People thought I was exaggerating about the return of paganism, the creation of neo-paganistic rites, and the mainstreaming of Satanic practices (here and here). Lo, I was not. The horrific video described below will be proof enough. But first things first.
In one of the Wikileaks emails, Marina Abramovic, invites the Podestas to dinner (I only show part of the correspondence). But not an ordinary dinner.
Dear Tony, I am so looking forward to the Spirit Cooking dinner at my place. Do you think you will be able to let me know if your brother is joining? All my love, Marina
[ALL ABOUT THE NON-PERFORMANCE NON-ART OF ABRAMOVIC…]
[WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC IMAGES AT THE LINK.] Or how about the 2011 Museum of Contemporary Art Annual Gala in Los Angeles—what an inapt name!—with Abramovic and Deborah Harry? Fairly realistic nude effigies of the two women were brought in on gurneys to a crowd and then—wait for it…wait for it—the breasts of the effigies were sliced off, then the arms sliced off, then other parts sliced off, revealing guts which were also realistic.
The “body” parts and guts were then served by shirtless men on fancy plates to the Gala attendees. The attendees were thus able to fulfill their cannibalistic fantasies. One man sidled up between “Abramovic’s” legs and ate what was there. It was obvious the expensively dressed patrons of the “arts” enjoyed their feast.
Is this the kind of Spirit Cooking Abramovic invited Podesta to?
All the best arguments against socialism have been given by Popes in the Catholic Church, and the best summary of these are in the article “A Catholic Socialism?” by somebody calling himself C. W. Strand, especially Part I of that article. Strand is a leader of the nascent Catholic Tradinista movement, which seeks to replace our increasingly crony capitalist cum socialism-lite economic system with a socialism-which-is-not-socialism system. Frying pan, meet fire.
Anyway, Strand realizes the Church must be answered, so he dutifully steps through the points of horror the Church says socialism always causes. One is the “Debasement of marriage and the family.” Pope Leo XIII correctly stated that socialism destroys “the natural union of man and woman”, leading the State to set “aside the parents” and replace them with “State supervision”. As the State steps in, the family weakens further, causing the State to subsume more authority, and so on: a negative feedback.
To this Strand says something like, “The horror is true, but it need not be that way in our version of socialism.” And in similar manner he dismisses each real horror as unthinkable in the Tradinista’s new socialism-which-is-not-socialism.
It’s all very depressing (and very long), but since the Tradinista movement has captured the imagination of those who have not yet had a chance to read the dismal history of socialism-as-practiced, and of those who have read it but believe with Strand that next time we’ll get socialism right, Strand’s errors need discussing.
A difficulty with criticizing the Tradinista movement is the embarrassment of poverties: there are so many things wrong, one must pick and choose carefully. Let’s concentrate on forms of work and “the market”.
Tradinistas condemn “the market”, i.e. people lawfully and freely disposing of their private property. “Markets,” they say, “are vehicles of exploitation when people must sell their labor-power on the market in order to survive.” Tradinista Jose Mena complains Millennials are forced to work at “barista jobs in spite of our college degrees, flip through the internet for empty consolation, and live with our parents.”
Notice Mena, a Princeton graduate, said “college degrees” and not “educations.” He bristles at work he considers non-glamorous and beneath him. How many like him choose not to work rather than debase themselves? If they are not working, who supports them? Well, others, such as parents. Yet Mena would rather have the State provide for him, which concedes Leo’s point. Notice too his admission that rather than working for a wage, he’d waste his day surfing the net instead of doing something constructive. Books at the library are still free, yet no ora et labora for Mena!
[WHAT’S THIS? SOCIALIST TRADINISTAS WOULD COMPEL PEOPLE TO LABOR FOR THE STATE?]
And, like Silver, though he doesn’t know it yet, I relied on a bad model—not once, but twice. Mea maxima culpa. Silver is still relying on his model, which performed well before, but which I believe is now misleading him.
The first time Obama ran, Silver created a quantitative model which took account of information others had not, or had treated less than optimally. Silver’s New & Improved! quantitative model made better predictions than other models, and thus he very rightly was rewarded (that he told our elites what they wanted to hear is beside the point).
I have predicted Trump’s victory since January (and as regular readers know) have believed it months before that. Silver has long been predicting Trump’s defeat (just as he jokingly predicted the Cubs’ loss back in May). But Silver and I are using different models, which therefore give us different probabilities. So first a lesson in probability (which you can learn all about in this must-have book).
Probability does not exist. Therefore nothing has a probability. It is always an error to say things like “The probability the Cubs win is X”, “Trump’s chances are Y.” By “always” I mean always.
Since probability does not exist, and nothing has a probability, the only way to speak of probability is in reference to exterior information. You can say, “If you believe the following things, the probability the Cubs win is X” and “According to my model, Trump’s chances are Y.”
What’s a model?. A model is a set of propositions that are, or are assumed, true. That’s it and nothing more. The propositions don’t even have to be related to one another: they can be gibberish. But gibberish is not going to make for a good model.
Models always speak of a proposition of interest, such as “Cubs win”, “Trump wins”. The goal of modeling is to find a set of premises (propositions) that are probative of the proposition of interest such that the probability deduced from the model is high or one (or low and zero). Actually, it’s more than that. Premises which make the POI high are easily found. Take “The Cubs will win” as the model. Then the probability “Cubs win” given that model is 1. But this would obviously be a lousy model at the start of the season (it is the true model now).
What we’re after in models are not only probative premises, but premises which are true, or are believed true, at the time the model is created. What were the best premises back in May which gave “Cubs win” high probability? Well, we can argue about that. What were the best premises back in January which gave “Trump wins” a high probability? We can argue about that, too: followers of politics will have lots of examples spring to mind.
Silver had and has (I’m guessing) a fixed set of premises, many or which are strictly mathematical, and which tacitly assume that this election would be “much like” past elections. Those premises include the data from various polls (data are always premises); those premises also include information on how to manipulate that data. It’s all very rigorous and scientific.
It’s the rigor and sciency nature of the mathematics which misleads many. They look upon the equations, shiny and beautiful—and they are—and they become alive. The Deadly Sin of Reification strikes! The model becomes—in the mind of the user—reality itself. Before he sins, the modeler says “Given my model, the probability Trump wins is X”, but after Reification hits, the modeler says, “The probability Trump wins is X”. Probability has been conjured into existence!
But it’s all a fantasy.
My guess (and it’s only a guess) is that the rigor and past good performance of Silver’s model has dissuaded him from realizing many of the premises in it are now false. This election is not like others. The polls mean different things than they have before. The labels (and that is all they are) “Democrat” and “Republican” are amorphous. If these changes are not made in his model—and, truthfully, it’s a mystery how to best incorporate them—his model will make rotten predictions. And Silver & Crew have been making bad predictions.
Now my model is not quantitative. Probability is usually not a number, anyway. My model does say, without quantifying, “Trump is likely to win”. If he loses, then I’ll have to examine the individual premises which made the model and discover which were in error.
But even if he wins, it’s not clear the premises I used will be as efficacious in the future. It is not even necessarily true that my model had true or good premises! I could have got lucky.
Predicting complex events is hard (anything to do with human behavior is complex). Much, much harder than those who tout “machine” or “deep learning” algorithms or whatever the going term of the day has it.
Incidentally, it is not true that a set of premises (that we can know) exist which allow us to make perfect predictions. Think, for example, of quantum events. There we can prove we cannot know the premises which say what will happen with certainty. There is no anti-Hari-Seldon like equivalent proof for human events, but I believe the same limitations hold.
Note: This was written and recorded last Wednesday, before DickiLeaks et alia, but due to other events I had to delay posting it until today.
The return of the podcast! First I was on e-holiday, which is not only recommended, but which should be mandatory, like fasting. Then I made the mistake of upgrading my 32-bit version of Kubuntu on my ancient laptop, which broke certain processes which I used to produce the broadcasts (obviously now fixed).
The equipment in use is scratch and bare, but it works, albeit producing a less-than-optimal sound. Pretend you’re listening to AM radio and all will be well.
Incidentally, that is the term I think best to describe those people who, in collusion with the government, create and dispense the “news” meant to shape the opinion of the public. This includes “conservative” organs like Fox and WSJ. How much more honest were they when they called themselves ministers of propaganda!
That collusion is real, as was long known; but it is now a truth given concrete form with the Project Veritas exposé. On that, here is an Info Wars chicky asking some of the 300 or so people “streaming” out of a Hillary event if they had seen the videos.
Now I edited that and there’s plenty more. This was before the third Donald Duck video.
I said duck, not dog!
Don’t be harsh on the people who thought the PV videos were a lie or otherwise fraudulent. They were told to think that, just like they were told to think the Planned Parenthood baby chop shop videos were faked and frauds, just like they were told to ignore the Wikileaks revelations, which didn’t matter but which anyway were fakes and frauds. They were told to think these things, and they trusted those doing the telling. This trust in authorities is a good quality, with a bad effect.
There are two problems. These people—no people, left or right—in a country and form such as ours has any business directly electing their leader (the small adjustments due to the Electoral College are negligible). Whoever wins, these people aren’t going anywhere and the people lying to them will still be with us regardless who wins.
If Trump wins, state media hacks will be mollified and will duck and cover for, what, two weeks? And then they’ll be back to normal. Some will, as is natural to their breed, suck up to the new administration, seeking to do for the new power what they did for the old. But most will recognize Trump is naught but a respite. They’ll soon reorganize to restore the old elite, and themselves.
There will not be a wave of honesty among flacks, nor will there be a reduction in gullibility among the indigenous populants of this once United States. Unless Trump turns out to be an American Vladimir Putin, it will very soon be business as usual.
Calling the majority of the migrants “testosterone-driven Syrians”, Mr. Biro recounted the multiple reports of migrants carrying out, in his words, “extremely aggressive sexual assaults”.
He also detailed Afghan men had slashed the seats of the trains that were transporting them to Germany because they refused to sit where Christians had previously sat…
The prosecutor in the Styrian capital of Graz has confirmed they will be seeking charges against Biro for his comments after the case was brought to them by left-wing SOS Mitmensch. The group released a guide for Austrians earlier this year on how to successfully get people tried for hate speech crimes.
It’s not hate speech against “migrants” over which Biro is being prosecuted, but for speech against the government. SOS Mitmensch is part of that government, albeit without portfolio. Or, rather, with it, but without official letterhead.
Here are some items, each by themselves horrific, all of them seemingly disparate. Unless we can tie to a theory of doom, that’s all they are, individual stories.
Why I Fear America Could Enslave Black People Again: Trump’s Make American Great Again triggers writer to say “To what specific period of American greatness are you wanting us to return? When black folk suffered segregation after slavery?” After his tirade, the writer, who moved on to say he thought blacks could become slaves again under Trump, insists, “I’m not an angry black man”. To the Left, the slippery slope is the only argument.
‘We can’t prove sex with children does them harm’ says Labour-linked NCCL: “EVIDENCE has emerged that the views of the Paedophile Information Exchange influenced policy-making at the National Council for Civil Liberties when it was run by former Labour Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt…Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage.”
Norwegians now can change genders legally with a mouse click: “Norway, a wealthy, progressive nation of 5 million people, recently became the fifth country in the world to allow adults to legally change genders without a doctor’s agreement or intervention. Argentina, Ireland and Denmark have similar laws. But only Malta and Norway have extended the liberalized rules to children.” Progressive.
Rise of ‘predictable’ exam papers due to fears of social media backlash, expert argues: “Examiners are too scared to set hard questions for fear of being shamed on social media, an advisor to Ofqual, the exams regulator, has claimed. Professor Robert Coe, from Durham University, has also said papers have become too easy and predictable and that ‘low-level thinking’ is increasingly being rewarded in exams, the Times Educational Supplement reported.”
Peter Thiel Shows Us There’s a Difference Between Gay Sex and Gay: This is from the Advocate, now. “Since the Paleolithic Age, people have had sex with people of the same gender. But the notion that this made someone ‘homosexual’ or ‘gay’ was a relatively recent phenomenon in human history. Beginning in the late 19th century, doctors, sexologists, and others began to argue that same-sex sex created the category of sexual orientation…By the logic of gay liberation, Thiel is an example of a man who has sex with other men, but not a gay man. Because he does not embrace the struggle of people to embrace their distinctive identity.”
‘Living here doesn’t make you one of us’ Danish Queen tells Muslims to adopt West’s values: “She said: ‘It’s not a law of nature that one becomes Danish by living in Denmark. It doesn’t necessarily happen. We thought that these things would take care of themselves. That if you walked through the streets of Copenhagen and drank the municipal water and rode the municipal bus, you’d soon become a Dane. It was so obvious to us, and therefore we thought that it must also be obvious for those who settled and lived here. It wasn’t.'”
Now these examples could be multiplied with ease and endlessly; indeed, they are a cataract. What binds them together? Bad question. Here’s a better one: do they have a common cause?
Fellow at Zero Hedge is betting on a conspiracy, or something like it. The Elimination Of Reason. “Since the dumbing down has been so consistently prevalent over the decades, it’s clear that this is no accident, nor is it an experiment in ‘alternative education’ that hasn’t worked out as was intended. It’s clearly the result of a conscious effort to diminish the average person’s ability to think. As such, it’s had a long gestation period and was expected to require generations, but was nevertheless a conscious goal.”
I believe “Durden” is right and wrong. Although there are conspiracies, such as we met with Wikileaks, and there is collusion among elites in the leftwards fall of the West, our doom will not be the result of the actions of a mysterious cabal. Instead, what is happening is right out in the open, and is even desired by the majority.
The cause is liberal-democracy. This does not mean a liberal society, nor a democratic society: it means the combination, which is deadly. This is not an unknown thesis. It forms the subject matter of the book The Demon in Democracy by Ryszard Legutko, newly translated into English, and the true point of this podcast. For over the next five broadcasts, we’ll go through this book chapter by chapter, in an extended review which proves the thesis, and which demonstrate its consequences, and which will prove the prediction that we are doomed.