole. And yes, in a sense it was unified, in its beginnings. Unified against Holy Rome. But once the runner left the bag, who knew where he’d run? The truth is, America was born in reaction to the then-current iteration of Imperial Rome, which of course was Angland. The ‘British Empire’, where the actual British were enslaved. And the Anglo’s were on top. That’s Imperial living for you.
Over in the New World, things just repeated themselves as the Anglish Civil War played out. And the original fracture made permanent by Henry simply continued, as ‘the church’ splintered a thousand times. Today, there are over 30,000 separate denominations, many of which have beliefs that are directly contradicted by many other sects. Only Julian Felsenburgh and his Masonic brethren can make heads or tails out of all of that. And they have. How? They simply ignore everything beyond the initial question; do you believe in a Higher Power? Yes? Then we’re brothers! Allah Akbar! Welcome home. To America, where Felsenburgh hailed from. To America, the newest iteration of Imperial Rome. Where everyone is welcome, regardless of who that Higher Power is that you believe in. As long as you’ll burn a little incense for Julius (Felsenburgh) Caesar, everything is fine. Until the shooting starts, of course.
If there is no commonality of spiritual beliefs, between spouses or citizens, there will always be problems. Problems that may even threaten the life of the nation, if the level of immigration is high enough and sustained for a long period of time. In fact, if there is no commonality of belief, even your own children may be strangers to you. Just as your neighbors may be. Good luck. But let’s assume the home front is stable, and let’s look next door. Who is that guy? Do I recognize him? Is he like me? No, not racially. But that’s not the real problem. The real question is, do I see him each Sunday? If I don’t, there’s a hint of what’s to come. Because, if I don’t see him on Sunday, we must not be brothers. Something’s wrong here. Trouble is coming. And actually, it’s already here.
It doesn’t matter what my neighbor looks like, as long as I see him in the clarity of Sunday morning. If I do, we look exactly alike. As members of the same race. The human race. If I don’t see him on Sunday, I see him as an alien. And sooner or later, that means war. Sooner has passed. Later has come.
That’s the problem that confronts Donald. Does he want to befriend his neighbors, or does he want to dominate them? It’s the same question every Caesar is asked. And his answer is almost always the same: domination. Not that Caesar hates them. No, that’s not necessary. The real problem is this, how do you let go of the tiger and not get eaten? Who can square that circle? Who is wise enough to do it? Who is strong enough to fight the tiger, and not just ride it? I don’t think it is Donald. I don’t think it is Vlad. Or anybody, actually. Except Felsenburgh. And he’ll need a strong dose of Masonic magic to do it. But don’t worry, that’s his strong point. But he’s not here yet.
In the meantime, between now and when Felsenburgh arrives, what is the state of the world? Are we going up or are we going down? We, as in America, that is. The Empire. Because that is what we truly are. And no matter what the stated desire is on the part of any occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, there is only the reality that we are still astride the tiger. No amount of talk (alone) will change that. Only decisive action (or even inaction) can accomplish such a change. So let’s look at the scorecard of the past year and see if we have begun to dismount the tiger-skinned throne. And who might be trying to replace us. You know who I mean. So, let’s have a look. Let’s see if the Empire is getting a new boss.
Well, has Vlad left Crimea? Nope. Has Vlad withdrawn his ‘little green men’ from Ukraine? Nyet. Has Vlad left Syria? Nah. And according to Mary Anastasia O’Grady of the Wall Street Journal, has Vlad (and his puppet Maduro) stashed over 5,000 MANPADS in Venezuela? Yep. Has Cuba been freed? Hah! And let’s look at that same paper for another story about our military prowess (as seen through Russian eyes). Evidently, the Empire will still be hitching rides on Russian rockets through 2025, and perhaps 2028. Why? Well, I guess because we can’t get the job done anymore. John Kennedy sent us from scratch to the moon in less than a decade, but now we can’t even launch our own stuff to the Space Lab, let alone beyond earth orbit. We’re reduced to buying vintage 1989-design kerosene-powered rocket engines from the Russians. How humiliating.
Here’s another recent story about our military ‘readiness’ as it relates to European preparedness against a possible Russian incursion. Who wrote this story? The commander of the 173rd Airborne Brigade. Read it. It’s ugly. His report tells the story of how his men are totally under-equipped, under-manned, but more importantly, under-trained in the ways of Russian warfare. The kind they practice in Ukraine. The equipment shortages can’t be fixed in the short term because the equipment they need isn’t available. Some of it is simple stuff (camouflage nets and HF Radios). Other equipment has yet to be designed, let alone produced. No wonder our European ‘allies’ feel a little less friendly towards us, and are acting a little (a lot) more friendly towards Moscow. Europeans are cowards, but they’re not idiots. We are the opposite.
Wait, there’s more. Let’s not forget North Korea. Have things been getting better there? I know, everybody says that nobody can control that twerp, but let me ask you this, do you really think that criminal regime could make those stunning technological advancements in such a short period of time? Not just the achievement of exploding a test nuke. That’s pretty easy. No, I’m talking about the dozen (or more) versions of launch vehicles, several of an intercontinental nature, complete with mobile launchers, miniaturized and possibly MIRV’ed warheads, all on its own? In that amount of time? And now they claim to have achieved an H-Bomb capability? Really? So let’s back up, and you explain to me why we have to buy launch vehicles for the next 10 years from the Russians. Go ahead, I’m waiting.
Remember, as you rely on those rosy CIA/DIA/OSS assessments, those guys have been late and/or wrong on every call since Saddam’s WMD’s. And the GDP of the Soviet Union before that. Hell, even Pearl Harbor. So then, seriously, do you think Vlad (and his Chinese compatriots) have had no hand whatsoever in this amazing technological Korean sprint? Well, sure, the Israeli’s were probably in the mix as well, considering their past duplicity with the Red Chinese and the Pakistanis and their Islamic Bomb. But that’s simply business, Komrade. No ideology there.
What do you think of all these provocative missile tests Kim has launched? Do you think he’s doing all of this on his own? Really? Well, here’s what I think. I think Vlad is telling Kim to do these things. Why? So that Vlad and his men can observe our reactions, or lack thereof. Either one will tell them a lot. If we attempt to shoot down the test missile, Vlad’s boys get to observe (at a technical level) our technological response. Nothing like getting to watch your opponents practice session, right? And if we don’t try and shoot down the missile, that speaks volumes too. About our abilities and more importantly, our willingness to use them. Both Vlad and our ‘allies’ are watching. Either way, Vlad gets free data. Very useful data.
What about Europe? How is Vlad faring there? Well, did Gerhard Schröder, the former Chancellor of Germany, just join the Board of Directors of Rosneft, the Russian natural gas and oil giant? And has Viktor Orban of Hungary turned on his former patron, George Soros (a notorious foe of Russian resistance to the N.W.O.)?
Forget about Ukraine for just a moment as you contemplate Vlad as the Tsar of All Russias. How many Russias are there? Three, of course. Great Russia, where Moscow rules, directly. Little Russia, of course, where Kiev thinks it is in control. And don’t forget White Russia. Byelorussia. Belarus, in today’s lingo. Right next to Poland. And Ukraine. And the Baltic idiots. Belarus, where the NATO Gang thought they were in control, until Vlad taught them otherwise. And where the Byelorussians are participating in the latest Russian military exercises, ‘Zapad‘, designed to rattle the cages of the Baltic midgets who were stupid enough to join the NATO mutual suicide pact. Zapad? Oh, that’s Russian, of course. It means ‘West‘. Gosh, what could that mean?
Sharp readers will notice differences between the version here and at the Stream. The intro here is mine.
Death to those who call for the death of those who question the failed theory of devastating man-made global warming!
Punish those who call for punishment of those who support climate realism!
Jail the people who call for incarceration of scientists who demonstrate the uncertainty in global temperature forecasts!
Penalize the folks who demand non-conforming scientists be penalized for giving their professional opinion!
Hey—if our betters are allowed to call for torches and pitchforks against their enemies, then by golly, so am I. Fair’s fair.
Hang ’em high
First to the scaffold should be the angry prune and one-time funnyman Eric Idle, who tweeted “I think that denying climate change is a crime against humanity. And they should be held accountable in a World Court.” When summarily found guilty, the perpetrators he said should be “Put down gently”. As should anybody who tells such lousy jokes.
Mounting their last steps with Idle will be the editors of The Nation, who allowed to be published the article “Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us: The victims of Hurricane Harvey have a murderer—and it’s not the storm.?” The author claims refusing to act to his satisfaction against “climate change” is equivalent to “premeditated murder” and should be punished as such. Murder is a capital crime. As should be the rape of logic committed by the author.
We’re near to over-straining our nooses, which must be saved for the evilest wrongdoers. This is why it is best that Esquire’s Charles P. Pierce meet his Maker by firing squad. Pierce said “Climate denial already is a synonym for mass murder.” And we know the fate of mass murderers. That same end should be meted out to writers at celebrity tittle-tattle magazines who pretend to understand physics.
Even though it may seem a good idea, not all sins against Truth are punishable by death. Incarceration and punitive fines have their place. Thus it’s off to the hoosegow for Brian Merchant, a writer at The Outline responsible for the negligent piece, “Climate Change Denial Should Be A Crime: In the wake of Harvey, it’s time to treat science denial as gross negligence–and hold those who do the denying accountable.”
Merchant said hurricane Harvey is “what climate change looks like.” No, it is what a rare hurricane looks like. If anything, “climate change”, which can’t itself cause anything, is causing a decrease in hurricanes and tropical storms, as hurricane scientist Ryan Maue showed us. [EDITORIAL NOTE; USE THIS PIC IF WE CAN!] For Merchant’s gross criminal ignorance of easily verifiable truths, he should be put away for five to eight years, with no time off for good behavior…
The case of the sovereign nation of Canada is the most difficult…