Archive for November 2007

Steven Pressfield on Tribes

November 26, 2007

This is good stuff people. If you want to get an idea of who this Pressfield guy is, read this excerpt of his style.

The OODA Loop Cycle

November 26, 2007

By using this OODA Loop theory in it’s entirety, we are being manipulated into only choosing certain chess board moves by the enemy (the face-less cowards of international terrorism) and we are not using the whole track, which I might add is the first thing they teach you in motorcycle street racing class. It is as if limited war and diplomacy is being used against this strategy. Yet, at the same time we appear to be allowing these methodologies to the utmost and are failing to act decisively in many instances.

Without such threats of all out war where you annihilate your enemy into oblivion, it is becoming harder and harder to negotiate to fulfill our political will, since the enemy real or perceived does not believe that we will ever use such options. Yet we have an arsenal more than capable of doing so and a quick intense history-making event of the ultimate in destructive power to show strength has yet been seen in the last 5 decades. We are seeing un-negotiable thoughts of our foes, middle fingers high in the air and treaties that these folks have no intention on fulfilling as a matter of fact they are laughing at us and some of the larger more potentially deadly foes in our future are being trained by us and are already finding ways to counter our Future War Strategies of net-centric, blue force tracking and combat scenarios.

Just something as background reading on what the military uses to keep up their knowledge about warfare.

Not Enough Parking Space for Private Jets

November 26, 2007

The Global Warming craze has long been described by me as a huge con game. The top levels get all the money and benefits while the bottom get the shaft.

Courtesy of Tap at Bookworm room.

So Sayeth the Nazi

November 25, 2007

US consumer economics will export our economy

The dollar is plunging because America has been living beyond her means, borrowing $2 billion a day from foreign nations to maintain her standard of living and to sustain the American Imperium.

As nations realize that the dollars they are being paid for their products cannot buy in the world markets what they once did, they will demand more dollars for those goods.

The Chinese, whose currency is tied to the dollar, and Japan will continue, as long as they can, to keep their currencies low against the dollar. For the Asians think long term, and their goals are strategic.

The Japanese will take some loss in the value of their dollar hoard to take down Chrysler, Ford and GM, and capture the U.S. auto market as they captured our TV, camera and computer chip markets.

[ Fall of Rome checklist in place: dependent on foreign mercenaries, check; living beyond means and causing deflation of currency, check; waging crazy foreign wars, check; ruled by oligarchs (lobbyists) who manipulate masses with bread and circuses, check. Better put on a raincoat, it's going to get messy soon! ]

news on 11.06.07 @ 08:54 PM CST [link] [1 Comment]

The thing about Nazis, National Socialism, is that they are just more efficient than either communists or socialists alone. This is proven out by the fact that they can actually think.

Feminism turned sexuality into ownership, screwed it all up

I believe this failure [women and men not finding each other] has much to do with the model of love-seeking most popular in our culture: the idea of romantic pursuit as a type of predation, a hunting expedition the goal of which is capture.

The predator model of love leads to a hunter’s way of dating: Seek large gatherings of your prey, dangle a false self as bait, wait for an individual to stray from the herd, then pounce on him with all the wit and wile it takes to bring him down. Internet matchmaking services, singles bars, speed dating, personal ads and even blind dating all borrow from this “statistical mass” logic.

Here’s my crazy idea: How about actually having a million things to do? How about actually filling your life with interesting activities? If you want to attract a partner, identify what you love to do, and do it — a lot. Involved, busy people really are more attractive, so if you want to get engaged to your soul mate, start by being engaged in activities that fascinate you — especially those that have nothing to do with dating and that make you forget to go love hunting.

[ This is how things used to be done. Is this writer a Nazi, a throwback and a reactionary? Nope, but she's using common sense -- rare! -- and that's how she discovered the eternal truth of dating. Full lives and family-orientation succeed, while spaced-out liberal crusades for justice make everyone miserable so a few uglies can justify failing at life. Here's my crazy idea: apply this same theory to all of life, and you'll get people out of miserable jobs and boring power struggles and back toward a creative struggle for higher existence. ]

news on 11.06.07 @ 08:48 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

 Political agreements mean absolutely zero in the case of historical trends of war and peace. What matters is philosophy and self interest. If your interests collide with another group’s interests, then no matter what you two do, there will be war.  Combining interests via harmonious principles such as the Band of Brothers bond between allies that fought together as well as between allies and enemies that fought together, is one solution. National Socialism does not accept such a solution. They and their Democratic Socialist buddies do not like Iraq because they see the world as a zero sum equation. We benefit by keeping resources from others. That is their self-interest as defined by them.

So of course the Left will say that Nazis are on the right with the wing nuts, like us, while it is democratic socialism that is the way of the future,

USA decides to exterminate Salmon

Salmon advocates filed a lawsuit Monday to force the Bush administration to obey a 5-year-old court order requiring it to make permanent rules to keep agricultural pesticides from killing salmon.

[ What bothers me about this is that we even "need" rules like this in place. No one sane kills off species at random for no particular purpose. Maybe PETA is right in comparin The Holocaust and the way we treat animals, because it's like we don't even see them at all... and if we keep going, we won't BE ABLE to see them at all, because they'll all be DEAD! Good thinking. ]

news on 11.06.07 @ 09:05 PM CST [link] [1 Comment]

Even after such alliances are made.  Check out this page for what the Nazis of Europe and America believe is the way of the future. It makes sense, just like democratic socialism. However, the end result is never as optimal as people think.

For example, because nationalism of whatever brand there is focuses on their own people to the exclusion of anything else, you will inevitably obtain conflicts of interest between different nationalities. Then wars will happen like WWII. America prefers to end wars by doing what the Romans did. Defeating every concept of local nationalistic or cultural beliefs through conquest. Germany, Italy, Japan, the American South, the Brits, etc. All are examples of American military might and victory. Instead of everybody squabbling over their own piece of the pie, Rome demonstrates what can happen when you are up against a united political group with a united ethnic culture of different strengths, weaknesses, and color. Hitler saw the Americans accepting blacks and that is why he lost respect for America. Accepting such diluted blood was to the Nazis a sign of weakness. Yet war is the ultimate test of who is weak and who is strong. If the mongrel American nation was so weak, why then did we win?

 

Inside Interview with the Nazi movement

November 25, 2007

There are two links about the Nazi party that I thought would be educational in relation to my proposed geometric relationship between National Socialism, Communism, and Democratic Socialism.

Himmler took this in good part. He laughed easily. “I’m sure our police organization isn’t half as black as it’s painted abroad,” was his reply. “We certainly do our best to combat crime of every sort, and our criminal statistics imply that we are fairly successful. Frankly, we believe that habitual offenders should not be at large to plague society, so we keep them locked up. Why, for instance, should a sex-offender who has been sentenced three of four times be again set free, to bring lasting sorrow to another decent home? We send all such persons to a detention-camp and keep them there. But I assure you that their surroundings aren’t bad. In fact, I know they are better fed, clothed, and lodged than the miners of South Wales. Ever seen one of our concentration-camps?”

“No,” I answered, “I wasn’t able to get permission.”

“Too bad I didn’t know about it,” said Himmler. “There you’d see the sort of social scum we have shut sway from society for its own good.”

That was all very fine, but I felt that Himmler was hedging a bit. So I proceeded: “You refer there to criminals in the general sense of the term. But how about political offenders — say, old-fashioned liberals? Is any political opposition tolerated?”

“What a person thinks is none of our concern,” shot back Himmler quickly. “But when he acts upon his thoughts, perhaps to the point of starting a conspiracy, then we take action. We believe in extinguishing a fire while it is still small. It saves trouble and averts much damage. Besides,” he continued, “there isn’t any need for political opposition with us. If a man sees something he thinks is wrong, let him come straight to us and talk the matter over. Let him even write me personally. Such letters always reach me. We welcome new ideas and are only to glad to correct mistakes. Let me give you an example. Suppose somebody sees traffic on a busy corner badly handled. In other countries he could write a scathing letter to the newspapers saying how stupidly and badly the police run things. A hundred thousand people who may never have even seen that corner might get all excited, and the prestige of both the police and the State itself might suffer in consequence. With us, all that man has to do is to write us, and I assure you the matter will be quickly righted.”

*****

During his lifetime Lothrop Stoddard (1883-1950) was one of America’s most influential writers. He earned a doctorate from Harvard, and was the author of 15 books, including the much-discussed 1920 work, The Rising Tide of Color. He wrote numerous articles and essays, and was an editorial writer and foreign affairs expert for The Washington Star.

Shortly after the outbreak of the Second World War in Europe, he went to Germany on behalf of the North American Newspaper Alliance to report first-hand from the war-beleaguered Third Reich. During this visit he conducted interviews with such key figures as Hitler, Himmler, and Goebbels. Stoddard compiled his observations and interviews in a 300-page book, Into the Darkness, that the Dictionary of American Biography called “a fair and honest appraisal of the Nazi state.” This remarkable account will soon be re-issued in an attractive new Noontide edition.

In the following essay, adapted from Chapter 20 of Into the Darkness, Stoddard presents a skeptical but open-minded look at the role of the all-embracing National Socialist Party. This chapter also includes his January 1940 interview with Heinrich Himmler — the first ever granted to a foreign journalist by the SS leader.

It is interesting to see what the Nazis saw of themselves. No one can gain power without considering the needs of the individuals in that location. The power of nations that aren’t built upon grassroot support, are weak nations economically and militarily.

Here is the humble beginning of Hitler’s rise to power.

Adolf Hitler never held a regular job and aside from his time in World War One, led a lazy lifestyle, from his brooding teenage days in Linz through years spent in idleness and poverty in Vienna. But after joining the German Workers’ Party in 1919 at age thirty, Hitler immediately began a frenzied effort to make it succeed.

The German Workers’ Party consisted mainly of an executive committee which had seven members, including Hitler. To bring in new members Hitler prepared invitations which each committee member gave to friends asking them to attend the party’s monthly public meeting, but few came.

Next they tried having invitations printed at a stationary store. A few people came.
Then they placed an advertisement in an anti-Semitic newspaper in Munich and at Hitler’s insistence, moved the public meeting to a beer cellar that would hold about a hundred. The other committee members were concerned they might have trouble filling the place, but just over a hundred showed up at the meeting held on October 16, 1919.

Hitler was scheduled to be the second speaker at this meeting. It was to be his first time as a featured speaker, despite the misgivings of some committee members who doubted Hitler’s ability at this time.

But when Hitler got up to speak, he astounded everyone with a highly emotional, at times near hysterical manner of speech making. For Hitler, it was an important moment in his young political career. He described the scene in Mein Kampf:

“I spoke for thirty minutes, and what before I had simply felt within me, without in any way knowing it, was now proved by reality: I could speak! After thirty minutes the people in the small room were electrified and the enthusiasm was first expressed by the fact that my appeal to the self-sacrifice of those present led to the donation of three hundred marks.”

The money was used to buy more advertising and print leaflets. The German Workers’ Party now featured Hitler as the main attraction at its meetings. In his speeches Hitler railed against the Treaty of Versailles and delivered anti-Semitic tirades, blaming the Jews for Germany’s problems. Attendance slowly increased, numbering in the hundreds.

Hitler took charge of party propaganda in early 1920, and also recruited young men he had known in the Army. He was aided in his recruiting efforts by Army Captain Ernst Röhm, a new party member, who would play a vital role in Hitler’s eventual rise to power.

In Munich, there were many alienated, maladjusted soldiers and ex-soldiers with a thirst for adventure and a distaste for the peace brought on by the Treaty of Versailles and the resulting democratic republic. They joined the German Workers’ Party in growing numbers.

There were many other political groups looking for members, but none more successful than the Marxists. Genuine fear existed there might be a widespread Communist revolution in Germany like the Russian revolution. Hitler associated Marxism with the Jews and thus reviled it.

He also understood how a political party directly opposed to a possible Communist revolution could play on the fears of so many Germans and gain support.

In February of 1920, Hitler urged the German Workers’ Party to holds its first mass meeting. He met strong opposition from leading party members who thought it was premature and feared it might be disrupted by Marxists. Hitler had no fear of disruption. In fact he welcomed it, knowing it would bring his party anti-Marxist notoriety. He even had the hall decorated in red to aggravate the Marxists.

On February 24, 1920, Hitler was thrilled when he entered the large meeting hall in Munich and saw two thousand people waiting, including a large number of Communists.

A few minutes into his speech, he was drowned out by shouting followed by open brawling between German Workers’ Party associates and disruptive Communists. Eventually, Hitler resumed speaking and claims in Mein Kampf the shouting was gradually drowned out by applause.

He proceeded to outline the Twenty Five Points of the German Workers’ Party, its political platform, which included; the union of all Germans in a greater German Reich, rejection of the Treaty of Versailles, the demand for additional territories for the German people (Lebensraum), citizenship determined by race with no Jew to be considered a German, all income not earned by work to be confiscated, a thorough reconstruction of the national education system, religious freedom except for religions which endanger the German race, and a strong central government for the execution of effective legislation.

The rest can be read here.

Museum Flickr

November 24, 2007

This is a very nice atmospheric photo of some displays, along with a nice panoramic perspective.

Flickr Photos

November 24, 2007

This is a rather attractive pose for this woman. Here is another one that I liked.

Such methods of expression would never be allowed in a less developed society. Either because of economic reasons, technological reasons, or just cultural reasons.

Roman Medals

November 24, 2007

The corona civica is described by my source this way.

  This man has saved the life of a Roman citizen in battle, killed the attacker, and stood his ground–events confirmed by tribunal investigation.  As a reward, he received an oaken corona, which he may wear at all times. He has a place reserved with the Senate at all public spectacles, and all rise upon his entrance. He, his father, and his father’s father, are freed from all public burdens.  The rescued man must treat him with all deference due to his own father, as the preserver of his life.

As a reference and for pictures of various honors, check here.

New Orleans Grits

November 22, 2007

This video was nice, I thought, on how to make New Orleans grillades and grits dish.

UPDATE: Added the link.

Cooperative Hunting vs Parasitism: Survival Methods

November 22, 2007
  1. I agree with Mike D that *trust* in our fellow citizens makes the diffence.

    I recently read a book (Undercover Economist by Tim Harford) which explains that a nations prosperity is determined by the trust the citizens have in public institutions, such as the government, police and banks. Lack of trust results in people squatting in a shack on land they don’t own, no safe place to invest or store their business profits, and not reporting crimes because they know nothing will be done. If they have trustworthy institutions, they can buy property, build a home without worry that they will be chased out, and work to improve their lives.

    More recently I read an article breaks all that down to trust:
    http://www.slate.com/id/2174706/fr/flyout
    The article explains the “Stag Hunt” in game theory, which supposes that cooperation pays bigger dividends than indiviualism. It all boils down to this – if everyone can trust their neighbors, politicans, bank managers, bosses, and police, greater prosperity for all is the result.

    If this is the case, then the melting pot idea, resulting in a more homogenous society, is definitely a good thing for everyone. One can argue that people who can’t be trusted to conform to our societies norms threaten the nations health. Hmmm…

  2. Ymar: Fascinating article, Jose. It brings up the topic of cooperative hunting, which I decided to name a certain kind of survival strategy, during some of the comments I posted here.I came across the realization that a system like the United States military is based upon not just cooperation but cooperative hunting through alternate means. Instead of deducing such things from mathematical games or formulas, I deduced it from human observation but primarily from philosophical deduction.

    It is a very important subject after all, because once you strip the veneer from the Left’s policies, all you get is the claim that they are the ones improving upon cooperation and thus the living standards of people all over. Whether such a claim, a philosophical premise to be exact, is correct or not relies critically upon whether the notion of a cooperative hunt can be created through Leftist policies or US Marine Corps policies.

    Given the mutual exclusivity of Leftist policies and the policies of good and excellent military institutions, one has to ask onself whether American civilians wish to emulate their military or whether they wish to emulate Leftist ideologies and spiritual fanatics.

    This is the fundamental choice people must make. Thus all the talk about who are the racists and how to treat institutional racism is nothing but a smoke screen laid down by the Left in order to prevent people from truly thinking about the philosophical foundations behind the political policies forwarded.

    That is why the stag hunt is so important, and the fragility of the happy, cooperative hunt is so worrying. Britain is not about to collapse into anarchy, even if the experience of Northern Rock’s depositors is profoundly unnerving. But the episode is a reminder of how many conventions in our society—from lining up to showing up for work—only succeed because everybody expects that they will. That cannot be taken for granted.

    The idea of a hunt is prototypically anti-Leftist in that the left does not see social cooperation as a hunt. To the Left, it is not about the hunters winning and thereby feeding their familes with the deer losing by dying. Ophiucus gave us a great example of standard Leftist thinking. While the Left may or may not recognize the power of competition, they would far prefer that competition be undermined in favor of international cooperation. Why is that so? For the simple reason that the Left doesn’t know how to win in a test of pure strength when the outcome is either life or death. I know, simplistic, but it is true.

  3. The critical point is this segment of the article.

    There are two rational outcomes to the stag hunt: Either both hunters hunt the stag as a team, or each hunts rabbits by himself. Each would prefer to cooperate in hunting the stag, but if the other player’s motives or actions are uncertain, the rabbit hunt is a risk-free alternative

    Factionalism, what we know as tribalism or also amoral familism, is represented in the need to look out for one self above anyone else. For factionalism, it is about furthering the cause of your faction, since your faction will bring about your personal elevation. Each legion favoring their own military commander for ROman Emperor is an example of factionalism. So was the pro slavery Democrat party in the Civil War, when they favored their own members over the benefit to the entire Union. Slavery was good enough for the party elites, so why rock the boat? It wasn’t good for the nation as a whole nor was it good for slaves either, but that did not really matter to the party elites.

    For amoral familism, it is about furthering the economic interests of your family. Which in turn will increase your own wealth and prestige. The Arabian culture focuses much on this type of survival strategy in its society. Every tribe is after all, simply an extended family.

    The Left promises that they will further cooperation. Cooperation should then lead to a better life. So let us go back to the beginning where I noted the critical segment.

    Each would prefer to cooperate in hunting the stag, but if the other player’s motives or actions are uncertain, the rabbit hunt is a risk-free alternative

    While each person would like, in an ideal situation, to benefit the most from any kind of transaction, the individual also must calculate the risks involved.

    The key part is that the methods by which the Left uses to instill cooperation also decreases security, independence, and mutual interest. Instead of trying to bind disparate people into one unified whole with a unified purpose, the Left seeks instead to pit one faction against another to derive personal benefits. This is shown in the example of how the Democrats decided that the war in Iraq was a chance at achieving political dominance once again.

    THe lack of independence weakens the chains that bind a society, given that the strength of a society is based upon the strength of the weakest individual in that society. Too many weak links and the society itself becomes weak. Independence fosters strength and good judgement. Dependence fosters weakness and guillibility. The latter is death to a society’s ability to cooperate and prosper.

    Thirdly, the narcissism created by welfare goes against creating mutual interest, since why should anyone work for others when they don’t need to?

    The risks the Left creates are too high. What is interesting is that the Left sees what the military is trying to accomplish in Iraq as bearing too high a price and risk. This is simply another example of why Leftist philosophy is incompatible with De Oppresso Liber.

    One is right, the other is wrong. Both cannot be right. Although both can be wrong. The difference is, the military in trying to actually create a cooperative society is able to change their methods that have failed in the past. The Left cannot change, for cooperation was never the final objective in the first place. Some of them in positions of power do indeed realize that multiculturalism is the complete opposite of creating cooperation and unity of purpose. Yet it does not bother them.

    The reason, in the end, is very simple. The Left plans to agree to a cooperative hunt and then murder their partner after the deer has been killed and when most of the work has been done by the partner. The Left then gets both shares and the tools of the murdered partner. The Left then can go rabbit hunting at no risk to themselves, their families, or their ideological faction.

    This is called parasitism and it is a very successful survival strategy. For the parasite. Those truly interested in cooperative hunting must always be aware of the risks inherent in it. Choose your allies well.

  4. My first comment needs some clarification. There was some discussions here over the relationship of socialism to nazism and how nazism related to communism. The Triangle of Death I called it.

    So, while there are some members of the Left that would indeed betray their hunting partner in order to gain personally, most members of the Left are simply the source of such betrayal and breakdown rather than the actual players.

    For example, socialism in Italy and Germany created the unstable conditions necessary for Nazis and fascists. The same occured in Cuba, Iran, and Russia. So here’s the short of it.

    Leftist policies, whether National Socialist, Democratic Socialist, or just Communist, force people to cooperate. Instead of people seeing the risks inherent in a partnership and freely choosing to be part of it, the Left would rather that people be forced into cooperation. Slavery, is after all, prefered by the Left over free choice. If you believe, as the Left does, that international cooperation will create a better world, then can you truly afford to let sentiments against slavery upset this goal?

    When people are forced into partnerships, they really just want to get out of it. But they want to get out of it the winner, not the loser. So because the Left has forced people into cooperation that wouldn’t have done so freely and because the Left also increased the insecurity, mistrust, and fragmentation present in the environment, the hunters automatically are motivated to looking out for number 1 and only number 1.

    The individuals in question now want to get out of the partnership because it is just too risky and it provides no benefit to the hunters. Each hunter then has to make an individual choice about breaking the partnership, but they also must consider feeding themselves. Thus the logical choice is to betray the “other” partner. Such obvious examples of Rwanda and the Holocaust under “international cooperation” should be enough to describe to you the scenario.

    The Left believes in a top down hierarchy, in which the aristocrats decide what is good and the bottom of the pyramid gets to implement the wishes of their superiors. This means that they have power to force someone like the Shah of Iran to make reforms and go easy on the Islamic Jihad, but such a top down hierarchy does not have enough power to make people continue to cooperate. What people will do is what happened in Iran. The more violent party wins out because they were ruthless enough to do what was needed to win over the other partner or partners.

    The military, which I mentioned before as representing the best of cooperative hunting survival strategy, believes in a bottom up hierarchy of command. The military, represented by Petraeus’ COIN fighting philosophy, tries to form the foundations first and make sure that they are solid. Then the military tries to get people to cooperate. De Oppresso Liber is, after all, a SF belief enforced by Special Forces unconventional warfare methods. Bush tried to do it the Leftist way when he went to the UN and in 2004-5 with elections first but the strategy has changed from a top down hierarchy of “showing an Iraqi face to replace US troops” to “demonstrating American leadership by leading Iraqis from the front, not the rear”.

    The Left will never lead their people from the front. Aristocrats have better things to do than die in wars after all. That is what peasants are for.

    Imagine how the Left would have handled being on Flight 93 on 9/11. As a last thought experiment, simply consider whether the people on Flight 93 would have agreed to cooperate from a solid bottom up foundation if they had believed in Leftist notions that cooperation comes through negotiation and working with people like terrorists and dictators.

    Without the assurance of victory or of security for them and their families, people simply will not cooperate. The Left can make them seem like they are cooperating but the Left is doing nothing but weakening the foundations of civilization. This is why the Left believes in freedom of action more than taking responsibility for those actions. This is why the Left believes more in freedom for terrorists than security for Americans.

    The Left believes freedom, prosperity, and cooperation comes from sharing. Even if that means sharing with people who can’t be trusted and who are a danger to you and your family. The US military believes that order and law must be maintained in the US and in the world for Americans to live their lives in the way that they wish under those laws. That is why US military members can look at the domestic insurgency here in the United States and say with a straight face that this is part of what they are fighting for. The military believes in security. The Left does not. At least, the Left doesn’t believe that people need security in order to be made to cooperate.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.