Trotsky proclaimed that the world needed ‘permanent revolution.’ Stalin countered that the Party needed ‘socialism in one country’ in order … Continue Reading Do Not Fear Being Called An Isolationist — Guest Post by Ianto Watt
Previous post in the series (or click above on Class). REVIEW! Download the code: mcmc.pred.R, mcmc.pred.examples.R. If you downloaded before, … Continue Reading How To Do Predictive Statistics: Part VI New (Free) Software Poisson Regression
Class links are at the bottom. This is the permanent page for Uncertainty: The Soul of Modeling, Probability & Statistics. … Continue Reading Books & Free Class
Résumé I am a wholly independent vagabond writer, statistician, scientist and consultant. Previously a Professor at the Cornell Medical School, … Continue Reading Contact Me
Trotsky proclaimed that the world needed ‘permanent revolution.’ Stalin countered that the Party needed ‘socialism in one country’ in order to survive. It was the Fox versus Frankenstein. Or, as Isaiah Berlin said, Stalin was ‘a Hedgehog’. But Trotsky remained known as ‘the Fox’.
Now, the Hedgehog knows only one thing. But it is a Big Thing. For Stalin, it was socialism in one country. The Fox knows many things. On was that revolution is for everywhere.
This clash of vision was bound to produce war. Why? Because that’s what both men were selling. It was only their projected sales territories that differed.
That’s how the intra-Party war began after Lenin’s death in 1923. Someone was going to win, and someone had to die for that to happen. Miraculously, Trotsky lived (in exile) until 1940, when he was finally assassinated in Mexico on the orders of Uncle Joe. But while Trotsky died earlier than Joe, Leon’s work lived on. Joe lived longer and he killed everyone he could get his hands on, including his most enthusiastic supporters.
Who really won? Whose supporters rule the world today? And from whence do they rule?
Here’s a little rule that may help you understand the game of war; offense scores, defense snores.
These two revolutionaries were simply arguing about the best way to keep Bolshevism alive in the face of seemingly united Western opposition to the October Revolution of 1917. Trotsky wanted to play offense. Stalin said the safest way was to play defense. Both of them agreed that in the long run, the goal was to eventually subdue the world. But that goal would have to wait, as Joe beat Leon for the right to play against Adolph in the semi-finals. He got to play defense all right. And Russia was bled dry. Until distance bled the German supply lines dry. And Father Winter delivered the knockout blow. We all know that story.
The Great Patriotic War story. The story that lionized Stalin, and not the Revolution. Why? Because he was, as Trotsky truly understood, a Bonapartist. One who has hijacked the Revolution for the sake of his own cult of power. I would have said ‘personality’, but that is stretching the word. Power, raw power, will nicely suffice.
Keep in mind that from the time of Stalin’s ‘victory’ until the fall of the Wall, and even now to a great degree, Western Hedgehogs have been saddled with the task of defending the Stalinist legacy. There has been no shortage of ‘journalists’ and tenured knaves willing to do that. But apart from this elitist clique in their ivory towers, nobody’s selling or buying that bull.
There is something amiss here. It is that the Trotskyites never had to defend Stalinism. Why? Because they hated (and still do hate) him, and all that he has done.Were they aghast at Stalin’s crimes? No, of course not. They were simply jealous. Joe got to kill everyone they wanted to kill. No fair! I’m telling Mom!
The problem is, many people don’t understand the war between the Fox and the Hedgehog and label both as being generic ‘Commies’ or ‘Socialists’. But there’s a big difference between them. Stalin lives in the ivory tower, while Leon lived (until recently) in the White House.
What about now? Is Donald a Hedgehog? A Fox? Neither? To my mind, Vladimir Putin is neither. Why is that? Because the East and the West have traded places. If Vlad reminds me of anyone, it is Ivan The Great. ‘The Gatherer of All Russias‘. The first Tsar. Ask some folks who might have first-hand knowledge of Vlad. Let’s ask the Crimeans. Then the Chechens. And the Uke’s. And the Georgians. Anyway, Vlad is not the (immediate) problem today. No, my friend, the problem is with us.
Here’s why. The West is the breeding grounds of Trotskyism today. We are the ones espousing ‘permanent revolution’ Of course, we dress it up a little, as Emperor George did when he called for a ‘Global democratic revolution‘ in 2003.
George was the Trotsky of his day. But he wasn’t the first American Trotskyite. Nor the last, unfortunately. Emperor Obama furthered the cause. How many ‘color revolutions’ did he launch? Was he a witting agent, or a tool? The death toll remains unchanged under either interpretation.
Now Stalin, in his frenzy to cleanse the Party of Trotskyites, caused many of them (including Trotsky) to flee for their lives. Think about all those ‘red diaper babies’ whose parents fled Stalin’s rule before WWII, and where they landed. Right here, Komrade. Where we take in every sort of refugee. No questions asked. Until recently, of course. And guess who’s screaming about that? Yep. The children of the Red Diaper Brigade. Trotsky’s spiritual grandchildren. Today, we call them Neo-Cons. The New Conservatives. Here’s a pretty accurate description of the term, straight from Wikipedia:
Historically speaking, the term “neoconservative” refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the camp of American conservatism during the 1960s and 1970s.[2] Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and American national interest in international affairs, including by means of military force.
They traveled from ‘the anti-Stalinist Left…to Conservatism.’ What is it that they are busy ‘conserving’ now? Their Trotskyite traditions, of course. Not all of these Foxes were actually born in Russia. Many were home-grown, although there was usually an Eastern European (or Russian) ancestor in the family tree, and much of their original political exposure came from these relatives. But at bottom, a large number of these Russian and East European immigrants were favorably disposed to Trotsky and his vision of permanent revolution. Well then, how was it that they became what many naively consider to be the exact opposite, a conservative?
For simplicity’s sake, let’s use Old Conservatives (or more properly, Traditionalists), and New Conservatives. That is, NeoCons.
What is it that separates ‘New Conservatives’ from Old Conservatives? Their religion. Or, as some would say, their lack of it. NeoCons do have a religion. They believe in that chimera known as Judeo-Christianity. But that’s like saying Romulus loves Remus. Yet people continue to equate Judaic Talmud beliefs with Protestant American Exceptionalism. Which isn’t stupid. But neither is it Christian. These Neo-Cons do worship someone. But it ain’t Jesus.
We have to understand Hillel to understand Shammai. Today, the followers of Hillel are the Hedgehogs, and the followers of Shammai are the Foxes. These Neo-Con’s follow Shammai. And as any Talmudic believer knows, just obey your Rabbi (any Rabbi) and you’ll make it to Heaven. You can bring your Goyim servants along as well. Cheney, Buckley, Rove, Bush, Hillary, Axelrod, all of them. Just keep them in the servant’s quarters, OK?
Let’s start with Irving Kristol. And his son Bill, too. How about Abraham Bellows. And his son, Saul. And Julius Podhoretz. And his son Norman. We could go on if you’d like. And on, and on, and on. Obviously, not all NeoCons were direct geographical descendants of Russia. Many were home-grown ‘liberals’ who mixed with the immigrant revolutionaries and their children. People like Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Bremer. But all were Trotskyite in their beliefs. And they are still Foxes in their actions today. They all still advocate Global Democratic Revolution. Just like The Fox taught them.
How is it that these crafty fellows have merged so easily into the American mainstream? What magic talismans do they possess that has given them the camouflage they need to carry forward their dream of worldwide revolution? Three things, actually. One is Jingoism. Just beat the Patriotic War drum and you’ll be mistaken for an American Conservative. New-style, of course. The second lucky charm is their belief in their real religion: Democracy. A religion we were supposedly bequeathed in 1776. But I can’t find that word anywhere but in the Soviet Constitution. The last bit of magic is their most powerful one today, a word that evokes unbounded (yet unfounded) fear at its every appearance: Isolationism!
Let’s look at these three things and see how they fit together. Jingoism is easy after a hundred years of American military preponderance on the world scene. It wasn’t always this way. Before the Civil War America was relatively peaceful, apart from our despisal of Mexico. But things would change, once we changed our thinking. Changed from revering our Republic to adoring our Democracy. And once we were sold on this switch of identity, by Eddie Bernays (the nephew of Sigmund Freud) in his seminal work entitled Propaganda, we were well on our way to Imperial power.
Here’s a great quote from Eddy: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”
Eddie, by the way, is known as ‘The Father of Public Relations’. And public relations, if you didn’t know it, is part of the J-School curriculum. I know this from personal experience. And this is why so many Hedgehog ‘journalists’ are really just useful idiots for the Foxes. They are part of ‘the invisible government’ he spoke of. But there is a Civil War going on within the Invisible Government. The Hedgehogs are still alive, but now the Foxes have taken the upper hand. And they are on a mission.
What, according to the Foxes, is America’s divinely ordained mission here on earth? Why, to spread this new religion across the globe. Once we got a taste of blood in Cuba and the Philippines, which our media moguls gladly glamourized, Eddie had an easy time selling us on our mission in life. Make the World Safe for Democracy! How shall we do this? Simple: ‘Go forth, and subdue all nations, baptising them (in blood), in the name of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.’
This is the New Revised Version of the American NeoCon Bible. In care of the French Revolution. Which, if you know your history, was the dream of Leon Trotsky. The dream of spreading this revolution all across the globe. His dream is now the Imperial American Dream.
There are people out there who seem opposed to this utopian dream. Troublemakers who resist the inevitable logic of ‘progressive’ thought. People who don’t seem to care if someone, somewhere, dies before we have brought them the right to vote. Like in Chicago. We have decided we can’t let that happen. We have to save the village. Even if we have to destroy it.
Isolationism is a magic word that conjures up the vision of being a leper, a pariah, a loner shunned by all the world. It’s worked so well, so many times before. WII, Korea, Vietnam, The Middle East, Kosovo, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria…We are hearing it again. Who are we supposed to save/destroy this time? Russia, of course. Is it because she is she is still selling her Revolution? No, that franchise was sold quite some time ago. The Western Universities that produce our MSM ‘journalists’ own that copyright now.
Is this frenzied opposition to all things Russian due to the fact that Russia is still persecuting the Church? Apart from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, no. In fact, Vlad and Patriarch Kyrill appear to be best buddies. Is it because the Russian Orthodox Church is foisting a predatory homosexual hierarchy upon Russian youth? Wait, I’m sorry—that would be here, right? Is it because Russia has somehow infringed on Western markets? Is she undercutting us on silicon chips? On fake Dooney & Burke purses? Kate Spade knock-offs? No, that would be the Chinese.
Have the Russians expanded the Warsaw Pact to include Quebec? There is no Warsaw Pact anymore. Just NATO. An ever-expanding NATO (but soon to be without Turkey: write that down). Maybe it’s because Russia has troops in 177 different countries around the globe? Whoops, that’s us, again. What about Syria? There’s Russians there, right? Well, there you go. Warm up the jets!
Really, apart from gas and oil, where do the Russians compete with us? Arms? Yes. But I thought we were the ones proclaiming competitive markets were the hallmark of a Free World.
You think I’m being so anti-American in all of this, correct? But that’s not true, if you’re speaking of America as a nation, and not an Empire. Truly, I do believe we need to be strong enough that no one wants to tangle with us. But I think the Russians may feel exactly the same way about their homeland. Why wouldn’t they? Do we really need to provoke a war of any size with them? We need to understand that peace is something you build at home, not abroad. We’ve had a hundred years of proof that our wars have not changed anyone for the better. If other nations want to fight, let them. But for once, please God, keep us out of it.
Let’s think a minute about that word Isolationism’ again. Does it mean no one will ever come to see America again? And that Americans will never travel abroad again? Or that no one will be allowed to buy American products or services again? And that we won’t buy theirs? That we won’t be invited to the Olympics? Or that we won’t go even if we’re invited? Does it mean we’ll disconnect our phones and the internet from the rest of the world? Just who is it that could enforce such things? How ridiculous.
So just what does this word mean? It means something. And to figure it out, all you have to do is think like Eddie Bernays and look at who it is used against. Like the words ‘anti-Semite’ and ‘Fascist’, it means anyone who doesn’t agree with the opinions of our Foxy Overlords. The purpose of all these pejoratives and their constant use is to instill some deep confused fear in the listener. A fear of being seen as different from everybody else. This is especially effective against women, by the way. Go ahead and call me sexist. But it happens to be true, regardless of how you wish to characterize anyone bold enough to say it.
The problem is that an irrational fear of something that has been planted at the subconscious level for the purpose of ‘engineering consent’, as Eddie would say. A consent to do things that are not actually in our true best interests. Personally, and as a nation. They have given us a false choice: Imperialism or Isolationism. One is sold as a great and glorious thing but which is actually deadly to our sons, our neighbors and our nation. The other is sold as a dreaded social disease of failing to embrace the ethos of Empire. But the truth is, it is an empty threat. Why? Because in truth, there is no such thing as Isolationism.
So there is the answer. We need to speak the truth. And to speak it boldly. We don’t need to force the world to do the right thing. We need to do it ourselves, here at home, before we look to take the supposed splinter out of our neighbor’s eye. We need to stop trying to be ‘great’ and instead try to be ‘good’. Let’s quit singing God Bless America and start singing America, bless God. That would be a good beginning. Towards a greater end.
Years ago I wrote and self-published for fun the book So, You Think You’re Psychic? You can download a free PDF of it on the Books page.
There’s nothing wrong with the book—except that now I would do all the probability tables differently. None of them in the book are wrong. But I wrote the explanations when I was still a p-value believer, as all fledgling statisticians were trained to be. And still are. That has to stop. But that’s a subject for another day.
I also wrote it back in my atheist days, when I was a mistaken believer in materialism. That means the discussions about physical mechanisms of purported psychic phenomenon are incomplete, and in part flawed.
Except for these weaknesses, the rest of the book stands up pretty well. It badly needs updating, of course, and if I find myself with unexpected free time, or lucrative financial incentive, I’ll do so.
For now, let me answer an email I recently received from a person with the wonderful name of Swapnil Kamble.
Hello sir,
I have read your book ‘so you think you are psychic?’. Its a great book. I am not very good at statistics. I had a question.
1) If try guessing numbers from a pool of 1 to 100, using (pseudo)RNG app on my mobile or pc, what is the probability of getting it right 3-4 times in a session of 100 guesses?
2) Does it mean am i psychic?
3) Also if i guess 99 out of 100 times, then am i psychic?
4) in context of guessing the numbers, at what point will i be called psychic, i mean what is the minimum probability that will prove that there is some extrasensory phenomenon involved?
Thank you
1) The probability of guessing a number from 1-100, when all you know is that the number will be 1-100, is 1%, or 0.01. The probability of getting k = 3-4 right in a session of n = 100 is had by a binomial calculation. For k = 3, it’s 0.061 and for k = 4 it’s 0.015. That means getting 3 or 4 right is 0.076.
That’s not so small. Especially if you consider you might repeat the session. The probability of getting 3 or 4 right if you repeat the session just once, for a total of 2 sessions, is 0.15. If you do 3 sessions, the probability is 0.21 that at least one of the 3 sessions you’ll get 3 or 4 right. By the time you repeat it just 10 times, the probability is 0.55, or 55% that at least in one session you’ll get 3 or 4 right. Better than a coin flip!
2) Now 10 sessions isn’t a lot if you consider more than one person around the globe has done them. If just 2 people did 10 sessions, the probability at least one of them sees at least one session with 3 or 4 right is 0.79. For 3 people it’s 0.91, for 4 it’s 0.96%, and for 5 it’s 0.98, or 98%! I certainly sold more than 5 copies of the book, so maybe at least this meany sessions were completed.
You can see it’s really easy for at least one “successful” psychic session to be reported using these criteria as a “success.” Even if people are just guessing—by which I mean not using any psychic powers.
In order to prove psychic ability using these criteria, you’re going to have to do a lot better. Guessing only 3 to 4 in 100 is indicative of very weak powers. What’s stopping you from guessing all 100? Or something in the high 90s?
One answer is that you’re a very weak psychic. Hey, not every ball player hits 400, so this is possible. Now if you can consistently hit 3-4 in every session, then you might be on to something. You must keep careful, careful track, not forgetting any sessions, or partial sessions, and you must not allow yourself any excuses about why a failed session (or partial session) “doesn’t really count.” Ball players don’t get those excuses, and neither do you.
3) The probability if guessing 99 out of 100 is about 1 times 10 to the negative 197. A very, very, exceptionally small number. So, yes, if you can in test conditions, under the watchful eye of people like myself, who can spot mistakes (people often fool themselves with sensory leakage), then I’d say you’d have psychic powers.
4) This is an excellent question. There is no excellent answer. The problem is that no session of the types you are attempting are ever considered in isolation. We have had long experience of people cheating, and amazing reports come under immediate suspicion. That’s why testing under controlled conditions are mandatory.
Then some paranormal powers don’t need probability at all. Like coming back from the dead. Or turning water into wine. Do these things and we’ll know you’ve got something.
We’re closing in on ultimate happiness! You didn’t think it would be easy, did you? A short chapter this week. But an important one. See paragraph 3 for a huge limitation of science!
1 Of course, it is not possible to identify human felicity with such knowledge of separate substances, as the aforementioned philosophers have maintained.
2 Indeed, a thing is futile which exists for an end which it cannot attain. So, since the end of man is felicity, to which his natural desire tends, it is not possible for the felicity of man to be placed in something that man cannot achieve. Otherwise, it would follow that man is a futile being, and his natural desire would be incapable of fulfillment, which is impossible. Now, it is clear from what has been said that man cannot understand separate substances on the basis of the foregoing opinions. So, man’s felicity is not located in such knowledge of separate substances.
Notes A nicer definition of futility you will not find.
3 Again, in order that the agent intellect be united to us as a form, so that we may understand separate substances through it, it is required that the generation of the habitual intellect be complete, according to Alexander; or that all objects of speculative understanding be made actual within us, according to Averroes.
And these two views reduce to the same thing, for in this explanation the habitual intellect is generated in us, in so far as the objects of speculative understanding are made actual within us. Now, all species from sensible things are potential objects of understanding. So, in order that the agent intellect be joined with any person, he must actually understand all the natures of sensible things, and all their powers, operations, and motions, through speculative understanding.
This is not possible for any man to know through the principles of the speculative sciences, by which principles we are moved to a connection with the agent intellect, as they say. For, one could not attain all these objects of knowledge from the things that come under the scope of our senses, and from which the principles of the speculative sciences are drawn. So, it is impossible for a man to achieve this connection, in the manner suggested by them. Therefore, it is not possible for man’s felicity to consist in such a connection.
Notes In other words, Science cannot and can never bring full understanding. The first paragraph of 4 is, though, outdated. Because now, of course, many men dare. Perhaps not for themselves, but for their progeny at (among other places) the “singularity.”
4 Besides, even granting that such a connection of man with the agent intellect were possible as they describe it, it is plain that such perfection comes to very few men; so much so that not even these men, nor any other men, however diligent and expert in speculative sciences, have dared to claim such perfection for themselves.
On the contrary, they all state that many things are unknown to them, Thus, Aristotle speaks of the squaring of the circle, and he can give only probable arguments for his principles for the ordering of celestial bodies, as he admits himself, in Book II of On the Heavens [5: 288a 2], and what is necessary in regard to these bodies and their movers he keeps for others to explain, in Metaphysics XI [8: 1073b 2]. Now, felicity is a definite common good, which many people can attain, “unless they are defective,” as Aristotle puts it, in Ethics I [9: 1099b 19]. And this is also true of every natural end in any species, that the members of this species do attain it, in most cases. Therefore, it is not possible for man’s ultimate felicity to consist in the aforesaid connection.
5 However, it is clear that Aristotle, whose view the aforementioned philosophers try to follow, did not think that man’s ultimate felicity is to be found in such a connection. For he proves, in Ethics I [13: 1102a 5], that man’s felicity is his operation according to perfect virtue. Hence, he had to develop his teaching on the virtues, which he divided into the moral and the intellectual virtues. Now, he shows in Book X [7: 1177a 18], that the ultimate felicity of man lies in speculation.
Hence, it clearly does not lie in the act of any moral virtue, nor of prudence or art, though these are intellectual virtues. It remains, then, that it is an operation in accord with wisdom, the chief of the three remaining intellectual virtues, which are wisdom, science, and understanding, as he points out in Ethics VI [6: 1141a 3].
Hence, in Ethics X [8: 1179a 32], he gives his judgment that the wise man is happy.
Now, wisdom, for him, is one of the speculative knowledges, “the head of the others,” as he says in Ethics VI [6]. And at the beginning of the Metaphysics [I, 1: 981b 26], he calls the science which he intends to treat in this work, wisdom. Therefore, it is clear that Aristotle’s opinion was that the ultimate felicity which man can acquire in this life is the kind of knowledge of divine things which can be gained through the speculative sciences. But that later way of knowing divine things, not by means of the speculative sciences but by a process of generation in the natural order, was made up by some of his commentators.
Item Decline in the Fall (or Late Summer, Anyway): by Fred Gibbon This is Fred Reed at his curmudgeonly best.
Item The Next Woman To Try Playing In A PGA Tourney Came Up Considerably Short
…there was some unique excitement taking place at the Barbasol Championship, where LPGA star Brittany Lincicome was teeing off against the men. Unfortunately for her, when the end of Friday’s round came along, Lincicome didn’t make the cut to play on into the weekend. In fact, it wasn’t even close. (USA Today)
Despite shooting 1-under-par 71 in a strong second round Saturday, Lincicome finished 36 holes in 5-over par 149 and failed to make the cut for the tournament’s third round.
“It was cool just to be inside the ropes with the guys, and it’s been a dream come true playing in this event,” Lincicome said. “A lot of people don’t realize how good (LPGA golfers) are.”
Then again, a lot of us do realize how good LPGA golphers are. Which is that they are, God bless them, worse than PGA golphers. This is a hate fact.
It is also a hate fact that only rank sexists would insist that males and non-males compete in any sporting (or military) event separately. For to insist on separation is to insist there are fundamental ineradicable non-ignorable consequential important differences between the actual sexes. (There are also non-actual sexes, as when a man pretends or is deluded into believing he is a woman.)
No feminist can henceforth—I decree it!—be taken seriously unless she insists males and non-males no longer compete separately. There is no other way equality can be achieved!
Let’s hold them to the fire, boys.
Item Jimmy Carter: Jesus Would ‘Approve’ of Gay Marriage, Some Abortions
Regarding whether he thinks Jesus would approve of gay marriage, Carter replied “I don’t have any verse in Scripture,” but added, “I believe that Jesus would approve of gay marriage.”
“I think Jesus would encourage any love affair if it was honest and sincere and was not damaging to anyone else and I don’t see that gay marriage damages anyone else,” he said.
This is older news. What concerns me is that I like peanuts and that I eat a lot of them. My favorite are the salted kind roasted in shells you have to peel off.
My hope it is that the eating of them that drives one mad, but that it is the pesticides or other chemicals used in farming them.
Item Artificial intelligence, immune to fear or favour, is helping to make China’s foreign policy
The programme draws on a huge amount of data, with information ranging from cocktail-party gossip to images taken by spy satellites, to contribute to strategies in Chinese diplomacy
Diplomacy is similar to a strategic board game. A country makes a move, the other(s) respond. All want to win.
Artificial intelligence is good at board games. To get the game started, the system analyses previous play, learns lessons from defeats or even repeatedly plays against itself to devise a strategy that can be never thought of before by humans.
It has defeated world champions in chess and Go. More recently, it has won at no-limit Texas Hold’em poker, an “imperfect information game” in which a player does not have access to all information at all times, a situation familiar in the world of diplomatic affairs.
Several prototypes of a diplomatic system using artificial intelligence are under development in China, according to researchers involved or familiar with the projects. One early-stage machine, built by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, is already being used by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
I’ve never come across a satisfactory spelling of Twbbpppt! But you know what I mean.
Last week we learned Everything Is Already In The Simulation. “Researchers” won’t find anything in their “solutions” from artificial “intelligence” that they themselves didn’t put there.
The danger is always scientism, perhaps here better labeled computerism. If the advice from the AI system says “Nuke ’em!” we wouldn’t want Chinese politicians to say to themselves, “Well, the result did come from a computer. With artificial intelligence. Therefore it has to be right.”
The faith people have in statistical models, which is precisely what artificial intelligence is, brings tears to your eyes.