0. abstract
I. objective
II. "human nature" guessing game
A. the ideal game
B. the actual game
C. my street cred
1) archaeologist
2) never meet your heroes
3) involuntary psychologist
4) slumdog millionaire
5) petization of humans
6) my name is bond, james bond
7) jack of all trades, master of none
8) apple falling far from the tree
III. teams and star players
A. leftists: chomsky, yanis, tyt
B. liberals: cnn, msnbc
C. conservatives: ben shapiro, dinesh, limbaugh
D. libertarians: jordan petersen, adam carolla, joe rogan
E. pragmatists vs ideologues
IV. choosing a team
A. you are gay
1. choice
a. inborn traits
b. environmental influence
c. gut microbes
2. conscience
3. morality vs freedom
4. tribal mentality
5. brain wiring
6. abilities
7. likability contest
8. obsolete instincts
a. war freaks
b. hunter's genes
c. pedophilia
d. stupidity is not obsolete
B. society is gay
1. compatibility
2. assessing america's compatibility with social democracy
a. test scores
b. selflessness
c. corruption
d. content
e. competence
f. ice hockey
i. cumulative nature
ii. equality
iii. stability
iv. degree of difficulty
g. religion
h. pedigree
V. game tips and tricks
A. it's just a guess
B. how to make your best guess
1. painful logic
a. advantages
b. disadvantages
2. clues from history
3. it's complicated
4. probability = success / attempts
5. it's relative
6. it's not a yes or no question
7. association trick
8. clarify the scope/perspective/context
9. clarify critical words
10. zero sum game
11. clarify the alternative
12. it's always a case by case basis
C. activism
1. clarify your goal
2. general vs specific advocacy
3. inspiring the people vs changing the system
4. credibility
a. sacrifice
b. scold your teammates
c. uncle bertie
d. consistency
5. people are dumb
6. know your true enemies
7. preaching to the choir
8. overreach
9. leftist sperm bank
10. androids
11. watch cosmos
VI. updates
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0. abstract 5/7/20
woohoo medicare-for-all is very popular !!! let's ruin it by threatening to take their guns away, opening the borders, and defunding the police so it would be easier for criminals to rape lisa simpson.
D'OH !!! the power elites are cheering for the left. the left is their perfect trojan horse or decoy. cancel culture, gun control and abortion won't really hurt the pockets of the power elites. but the power elites will tremble in fear if this article becomes viral.
update 11/25/2021: i rewrote this abstract so that it relates to more recent events. i moved it to this article - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2021/11/negative-value-conondrum.html
this long rant is an organized collection of advice for smart, cool and lucky leftists living in a bubble from a low intellect loser like me living in the real world, just like an uneducated vegetable vendor advising albert einstein if it's safe to go in the slums because according to chomsky, human nature cannot be scientifically studied. someone (julian sage) posted in facebook calling all socialists of the world to start a movement because they will be an unstoppable people's alliance. i commented -
"just a piece of friendly advice - even if socialists have the majority, your soldiers are composed of homer simpsons and noam chomskys who couldn't hurt a fly. the right wing psychopaths think it's ok to kill socialists because the ultimate goal of socialists is to take away their properties. just like it's ok to shoot a thief invading someone's home. telling the proletariat to unite and give up their right to own property is like telling my dad to stop smoking because it causes cancer. human nature always trumps morality. i'm not saying you should give up your advocacy i'm saying understanding human nature enables you to understand and appreciate capitalists the same way i appreciate my dad despite his imperfections and not be angry unlike my leftist friends who unfriended me after they read my blog. life is short and we only have 1 life to live, don't waste it on useless bad feelings. enjoy and be happy with your anarchist advocacy and use it to make more friends, not make enemies.because according to obi-wan, if you hate capitalists, then you are no different than the people you despise.".
the world of political discourse can be a fantasy land. not even the smartest person can prove you wrong. you can live your entire life feeling you are truly informed and those who don't agree with you are just ignorant fools. nothing wrong with that. i like everyone to be happy.
except when politics stops making people happy. what necessitated me to write this were the ugly political arguments and quarrels that i saw in facebook between my dear friends and family. one of my favorite people in the world are my teachers and when i saw 2 of my teachers having a nasty feud in facebook because of their political disagreement, it made me sad. political debates should be fun and educational. my goal here is to demonstrate how to make political discourse fun and educational.
i'm also concerned about climate change threatening mankind. all i know is i do not want to run through speeding traffic blindfolded just because i am not sure i am going to be hit by a car. the internet is littered with various climate change solutions especially TED talks in youtube. i will also give my own opinions to address climate change which i haven't heard anyone mention.
for the first time in america's history, there is now a possibility of electing a president who truly represents the people and not just business interest. i have a niece and 2 nephews born recently in california. it would great for them if there is medicare-for-all. this is called a social democracy (socdem). it's been working well for canada, germany, and nordic states. however, socdem countries like spain, italy, portugal, and cyprus are in big trouble. venezuelans and greeks are suffering and riots in france have been going on for 5 months. if you search "UK poverty austerity" in youtube you will be shocked. socdem is not automatically a slam dunk. later, i will try to analyze if socdem will be good for america. in any case, i believe free college and $15 minimum wage is a bad idea.
i'm also concerned about US atrocities. but i understand it's complicated and i hope the next president will be pragmatic instead of only doing what is moral. i'm not an expert but i feel that if we stop supporting saudi arabia in yemen, the uprising could spread to saudi arabia and topple the already unstable monarchy. the new saudi government might de-peg their currency from the US dollar and other countries could follow suite. the fall of the petrodollar could lead to a depression in america. america might make a deal with china that would allow china to invade the philippines. the chaos could spread, causing massive deaths and suffering as mankind adjusts to the new world order. we know the saudi government is supporting the spread of wahhabism that caused 9-11 and the terrorist attacks in UK and france. but the saudi royal family also have no choice but to appease their islamic clerics who are the only ones who can appease the saudi people and prevent an uprising. i know hundreds of thousands of children are suffering and dying in yemen because of the war. it's a sad, ugly, but very delicate balance that could bring humanity back to the dark ages if it tips over.
that's why it scared the living crap out of me when trump got elected especially that he was denouncing the saudis during the campaign. it was music to my ears when he replied, "am i suppose to dislike them?" when asked about the saudis recently. which means there's a good chance trump will do what he is suppose to do as oppose to what he wants to do. but who knows. it's too complicated we are all just making our best guess. bernie becoming president is the only way to prove my theory about the petrodollar and it's importance in preventing mankind from collapsing into another dark age. if bernie is the president and we still continue to support saudi arabia's genocide in yemen, then that would prove my theory. although that would ruin his friendship with chomsky and i would hate to see that.
this rant is also an organized collection of zingers and cheap shots towards the left. but my main goal here is to humbly, sincerely, with all due respect, and without malice, defend freedom from weaponized virtues and ideologue assault. at the end of my life i want to be able to look back and say i did my part in protecting mankind from the left's blundering efforts to do good. but freedom is just a means to an end. the main goal is to make people's lives better.
i apologize in advance for any unscientific contradictions to your convictions. when george orwell encouraged us to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy, i'm sure he also implied that WE SHOULD WELCOME ANYONE WHO CHALLENGES OUR ORTHODOXY. opening up to contrary views is a structural antidote to sectarianism. to convince my imaginary readers that i'm just trying to help, i even wrote a diatribe on people i love the most - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/05/apple-falling-far-from-the-tree.html.
if you happen to find something useful in my rants, i hope you will find the humility to help me promote it for the betterment of mankind.
II. "human nature" guessing game
one of the biggest heroes of WWII, alan turing, was mistakenly made to suffer and die by the very society that he helped save just because of society's ignorance about the true nature of homosexuality (i have this strong unexplainable feeling that alan turing would have lived on to be a super hero like dr. strange). maybe to a certain extent, we are all committing the same mistakes as the ignorant british officials that maltreated and tortured alan turing to death. keep in mind those british officials were exceptionally educated and probably even righteous people. they probably believed deep in their hearts that what they were doing to alan turing was moral. what if we are currently wallowing in the same toxic mud of ignorance and we don't know it?
if we put more effort in studying human nature in regard to economic policies, maybe the mexican government will learn that the fear of zapatista libertarian socialism (libsoc) spreading like wildfire will be as ridiculous as the fear that gay communities will turn everyone gay. maybe the mexican government will allow the zapatistas to flourish like the quakers in pennsylvania and allow marcos to return to the philippines. they will realize that the predominantly materialistic european genes of the rest of the mexicans will never be compatible with libsoc, just like a gay guy would never want to have sex with miss universe. they will realize the success of libsoc in 1936 catalonia spain was just a honeymoon aberration. meaning people tend to be in a selfless and cooperative mood after a successful revolution just like couples on their wedding night. even soviet state socialism prospered for 10 years.
besides the libsocs in catalonia did not have to build their own factories and infrastructure so we don't know if a libsoc society can handle those tough phases. thieves obviously would enjoy brief prosperity after a heist. imagine how many of those stolen properties were built by entrepreneurs using blood sweat and tears only to be taken away from them. even the tyrannical US pays for the oil it gets from the middle east. the revolution deserved to be crushed, unlike the zapatistas and the quakers who did not steal anything and did not commit atrocities. the sad thing about the catalonia revolution was they burned the churches and executed the priests. i cringe just thinking about it because my mother goes to church everyday and i'm sure she would rather burn than be forced to leave the church. although maybe it was only the communists who committed the atrocities. wikipedia giveth, wikipedia taketh (or excludeth). i can't imagine george orwell supporting such heinous acts.
it's also idiotic to use 1936 catalonia as an example of a successful libsoc society because they already had instant professionals such as doctors and engineers who probably would not have bothered making the sacrifice of getting an advanced education if the outcome is the same and they can just get what they need from the communal storage. i'm just a low intellect making wild guesses on human nature. keep in mind that there are many leftits who are the smartest intellectuals in the world who believe people will still wake up early in the morning to go to school or work hard even without individualistic incentives and competition.
A. the ideal game
the ideal goal of politics is to make people's lives better. we all strive for the same dreams and aspirations. we just have different ways of getting there.
it takes 2 things to formulate a successful economic platform. the first one is understanding human nature. i forgot what the second one is but it baffles me why human nature is usually ignored even if it's the most important, albeit complicated factor. i understand human nature is thinly studied because it's unethical to do direct experiments on humans. it's difficult to do comparative studies because you can't control the variables because humans are so different and unpredictable. unfortunately, we still need to make a guess. in fact, not guessing is still guessing. it's like investing your nest egg. the economy and markets depend heavily on human nature so there is no science that can determine for sure what will happen. but if you don't try to guess or make a decision and leave your nest egg in an FDIC protected savings account, inflation can cut the value of your nest egg in half within 10 years. and in 20 years you will be poor.
all political arguments boils down to a "human nature" guessing game because human nature is what makes or breaks policies. both leftists and right-wingers agree that socialism can only succeed if people are humane or benevolent enough. their root disagreement is that leftists believe people are humane and benevolent enough while right-wingers believe otherwise. example, leftists believe that a government employees will work hard even if there is no competition that can threaten their job security. they believe people will wake up early in the morning and study hard in school even if the outcome will be the same as those who don't go to school. leftists believe that people work hard because they want to serve or help their fellow human beings. this is why normal people who have lived enough in the real world think leftists are naive.
but of course there are always exceptions. it's always a case by case basis. i support free healthcare if it is true the it saves us $5 trillion in 10 years. my core disagreement with leftist policies is their policies lack incentives for people to work hard (e.g. competition). but my guess is it's a built in nature of doctors and nurses to care for a sick person even if there is an absence of competition. also i think there will still be competition if hospitals are still private and the only difference is it's the government who pays for everything. as long as a hospital can go bankrupt if they provide poor service, i'm on board with medicare-for-all.
there is no science or logic that can prove who is right or wrong in the human nature guessing game. this makes politics a very lucrative game because even if your ideology or belief has already been tested and failed miserably, you can always find scapegoats and continue preaching to the choir where you can have fun ridiculing the other side. pragmatists have this moronic tendency to learn from history and what's going on around them. leftist intellectuals are the smartest people in the world so i have to trust them when they say that history does not tell us anything because humans also have a history of benevolence and dedication to improving things. it's like the left believes it's perfectly fine to entrust your kid to a catholic priest because that priest does charitable work and there is no science to prove he is not a pedophile. lefitsts are like climate change deniers who wants us to run through speeding traffic blindfolded just because we are not sure we are going to be hit by a car. normal people don't really need science to make many of their important decisions in life. they just use common sense. common sense is not scientific that's why leftists don't use much of it and they end up looking like lunatics to normal people.
the guesses are not binary. they are not simple yes or no answers. socialism has it's merits. capitalism has it's merits. it's stupid to have to choose a pure form of one or the other. the object of the game is to find the right mixture that would make people's lives better. ideologues from the left and right tend to desire theoretical purity. ideologues are allergic to grey areas. but the grey area is where you find the complexity, humanity and the truth. in the above video, a pragmatist like me would argue that we do recognize the human desire for benevolence that is why we celebrate april 15 because it's a day we contribute 25% of our hard earned money to help the poor (joke). seriously, we do agree there should be a right amount of socialist programs like social security, medicare and medicaid. but we also believe that too much welfare can stifle the incentive to work and eventually lead to more suffering. leftist ideologues believe we libertarians are evil morons who want infants to die of malnutrition. a co-op is is even more socialistic than the soviet union. the greenbay packers is a co-op and i'm a huge packers fan so that means i'm a fan of socialism.
to give you an analogy, a leftist argument is like - "apple stock has a long history of good performance so i would put 70% of my nest egg in apple". pragmatists would rather be more diversified for safety reasons even if we risk the possibility of under performance or a few poor people suffering from poverty and infants dying of malnutrition. we don't want to be too tied up to the human imperfections of a big government which can lead to more widespread suffering like what happened in greece. their social democratic leaders kept using unbacked printed money instead of industrial capital to support the welfare programs to keep the public happy just so they can keep getting elected. another striking example is when hugo chavez of venezuela failed to diversify their economy and set aside some reserves for rainy days. nothing that hugo chavez did was immoral but it's another example of the leftist's dangerous mental tendency for theoretical purity. maybe when hugo chavez was advised by his economic adviser he should diversify the economy he probably replied, "do you have science to back that up?".
B. the actual game
as i mentioned the ideal game is to make people's lives better. but in reality, democrats are praying the economy will go bad right before the 2020 elections so that trump will lose. people will suffer in a bad economy but democrats will be happy. same was true with republicans under obama. war with iran will cause thousands of unnecessary deaths and suffering and may even spark a world war but i think the democrats will be sad if trump says he will not go to war with iran.
the actual goal of politics is to preserve one's pride and promote one's ideology or agenda. this is the reason why human nature is ignored because it tends to conflict with the agenda. leftists will feel defeated if the nissan workers in texas are happy with their pay and benefits because they will vote to kick out the labor unions which ruins the leftist agenda. what makes politics so lucrative is you could always use propaganda as a scapegoat whenever your guess about human nature is debunked by actual events. leftists will simply say that the consent of the nissan workers were manufactured and NFL football made them passive. the left will make this stupid analogy that the nissan workers are no different than the slaves with benevolent masters. or the slaves of 18th century who were much better off than slaves of the 17th century. or the nissan workers are like our grandmothers who did not feel oppressed when they were living under misogynistic laws. later i will explain why those analogies are stupid.
leftists who work in a work place democracy auto plant or cooperative will never vote to outsource their jobs even if their products can't compete with companies who use cheap labor in china. when their family suffers poverty they will conveniently blame it on the evil neoliberals or republicans. it's funny leftists demand that guesses about human nature are backed up with facts and data. yet they accuse corporations of greed for outsourcing jobs without backing up their claim. even if it's possible to do the math especially with public companies like ford and GM that left detroit. leftists are attempting to manufacture our consent but in reality they are just losing their credibility because people with common sense are aware of the possibility that companies are forced to outsource to stay alive. then when president trump attempted to prevent outsourcing of jobs by giving tax breaks to corporations, leftists claimed trump was stabbing ordinary workers in the back. it's amazing how leftists act as if people are too stupid to realize that there are pros and cons to trump's tax policies. of course it's possible that trump's tax policy could end up in disaster and more infants dying of malnutrition, but only stupid ideologue leftists will actually believe the left's one sided bias narrative. if you just watch the CEO interviews in financial news outlets, you might even feel trump is assaulting corporations. the CEOs now need to show americans that they are cutting down on their operations in china and creating jobs in america. and if they don't have any factory in china, they never fail to boast about it. the retail and apparel makers sent a letter to washington urging that the tariffs come to end before seriously damaging their business. but trump blames these companies for leaving the US in the first place, and is not likely to take mercy on them. i think bernie sanders would have done the same thing if he was president. although i don't think he would have cut corporate taxes.
another variation of the actual game is where self interest is the objective instead of the agenda. leftist professors are not developing free online college degree alternatives even if they can easily do it. they are afraid they might lose their livelihood - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2017/10/education-racket.html
in the philippines, you have no credibility to criticize an extra judicial killing (EJK) if you don't praise the successful and bloodless drug raids. don't forget that a successful bloodless drug raid makes people's lives better. anti EJK activists should celebrate victory because it was because of them that president duterte implemented strict humane guidelines for drug raids - https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/194687-new-oplan-tokhang-guidelines-pnp-war-drugs. also note that crime has improved significantly so it's a great teamwork between anti duterte and pro duterte people - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2017/04/rare-perspectives-on-extra-judicial-killings.html. unfortunately the anti EJK activists play the actual game so they still feel defeated even if their ideal game objective was accomplished.
of course unless you are a hitler incarnate nobody really plays the ideal or actual game in it's purity. we are all hybrids because we all have a certain amount of humanity within us. although i feel leftists have much more humanity than right-wingers.
i notice that democrats are taking time off from playing the actual game by supporting trump in trying to kill huawei - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/06/rare-perspectives-on-huawei-issue.html
C. my street cred
i'm not a good or smart person relative to intellectual standards. i belong to the lumpenproletariat. but i learned that it's possible for even an engineer to listen to a deplorable janitor during the friday meetings of a workplace democracy. else the janitor's job is different from slavery only that it's temporary. i never passed any school entrance exam. i got in to good schools only because of family connections. i'm like a vegetable vendor in the slums informing einstein and karl marx not to go in a neighborhood because they might get mugged. which of course is useless because einstein will just reply - "do you have science to back that up?". then karl will leftsplain me and say there is history of benevolence and dedication to improve things in that neighborhood because some volunteers in the soup kitchens live there. while walking down a dark alley bickering, albert pissed because there is such a thing as marxism but no such thing as einsteinism, they get mugged by stalin's state tyranny, resulting in millions of deaths and suffering. but the marxist followers, this time joined by bakunin followers, continue down that alley, insisting true socialism would have succeeded if it wasn't hijacked by stalin. this baffles me because it's like they are saying - we would have won the basketball game if we scored more points.
fortunately, maybe our experiences and instincts can give us clues and a "good feel". this is how 19th century working class people or the precarious proletariat gained an education superior to that of the aristocrats in england. maybe the ability to make sound policy decisions depends more on the breadth, diversity, and amount of one's experiences and the quality of one's instincts rather than academic knowledge and moral principles that are too general to be useful. i will dedicate most of my time analyzing and understanding human nature using my instincts and vast experiences in the real world.
just because human nature cannot be scientifically studied, that does not mean we should just give up and ignore it totally. we can still get a good "feel" or estimate, and the better the estimate, the better our ability to make sound policy decisions for society. obviously the mass majority has the best "feel", but the conundrum is that if you are educated enough to express the feelings of your community in writing, you won't be living in a poor community that represents the majority. chances are you will be inside a university bubble earning 6 figures. the paradox of life is the smarter you are, the more disconnected you are with common people and you become naive about their imperfections. if you are eccentric you would rather live in the woods like ted kaczynski. if you live in the slums or ghetto, chances are you can't write. i am like a rare hybrid bridge between intellectuals and slumdogs - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/04/my-street-cred.html
III. teams and star players
the terms of political discourse are at best not models of clarity (chomsky). many of the political terms such as libertarian, conservative and liberal have changed over time but i will use them according to their contemporary meaning.
fox, cnn and msnbc are like ice cream. i love ice cream. but vegetables are important. if you want vegetables for your brain, read all the articles in my blog. then maintain a daily dose of vegetables for your brain by listening to krystal and saagar in youtube.
A. leftists: chomsky, yanis, tyt
i fear living in a society where there are no leftists, but i equally fear living in a society where the leaders are leftists. many leftists are great artists, teachers, scientists, poets and musicians. they put a morality mirror in front of our faces. i would rather have a friend that is a leftist than a right-winger.
i want to take this opportunity to thank all my leftist friends, family, teachers and university professors from the bottom of my heart for opening my eyes on what really is going on in this world.
if everyone is a leftist, there would be no wars and poverty. the core personality of leftists is that they care more about others than themselves. that's why their priorities are social justice and equality. they favor re-distribution of wealth to ensure nobody in society suffers from poverty. that all sounds great. so why won't we all just vote for a leftist and make them our leaders?
if you just take a quick glance at history, you will notice the left also have a very bad record. almost as bad as right wingers. millions suffered and were tortured in the soviet union, maoist china and khmer rouge regimes. egalitarian societies such as greece and venezuela are also suffering right now. but certain leftist principles are working well in germany, nordic countries, south korea and canada. americans love their socialist programs such as medicare and social security.
there needs to be a right mixture of leftist and right wing principles that's why i think bernie sanders can be a good president. also, bernie is not really a leftist. he would be considered a right winger during the days of dwight eisenhower. the reason why i'm not vehemently campaigning for bernie is that it's not automatic his programs will work. no matter how good he is, his policies can easily fail because of government corruption. so again, it always boils down to a human nature guessing game.
the king of the left is chomsky - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/06/chomsky.html
in the political spectrum, leftists range from welfare state non socialists to the extreme socialists. but just like most political terms, there really is no fixed meaning for the term socialism. many leftists consider themselves socialists for supporting free healthcare and free education even if they also support capitalism. although it's possible their support for capitalism is really more of a concession and deep inside they really dream of a socialist world where nobody owns property. to understand socialism is to understand a leftist - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/06/it-is-ok-to-kill-socialists.html, https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/05/socialism-demystified.html
anyone with common sense nowadays knows that human nature is incompatible with true socialism. fortunately for leftists, they can continue selling their snake oil by claiming the imperfections of human nature are just a result of propaganda - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/06/propaganda-scapegoat-of-the-left.html
what i never understand about the left is that their agenda does not have to conflict with promoting self improvement values such as responsibility, family values, self reliance, discipline, taking care of your own health, etc ... yet i never hear them promote these values. if you bring it up they will immediately shoot you down by distorting their meaning. example chomsky will equate family values with not wanting children to die of malnutrition which is code word for big welfare government. i understand promoting self improvement is banal and useless because i believe people's prosperity is largely determined by their genetic inborn traits but at least it's a good counter to the conception that government is the leftist's solution to everything. people with common sense all over the world believe government is mostly the problem yet the left keeps advocating for policies where the government tries to solve the problems. example, the solutions to climate change and healthcare are already mostly in people's hands - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/03/my-new-deal.html. of course it helps that we have a government who is dedicated to addressing climate change. but it does not hurt to urge people to get solar roofs, electric cars or come up with other climate change solutions like what people are doing in ted talk.
the left's blatant disregard for human nature and self improvement is astonishingly evident if you follow the leading leftist in europe name yanis varoufakis. i admire him as a person and i think he is pure at heart. but it scares me that he is the leading intellectual in europe yet he is doubling down on his wrong guesses about human nature - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/04/dont-greece-the-hand.html
maybe it's dumb to teach people work ethic and discipline because only dumb people like sean hannity and ashton kutcher does it - Ashton Kutcher Speech - Teen Choice Awards. i think aston's speech has a greater effect in improving society than all of yanis' and chomky's speeches combined.
i also enjoy watching cenk uygur of the young turks (tyt), jimmy dore and kyle kulinski. i agree with almost everything these guys say. my problem with them is what they are not saying. they are proud to be called leftists. but the convention nowadays is that leftists are socialists who want to take away your right to own properties. so they need to denounce socialism and proclaim that they are non socialist leftists. better yet they should call themselves something like "scandinavian capitalists". every time tyt folks mention chomsky they should make it clear they don't agree with his socialist beliefs. they need to once in a while remind the audience that social democracy is different from socialism. otherwise, no matter how right they are in ridiculing people for being morons, dishonest, etc ... at the end of the day the joke is on them because people are assuming their ultimate end game is to confiscate our properties by force and that is worse than everything they are accusing people of in their show. i feel the koch brothers would want me killed for giving them this advise because the taint of socialism is what's undermining their supposedly powerful and attractive agenda of climate change and medicare-for-all. sometimes i feel these leftists are hired by the koch brothers to undermine these leftist agendas. if i was a dictator with a brain that's exactly what i would do. the taint of socialism on the left reminds me of the taint of anti gay marriage on the right. only smart people know that not all leftists are socialists just like only smart people know not all right wingers are against gay marriage. the problem is most people are not smart enough. at least not allowing gays to marry is not as bad as your properties being confiscated. gay marriage is more of a symbolism because gay people can still live together and be lifetime partners.
the left is identified with feminism but feminism is too broad. there are some good and bad parts of feminism. TYT and pragmatic leftists should continue to pursue the good parts but they should also emphasize this message - Is Modern Feminism starting to undermine Itself? | Jess Butcher. i don't think these conflicts with their anti US atrocities and pro egalitarian narrative. i tried to search for videos where they denounce the bad parts of feminism but instead i found this crappy video - When Will Aggressive Feminists Start Acting Like Real Women? or this from kyle kulinski - Facts on Women's Pay Gap. they should just say fuck you to the crazy feminists or else their show is different from msnbc and cnn only that it's in youtube. kyle did criticize neo-feminism but did not include the other bad parts in his criticism. to gain true credibility with good feminists, they should include a segment in their show where women who are victims of true discrimination and abuse would call in and they would help the woman or girl get justice. refer to the activism section of this rant for more about this.
i also feel the left should denounce free college and $15 minimum wage if they want to gain credibility on medicare-for-all and climate change (Minimum Wage Debunked - Why Amazon & Walmart Love the Idea, https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2017/10/education-racket.html).
the koch brothers jump for joy when the leftists advocates for true socialism, free college, $15 minimum wage, crazy parts of feminism and the dismantling of corporations. same way leftists celebrate when religious leaders steal money from the congregation and have 5 mistresses because it undermines their power and influence. but if you just take a closer look, you will realize that chomsky is an evil monster compared to a corrupt minister because confiscating private property is a much bigger evil. at least the church members are voluntarily donating their money and they can leave the church group anytime they want to.
B. liberals: cnn, msnbc, new york times
nowadays, liberals are not that different from conservatives. liberals are just as conservative as the republicans in the 50's and 60's. where it comes to really important issues that affects our lives, the liberals of the democratic party (clinton, biden, obama) should belong to the republican party because they oppose medicare-for-all and drastic solutions to climate change. their real opponents of the game are the leftists or social democrats (bernie sanders, ocasio cortez) who are on the verge of taking over the democratic party and ruining the gravy train of healthcare and fossil fuel oligarchs.
C. conservatives: ben shapiro, dinesh d'souza, fox news
as a libertarian, i don't mind conservatives because they don't trample on my rights and freedom. the king of conservatives right now is ben shapiro. i'm always amazed every time i watch his videos in youtube. ben shapiro is very right wing and very religious but he does not wish to trample on other people's freedom. example, he denounces porn but does not want it to be banned - Ben Shapiro - Should The Government Ban Porn?. in contrast, chomsky wants to take away your right to own property and gives a thumbs up to the 1936 catalonia revolution which stole properties.
D. libertarians: jordan peterson, adam carolla, gutfeld, joe rogan, MoFreedomFoundation?
welcome to my team. the team that, according to the left, wants infants to die of malnutrition. libertarians are part of the republican party but just like leftists, we oppose benign, constructive, nefarious and mythical bloodbaths - Tucker Carlson criticizes John Bolton and Trump for planning war with Iran, 'Pompeo Has Lost His Mind!' - Ron Paul
leftists and libertarians are also united on the scandalous imprisonment of julian assange - Tucker Carlson Defends Assange. Huh?. my take on the wiki leaks is that it's a decoy for america's true atrocities in the past. assange is doing the neocon imperialists a huge favor because when i googled the top revelations of wiki leaks, i realized that a person with common sense will react, "that's it?". wikileaks actually makes the world realize they are lucky to have america as the most powerful country in the world and not russia or china.
check out these gods of intellectual dark web: Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Eric Weinstein, and Dave Rubin
update 5/2/22: i found a channel in youtube called MoFreedomFoundation that could carry on chomsky's legacy of keeping society informed on what's really going on in the world. however he is also like chomsky where they tend to ignore the most important factor which is human nature. to give you an ANALOGY, it's like the media is controlled by big tobacco and MoFreedom is the only place you learn that smoking causes cancer but MoFreedom also advocates for a ban on smoking just like chomsky advocates for libertarian socialism where it is illegal to own properties. similarly, MoFreedom advocates for open borders, not taking into account that 3 billion will flock to the US at once and thousands will die trying to cross the pacific and atlantic ocean. i totally agree with MoFreedom that the US will be stronger if we bring in more immigrants but it's better if the immigrants are vetted to make sure they have a history of being good hardworking people and their love ones were not obliterated by US drone strikes that make them more suspecptible to revenge. we also need to prevent the smuggling of drugs, dirty bombs. the only way to do that is to secure the borders but increase the budget for embassies around the world that would recruit the best immigrants. chomsky and MoFoundation's lack of tribalism instinct is admirable and it shows they are more evolved human beings, but the current state of human nature is still very imperfect.
E. pragmatists vs ideologues
leftists don't really have credibility on climate change because before climate change became an issue, they were already against big oil. people will think it's just another reason to go against the oil industry. however if you are a climate change activist who used to be an executive of a big oil company then you have more credibility.you can get high quality pragmatic information about climate change in youtube ted talk (and many other topics. just search "<topic> ted talk" in youtube to get hours and hours of infotainment).
for me the real battle for the betterment of mankind is between pragmatists and ideologues. pragmatists look at each situation on a case by case basis. ideologues such as right wing climate change deniers are dangerous because they deny the facts to preserve their agenda. this can lead to disastrous consequences. the desire for theoretical purity strikes me as a critical failure of both mainstream and alternative economics. when facts fail to conform to theory, there is a strong tendency on both sides to throw out the facts in order to preserve the theory.
mondragon cooperative is a good example of pragmatism. the founder, father arizmenda did not start mondragon because of leftist ideology. parishioners did not like him because he spoke in a monotone like chomsky so they asked the bishop to replace him. so he tried to please his congregation by giving them jobs, and he thought a cooperative was the best way to go. the townspeople were competent and selfless so he setup a school to give them the knowledge and skills. if they were individualistic like americans he probably would have setup a corporation instead. recently, mondragon even had to resort to utilizing wage labor in china to survive - http://globaldialogue.isa-sociology.org/the-mondragon-cooperatives-successes-and-challenges/. i really feel sorry for leftists because the one tiny thing where their ideas work is riddled with contradictions to their ideology. rice co-ops in arkansas ignored externalities and rejoiced at bill clinton's subsidies, even if it caused suffering and starvation in haiti because their farmers were not able to compete with rice coming out of the US.
a co-op is the closest thing the leftists and socialists can ever get in having trophy. but sadly for them, a co-op is actually a trophy to be shared by everyone including conservatives. it's a pragmatist trophy not an ideologue trophy - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/feb/21/supermarkets.conservatives
i feel that trump does not strictly belong to any team. he is all over the map. maybe he is just pragmatic and treats each situation as a case by case basis. or maybe he simply belongs to team trump. at first i thought he was an oil oligarchy puppet but then he demeans and fires tillerson. i thought he was a wall street puppet but then gary cohn of goldman sachs resigns from his cabinet over disagreements on the trade war with china. i thought he was a defense oligarchy puppet but then he insults the military industrial complex. he ignored pentagon advise and withdrew from syria. trump also halted the joint military exercises with south korea.
here's one of my rants about ideologues - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2017/12/brain-dead-ideologues.html
IV. choosing a team
i notice that most of our choices in life are rooted on survival instinct. but we are too proud to admit we are like wild animals so we try to put on the morality or religious facade. example, contrary to popular belief, the origin of the crusades did not involve religious fervor The Turks Enter Anatolia (1016-1071). it was not primarily a conflict between crescent and cross. the muslims were just recent converts and even violated many strict muslims laws such as drinking alcohol. the first 50 years of the crusades was more of a battle between the nomadic pastoralists versus the sedentary/settled farmers. the catalyst was climatic disturbances that caused the steppes in the east to be too cold which displaced the nomads from their pasteurlands. they had nothing to lose and everything to gain by moving into the grasslands in the west. they targeted christians and muslims alike with equal ferocity. the muslims settlers in the west had no response to the mobile warfare and deadly composite bows of the muslim nomads from the east. althought it did balloon to a religious conflict later on.
just like the crusades, political conflicts are really a battle for way of life. psychopath capitalists need their yachts and neurotic leftists are allergic to inequality. i'm sure the nomads can learn to be farmers but it won't make them happy because their lifestyle won't be compatible with their biology or genetic makeup. just recently, 3,641 people died from 2015 to 2018 in the farmer-herder conflicts of nigeria.
here is a good TED talk - The moral roots of liberals and conservatives - Jonathan Haidt. "If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between 'for' and 'against' is the mind's worst disease;” - Jianzhi Sengcan
A. you are gay
i think it's so cool that society in general has learned to embrace homosexuality. however, i think we should go further and extrapolate this understanding and acceptance to other forms of inborn or genetic traits.
it's funny when people argue about politics, sometimes they are unaware that it's like they are arguing about their favorite color or sexual preference. they argue about something that cannot and should not be argued because it's a choice that is outside of their control. arguing whether socialism is better than capitalism is like arguing whether classical music is better than rock music.
when 2 truly smart people discuss politics, it will mostly be just an exchange of information. they will always end up agreeing to disagree.
1. choice
maybe our political choice is really less of a choice but a feeling that is being influenced by something that is outside of our control such as:
a. inborn traits
an ultra intelligent leftist intellectual like chomsky will suffer greatly if he works for a corporation where he cannot participate in controlling the means of production. he believes everyone feels the same way and nothing can change this belief because there is no scientific instrument or study that can convince him otherwise. this is one of the reasons why chomsky is a leftist who wants to dismantle corporations and turn it into a workplace democracy.
i understand anybody with an ounce of pride and dignity will have difficulty accepting that we are primarily driven by our genes. we want to pretend we are divine beings who acts according to what's right and wrong and not like animals who just acts according to instinct. but according to david hume - "Reason alone cannot be a motive to the will, but rather is the slave of the passions" - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/. on the other hand, leftists believe that our moral judgement is unbounded in scope, and we are our own masters, and our political choice is a result of our smart, objective and moral analysis, unlike the narrow animal instincts of liberals, conservatives, and libertarians (joke). but to me it's just a useless or even foolish pride that only hinders our ability to understand each other and make better decisions.
no gay person ever sat down and analyzed the pros and cons of having sex with a guy before deciding to be attracted to a guy instead of a woman. similarly, when was the last time you or anybody ever extensively researched and analyzed the pros and cons of a political issue or candidate before making a choice? almost all the time, you make the choice first before listening or reading the facts and arguments that support your choice. but not to seek the truth or arrive at a better decision, but to feel good about yourself and look down on those who don't share your opinion. i remember what my friend ted k told me when i visited him in jail (joke) - "the struggle between left & right in america today is a struggle between the neurotics and the psychopaths (left = neurotics, right = psychopaths = criminal types).
i don't think there is a leftist who once dreamed of owning a private jet or yacht then one day he sat down, researched and analyzed the different political ideologies and chose libertarian socialism so he gave up on his materialistic dreams. a leftist who cares for all of humanity is no different from a serial killer such as jose rizal a.k.a jack the ripper (joke) in a sense that it's a personality they are born with. it's simply a luck of the draw. of course we still need to punish the serial killer but it won't change the fact that the serial killer and the victim are simply unlucky. the difference is that a leftist can flaunt his morality to the entire world while the serial killer will have to hide it (unless he is a navy seal - Disturbing Story Of An American Wár Criminál).
we can control our actions but we can't control our feelings. so the serial killer is better off committing murder so he can at least ease the pain of his mental and emotional sufferings. fortunately for gay people, there is logically and scientifically nothing wrong with having sex with a guy. unfortunately for the serial killer, there is no argument that can justify murder. fortunately for all of us, there are always hundreds of arguments to support our political feelings (i don't even want to use the term political choice).
do you even have free will? or is human society just like a colony of ants? it's not a yes or no answer. a better question is how much, to what degree, or to what extent? a serial killer don't have MUCH choice but to commit murder. but the serial killer still has a choice on who to kill. it's easy for us to say we can't control our feelings but we can control our actions. but if you really look at it, actions don't really mean anything when a person is suffering from intense pain and misery. this is probably how the new testament came to be. in the old testament humans believed we have complete free will so if you commit a sin there is no reason why you shouldn't go to hell. then humans probably started to realize the old testament did not make sense. there has to be forgiveness because our actions are really less of a choice. that's why jesus forgave the people who crucified him. unfortunately the catholic church failed to extrapolate this concept to homosexuality.
a better question is, do you deserve free will? after taking you from hunting and gathering to the height of the roman empire, i stepped back and gave you free will, to see how you do on your own. you gave me the dark ages for 5 centuries. and so finally i decided i should come back in. i thought that maybe i just needed to do a better job teaching you how to ride a bike before taking the training wheels off again. so i gave you the renaissance, enlightenment, scientific revolution. for 6 hundred years i taught you to control your impulses with reason. then in 1910 i gave you free will again. within 50 years you brought me world war 1, the depression, facism, the holocaust, and capped it off by bringing the entire planet to the brink of destruction in the cuban missile crisis. at that point the decision was taken to step back in again before you do something that even i couldn't fix. you don't have free will. you only have the appearance of free will. (i love the adjustment bureau).
many materialists believe that evidence for a lack of free will was found when, in the 1980s, the scientist benjamin libet conducted experiments that seemed to show that the brain “registers” the decision to make movements before a person consciously decides to move
our feelings are not binary. our feelings have different levels or degrees of intensity. it's possible to override your lower intensity feelings and do the right thing. i call this "painful logic" and i will discuss it later. for now let me just say that if we recognize that maybe our political beliefs are less of a choice and mostly a reflection of our personalities and environmental circumstances, then more problems gets solved, less precious relationships are ruined from silly political arguments, and we can make better decisions because there is a chance we can go against our less intense feelings and do the right thing.
understanding of inborn traits can also be useful in areas outside of politics - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2011/07/family-conflict-resolution-for-dummies.html, https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-woman-is-not-property.html
b. environmental influence.
if alan turing was born and raised in germany, chances are he would have fought vehemently for hitler. (and dr. strange would have sided with thanos). and if hitler won, we would all be white people speaking germans and almost everyone will believe asians and black people are sub human species with equal rights as animals. just like george washington thought slavery was ok. maybe centuries from now the future humans will think we are savages for eating innocent cows and chickens (if humans hasn't yet been wiped out because of climate change).
i have no qualms about middle eastern people hating america. to me they should. if i were in their place i would. when i was in sharm el sheik in the red sea i even found it weird that one of the waiters in the hotel told me he loved america and the beatles and arnold schwarzenegger. i had to correct him that the beatles are british.
if you are a sports fan, try to trace the origins on how you became a huge fan of a team or an athlete. it's pretty much the same thing with your political feelings. politics in america is really nothing but a team sports affair. the difference is that with sports, at least you are aware it's just a game. but with politics, you can feel it's the end of the world because trump won. but what sucks with sports is that there is a clear winner and loser unlike in politics. this is probably why most leftists hate sports.
inborn traits are stronger than environmental influence. contrary to rush limbaugh's beliefs, TV's hip take on gay sex won't impact straight boys. the movie 101 dalmatians caused an explosion of pet dalmatians only for the fad to quickly die out. pet shelters where overwhelmed with unwanted dalmatians. turns out getting a pet dalmatian was just a luxury for spoiled rich kids and they were not really born with pet lover genes. society is like a person with competing feelings or desires. the desire to own a dalmatian dominated but was later overwhelmed by more materialistic feelings.
here is a good example of a person's true nature overwhelming his feelings that were caused by his environment - I Was Almost A School Shooter | Aaron Stark.
c. gut microbes
scientists are discovering that the microbes in our guts (microbiome) affects our health and personality. our personality or behavior can be improved by altering our microbiome. this could be a game changer. i think it will solve a lot of mankind's problems. just search "microbiome ted talk" in youtube to learn more.
i will talk more about traits of society in the next chapter. for now, i will just focus on the individual. the rest of the factors for choosing teams overlap with each other but i will try my best to categorize them.
2. conscience
3. morality vs freedommorality is the left's favorite weapon. freedom is the right's favorite weapon. issues are usually a conflict of morality vs freedom. when leftists claim we should stop being greedy and share our extra wealth to help the needy, i don't think conservatives should disagree because that's the core teaching of christianity. in this sense leftists are the true conservatives or christians. if you are a leftist, that's all there is to it. oversimplification is also the leftist's favorite weapon. a leftist can laugh all day long at conservatives calling them evil morons. but if you look at the bigger picture and put it in context, helping the needy is just code word for higher taxes and less freedom. in reality (and as usual), it's a wash because conservatives are not opposed to small welfare programs that help the truly needy.
for most people, freedom is the most important thing. freedom comes in different forms and different people choose different forms. example when you get married you give up a lot of freedom but it's still an exercise of freedom. some people choose to get married, some people choose to stay single. people are different. just like denmark and many other socdem countries choose to pay higher taxes and give up some of their freedom to ensure nobody in their society suffers. that is very impressive. but freedom to help the needy is just another form of freedom. and as i said it's not a binary yes or no question. libertarians and conservatives do choose to help the poor and needy but not to the point that it becomes counterproductive or unsustainable. or else at some point we all become the poor and the needy. just like in greece, venezuela, soviet union and maoist china.
and what's even more mind boggling is many in the left like chomsky advocates for libertarian socialism that removes our right to own property and do contracts with one another. all in the guise of morality. if i choose to work hard to convert an unused piece of land into a dairy farm which will feed lots of people, and if people exercise their freedom to work for me, for the left that's not a moral virtue. that's just greed and i should have no freedom to decide what to pay my workers. the left has this bizarre disdain for people's freedom to create corporations and freedom to work for corporations even if corporations have given so much great stuff to mankind which they themselves are enjoying. they idiotically claim society don't need corporations because the state developed all the technologies of the iphone, not realizing the scientists in the government who developed those technologies were driven by fear towards leftist ideology. now that the cold war is over, the government can't even create a website that works - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/05/healthcareorg-retrospective.html. another reason why leftists look like a fool to normal people with common sense.
i think the root of the left's disdain is that they are allergic to any voluntary action or freedom. if i praise bill gates for giving $30 billion to charity. the super smart leftist intellectuals will just call me a moron because bill gates should not be volunteering to give to charity. he should be forced to give to charity through high taxes.
as usual there is no science to prove who is right or wrong and it always boils down to a human nature guessing game. i think we can put it to vote to get a rough estimate on the morality vs freedom contest. actually humans already voted with their feet. millions did not hesitate to run towards midnight in their personal doomsday clock to defend freedom and defeat the nazis. for millions of people their doomsday clock has already struck midnight because for them freedom is more important than life. for leftists, this is astonishing. so much so that chomsky keeps making speeches about nuclear weapons bringing us closer to midnight in the doomsday clock because he can't comprehend that people would rather die than lose their freedom. a common sense low intellect would not disagree about the dangers of nuclear weapons but would be curious about chomsky's motives because there is no alternative (tina) to nuclear weapons. a common sense low intellect will easily feel chomsky is just looking for anything to say that would make america look bad.
now let's count the votes in favor of the left's twisted moral virtues. how many people have you heard express their dream to work in a workplace democracy or co-op? i can't even find youtube videos of co-op workers spreading the good word on how co-ops are much more awesome than working for a corporation. the board game monopoly was very popular but co-opoly never caught on. but maybe it's a case by case basis and it just happens that in some cases, a person is much better off joining a co-op. note i'm not even including any form of socialism in the vote because it's obvious their votes will be pathetically miniscule. fox news says 70% of young people in america prefer socialism but fox news is dishonest (joke)
what's more mind boggling is i'm not even sure if the left even cares about their agenda. i've seen debates in youtube where the leftist gets questioned why he has not started or joined a co-op. the leftist replied - " you can't just expect me to pack up and leave my life behind". i almost fainted when i heard this. i mean millions died in world wars to defend freedom. you won't be invading normandy for crying out loud. we are basically asking you to do something that you keep saying we should all be doing. all humans with common sense would never hesitate to pack up and leave their life behind to pursue their dream.
also, how many people in history gave up their lives for people's freedom to receive free stuff? it even sounds ridiculous if you say it out loud. i support bernie sander's free healthcare platform because he claims it saves us $5 trillion in 10 years. so it might even lower our taxes. i trust bernie i think he is a decent honest guy. there is nothing wrong with giving people free stuff as long as it is voluntary or it does not impede on other people's freedom.
bernie's proposal is possible because south korea and germany are strong sustainable societies that have the same or even lower income tax rates as the US yet they can afford to have free healthcare. that should be the argument for free healthcare. it is very bad for the left to use canada or nordic countries as an example for medicare-for-all because those countries have high taxes. if it is true that medicare-for-all will save us $5 trillion in 10 years, then taxes should be lower, not higher. the leftists use the stupid democracy or "healthcare is a right" argument. i know 70% of ameicans want medicare-for-all. but just because the majority wants something does not mean they get to impede on the freedom of the minority - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/05/democracy-is-overrated.html. a person may want something even if they know it's not their right or entitlement.
the right to not get raped does not cost money while doctors need to go to medical school for 10 years. medicines, medical equipment and supplies cost money to develop and manufacture. maybe it's ok to say healthcare is a right for wealthy nations. but america has $21 trillion in debt and has a ballooning budget and trade deficit. stability is just as important. we are the only country with no free healthcare but we are also the only country that has 40 aircraft carriers. and for a good reason. you can take good care of your health and work hard to get health insurance. but you can't stop the closing of panama canal or suez or homuz straight that would affect food getting to your table. if healthcare is a right then how come the UN human rights council is not complaining that the tribes in africa and amazon are not receiving free healthcare?
there is no need to count the votes. it's clearly a route. if this was a basketball game, right wingers scored 120 points and leftists only scored 5 points. but for the left, i'm just a moron because the people's choices are manufactured by propaganda - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/06/propaganda-scapegoat-of-the-left.html
when assessing morality, i think there are 3 important angles: 1) action, 2) feeling (conscience, tribal mentality, etc ...), 3) fashion (moral relativism). it's like clothes. 1) what a person is wearing 2) what a person feels like wearing 3) what society thinks everyone should be wearing. example, is a gay scoutmaster who fantasizes about molesting his boy scouts but never acts on it a moral person? from action angle, yes. from a feeling angle, no. from a fashion angle, it's relative (moral relativity). example in the islam culture, muslims venerate muhammad who had a 6 year old wife named aisha.
morality is a luxury intertwined with necessity. european settlers massacred the indians so their women and children can roam around america without the worry of being ambushed and scalped. the industrial revolution gave america the luxury to free the slaves and let anyone in the country because we badly needed factory workers. vietnam war ended because americans did not want to see more of their husbands, sons and brothers coming home in a casket. nowadays there is no more need for immigrants because of the automation so america elects donald trump. the west used to make money from inventions and innovation. but that has peaked. now labor and manufacturing is more important. that is why anti immigration sentiment is rising in the west to the astonishment of leftist ideologues. soon even labor will be automated with robots. this is when socialism will be compatible with society.
for most people, morality is just a means to an end. moral choices are heavily dependent on conscience. but to a rare few, morality is the ultimate goal. we are born with different morality standards that affects our political feelings. we have different conscience levels which affects our priorities. morality is just another perspective, barring reward and punishment in the afterlife. ironically, it's the leftists who treats morality as the ultimate goal (not just a means to an end) even if they are atheists.
my genius coworker in silicon valley, kirk martinez, told me we should never go to war even if it means being invaded or colonized. at first i thought he was joking. turns out he really was serious. but you can't argue with that because it would be like arguing your favorite color or sexual preference. for me, morality is useless because the native americans who were massacred to near extinction were the good guys and the black slaves were also the good guys and if an invading army is raping my wife and daughter in front of me i'm not gonna say, "haha joke's on you guys because you are the bad guys and we are the good guys". the sad truth is that in the real world, there is no such thing as good and evil. just winners and losers. we need to strive to win instead of strive to be moral. this is just common sense. another reason why normal people think leftists are foolish.
if an alien with superman powers come to earth and allows itself to be owned and controlled by native americans, and the native americans decide to take back america by killing all non native americans, then i will just laugh, gather my family and tell them, "we are screwed. let's just wait to die". i'm not going to act like a palestinian or a leftist and jump up and down crying foul or injustice. i'm not going to think the native americans are bad people. i'm just going to think they are lucky people. on a second though this event would probably be like a wet dream to chomsky and the leftists so they would be feel happy as they await their death.
your feelings about the abortion issue is a good extrapolation of homosexuality. but note that the abortion issue is not a contest of morality vs.women's freedom. there is no science or logic that can prove if the fetus is human or not. it's simply a matter of what a person feels and morality arguments are irrelevant. just like no argument is relevant when it comes to sexual preference. the only resolution for abortion is to vote on it and move on. both sides are perfectly valid opinions. it's stupid to say pro-lifers are trying to take away women's rights because pro-lifers are simply trying to prevent murder. it's also stupid to say pro-choicers are murders because pro-choicers simply believe a fetus is like an appendix. although i think the left are being dishonest because they claim a fetus is just like a liver or an appendix but i'm sure they will cringe if an 8 month fetus is chopped up in front of them. the core behavior of the left is to ignore human nature - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2014/06/knowledge-bombs-on-abortion.html.
if it's a perfectly valid opinion to feel that a fetus is a human being, then it's a perfectly valid opinion to feel that abortion is murder. therefore it's also a perfectly valid opinion to feel that legalizing abortion is a thousand times more evil than trump's muslim ban or other despicable behaviors. so logically, it's a perfectly valid opinion to vote for trump especially that many supreme court judges would be retiring during his first term. so do not freak out and run to your safe space if you find out someone you respect and adore secretly voted for trump.
morality is also a double edge sword - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/04/thank-god-filipinos-are-prostitutes.html
4. tribal mentality
this trait influences your feelings or choices on foreign policy. all humans have basic or common inborn moral values but it's beyond the scope of this rant and it ruins my vile maxim.
one trait that is deeply encoded in our genes since man came to existence is our primordial instinct to belong to groups or tribes. the tribes differ in scope - family, math club (UPLB MASS !!!), school (go maroons !!!), country (USA !!! USA !!! mabuhay ang pilipinas !!!), religion (it is our duty to stop Gog and Magog !!! ), race (hail hydra !!!), culture (ni hao !!!), world (workers of the world, unite !!!), etc ... (explanation of Gog and Magog - https://zcomm.org/zcommentary/the-chomsky-sessions-ii-science-religion-and-human-nature-part-i-by-noam-chomsky/)
on the extreme end of the spectrum, the leftists feel the entire human race is their tribe. i once had a schoolmate named bdict who said he will never fight back even if someone beats him up. if everyone is a leftist, there will be no wars and poverty. leftists genuinely feel that a vegetable farmer halfway across the world in kazakhstan whom they never met is their brother. that's why i'm not sure if bernie sanders is a true leftist because he is more of a nationalist. bernie is against open borders and globalization. leftists get angry when the US government does not give enough aid to africa. fundamentally, leftists are the true christians. that's why sometimes christians act like leftist activists. example is when thousands of evangelicals from the US went to south america to help the natives who were being oppressed. christian and leftist principles seek to ameliorate the suffering of the poor. this gave birth to liberation theology. i remember fr. rudy romano was a priest of the church (redemptorist) my family went to every sunday. he was very active in helping the poor. he was abducted by the military (in 1985) and was never found. ironically, leftists are atheists but if chomsky goes to the philippines he will be mistaken for jesus christ. less sophisticated natives think all people from a foreign race looks the same. when i was in a cowboy theme bar in the philippines the waiter told me the toilet was beside president reagan's poster. turns out to be john wayne.
"world is my tribe" mentality probably explains why when you listen to chomsky it seems as if he hates his own country. of course that's not true but most people are not smart enough to discern that he is just a person who cares for all humanity. leftists rarely honor war heroes because why would you call someone a hero for killing another member of your own tribe? but i don't think honoring the military conflicts with the leftist agenda. it's important to educate people about US atrocities but chomsky should spend a few seconds putting things into perspective and make it clear that he loves america and he is lucky to be in america instead of russia, china or iran where the government murder dissidents like him. chomsky was even invited to speak at westpoint where he was given a gift of appreciation.
on the middle part of the spectrum are those who feel their country is their tribe. examples are republicans and conservatives. republicans may have fallen off the political spectrum but they are in the middle of the tribal mentality spectrum. americans who belong to this tribe consider bush sr a war hero but to "world is my tribe" leftists, bush sr. is a war criminal. just like it was ideal for a native american in the 1600s to scalp a white dude, it's also ideal for a "country is my tribe" neocon to invade iraq to secure our future supply of oil.
there are no clear tribal boundaries and the territories can overlap. example i'm more of a hybrid because i want US atrocities to end but i also don't want it to be taught in schools because it might discourage the kids from joining the military. teaching US atrocities to kids in school is very moral but very stupid. leftists are very moral people but can also be naive. although maybe more kids will want to join the US military if they know about US atrocities so they can be in a better position to end the atrocities. the people with the biggest impact in stopping US military atrocities are the people responsible for bringing us the internet and social media. ironically the left gives a thumbs down to people like bill gates.
an example of "family is my tribe" is mobutu, the murderous dictator of the congo. i saw a BBC documentary in youtube about congo where mobutu's daughter was claiming mobutu was a very moral person because he loved his children.
the reason why i say tribal mentality is obsolete is because if we all just love each other like in john lenon's imagination (https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/johnlennon/imagine.html) then i'm pretty sure you would want your children to grow up in that world. but as long as there are lunatics who would assassinate an innocent member of the beatles, we need to strive to understand human nature and decide the most compatible socioeconomic structure. that's why i think leftists are idiots for wanting to have a system that will only work if everyone cares more about others than themselves.
tribal mentality is a double edge sword just like technology. it can be used to do bad but it can also be beneficial. for now, tribal mentality can gives us false but sustainable motivation and inspiration. life is already inherently painful in it's basic form so we need stimulation to keep us going. we all are stimulation addicts and we just happen to have different stimulants. i know from experience in the real world too many of my friends and farmily are on the borderline when it comes to drugs and substance abuse. for some lucky people like chomsky, ghandi and nelson mandela, their stimulant is reading, learning and improving humanity. but unfortunately for MOST people, tribal mentality and jingoist fanaticism is their essential stimulant. do i have science to back this up? none. but nothing demonstrates the ineptness of "science and facts dependent leftists" to understand the imperfections of human nature than this video:
i know NFL football is just garbage from the intellectual point of view. it's easy to ridicule hungry people eating out of the garbage if you can easily afford filet mignon or in chomsky's case, all he needs is a library card to be happy because of his intellectual gift. chomsky claims that the reason why we are jingoist fanatics with dull brains is because of the tv shows such as NFL football. i think it's the other way around - the reason why we love NFL football is because we are born jingoist fanatics with dull brains relative to chomsky. the left's argument is similar to the crazy arguments of the right saying hollywood is brainwashing our kids to become gay. in the remote mountains of the philippines where there is no TV and radio, men are insanely passionate about cock fighting. on places where they recently just got TV and cable, i know some village folks who became NBA fans overnight and will go into a depression if their NBA team loses. if i were to follow chomsky's way of thinking in the video, i would also say - "why would i wanna get married and have kids? they will just make my life more difficult"? just like love for family, most people love their school, love their city (go oakland warriors !!!) and love their country (go pacquiao !!!).
imagine nelson mandela not cheering for south africa when they played against other countries because he might develop irrational attitudes of submission to authority. i'm pretty sure mandela is a kind of guy who can't be brainwashed into becoming a jingoist fanatic. chomsky's ideas may be ideal but it's not realistic. if you design policies based on unrealistic ideals it would cause a lot of sufferings. it's like criminalizing smoking just because it can cancer. that's why i fear living in a society where the leftists are our leaders. leftists are too simplistic and factual. they can't take into considerations the nuances that can't be studied by facts and science. i agree that the effect of the NFL is it dulls our brains and it enhances our jingoist fanaticism. i agree that we should pay more attention to important stuffs if we want society to improve. but if everyone tries to be informed on important matters then more people will denounce chomsky after learning his ultimate dream is to take away our beloved properties and rights to do business with each other (libertarian socialism or anarcho-syndicalism). and based on my experiences with common folks, a person's proclivity to be informed on important matters is like being gay. it's not something you try to promote or persuade people. it's just a personality people are born with.
sometimes people move to other tribes. a liberal is a conservative who has not been mugged. if you are young and not liberal, you have no heart. if you are old and not conservative, you have no brain (except for those who lived their entire life in a bubble never having to experience blood sweat and tears in the real world). example, when senator elizabeth warren had a crush on john smith, white people also became her tribe. if you forgive her for endangering her tribe by saving the life of john smith, then you should also forgive me for having "the president's family is my tribe" mentality because i am the boyfriend of the president's daughter as you can see in my luka-magnatage below:
before you judge me, remember elizabeth warren's song - Pocahontas | Colors of the Wind
You think the only people who are people
Are the people who look and think like you
But if you walk the footsteps of a stranger
You'll learn things you never knew, you never knew
You think you own whatever land you land on
You say you lost china as if you owned it
But I know every rock and tree and creature
Has a life, has a name, and has a spirit
You think you own whatever land you land on
You say you lost china as if you owned it
But I know every rock and tree and creature
Has a life, has a name, and has a spirit
i predict elizabeth warren will be our next president because she is on top of the totem polls.
5. brain wiring
the leftist intellectual's love for reading, in tandem with having photogenic memory probably explains why they are like "memory banks". they can beat you into submission by bombarding you with very impressive database of knowledge. most libertarians like me are more like "dot connectors" because our knowledge is scarce so we are forced to connect the dots to make decisions or come up with solutions (of course there are always a few exceptions). i also notice that leftist intellectuals are always fond of stating historical facts or quoting prominent figures. they are like walking encyclopedias. it's amusing and impressive. most of the questions in life have already been analyzed and concluded so leftist intellectuals have the luxury to just brute force memorize these conclusions and be highly successful in most fields. unlike me who is unemployed and ranting at this moment like a drunk homeless bum accusing everyone of being gay. i wasn't able to keep up with the pace of technological changes and the maturing of software industry made it too competitive for me.
my brain is trained to find dots in wonderland and never never land, or think outside the box while the brain of a leftist intellectual tends to be more reliant on analyzing the knowledge within the conventional box or sphere of study. this probably explains why supposedly ultra smart leftists ignore the undocumented human imperfections when formulating political opinions. their exceptional learning ability spoiled them into becoming too dependent on readily available facts and scientific knowledge.
students with high learning abilities tend to have the advantage in the academic world because it's difficult for teachers to come up with new "think outside the box" exams all the time. some jackass could easily compile and publish the examples and a student with good memory can just study them. this explains why google prefers employees who didn't have high grades in school but possess good analytical skills because students with high grades are usually not very good with thinking outside the box. maybe this also explains why leftists cannot lead by example by forming a sustainable business or cooperative to promote a workplace democracy. also organizing people requires you to make a series of ad hoc, impromptu or improvised assumptions on the intricacies of human nature and that would paralyze a leftist who relies too much on scientific studies to back up their assumptions.
during my job interview in altera, the interviewer, albert kuo, asked me to create a directory tree based on given settings. i thought it was just a setup for the real question. but after i answered, he moved on to the next question. i asked what was the previous question. he told me that was it. i asked why it was too easy. he told me some people have difficulty grasping the concept of a hierarchical tree even if they are smart and highly educated because their brains are wired differently. he said that if a certain skill comes too easy and natural to us it's hard to believe others don't have it.
this explains why my uncle eugene, who is suppose to be a pretty smart guy, does not believe in the theory of evolution. he said if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? i explained to him that it's like a tree where the trunk is the monkey line and one of the branches is the human line. he argued that my analogy is flawed because trees are different from animals. so i gave him an example where a person is very tall but his siblings and parents are all very short. but he still did not understand and argued that they are all still humans. so i just gave up. but note that he is an exceptionally talented gun shooting champion. i wonder if that has something to do with it.
6. abilities
https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/06/inborn-aptitudes-and-standards.html
7. likability contest
politics is a likability contest. which is ok especially nowadays. with the internet and social media, it's almost impossible to have a viable candidate who is clearly a bad choice. the candidates are always more or less equal in terms of merits. so there are always hundreds of good things you can say about a candidate so you can feel smart and those who don't agree with you are stupid.
we now have the luxury to be superficial, or choose candidates based on physical attributes. but we don't want to admit we are superficial. when a women tells me her dream guy is someone who is caring and sensitive, i immediately offer to set her up with a guy who we both know is super caring and sensitive but also super ugly. if you are laughing, chances are you are actually laughing at yourself for doing the same thing when arguing about politics.
almost all of us are born with an inborn proclivity to like political candidates based on their physical appearance and charisma. it's like my salesman spectrum phenomenon. on 1 end of the spectrum, people will approach the super charismatic salesman and beg:
"excuse me, are you selling something? no? why not? can you sell me something? because i really want to buy it. anything. pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese !!!". a good example of this is the quibology phenomenon. because of his charisma, 4 million filipinos just voluntarily gives him their hard earned money making him the wealthiest preacher in the world. sylvia brown charges $700 for 20 minutes so she can talk to your dead relative but you have to wait 4 years because she is fully booked (another reason why a true democracy scares the living hell out of me).
on the opposite extreme of the spectrum, a person is dying of a disease and a salesman who is righteous but has very negative charisma sells to the dying person a medicine that would immediately cure the disease", but the person would rather die than buy something from the salesman. of course this never actually happens in real life i'm just exaggerating to illustrate a point. although liking a person is a feeling that we can't control, you don't have to worry if a super charismatic or very likable hitler incarnate comes along because we also have other competing feelings such the desire to be free and not commit genocide. choosing freedom and not committing murder is also not really a choice but a genetic trait or instinct (conscience), just like being gay. we abolished slavery because we already had machines to do the work for us, not because of the gettysburg address or some morality speech by a revered intellectual.
and of course we can get lucky and have a candidate who is very likable and also good. but if we are not that lucky, then we should try to understand people's choices so we know when to throw in the towel and move to another country - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2013/01/how-to-get-your-share-of-200-billion.html, https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2013/08/pork-barrel-scam.html
i think the flaw of the left is they ignore this salesman spectrum phenomenon. they need science to support their guesses about human nature so they are paralyzed in the real world and cannot even organize people to start a co-op to lead by example in promoting a workplace democracy. even if it's much easier nowadays with social media and online funding and collaboration apps.
there are many examples of the salesman phenomenon. during GE's heydays, the CEO was asked what is his secret. he said all he does is smile. just because of that smile, the heads of GE's subsidiaries would be fighting who gets to sit next to him during lunch and would try to move mountains just to impress him.
i notice there are many self help books and famous gurus on how to move yourself up in the salesman spectrum. but to me those are phony. or maybe i'm just lazy. i just accept the power of mother nature and design my life according to my location in the spectrum. this is why i never start a business because i know i will never get an employee or business partner to respect me or enjoy working for me even if i do all the right things. so now i'm just a bum writing blogs that nobody ever reads but i live a simple enjoyable life without stress.
8. obsolete instincts
humans have evolved for 2 millions years. we've been civilized more or less only in the past 200 years. that's just 200/2,000,000 = .01% of our evolution. so we should understand that we still have many left over SURVIVAL instincts that are suppose to be obsolete in the civilized world but are still very STRONG. couple the fact that people with these instincts tend to attract the opposite sex and thus produce more offspring, i don't think these traits are going away anytime soon.
we need to understand these obsolete instincts because it would be more difficult to help society if you don't try to understand human imperfections. unless you are just a pretentious intellectual snub who cares more about your agenda than actually solving problems.
a. war freaks
our proclivity and clemency for violence is another obsolete instinct. you probably heard of the primatologist jane goodall who cried when she learned primates are war freaks after all. i know i am evil for not giving a damn about the deaths of thousands of innocent iraqis in the iraq war. forgive me for not caring about people from other tribes. i'm sincerely not proud of it but i can't control my feelings just like a gay person can't control who he is attracted to.
this also explains why i love nfl football so much - because it's a battle for time and space which is what humans have been fighting each other for since time immemorial.
b. hunter's genes
(another stupid section just for entertainment) leftists tend to disdain golfing right wingers. kyle kulinski is the black sheep of the left because he swings like a pro - Kyle's golf swing.
but maybe leftists should appreciate golfers because they owe their existence to this survival instinct of their ancestors. i think golf is like a hunter's instinct. the skill sets are similar - patience and accuracy. golfers act like it's the end of the world when they hit a bad shot maybe because survival bells go off warning the body that you will go home to your tribe empty handed and your family will starve.
check this out - golfers have won 10 straight presidential elections dating back to 1980, and of the last 10, nine presidential losers were non-golfers.
-2016: Donald Trump (golfer) def. Hillary Clinton (non-golfer)
-2012: Barack Obama (golfer) def. Mitt Romney (non-golfer)
--2008: Barack Obama (golfer) def. John McCain (non-golfer)
--2004: George W. Bush (golfer) def. John Kerry (non-golfer)
--2000: George W. Bush (golfer) def. Al Gore (non-golfer)
--1996: Bill Clinton (golfer) def. Bob Dole (non-golfer)
--1992: Bill Clinton (golfer) def. George H.W. Bush (golfer)
--1988: George H.W. Bush (golfer) def. Michael Dukakis (non-golfer)
--1984: Ronald Reagan (golfer) def. Walter Mondale (non-golfer)
--1980: Ronald Reagan (golfer) def. Jimmy Carter (non-golfer)
i know this table includes democrats but democrats nowadays are technically moderate republicans. .
c. pedophilia
this may not be related to politics but it's an interesting example how society can be ignorant on the prevalence of certain biological instincts or genetic traits. mainstream media makes you think pedophilia or roy moore is a rare mental disorder or aberration. yet almost all my friends tell me they idolize me because they are attracted to my teenage scholars. also when i watched the movie "almost famous" i realized attending a concert of my favorite rock band is also paying tribute to statutory rapists.
i think the desire is normal but acting on it is another question. before humans became civilized a woman did not really have career opportunities and the strength of a tribe depended on numbers so it was a survival duty of a girl to produce as many offspring as soon as she hits puberty even at a the age of 11. that's why jesus christ's mother, mary, was only 12 years old when she married st. joseph. muhammad who is venerated by 1.5 billion muslims also married a 6 year old girl.
the pedophilia epidemic in the catholic church is another mind boggling example of how imperfect humans can be. i can understand criminals who are not priests but it's hard to imagine a priest could be a pedophile considering they dedicate and sacrifice their entire life to holiness. president duterte even said he and his classmates were raped by an american priest when he was a boy. this is another evidence that humans are too imperfect for a true democracy.
society is also guilty for it's lack of condemnation for cultures that tolerate child marriages at this day and age. in the philippines, child marriage is still allowed and it's still happening. on the other hand i believe all virtues and moral principles should be a case by case basis. maybe we should be more considerate with the more rural or agricultural cultures when it comes to this issue. i'm not just saying this because i want to live with the zapatistas so i can marry a 15 year old (joke). that won't be a good idea because my offsprings will end up ruining the selfless society of the zapatistas if they inherit my psychopath genes. actually i don't need to go to the chiapas. i can do that here in the US. vladimir putin's 16 year old niece was my fiance in the US. this roy moorish paradox is still going on and it's gotta stop - US Approves 8,500 Pedophiles Marrying Child Brides. the US government delayed my fiance visa petition for my child bride so i went to senator barbara boxer's office to complain. one of the senator's staff immediately called immigration to expedite my petition and in a week i received the approval letter.
i wonder if this picture can get me in trouble. nah, it will probably only be an issue if i run for senator. besides alan dershowitz will defend people like me and jeff epstein (joke). if the FBI arrests me i will do the nixon sign.
society should protect 14 year old girls because they are the only ones who can model the newest fashion designs that are so beneficial to mankind like the amazing see through dress worn by 14 year old israeli model sophia mechetner at a fashion show. without fashion designers humans will suffer the agony of wearing clothes with designs that are more than a year old. it's also very difficult to find women of legal age who can model the latest innovation of clothes. maybe there are a few 22 year olds out there willing to model a see through dress but they are too busy finding the cure for cancer or something. keep in mind that when sophia turns 18 she is required by law to join the israeli defense force. that means she will be too busy testing US weapons on live targets (palestinians) - https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/style/594037/Dior-model-young-14-years-old-prepubescent-Sofia-Mechetner
d. stupidity is not obsolete
a good example of a political discourse between 2 people with very different brain wirings - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/05/stupidity-is-not-obsolete.html
B. society is gay
understanding our choices is the easy part. the hard part and most important part is figuring out what's best for society. making the wrong choice could spell disaster and suffering
1. compatibility
i feel countries can be categorized into 3 tiers: selfless, competitive, and none of the above (i'm such a quack intellectual). social democracy (socdem) or free healthcare can only succeed if society is selfless just like scandinavians whose motivation for working hard is concern for fellow human beings. my initial hypothesis is that america belongs to the competitive tier therefore socdem won't work. i notice americans won't be motivated to work hard if there is no competition or fear of losing their jobs. government has no competition so even if government employees perform poorly they will still have job security. this is why healthcare.org was way over budget and they couldn't get it to work until seasoned veterans from the competitive world of corporate tyrannies came to the rescue. the unaccountable corporate tyrannies donated their star employees out of concern for externalities - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/05/healthcareorg-retrospective.html
saying socdem will work in america because it works in denmark is like setting your guy friend up with a woman without even knowing his sexual preference. maybe countries like denmark, norway, canada, etc ... are composed of a smaller, more homogeneous, more SELFLESS, and less corrupt population so that's why socdem works for them. it's also wrong to say socdem will fail in america because it failed in venezuela.
also note that even a supposedly successful socdem society like canada is not all roses. jim carey experienced poverty as a child - https://www.digitalspy.com/showbiz/a297336/jim-carrey-i-grew-up-in-poverty/
to me selflessness is a strict prerequisite or key factor to the success of socdem. it's like the foundation when you build a house. it really baffles me when super intellectuals talk about socialism all their life but just ignore the proclivity of humans for laziness and corruption. maybe it's because they believe greed and corruption is just a side effect of capitalism, i humbly beg to differ. to me that would be like saying a straight guy will become gay once he meets a really nice gay person.
unfortunately there really is no accurate way to quantify the important parameters. there is no device to measure human traits such as selflessness. and even if they can be quantified, sometimes the data is useless if you don't know how it feels. example we can measure water temperature but i bet you nobody knows how cold it is to swim in 70F water. most people think it's comfortable because air temperature at 70F is comfortable. so they jump in the water and suffer hypothermic austerity because the socdem leaders were just pouring in printed money to make people happy and keep getting elected.
fortunately, there are studies and data that can give us a feel on how cold the water is to reinforce our experiences and observation. but unfortunately, you still can't get a good feel if you haven't really experienced them in the real world. example if you have not been a victim of corruption and government incompetence like i have been many times in my life, then you will think i'm a moron for opposing big government. but we still need to make a decision so i will analyze america's compatibility with a socdem.
2. assessing america's compatibility with social democracy
before you continue, it's important to know why socdem can be dangerous - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/04/dont-greece-the-hand.html. the sad ugly truth is that it's the incompetent people who need help but socdem is not sustainable if there are too many incompetent people. a social democracy is suppose to be more democratic but note that yanis and chomsky claims there is zero democracy in the EU which is predominantly a social democracy.
i will try to analyze what's best for america, not because i'm american, but because it's the most important country in the world, imagine if america weakens to the point that it can't stop china from invading the philippines. the US saved the philippines from japanese brutality and i'm not sure it will be willing to do it again if america weakens. especially it now has less economic and strategic interest with the US military bases gone. although i'm probably sounding like a moron because after listening to the opinions of ultra smart leftists, it seems to me they believe that china should be strengthened so they can stop the US from invading the philippines.
when i was a kid, i was in the car with my family and we passed by a giant billboard that said, "a family who prays together stays together". i shouted, "idiots !!! it should be - a family who stays together prays together". i was already like a mini jimmy dore since i was a kid. nowadays if someone says something like - "he is smart because he graduated from harvard". i would say - "idiot !!! he went to harvard because he is smart". if harvard is turning students with low SAT scores into great engineers, then i would join bernie sander's campaign. even if my assessment here is correct, we still need to determine the cause and effect if we want to make informed decisions. example, are americans individualistic because of their corporate culture? or does america have a corporate culture because americans are individualistic? which came first, the chicken or the egg? it's a catch 22. the discussion is beyond the scope of my rants but you can get a clue from our history of slavery and the decimation of native americans and the fact that psychopath traits are hereditary.
when trying to assess america's compatibility with social democracy, don't lose sleep over it. the bottom line is that america is still one of the top choices for humans to migrate to.
the following factors for compatibility overlap with each other but i will try my best to categorize them.
a. test scores or IQ
i notice lefitsts tend to make fun of common americans for their lack of intelligence or sophistication compared to common europeans. i wonder if leftists are aware they are just destroying their own agenda. maybe socdem works for countries like denmark because they have higher national test scores, which maybe has a certain correlation to competence. it probably means they are better at taking care of their health and keep health costs low. i also think it has a correlation to selflessness which in turn correlates to less corruption.
even the great jose rizal was worried when philippines was about to get it's independence from spain because he thought filipinos were not yet educated enough to be independent. fortunately the americans came in and served as our training wheels until we were good enough to govern on our own. not sure this is true maybe it's just washington consensus propaganda. but if this is true, just think that even the most straightforward and supposedly simplest of all political dogma - independence from a colonial power - even has it's pitfalls, how much more a complicated and more human competence dependent system such as socdem?
https://brainstats.com/average-iq-by-country.html
if you click on the above link, notice that US has the same IQ as denmark. so using this criteria, maybe socdem can also succeed in america. but spain and france are in trouble and they also have the same IQ as the US. so it seems IQ is irrelevant. but if you inject population as a factor, you can see that the larger the population, socdem becomes less successful. this makes me suspect that maybe socdem is not good for the US because although it has the same IQ as denmark, it has a whopping difference in population - america is 327 million and denmark only 6 million.
maybe distribution of IQ is the key, not average IQ. example, if the average is the same because america has a small number of super high IQ and a large number of low IQ then socdem will probably collapse.
before i saw the IQ rankings i thought greece would have higher IQ than the US and because greece is in trouble, it does not bode well for a US socdem. but turns out greece is way down the list so greece would be an invalid comparison. greece proves that IQ is relevant. but greece does not prove if the US is fit for socdem or not.
then i thought maybe socdem will be good for the US because it's been good for canada so far. but canada has a higher IQ than US and has a much smaller and more homogeneous population so it does not prove anything. also i thought that if canada has the same IQ and population size as france and spain, it will make IQ and population size an insignificant factor. but canada has half the size of france and about 3/4 the size of spain and also has higher IQ so this supports my claim that population size and IQ is a significant factor. also, canada does not have to spend that much on defense so maybe if it has to spend on defense like america's it will also be in trouble like france and spain. of course we can just cut the defense budget from $700 billion to $500 billion but that's a different topic which i will discuss later. besides affordability is not the only issue. corruption and lack of competition can still ruin the system. the healthcare.org debacle should serve as a warning bell.
as i mentioned in a previous section, high IQ people tend to be less materialistic and less corrupt because they can be happier with less expensive things such as reading books. their knowledge on science allows them to appreciate nature more so they can just enjoy hiking or camping instead of craving for a ferrari. my ex-wife asked me why i don't care about nice cars and trendy clothes. she wanted me to dress fashionable and sexy like yanis varoufakis. when i gave her this reason she got angry at me for offending her.
here is an example of a stupid video that ignores the human nature factor - Where in the world is it easiest to get rich? | Harald Eia.
i don't have a phd so i will just invent my own definitions here. let me define selflessness as the opposite of individualism.
selfless people don't want to be leeches. they don't want to game the system. a good metric or barometer for america on selflessness is food stamps and section 8 housing. but i feel it's too ugly to discuss here. just go watch fox news. i can joke about pedophilia because anyway oprah and president duterte still turned out fine but i don't have the stomach to judge hungry people getting help. this is why i have so many scholars and foster kids because i melt when a starving human comes to me for help
obamacare gave us a clue on the individualism of americans. in 2015 about 6.5 million people chose to pay the penalty rather than sign up for obamacare. that's a significant amount of healthy people who refused to make that extra sacrifice so that poor sick people can get healthcare. this does not bode well for socdem.
contrast this to danish people. i met this very beautiful danish tourist in vegas named mia helsengren jensen. she is my facebook friend in case you want to verify this story. of course 1 person is not a good statistical sample. but mia was at an age where a person tends to be excited by novelty so i think it's ok to unscientifically extrapolate her personality to the rest of the danish society because her youth and beauty is suppose to make her a spoiled worse case scenario. she was half my age but because i'm a horrible person i tried to hit on her with a delusion i would marry her one day. i toured her around vegas thinking she will be awed by all the glitter and glamour. i was surprised when she told me she hated vegas because of the excess. not surprisingly if you look at her facebook photos she is helping children in africa. that's a selfless leftist principle. my right wing ignorance and bigotry feared for her safety in the land of boko harams. also, her favorite past time is reading a book which is another typical leftist personality. she also told me the favorite pastime of danish people is talking to friends and complain about everything. kinda like chomsky. also kinda like me except i have no one to talk to so i just talk to myself. but contrast this to americans who would rather have their consent manufactured by watching the kardashians instead of talking to their neighbors about important issues in society. this makes me feel america will implode in a socdem system. i wonder if danish people celebrate tax day because it's a day they contribute their hard earned money to help their fellow citizens.
c. corruption
another useful data is index of corruption. if you google it, surprise surprise denmark is the least corrupt.
aside from greece, spain also has a poor ranking in the index of corruption and spain is in trouble. so this gives us a clue that the success of socdem has some correlation to corruption. but america is much higher than spain and greece in the ranking and much lower than denmark so it's inconclusive for america. but then france is also quite in trouble and it has the same ranking as the US. this increases the probablity that socdem might not be suitable for america.
it's also safe for me to say socialism failed in venezuela because the country has a high index of corruption. aside from the scientific surveys, i think you can get a feel for this data in the society you live in. example i used to live in hayward california. there was a time when i did not have a job. to add salt to my wound, i received mails from the city of hayward for traffic violations. the fine totaled 4,500. all for stop light violations on one intersection. i was shocked because i never run a red light. but they included photos in the mail as proof. as it turns out, in that intersection, they recently added a "no right turn on red" sign. i didn't notice it and i've been used to turning right on red on that intersection before the sign was added. for me paying the $250 fine is no big deal. but there was no way of knowing when i committed my first violation so of course by the time the mail of the first violation arrived, i already had multiple violations. i thought any common sense person will realize this anomaly so i was confident they would understand and just let me pay for a single violation. unfortunately i was not living in denmark so i had to pay the full $4,500 fine. imagine if it was the charsimatic chomsky or the beautiful leftist activist susan sarandon in this situation. the city hall employees would have gladly waved off the fine and so of course it would reinforce their belief that big government is the way to go. so if america becomes socialist and you are as admired and venerable as susan sarandon and chomsky then you are lucky but if you are like me then you are screwed.
the corruption of labor leaders in america is no secret. just imagine the very people who are suppose to be entrusted by the working people of america to look out for their collective good are plagued with embezzlement and racketeering. if i extrapolate the jimmy hoffas to the rest of american society it's easy to be be convinced that socdem will just replace corporate tyranny with corrupt leaders.
this explains why american workers can't just pool funds together to create a company which they can control instead of endlessly yelling "corporate tyranny !!!". the great recession of 2008 would have been a perfect opportunity because there were so many distressed assets that were dirt cheap. i even joined the vulture feast - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2011/09/once-in-a-milenia-opportunity.html. unions have a total $400 billion and the bailout of the chrysler was just $5 billion. for once the left should "scold their teammates" instead of scolding the other team for making too many 3 point shots. ridiculous if you think about it.
actually chomsky and libertarian socialist should agree with me because they blame the collapse of soviet union and venezuela on the existence of the state. which means they are anti state. which means they should be anti big government. ok maybe for them a big social welfare government is the lesser evil compared to corporatism. but chomsky keeps revealing US atrocities which means the US government is evil. so maybe chomsky is fine with a big state if we elect good leaders like bernie sanders. i trust bernie but how do we know the other leaders won't become like the socdem leaders of greece?
so the gamble really is: 1) have a low taxes small government that is more resilient to government screw ups but the poor will suffer. or 2) have high taxes big government social welfare to ensure nobody suffers but if the government screws up almost everyone suffers and it would take forever to recover. i'm not sure if it's really a gamble because leftists are the smartest people in the world and they keep saying that anyone who bets on 1) is anidiot. maybe the news about greece is just fake news or propaganda. i'm travelling to greece to see for myself. and if it turns out to be true i will stop watching jimmy dore. just kidding, youtube is already full of documentaries on greek austerity.
d. content
before setting up your gay friend with someone, make sure he really needs a partner. what if he is happy and content being alone and a boyfriend might only ruin his life?
how come americans are not trying to move to canada where there is free healthcare? how come most people would rather migrate to america as their first option instead of social democratic countries like canada, denmark, etc ...
the battle strategy of the left and right is to manipulate or manufacture our standards. the left tries to artificially increase our standards and gives us a sense of entitlement (e.g. healthcare is a basic human right). the right tries to keep us passive (e.g. powell memorandum and trilateral commissions's excess of democracy).
i wrote a poem and play about content: https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/05/ode-to-the-left.html, https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/05/hamiltons-american-dream.html
e. competence
as a concept, competence is too general to be useful. using global variables is bad programming practice. it can create conflicts. examples: sharks may be the least intelligent but the most competent hunter. zapatistas in mexico may have low IQ but their selflessness and cooperativeness makes them generally happier compared to developed countries.
let me declare the following:
industrial (int IQ, int EQ, float discipline, float creativity) {
int competence;
.......
return universal_healthcare;
}
this means i will discuss competence only within the scope of industrialized societies like america. competence is a function of IQ, EQ, creativity, and discipline. i'm not a social scientist so just try to get my drift. for me, competence donald trumps everything (apparently i'm also not funny). any policy will fail in an incompetent society. and any policy will succeed in a competent society. even dictatorship worked for taiwan and singapore because the people are competent.
that's why it's wrong to say universal healthcare SHOULD work in america because it works for germany and south korea. note their income tax rates are more or less similar to america. maybe they are just competent. i believe it could work in america if we are competent enough to take care of our health and minimize corruption in the system.
therefore, activists should focus more on striving for competence instead of simply pimping policies. higher corporate and income taxes might only cause an exodus of companies, jobs and talent. higher taxes caused companies to move from california to texas. ireland used to be chaotic and poor not long ago but now it has one of the best economies because of tax incentives.
i'm sure there are already volumes of books on how to improve competence. but i have this wacky theory that maybe kimchi and sauerkraut is the answer to all our problems. obviously i'm just joking but it's a known fact that health is an important factor to a person's well being. a healthier person feels better, and therefore more susceptible to being selfless and do what's right. there was a time when the economies of all countries were in big trouble while south korea and germany were doing well. i felt it had something to do with their high intake of probiotics which improves digestion, brain function, promotes healthy heart, and prevents cancer. it probably also helps with discipline and intelligence, the hallmark of german and south korean societies (i eat kimchi everyday so if that's true then i'm an exception to the rule.) south korea only has 20% tax rate and germany's is just 5% higher than america yet both have universal healthcare.
i also don't believe capitalism is more destructive to the environment because it tends to ignore externalities. i believe it has something to do with competence. socdem can be just as destructive to the environment especially if the government is corrupt. just look at the smog problem in china despite their centralized planning.
when i was island hopping with an italian model in boracay, we were in the middle of the ocean and the italian asked the native boatman where is the trashcan so she can throw her cigarette butt. the boatman told her to just throw it in the ocean. the italian was shocked and horrified. she told me she can't believe that native would care less about his own environment and livelihood than her. the boatman's behavior had nothing to do with capitalism and socdem. it was simply competence.
capitalism can be just as good in addressing climate change if society is competent. the ozone hole was fixed under a capitalist system. there was no need for any revolution. san diego has a republican mayor yet it's leading the charge towards 100% renewables. solar grid parity and electric car affordability were achieved under capitalism. and maybe a carbon dioxide removal technology race would be more successful under capitalism.
competent people do not succumb to propaganda. chomsky and the left keeps saying america's consent is manufactured by propaganda. that means maybe america is not competent enough for socdem. i laugh so hard at jimmy dore because he keeps calling people dumb and every time he does it he is basically destroying his own agenda of true democracy. the people he calls dumb are actually the more educated and smarter americans. in one of his shows he was mocking bari weiss the super hot new york times reporter. he also advocates for workers to own the companies like coops. how can stupid people successfully run companies? if the unions can't even get their acts together, how can they run the more complex means of production? here's an analysis that proves my point - https://medium.com/fifty-by-fifty/mondragon-through-a-critical-lens-b29de8c6049
at the last section of this wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_teenage_pregnancy, if you click on the teenage pregnancy column of the table to sort it, you will notice the US has the worse teenage pregnancy problem. abortion factor should be excluded because it contains religious bias. the good news for the US is there is only a slight correlation between success of socdem and teenage pregnancy because greece is better than norway in this category.
f. ice hockey
to me the best clue to determine if a country is socdem compliant is ice hockey. i notice the success of socdem societies is directly proportional to the popularity of ice hockey - denmark, norway, sweden, germany. again let me be clear that nothing i'm ranting about here is scientific.
spain and france plays some hockey so their socdem woes are not that big. but greece plays very little hockey so socdem collapsed. also note there are much more basketball stars coming from greece, france and spain but not much from hockey countries. in fact the best player in the planet right now is from greece - The Truth About Giannis Antetokounmpo.
there are 4 factors at play here:
i. cumulative nature
socdem is less cumulative, just like hockey. meaning you can do so many incredible things and the outcome is the same. you could do a series spectacular moves: incredible steal - brilliant dribbling to outmaneuver multiple opponents - smart assist - only to be blocked by the goalie. it's very difficult to get a shot attempt. a team attempts a goal on average once every 4 minutes. yet only 10% of those attempts go in. a team only scores on average 1.5 goals on 1 hour of play.
compare this to basketball where a team scores about 50 times on 48 minutes of play. almost all spectacular moves ACCUMULATES to the total score. same with nfl football where multiple yardage gains accumulates to a position where scoring at least a field goal is almost a sure thing. just like capitalism where hard work and achievements usually accumulates to your total wealth.
similar phenomenon happens in non winter countries. countries that prefer less cumulative sports like soccer tend to be less capitalistic. example is argentina and brazil (bolsonaro is just a reaction to corruption that plagued the social democratic system). in contrast, philippines prefer basketball and is more capitalistic (and therefore more resistant to government corruption).
ii. equality
related to the cumulative factor is equality. it's very difficult to dominate hockey and soccer. that's why hockey and soccer are the most suitable sports for young girls because it's less cruel. that's why i don't believe the 1980 miracle on ice where US beat USSR on hockey is considered a miracle.
this is analogous to socdem where it's harder for a person to dominate or become wealthy compared to capitalism so it's less cruel. americans are just naturally cruel. i was horrified when a very popular sports talk show host named jim rome was cheering for the opponent when his alma matter santa barbara was playing the national championship of soccer because he would be ashamed if they become national soccer champions. according to tosh.o, americans are proud of the more cruel nfl football where 300 pound men battle each other for 8 seconds at a time, not 5'6" fairies lightly jogging for 3 hours. americans play soccer when they were kids but i understand why when they grow up they don't get revved up for a corner kick that never works. hooray !!! the game ends without a single goal !!! the only reason why the world is beating americans in soccer is because it's best athletes are busy playing more exciting sports.
iii. stability
just like capitalism, basketball and nfl football have more frequent and more extreme emotional highs and lows. they have more nail biting moments that can give you a heart attack. in basketball, it's common to have a situation like 10 seconds to play, you have the ball, your team is down by 1 and it's the last game of the championship series. in nfl football, there were many superbowl moments that came down to the last play. nfl football and basketball also have much more dynamic plays.
hockey and soccer tends to be more stable and has less frequent highs and lows. just like socdem. the extreme high and low usually happens only once after the game and it's rarely abrupt or sudden. it's usually gradual because winning goals in the last minute or few seconds happens very rarely in a soccer or hockey game.
iv. degree of difficulty
you need competence to enjoy ice hockey. i tried to learn hockey but had to give up. i never even learned to skate backwards. with basketball a beginner can just jump right in and start dribbling and shooting the ball. nfl style football is even much easier to get started that's why tag football is a perfect picnic game even with people who never played the sport before.
why do hockey countries prefer hockey? maybe because they are more competent. and maybe competence is correlated to selflessness and corruption that's why socdem succeeds in hockey countries.
so what happens if a country is not socdem compliant yet a charismatic leader is able to convince the country to play soccer or hockey? just look at venezuela for the answer.
the great thing about sports is russia cannot interfere or manipulate the results. there can be no russian interference unlike in politics or elections. maybe the steroid controversy makes that a bad analogy but you can't accuse tom brady of colluding with russia. you can have puppet politicians but you can't have puppet athletes. in sports you can't use propaganda to convince everyone that you are the champions. fox news can't convince people that michael jordan sucks by showing clips of him missing shots. in politics, it's not ridiculous to be scolding the other team for making too many 3 point shots. in fact, that's the norm in politics. in basketball, the norm is to scold a teammate who does not box out in rebounds or do not work hard in defense. but in politics it's a no no. imagine chomsky scolding the poor for getting pregnant before graduating high school and not making breakfast for their kids.
g. religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligion
there is a strong correlation between secularism and success of socdem. greece is 22% while successful socdem countries have 60-70%. you should ignore the former communist countries where religion was wiped out by unnatural means. america is more like mexico at around 40%. that means america lies in between. the jury is hung for america when it comes to this metric.
the data shows america is weird because it shows that normally a country becomes more secular as it becomes more industrialized. yet 3/4 of americans believe in religious miracles. that's astonishing !!! that means PR and propaganda machine is more important than ever to prevent a true democracy or else america will go up in flames. according to chomsky america is more fundamentalist than iran. in iran, gay people are only jailed if they have sex but in america gay people are allowed to get married. maybe chomsky believes that marriage is torture. there's also that family guy episode where jesus is naked bathing in front of stewy with porn music in the background try doing that with muhammad in iran and you are going to end up like charlie hebdo except that iranians will be cheering for the muslims attacking you. you get a better feel of human nature if you also watch stupid tv shows instead of just read books.
homework: research on the correlation between success of socdem and the number of symphony orchestras per capita. the stats here may be skewed for america because americans are afraid to join a symphony orchestra because hannibal lecter will eat them if they make a mistake. it would also be fun to analyze the correlation with voter turnout. the US is not even in the top 20. the caveat here is that voter turn out could be a catch 22, meaning it could be a byproduct of socdem and not human nature. people will be more enthusiastic to participate in a true democracy - https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-highest-voter-turnout.html
you will never read or hear about this because you will sound like hitler if you say it, but people who live in the real world are aware there is strong correlation between pedigree and competence. the bad news for socdem is that scandinavians have much higher pedigree than americans. my favorite comedian bill burr was mesmerized at the high pedigree of the swedish people when he visited sweden (7:55 of this video - Joe Rogan & Bill Burr on Unattainable Beauty Standard Outrage). so maybe there really is something different with the scandinavians. to understand more about the significance of pedigree, read my rant - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2018/11/pedigree-knowledge-bomb-on-open-borders.html.
V. game tips and tricks
A. it's just a guess
an issue won't become an issue if it's not complicated. a good rule of thumb is to look at the percentage of society that belongs to both sides. if it's about 50-50, that means no one really knows the right thing to do (unless you know something others don't). example in america the democrats are roughly 50% and republicans also 50%. that means it's a wash. everyone is just making their best guess. on some issues only time will know who is right. the side that turns out to be correct is really just lucky, not smarter. on these kinds of complex issues, saying "i told you so" after the fact is stupid. of course everyone needs to take a stand or make a choice but my point is, you should not talk like the other side is dumb or evil, because by doing that, you are showing you are the dumb one.
of course the opinion of the majority is not always right, just like everyone used to think slavery was ok. but most of the time the majority tends to be correct. the important thing is to try making good guesses. do not regret if you turn out to be wrong as long as you did your best to make a good guess. sometimes mistakes are beneficial because it allows you to grow and learn.
the executives of GE corp are suppose to be the smartest and competent people in the world yet they made a fatal error of investing heavily on oil right before the oil crash. imagine in the 80's and 90's GE used to be criticized by the left. the stock reached $140 now it's just around $7. this means we are all making guesses. remember in the 80's when japan looked like they were about to take over the world and books on japanese management became international best sellers? turns out their success was just based on a speculation bubble or guesses.
voting for duterte was like buying stocks. voting for mar roxas was like buying bonds. there is no right or wrong, it just depends on your risk tolerance. there is always a day of reckoning for stocks but in politics, we have the luxury to make choices without ever worrying we made the wrong choice. there are always hundreds of legitimate arguments on both sides that even the dumbest person can just blurt out. a marcos supporter in the philippines could say marcos was a necessary evil to prevent communism. a supporter of the iraq war could say it was a necessary evil to assure america's future supply of oil which is vital to the nation's survival and national security because at that time fracking technologies to economically harvest our oil reserves did not exist yet. if bush prevented 9/11 he would have been crucified for being a bigot or islamophobe for detaining innocent muslim students who were just learning how to fly a plane.
everyone thought john paulson was a genius because he made billions shorting housing before the crash. but after that he also lost billions because he went long on gold and price of gold crashed. turns out he really didn't know any better he was just lucky.
if we are all gays, and society is gay, and we are all just guessing, why should we even try? the answer is because there is such thing as a good guess and bad guess. a good guess does not have to be correct. it just has to be logical. it is important we still make our best guess even if we can still be easily wrong because it gives us the best chance to succeed.
example if me and steph curry have a 3 point contest where we both take only 1 shot, the best guess would be to bet on steph, even if it's possible for me to beat him. but if the contest involves 50 attempts, then 100% for sure steph will win. similarly, success will eventually come if you just continue to make high quality guesses or good decisions. and that's what differentiates the poor and the rich. bad decisions causes poverty, not the oppression of the powerful elite. show me a poor person in america who made high quality guesses and decisions like graduating high school, getting a job before having kids, and still ended up poor. note that success does not mean being factually correct. example my mother who goes to church every day can be considered logical because practicing her faith makes her happy. success means accomplishing your goals, not being factually correct.
being wrong should not define you as a person. there are so many people who i disagree with politically but i truly adore and admire because they are very successful in what matters the most such as family and their career. there are also some people who i agree with politically but i find pathetic.
so let me give you some tips on how to make a good guess.
B. how to make your best guess
the root of all bad guesses is bias. google is the worst thing to happen to ideologues on the right and left because it's now much easier to look at the big picture. in the old days we can only rely on the opinions of those who go to the library and literally read everything with sheer brute force. all the common flaws i will discuss in this chapter falls under the bias umbrella. many of the concepts discussed in this chapter overlap with each other but i will try my best to categorize them.
1. painful logic.
many brilliant people smoke even if they know it can cause cancer. knowing what is right is the easy part. but doing or saying something that goes against your feeling can be painful. let me define this as painful logic or PL. the opposite of this is comfortable logic or CL. example of a CL is my golfing buddy who is a brain surgeon but also a bigot.
PL is not about morality. it's more about realistic reasoning. example if you say you wanna rob the bank because you want to get rich quick no matter the risk, then that's not illogical. but if you say robbing a bank is easy because someone you know succeeded in robbing a bank, then that statement is flawed.
being an enlightened master PL is just like being a black belt in karate. it can be useful against a mugger with a knife but not against a killer with a gun. similarly, it's possible to override your less intense feelings. example it's possible for a PL racist to hire a qualified black person because racism is not a strong mental disease or feeling. however, telling a serial killer to not commit murder is tantamount to telling a short person to become taller.
note that it's the action, not the feeling that matters. for me, a PL racist is more admirable than a non racist. as i've been saying, we don't have control over our feelings but we can control our actions.
a. advantages
i have a schoolmate in high school who everyone admires and respects. but one day he posts an anti gay rant in facebook, calling anderson cooper a faggot. i realized that if he read my rants he probably would not have posted that. i realized maybe my rants are not totally useless.
being PL is always beneficial. it's a good character building exercise. it develops mental and emotional strength. it's like when you lift weights your muscles will be painfully sore but it makes your muscles stronger. no pain, no gain. i discussed this in more detail in this article - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2015/07/pakisama.html
weak character and being over sensitive is what's causing the craziness of safe spaces. according to chomsky, safe spaces are not that different from the prevailing orthodoxy that the student activists fought hard against in the 1960's.
being PL gives you the motivation to hear and even enjoy both sides so you don't become bias or ignorant.
being PL gives you the ability to detect people who are CL so you won't waste time arguing with them. you can also pretend to argue with a CL and let them win just to make them happy. like michael jordan playing 1-1 basketball with his grandmother.
as i've been saying we are all just guessing on the issues. being correct is just luck. but to me it's better to be an unlucky PL than a lucky CL.
i notice the amount of PL in a society is directly proportional to it's prosperity. winston churchill lost the election even if the british people loved him. they loved him but they loved free healthcare even more and private power in britain sucked at manufacturing their consent. it's no surprise the british ruled half of the world. black people in america painfully switched to the racist democratic party and abandoned their beloved party of emancipation (republican party) because the democrats were offering them jobs with the new deal. ireland is a devoted catholic country yet they elected an openly gay person to head their country (pardon the pun). it's no surprise ireland had a miraculous transformation from a poor country to a rich country.
in contrast, places like iraq and syria have less PL. the sad part is the low PL of the middle east is exacerbated by the drought caused by climate change. the drought is forcing turkey to limit the flow of euphrates and tigris rivers to iraq and syria, causing the farmers to abandon their farmlands and make them a wellspring of recruits for ISIS, free syrian army and al qaeda. what's even more unfair is that climate change is caused by PL countries. but their problems would be more solvable if they are PL like japan who reconciled with america even if they were hit with atomic bombs. maybe it has something to do with miso soup so i have hunch that the PL of the middle east can be improved if they increase their intake of fermented food to make them have a more PL personality (same with south korea's kimchi and germany's sauerkraut).
being PL is good for your pocket. after trump won, the greatest PL of all time, who is suppose to be antri trump, said - we will be fine, the stock market will continue to rise, trump won't really have a negative effect on our lives and the overreaction is unwarranted. Buffett after Trump win: '100%' optimistic about America. caitlyn jenner is PL enough to know that gay rights is mostly just symbolic or cosmetic (pardon the pun). putting food on the table is more important. she said it's harder to convince liberals to cut taxes, limit regulation and advocate for small government than convince republicans to stop being homophobic.Jimmy Kimmel Asks Caitlyn Jenner if She Regrets Voting for Trump
b. disadvantages
although being PL is always advantageous, acting PL can have it's disadvantages.
it's not safe to act PL. for example if you are an insurance salesman and you post PL opinions on facebook you could lose customers. i know many anti marcos friends in fb who won't speak up about the resurgence of the marcos family in politics because they also have pro marcos friends in fb who have high status in society. that's a good move. or it could be they watched game of thrones and realized daenerys targaryan is a good leader even if her father was a murderous tyrant (i wrote this before season 8).
the CL industry is also a very lucrative business. talented CLs like rush limbaugh can earn millions preaching to their CL choir. ideologues will never run out of anything good to say about their ideology and never run out of ways to ridicule those that don't agree with them. if you are a die hard liberal you will always have many liberal friends and if you are a die hard conservative you will always have many conservative friends. but if you are openly PL, you could end up pissing off both sides of the political spectrum.
i can afford to be openly PL because i'm retired and my income is mostly just from rental properties. i block my tenants from seeing my political rants in facebook. i also don't have children. even if you are retired, if you have kids or grand kids it's still a good idea to be just a closet PL and kiss up to everyone. example if your son is trying to get in to an exclusive school and the principal is liberal make sure to keep your conservative opinions to yourself.
PLs are suppose to be referees. but CLs are incapable of listening to reason or logic so CL conservatives will think you are an idiot liberal and CL liberals will think you are an evil conservative.
i think teaching kids to be PL is more important than most of the things they learn in school considering there are many highly educated people who are bigots and ideologues. but maybe being too logical can actually cause people to be unhappy. maybe it will take out the fun or ruin many things like politics, love, romance, arts, religion, etc ... fox news, msnbc and cnn will go bankrupt. which is self destructive for me because they are my favorite source of entertainment. tyrus !!! maddow !!! many great schools are catholic schools and i guess if you train students to be logical they will stop going to church. same goes for secular universities - most professors want to indoctrinate or brainwash their students with their ideology and they can't do that if their students are PL or pragmatic.
many fields or professions require just the basic logic. this is why you can have a doctor who is a bigot. many issues in this world have already been analyzed and concluded for us so if you have very good memory skills you can just brute force memorize the conclusions and be successful in most fields. but when an issue needs to be a case by case basis and none of the conclusions you memorized will apply, you're screwed. luckily in politics, you can easily get away with being CL.
PL skills are as important as basketball skills. it's good to have but it's not something to be ashamed of if you don't have it. i even idolize a lot of CLs. i also know many bigots and ideologues who are very successful and happy in life.
2. clues from history
in the first chapter of this rant, i showed a video of chomsky claiming that history has shown that humans have shown a desire to make things better. he was really trying to argue that socialism can work. i agree that humans have a capacity for mutual aid, but it's not enough for true socialism to work. i think true socialism will work someday when technology or job automation has reached a certain level. i think we are already in the doorsteps, and universal basic income will serve as a temporary solution to job loss due to automation.
but for now, human nature is not yet good enough for socialism to work. yes it's true that history has shown examples of humans doing good deeds but i think the root of those good deeds was still selfishness or self interest. slavery in america was not abolished because of lincoln's gettysburg address. the north abolished slavery because they did not need them anymore because factories were already being run by machines. the civil war was more about tariffs. the south wanted to secede because of the exploitative tariffs by the north. abolishing slavery was just a pretext used by the north to invade the south to prevent them from seceding so they can continue exploiting the south with tariffs.
the anti vietnam war movement did not really win. it was still self interest that won the day. i'm sure if no american soldiers where dying in vietnam the anti war movement would have failed. people do not need street protests and demonstrations to know they just had funerals for their sons and more funerals are about to come. it was not a win for morality but a win for people who did not like their sons and brothers to die. we already had nukes anyway. unlike WWII where we had no choice but to face the growing threat because we had no nukes. my theory is further proven by the failure of the protests against the iraq war. the iraq war was not a national draft so not enough people were against it because their sons won't be dying.
the advancement of women's rights is also not a victory for morality. women are not aliens from outer space. almost all normal human being on this planet has a woman as their closest love one - their mother. love ones share the same economic interest so it does not really impede on someone else's self interest if women are allowed to vote. it's also in a man's best interest to allow women to work so the family can have better economic security.
3. it's complicated
this section is probably redundant but it's a good way to emphasize my core message. all issues have multiple factors in play. example, saying trump is dumb is like saying mugsy bogues is short. it's true but why is mugsy playing for the NBA and trumps is president? the answer is, it's complicated.
it used to make my blood boil whenever i heard US soldiers being blown up by roadside bombs in iraq. why didn't we just secure the oil wells and pipelines? why did we have to expose our soldiers by letting them patrol the towns? maybe it's not that simple.
i was also furious when i learned america is overflowing with oil after all. but then i did more research and learned that fracking technology to harvest our oil was proven to be profitable only around 2011. this explains why the number of US casualties suddenly dropped from hundreds per year to less than 10 per year starting around 2011.
if you only watch CNN you will be 100% convinced that conservatives are dumb and if you only watch fox news you will be 100% convinced the liberals and leftists are dumb. an issue won't be an issue if it's not too complicated, which means almost all political issues are really just a wash. example, fox news will tell you that the $15 minimum wage law in seattle is actually hurting the workers. but in reality, it's a mixed picture - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/business/economy/seattle-minimum-wage-study.html. of course the pundits in fox and cnn are way more knowledgeable and educated than me. they need to be bias to stay in business. their bias is harmless because their opinions have equal chance of success because we are all just guessing.this section is probably redundant but it's a good way to emphasize my core message. all issues have multiple factors in play. example, saying trump is dumb is like saying mugsy bogues is short. it's true but why is mugsy playing for the NBA and trumps is president? the answer is, it's complicated.
it used to make my blood boil whenever i heard US soldiers being blown up by roadside bombs in iraq. why didn't we just secure the oil wells and pipelines? why did we have to expose our soldiers by letting them patrol the towns? maybe it's not that simple.
i was also furious when i learned america is overflowing with oil after all. but then i did more research and learned that fracking technology to harvest our oil was proven to be profitable only around 2011. this explains why the number of US casualties suddenly dropped from hundreds per year to less than 10 per year starting around 2011.
chomsky says the world will have to look to china for leadership in addressing climate change. people will find that statement ridiculous especially after seeing the viral photos in facebook on china's cities covered in thick toxic smog. most people can't distinguish between smog and invisible green house gases. i also think the concept of leadership in addressing climate change is irrelevant and ridiculous. since when does a country do something because another country is doing it? although it's true that america is doing a very poor and dangerous job addressing climate change. but china is building new coal plants in many countries. including the middle east for crying out loud even if hundreds of millions of cubic feet of much cleaner natgas are being flared simply because arab countries can't get their acts together to build pipelines. but chomsky won't tell you these things because he just wants america to look bad.
4. probability = success / attempts
"a broken clock is always right twice a day". it's easy to be impressed by stock gurus who show you their stock picks that skyrocketed. but that does not really mean anything unless you look at their other stock picks. any monkey could randomly pick 100 stocks and of course at least 5 of those stocks will do great.
my mom was always wasting her money falling for pyramid or network marketing schemes. what convinced her were the examples of those who joined and became millionaires. the flaw in her argument was that she did not take into account the thousands of people who joined and lost money. no offense to my dear friends and family who are in this business. i know there are plenty of legitimate products that really work and are more convenient to purchase through pyramid marketing channels such as tupperware, herbal supplements and cosmetics.
sometimes it's not straightforward. i used to wonder why it's always the bad golfers who shoot a hole in 1 in amateur tournaments. i though it's just a supernatural phenomenon. then i realized that in an amateur tournament, there are usually 200 awful golfers and only 3 really good golfers. so even if a good golfer has a better chance of shooting a hole in 1, you are pitting 3 attempts of good golfers versus 200 attempts.of bad golfers.
5. it's relative
even if you know the probability, sometimes it's still useless unless you have a point of reference or comparison. if you just look at the number of plane crashes, you will be afraid to fly. if you compare it to the total number of flights that did not crash you will still be afraid to fly. but when you compare it to the stats of other modes of transportation, then you will realize flying is the safest mode of transportation.
i find it irresponsible when the news simply says the typhoon is 275 kph. that does not mean anything to most people. but if you immediately include a warning that the deadly typhoon yolanda was 300 kph, then people will get an idea how dangerous 275 kph is.
it baffles me when supposedly revered pundits give statistics on crime during duterte's adminstration but fail to give the data before duterte was elected to give us a point of comparison. so what if there are 3,000 drug related deaths under duterte? what if it was twice that before he became president?
6. it's not a yes or no question
a common error is when someone treats something as a yes or no question, when in fact the answer lies within a scale, degree, spectrum or levels. example it was funny to see duterte and roxas arguing if there are drugs in davao. of course there are drugs, the question is, how much? of course there are drugs but people in davao feel the level or amount is insignificant.
when it comes to illegal immigration. people fail to classify it to 2 kinds 1) legal entry or overstay, which is not a security and economic concern because they are limited and vetted 2) illegal entry, which could be security and economic concern. even cesar chavez was against illegal immigration. also bernie sanders. although they are against deportation. they just want to enforce the borders.
trump is fond of portraying democrats as wanting to take all your guns away. the reality is that many democrats want to own guns, they just want stricter gun controls such as background checks.
even abortion is not a yes or no question. some states have restricted late term abortions.
7. association trick
everyone knows stereotyping is bad. but it's easy to stereotype indirectly so people won't notice. when fox news shows or interviews anarchists, the viewer gets a feeling the democrats are anarchists. when CNN interviews a white nationalist, the viewer gets a feeling all republicans are racists.
the left accuses trump of being a fascist because he is a nationalist just like hitler. if that's the case then ghandi was a fascist because he was a nationalist. nelson mandela was also a fascist because he was a nationalist. so was churchill, de gaul, abraham lincoln. and fidel castro. the original fascist was actually mussolini who everyone knew was a marxist. lenin even congratulated him when he came to power because they were both socialists or marxists. WW1 was basically capitalists paying the proletariat to kill each other so it was evident that nationalism was stronger than working class solidarity so mussolini merged socialism with nationalism. mussolini was hitler's model. that is why hitler's party was called National Socialist German Workers' Party. hitler then modeled nazi laws after the segregation laws of the democrats in the US. so if you really want to play the association trick then the socialists in the democratic party are the fascist. but of course that's not true because hitler and mussolini just used the word socialist to lure the working class into their party. but their policies were very anti socialist. they even murdered the socialists and communists together with the jews. similarly, soviet union was also a misnomer because soviet means "workers councils" which were dismantled when stalin took over. stalin also deviously kept his title as "general secretary" to please the proletariat.
during the philippine presidential elections i called on the attention of one of my dear facebook friend who posted that she and her kids were harassed by a mob of duterte supporters. i told her i'm glad they are ok, to stay safe and try to avoid these incidents. but i also told her all duterte supporters i know would want to beat up the duterte mob that harassed your family. when you post something like that in facebook, you need to make it clear that the duterte mob was not representative of the whole, and a huge majority of duterte supporters are decent good people. instead of saying "mob of duterte supporters", say "mob who just happens to be duterte supporters". or even better - "a rude rowdy mob who were fanatics of a certain candidate but i won't mention the candidate because it's irrelevant".
another devious tactic is when chomsky pretends to discuss the similarities of state socialism and state capitalism without putting it in context to trick our minds into thinking capitalism is just as bad as stalin's murderous regime. he claims that the soviet union was a form of capitalism except in the soviet union, the state controlled the capital while in america, capital is controlled by concentrated private power. that's like saying ghandi and hilter both brushed their teeth. chomsky leaves out a very important key ingredient or differentiator - COMPETITION. competition is the essential ingredient that made the US system more successful. lack of competition in the soviet union is what caused it to collapse. ignoring this essential ingredient to economic policies is what makes common sense people think leftists are a bunch of lunatics.
chomsky tries to make you feel america is worse than the nazis when he repeatedly mentions that the nazis tried to model their laws and policies similar to that of US but the misogyny laws of the US were too harsh for hitler. oh my gosh that means hitler is an angel compared to america. hitler was also envious of the propaganda techniques of the US. nobody would doubt what chomsky is saying is true but anyone would also laugh because his underlying motives are quite obvious. you can't convince a person with common sense that a brand new bentley is worse than a pontiac fiero just because it has more dents and scratches.
there is also a positive association trick. chomsky keeps quoting abraham lincoln who said - "wage labor is different from slavery only that it's temporary". oh my gosh it's our idol abraham lincoln who said it that means we should dismantle corporations. i wonder if chomsky honestly believes we are that stupid. only the very illogical brains of other leftists would fall for that.
8. clarify the scope/perspective/context
speaking of ghandi, if he was given the task to decide whether america should build the atomic bomb, what do you think his decision would have been? i feel that if ghandi were to have his way we would all be speaking germans right now. so from that perspective, even trump is a better leader.
when my friends debate each other about duterte's extra judicial killings (EJK). one side is arguing from the pure morality perspective while the other side is arguing from a practical perspective. one side argues that everyone should be innocent until proven guilty. while the other side argues that laws are just a means to an end. the safety of their daughter walking home from school at night is the utmost importance. almost all left wing vs. right wing debates boils down to this. it will always be a stalemate because both sides will always be right from their perspective.
but if both sides agree from the get-go the scope of their perspective, then the debate can be productive. example, if they clarify that they agree to disagree from the morality perspective and will limit the scope of the debate to the effectiveness of the EJK in lowering crime, then the discussion can be more fruitful.
debating chomsky will make you look like an evil person if you are not aware he is debating from a purely moral perspective. similarly, people who debate anne coulter will always look like a self destructive, unpatriotic, or traitor to america if the person is not aware anne coulter is debating from a selfish perspective. selfishness may sound like a bad thing until you realize that if you open the borders then black people will be unemployed because they will be priced out or outbid by the migrants who are willing to be paid less.
the mother of all context in political discourse is the national budget (~$4.1 trillion total). understanding the budget should include knowing total tax revenues (~$3.6 trillion) and national debt relative to GDP (~$21 trillion which is 100% of GDP). most of the contested policies and issues involve money therefore the core reference of most political arguments should be the national budget pie chart. people can never make an informed decision if they don't at least get a rough idea of our national budget. pundits should briefly display the pie chart of our national budget in most discussions yet they never do. it might even benefit the left because any person with common sense will be astonished at the size of the US military budget.
i did look closer into our military budget thinking maybe there is something like the missile gap scandal that is causing the bloated budget. turns out only 1/4 of the military budget is spent on weapons development. i'm not an expert but i think that's rational. most of the military spending goes to salary, benefits and pension. which to me is a blessing in disguise because as more and more jobs are obsoleted due to automation, having a big military would serve as a universal basic income (UBI) program. when the time comes when there is too much automation we probably should start encouraging college students to volunteer in the ROTC by giving them lifetime allowance upon completion of the course. even if the world is at peace. it beats digging ditches then covering them up afterwards.
we also need to protect our markets and interests overseas and according to the experts in the left and right, our military is already over extended. both the left and right agree that america's dominance is fragile. asia lends, america spends. we are kept afloat by the confidence in the petrodollar and our strong military. we continue to control the middle east even if we are already overflowing with oil and natural gas because to control the world we need to control it's most important resource ( https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/04/deconstructing-us-imperialism.html). but most people are not smart enough to be aware of this so the budget pie chart would benefit the left because the military budget will naturally seem bloated to the untrained eye. they would want to trim $200 billion from the $700 billion military spending so that everyone gets health insurance - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2014/05/crystal-care.html
i agree with bernies sanders that the pentagon needs to be audited. probably $50 billion in annual defense spending that can be scrutinized as potentially excessive for the times in which we live. if the audit might reveal valuable information to our enemies, at least only release the information to congressional members with security clearance like llhan omar (so i can enjoy judge jeanine's reaction).
9. clarify critical words
the terms of political discourse are at best not models of clarity. it's a very common error for people to argue even if they actually agree with each other but they just have different interpretations of a key word or concept. example - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2017/01/communication-pros-my-ass.html
the mother of all context in political discourse is the national budget (~$4.1 trillion total). understanding the budget should include knowing total tax revenues (~$3.6 trillion) and national debt relative to GDP (~$21 trillion which is 100% of GDP). most of the contested policies and issues involve money therefore the core reference of most political arguments should be the national budget pie chart. people can never make an informed decision if they don't at least get a rough idea of our national budget. pundits should briefly display the pie chart of our national budget in most discussions yet they never do. it might even benefit the left because any person with common sense will be astonished at the size of the US military budget.
i did look closer into our military budget thinking maybe there is something like the missile gap scandal that is causing the bloated budget. turns out only 1/4 of the military budget is spent on weapons development. i'm not an expert but i think that's rational. most of the military spending goes to salary, benefits and pension. which to me is a blessing in disguise because as more and more jobs are obsoleted due to automation, having a big military would serve as a universal basic income (UBI) program. when the time comes when there is too much automation we probably should start encouraging college students to volunteer in the ROTC by giving them lifetime allowance upon completion of the course. even if the world is at peace. it beats digging ditches then covering them up afterwards.
we also need to protect our markets and interests overseas and according to the experts in the left and right, our military is already over extended. both the left and right agree that america's dominance is fragile. asia lends, america spends. we are kept afloat by the confidence in the petrodollar and our strong military. we continue to control the middle east even if we are already overflowing with oil and natural gas because to control the world we need to control it's most important resource ( https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/04/deconstructing-us-imperialism.html). but most people are not smart enough to be aware of this so the budget pie chart would benefit the left because the military budget will naturally seem bloated to the untrained eye. they would want to trim $200 billion from the $700 billion military spending so that everyone gets health insurance - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2014/05/crystal-care.html
i agree with bernies sanders that the pentagon needs to be audited. probably $50 billion in annual defense spending that can be scrutinized as potentially excessive for the times in which we live. if the audit might reveal valuable information to our enemies, at least only release the information to congressional members with security clearance like llhan omar (so i can enjoy judge jeanine's reaction).
9. clarify critical words
the terms of political discourse are at best not models of clarity. it's a very common error for people to argue even if they actually agree with each other but they just have different interpretations of a key word or concept. example - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2017/01/communication-pros-my-ass.html
here is another example - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-we-call-it-faith.html
10. zero sum game
always keep in mind that most contested polices are more like a zero sum game.
trump's efforts to lower the trade deficit may sound like a good thing. but just like most policies. tariffs on chinese goods will protect local manufacturers but it will also lower the purchasing power of americans. however i believe in the long run, trump's policy will bode well for america. haiti is a good lesson - 16 years after the IMF lowered tariffs on rice imports from 50% to 3% as part of it's restructuring efforts in 1995, the walmart model actually lowered the purchasing power of haitians by 10% and exacerbated food security and sovereignty.
chomsky's blatant bias just baffles me. he says trump's tax cuts give a lavish gift to the corporations. there will be riots in the streets if that's all there is to it. luckily people already know it's a zero sum game. there is a chance it will benefit the people because it will create jobs and offset the lose of tax revenues due to tax cuts. only time will tell if the tax cuts will work or not. cutting taxes does not necessarily decrease tax revenues, and raising taxes does not necessarily raise tax revenues -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve.
11. clarify the alternative
chomsky says that "property rights infringes on the rights of others". but he does not tell you that the alternative, which is not being allowed to own property, would be a bigger infringement on our rights.
there are many chomsky speeches in youtube denouncing corporations. he quotes abraham lincoln saying "wage labor is different from slavery only that it's temporary". he quotes another prominent figure saying that working for a company is like renting yourself and losing your integrity. he tries to make you feel like a slave and prostitute and get angry at the corporations, especially that it's abraham lincoln who said it. star wars fans will think chomsky is like the evil emperor whose recruitment strategy was to make a jedi give in to anger because it causes them to go to the dark side. ordinary people with common sense will think chomsky is a lunatic because we don't really care what we are, we just care about what we feel. if miss universe pays me to have sex with her, you can call me a prostitute all you want and i will just laught at you. isn't happiness the ultimate goal? i enjoyed working as a slave for altera corporation for 15 years. besides there is no better alternative. socialism is the only alternative but it's worse - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/05/socialism-demystified.html. the good thing with capitalism is it allows co-ops, which is as close as you can get to socialism that works. even norway and denmark need corporations. a co-op is even more socialistic than the soviet union and maoist china in the true definition of the word (workers control the means of production).
chomsky thinks the anger mongering tactic is effective because most wage laborers don't like working at their jobs for 8 hours a day. but he never mentions the alternative in the same speech, which is joining co-ops. because any person with common sense will realize you don't work 2 hours a day and get 6 month vacations working in a co-op. there really is not much difference. but you can't accuse him of not mentioning co-ops because he does mention it in his other interviews which to me is still bizarre because he should clarify the alternative whenever he talks about dismantling of corporations. also during the time of lincoln people worked 14-16 hours a day 6 days a week in very poor working conditions. that's because factories had lights so they can work at night. the slaves were better because they worked in the farms which means they can only work during the day. this made working conditions of slaves probably better than factory workers. of course the working conditions nowadays are much better which makes linconln's statements outdated. but of course we should never stop improving. that is why i salute anyone who starts and joins a co-op.
it also baffles me how the left tend to disregard freedom as a virtue. there's nothing wrong with the narrative of helping the needy, but at least recognize that forcing people to help the needy through taxes might conflict with the equally important virtue of freedom. it's not that simple. every time i listen to a leftist talk i feel like i'm so evil and stupid because their facts are so spectacular and correct. but then i realize their trick is to leave out the conclusion or the alternatives to whatever they are denouncing because they know it will just reveal that their narrative is simply conflicting with another important virtue which is freedom. almost all leftist speeches can be simplified to this analogy - let's say hypothetically smoking is still a complicated issue and the dangers of smoking are still being suppressed by propaganda. if chomsky tells obama that smoking can cause cancer and he should stop smoking, obama would actually be impressed and thankful for the information. but if chomsky says smoking should be banned, maybe obama would disagree.
12. it's always a case by case basis
this is basically the central theme of all my rants. principles and virtues are too general to be useful. this is actually the biggest weakness of the left.
i watched a video where chomsky criticizes the current teaching methods of memorizing. he says the teaching methods of discovery is better. that may be true in some cases but i'm pretty sure it will take someone 50 years to become a doctor if everything is learned through discovery.
i was biking my entire childhood - biking with my friends on dangerous philippine roads. often going long distance 20 km to the beach to go swimming. not one of us kids ever got into an accident. maybe because if you have a low intellect, mother nature compensates you with better physical reflexes and senses. on the other hand, maybe biking is not safe for those with high intellect because when i was working in silicon valley, it was strange to see engineers getting into biking accidents too often. i found it strange because kids are suppose to be more accident prone compared to adults. engineers are smart people so some of them would bike to work to reduce their carbon footprint and stay healthy. what's bizarre is that their wounds usually occurred on their faces. i remember milton yee and brent fairbanks had large abrasions on their faces. i found it bizarre because i think the normal reflex or instinct in an accident is to protect the face first. the roads in silicon valley were suppose to be safer. it even has bicycle lanes. but our CEO rodney smith died when he got hit by a car while riding his bike. maybe biking is not safe for intellectuals.
C. activism
first i discussed how we can understand each other's choices so we don't fight like cats and dogs. then i discussed how to decide what's best for society. now i will discuss how to be more effective in helping society.
i saw this post in one of chomsky's groups:
this is my comment:
civil obedience has always been a problem since man existed. fortunately we have gone from monarchy and slavery to a less painful corporate slavery. so you can just extrapolate that one day society can achieve true democracy. if your advocacy or activism seems to not be working, don't worry because it seems to me technology is always the driving factor in all our social improvements and activism is just the nail of the coffin. example i think we abolished slavery because we already have machines to do all the labor. which means we should be hopeful because technology is advancing at a very fast pace thanks to the unaccountable corporate tyrannies and we should continue our activism because we never know when it might serve as the nail in the coffin inequality. i also believe technology will solve the climate change issue - electric cars, battery technology, safer nuclear plants and disposal of nuclear waste, carbon dioxide removal machines, greening of sahara desert, etc ... (a lot of these in ted talk in youtube)
1. clarify your goal
when chomsky makes a speech about dismantling corporations, i have no idea what he really means. he does not clarify it. should we join cooperatives? or should we advocate for a law that makes it illegal for corporations to exist?
goals should be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Timely). you can google for more information.
2. general vs specific advocacy
i understand fighting for a specific injustice is banal and not spectacular. we would rather do high level endeavors such as changing the political system or toppling a dictator. we want to be the next ghandi or nelson mandela.
leftist intellectuals are suppose to be smart and religious people are suppose to be dumb. yet i saw this video in youtube where hare krishnas are feeding millions of school kids in india. their work has an astounding impact and ripple effect to society and the future of the country. they can do this regardless of what political or economic system india has. they are like social justice warriors but without the agenda baggage.
here is another good example of specific advocacy - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2018/10/social-justice-warrior-without-agenda-baggage.html
i still don't know what specific changes in the laws or policies the nfl national anthem protest was about. i know racism is still a problem in america. but activists should specify the concrete action items. in fairness, the protesting players do have charities and causes that are good examples of specific and effective advocacy.
the general fight for social justice was already won during the civil rights movements in the 60s. nowadays, your advocacy has to be specific and a case by case basis or you end up looking like a fool. example - Ami Horowitz: How white liberals really view black voters
instead of yelling abstract slogans like "homosexual oppression", the gays yelled "we want same sex marriage legalized". that's specific. that's why they successfully changed society for the better. maybe instead of saying climate change denier, say "opposer on 50% tax rebate on electric cars". nah. that's probably too much. but you get my drift.
in contrast, chomsky claims that reagan and the neoliberals criminalized black life - https://chomsky.info/20150318/. any low intellect with common sense will be horrified by this and immediately want to know which specific laws were responsible for this and if those laws still exist. i read the whole thing and it was just a history of america's heinous acts towards native americans and black people. i almost fainted when he said the solution is education and his usual alice in wonderland narrative of social solidarity, mutual support and popular engagement to determine our policies. there is no harm trying those solutions but HOW ABOUT FIRST REPEALING THE LAWS THAT ARE CRIMINALIZING BLACK PEOPLE? or at least tell us about it because i will dedicate my life to vehemently opposing those laws.
when you say corporate tyrannies, give examples of corporations with very unhappy employees. because last time i checked, there are many corporations where it would be a dream come true to work there. even as a janitor.
if i'm an influential and gifted intellectual, i would use my knowledge on global economies to find opportunities for poor people all over the world and use my influence to encourage them to take advantage of these opportunities. example i would tell them to learn japanese online like a hobby instead of waste time on facebook and those useless college subjects that gets them nowhere. give tips like learn 5 japanese words a day. understand that most poor people have short attention span so advice them to just spend 30 minutes per lesson but do it 3 times a day. japan is in need of immigrant workers but the problem is the language barrier.
scottish people were the poorest and most ignorant people of europe until david hume urged his fellow 18th century scotch to learn english because it will open up a whole new world to them. the result was that from middle of 1700s to middle of 1800s, leading intellectuals were scotch - hume in philosophy, adam smith in economics, and joseph black in chemistry. more recently the scotch even invented a transparent adhesive tape. ever since i was a kid, i always found it stupid for people to be praising a politician for doing a project that uses public funds like building a road. the politician did not use his own money or invent the road building technologies. however there are many creative things politicians can do that can be a game changer. example a congressman in the philippines named alfredo benitez went to japan and returned with 15 thousand nursing job openings for his constituents. coincidentally i just googled his name and found out he used to be in this tv program called "game changer".
when someone tells me people are racist. i would say, "that's great because it will solve many problems". there is this very successful ocean cleanup advocacy called 4ocean. no chance in hell their advocacy would have become globally viral if the founders don't look like anne coulter siblings. when right wingers say racism does not exist. i say wrong !!! if leftists say racism is bad. i say wrong !!! my scholar was on her way to becoming a hooker drug junkie. i rescued her and now she is very successful with her business selling skin whitening products because filipinos and asians are obsessed with white skin. even in brazil there is a skin bleaching craze going on. bolsonaro wants brazillians to be as white as his best friend john bolton. my hometown used to have lots of skin whitening ads on giant billboards so i scolded the mayor and told him it would insult the black US military tourists who might one day defend us against china so the mayor banned skin whitening ads in the city.
specific advocacy may feel banal and not spectacular to activists but it is actually where you can most express your creativity. example, i always stress and emphasize to my scholars (street kids that i rescued) to work only 4 hours or part time. it prevents burn out. burn out causes lose of motivation or desire to work. worse, it could cause permanent animosity towards work. i even scold them if they work 8 hours. burn out is very deceptive. you may feel fine in the beginning and it's something you won't notice. the trick is to leave work feeling like you still want to work some more. this keeps you wanting to go back the next day. it's funny because i treat working 8 hours like drug abuse. one of my scholars started working 8 hours in mcdonalds instead of only 4 hours because she wanted to buy an iphone. luckily her friend tattled on her so i scolded her and scared her that if she continues to work 8 hours she will one day end up working in a bar snorting meth and being fucked by a different foreigner every night. she went back to working 4 hours (https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2018/08/knowledge-bombs-on-marijuana-and-foster-care.html). it's always a case by case basis. for normal people, working 8 hours is perfect. but these kids experienced childhood trauma and they have weaker genes so i have to prescribe a much lower daily dosage of the self esteem pill. note this is something i just pulled out of my ass. i'm not an expert on anything or i'm just a quack intellectual.
steve irwin was just recording himself saving crocodiles and sharing the video with his friends. next thing you know he is a superstar who is saving the wildlife of the entire world. no politics, no demonizing of people or groups. he never even demonized poachers. if his advocacy never caught on i'm sure until now he would still be a happy mate saving crocodiles and sharing his videos.
general activism can be crippling.
don't get me wrong i think a high level advocacy or activism is just as important. i just feel it has to be complemented with concrete and specific advocacy. feminists should be blasting everyone with a 1-800 hotline number that abused women can call for help. don't just yell general feminism slogans that don't really mean anything.
i have my own specific advocacy - everyone should let 1 kernel of black pepper melt in their mouth every morning. soon healthcare costs will plummet so the government can now provide free healthcare to those who still need it. the very mild spice will last 2 hours. i used to be very sickly now all my defects miraculously went away - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2018/08/i-just-won-a-billion-dollars.html
in the philippines you can go to any public hospital and save a life of a patient who can't afford a life saving procedure. you need nerves of steel though to pick the young and healthy non smokers.
but to me the perfect advocacy is when you get something in return. i think pres. jimmy carter was a stud and habitat for humanity was his modus operandi. you know how it goes - before you give the keys to a hot single mom, you wink at her. JFK's got nothing on jimmy boy. marilyn monroe was just like a perfect mannequin whose candle burned out long before her legend ever did. there's nothing like the brute smell and imperfections of a struggling single mom you cling to when the rain set in.
related to this is the concept of simplicity. the reason why new england partriots are so successful is because they only have a few simple plays that they master to death. this is why i'm disappointed with bernie sanders because he should just keep emphasizing that his free healthcare proposal will generate surplus or save us $5 trillion in 10 years. he should drop the $15 minimum wage law and free education so people won't be afraid that their taxes will be raised and he can win the election. then after he wins he can help address climate change and US atrocities.
realize that politicians and general advocacy activists are just like administrators. the ideal game is played by people like andrew hessel - Biotechnology/Nanotechnology | Andrew Hessel. imagine how genome mapping can impact the cost of healthcare. there are hundreds and maybe thousands of scientists like this guy. compare them to trump, bush, obama or even chomsky.
here's a video that demonstrates a very successful specific advocacy of a foundation in the philippines called gawad kalinga. The Genius of the Filipino Poor | Thomas Graham | TEDxADMU. a leftist might say the "mutual aid" spirit of filipinos prove socialism might work. but to me it's more complicated than that. it's like saying i can run fast and shoot 3 pointers therefore i should be able to play in the NBA. this video also proves intellectuals are ignoring a very big factor or concept when it comes to how society works - pedigree. tom was treated specially not because he was white but because he had high pedigree. tom cannot comprehend why in the UK he would not welcome a stranger because he belongs to the top echelon of the pedigree hierarchy. i know the pedigree concept is very difficult to grasp for many people because it's not something you can measure or describe concretely. it's something you just feel. i can only explain it using examples. so for example, if halle berry or chomsky gets a flat tire and appears in tom's doorstep asking for help i'm sure tom will be mesmerized by their charisma or pedigree and tom would be very honored and happy to invite them and stay for the night. but if it's a low pedigree english bloke i'm sure tom will turn him away.
3. inspiring the people vs. changing the system
leftists should lead by example by creating cooperatives and make youtube videos of co-op employees ecstatic and spreading the good word that workplace democracy is more awesome. it baffles me why leading leftists are not even involved with coops. meanwhile you got right wingers dying and losing limbs fighting for their country in iraq. it's ridiculous.
instead of trying to make rice hoarding illegal, scare the rice hoarders by telling people to eat camote (sweet potatoes) or corn if the price of rice becomes too high. rich people will always find a way to get away with murder. but they will think twice if demand drops sharply because consumers are resorting to alternative staples. it's healthy to diversify one's diet anyway. there are lots of small unused arable land in the philippines especially in the province and even around the city. if you just stick a few camote stalks in the ground, in 3 months you will get an abundant harvest. there is an unwritten protocol where anyone is free to plant camote on unused land as long as you don't build a shack and squat.
here is another example of an advocacy where you don't have to change any law - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2013/11/super-typhoon-retrospective.html
4. credibility
activism is a credibility business. as yanis said - "If I was a crazy left-wing lunatic, they wouldn’t have been afraid of me". the numerous flaws i point out about chomsky all over this rant is probably why the powerful elites are not afraid of chomsky. he was even invited to speak at west point.
i know that ideally, an activist should not need credibility. we should follow principles, not people. just because a nazi brushes his teeth does not mean we should stop brushing our teeth. but the reality is people are dumb and and activist needs credibility to make a difference.
a. sacrifice
the left is joining the march towards the cliff by lumping their climate change solution with free healthcare and free college tuition. that's like pleading for your life and demanding a cheese burger at the same time. i think the koch brothers celebrated when they saw the green new deal. maybe ernst mayr was right when he said higher intelligence may not be favored by selection.
a very attractive professor in cambridge even took her clothes off just to make a statement about brexit - Brexit: The Naked Truth (Dr Victoria Bateman, Cambridge, 2019). i hope ocasio cortes follows suite.
millions of americans died for freedom in world war 2. in contrast, when i watch these debates in youtube and the libertarian socialist (libsoc) is asked why he hasn't joined a co-op or started a company where workers control the means of production, the libsoc will always say something like, "he can't just pack up and leave his life behind ...", which is ridiculous because living in your ideal society is not even sacrifice. there wasn't an ounce of hesitation when i left the comfort and security of my friends and family in philippines to pursue my dreams in america. i wonder what percentage of the occupy movement work for coops. i even heard that most of them are just unemployed lazy bums. although i also heard that there were more tea party movement marchers who were unemployed. the greenbay packers co-op members should be the ones occupying wall street becaues they have more credibility - https://www.thenews.coop/37673/topic/development/green-bay-packers-winning-co-op/. unfortunately, leftists don't like lambeau leaping jingoist fanatics.
b. scold your teammates
a credibility technique no one talks about is what i like to call, "scold your teammates". don't just preach to the choir. a leftist always complaining about the tyranny of powerful elites but never scolding the poor for their mistakes is like a coach of the basketball team scolding a player of the other team for making too many 3 point shots.
a good example is when chomsky criticized the students for trying to block right wing speakers from speaking in campus. he said safe spaces are not that different from the prevailing orthodoxy that the student activists fought hard against in the 1960's. that's credibility !!!
when chomsky and jimmy dore scolded the democrats for their russian collusion hysteria, that's credibility !!!
when jim cramer supported trump's trade war with china but scolded trump on his show for the tariffs on mexico, that's crediblity !!! the small business of jim cramer's dad went down because of walmart. instead of behaving like a left wing lunatic dedicating his life to saving mom and pop stores from big corporations, he invested in walmart and is urging his viewers to do the same. that's credibility !!!
ronald reagan had credibility busting unions because he used to be a union leader himself. the insanely biased left will never tell you the disadvantages of unions - https://www.moneycrashers.com/labor-unions-united-states/. they never denounce the wrong doings of union leaders.
dr. drew has credibility because he scolds his audience. the result is he has helped millions of american kids deal with their emotional and relationship issues and trauma. dr. drew is also a good example of specific advocacy.
aside from condemning israel for the illegal expansion of settlements, the left should also urge the palestinians to stop the violence and hatred, condemn the imams for teaching extremism.
michael jordan is the greatest of all time (goat). he was always scolding his teammates. he even punched his point guard steve kerr giving him a black eye. that same season, they had a record breaking regular season wins and went on to win 3 championships together. the most memorable was when kerr made the winning shot off a feed from jordan in the decisive game six of the 1997 finals. steve kerr can take a punch because he is a son of a warrior hero - a university professor specializing in arab middle east conflicts who was assassinated in lebanon - shot in the head twice, while kerr was a freshman in university of arizona where chomsky used to teach. kerr was the son of a warrior and now the head coach of the warriors, winning 3 titles, bringing his total nba titles to a whopping 8.
adam carolla and jimmy kimmel are 2 stars who are on the opposite ends of the political spectrum yet they are best friends. i wrote an article about their friendship, including the time when kimmel scolded carolla - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2015/07/pakisama.html
i used to scold my republican golfing buddies for being too anal about gay marriage (no pun intended). i told them america will become a socialist country one day because conservatives are turning off common sense independent voters for their useless and impractical opposition to gay marriage. i guess they agreed with me because anti gay marriage rhetoric have subsided and republicans started winning elections. we even have a republican president courting a transgender - Rudy Giuliani in Drag Smooching Donald Trump.
i also scolded my republican golfing buddies about bill clinton's impeachment. i told them their morality arguments are just bullshit and if clinton was a republican they would look the other way. common sense independent voters don't really care about what 2 consenting adults do in the white house because it has nothing to do with putting food on the table. i was proven right because clinton's approval rating rose to it's all time highs after the impeachment. and, surprise surprise the republicans even elected trump who is a self confessed womanizer.
i also scolded donald trump about his birther obsession while we were playing golf. i told him nobody gives a rats ass if obama was born in the planet klingon for crying out loud. trump's face became that of regret and worry. so i adviced him he could always shift the blame on hillary.
don't assume your teammates are the good guys. the khmer rouge has taught us that the underdog can become the bad guys if they get a chance.
c. uncle bertie
i would like to take this opportunity to give a shout out to my tito bertie in heaven. he was a chain smoker but he kept scaring me how smoking will surely ruin my life if i even try it. that's credibility. if he was a health buff i probably would not have listened to him and i would probably be a smoker today.
my mom kept convincing me to go to church but she also told me church makes her happy. church to me is painfully boring. i told my mom i don't think god gives her extra credit for going to church because she enjoys it. that would be unfair to people who feels church is torturous.
when chomsky says trump is doing the right thing ending the joint military exercises with south korea, that's credibility !!! when clinton said the era of big government is over, that's credibility !!! anti trump business owners in san francisco said that if we should do something about china's unfair trade practices, now is the best time to do it. that's credibility !!!
when chomsky said the arrest of julian assange was scandalous even if assange helped donald trump win, that's credibility !!!
if you celebrate after the atomic bombs were dropped in japan but conclude that it was unnecessary in terms of lives saved, that's credibility !!! but if you are like einstein who expressed sadness after the bombs were dropped then you won't have that much credibility if you say using the atomic bombs was unnecessary.
if you are known to be anti communist and you condemned the vietnam war, that's credibility !!! but if you've been an ideologue leftist all your life, then even if you get something right, then it would be just a case of "a broken clock is always right twice a day".
d. consistency
if you are anti-abortion but you turn a blind eye on US atrocities, you lose credibility.
the left is also riddled with inconsistencies. they are scattered all over this article but i will just give 1 here. chomsky keeps saying that the cold war was just a pretext for the soviets and US to dominate their respective domains. yet he also claims the cuban missile crisis was the most dangerous time in history. why was it dangerous if US and the soviets were just colluding?
5. people are dumb
being gifted with exceptional abilities comes with responsibilities. you must recognize when people are relatively less intelligent compared to your standards. if you really care for other people, and not just your pride and agenda, then you will go out of your way to accommodate people's intellectual shortcomings. it's like if you try to explain to your son why he should not swim in shark infested waters and your son does not understand, you don't just say, "oh well tough luck. bye bye son". you GO OUT OF YOUR WAY to explain clearly because you care for him.
if bernie sanders loses in 2020, i think it would be because of marketing. people are dumb to know that social democracy is not socialism. bernie should have renamed it to something like "scandinavian capitalism". what's even worse is that bernie calls himself a democratic socialist, which is technically true socialism if you google it.
chomsky failed to emphasize the non aggression principle and did not talk about co-ops when he talked about dismantling corporations and when he made speeches on libertarian socialism. people are not smart enough to figure out that dismantling of corporations means joining co-ops. chomsky lost credibility in my book when it comes to economic policies. but i still value his opinions on US atrocities and climate change.
i'm a cum laude graduate in computer science from a top university. yet when i first heard the warning there will be a storm surge in tacloban, i had no idea what it was. i only knew what is a storm surge after it ravaged tacloban and killed thousands of lives. but if the warning said a "deadly super tsunami like storm surge is fast approaching", people would have ran for the hills because they already know what is a tsunami which killed 240 thousand people just before that.
not everyone graduated from oxford. don't assume people know all the facts. in every issue, always educate people on both sides of the issue. or else you could end up doing more harm than good to the people you are helping. example - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2017/01/leftists-harming-the-palestinians.html
6. know your true enemies
the true enemies are the moderates and the extremists. the competition between moderate republicans and moderate democrats is really just like sports entertainment - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2017/09/united-states-of-libertarians.html.
i'm a moderate libertarian so my true enemies are the extremists like the white nationalists and even extreme libertarians who don't want any form of government. the anarcho-communists or libertarian socialists are also my enemies because they want to take away my right to own property for the sake of equality. chomsky is a good person so he wants people to be equal. therefore he is my enemy because i need inequality to give me the economic leverage to prey on hot chicks - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/03/picking-up-chicks-for-uglies.html. the moral conservatives are not my enemies because although they consider me evil, they won't throw me in jail as long as my chicks are not minors. they will just stay away from me. which is ok because if you just look at the percentage of porn traffic in the internet, it's easy to surmise i will never be in short supply of deplorable friends. wankers of the world, unite !!! lumpenproletariat solidarity !!! but no shake hands of course.
know your true enemies but be a good sport. example i want my family to migrate to america. therefore anne coulter is my enemy. but hating anne coulter would be like hating tom brady for scoring a touchdown against my team. the sad ugly truth is that anne coulter is correct. if philippines was placed in the middle of africa i'm pretty sure filipinos would not want open borders.
if you don't follow my teachings, your true enemies will win - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2017/12/brain-dead-ideologues.html
7. preaching to the choir
it sounds depressing to realize political pundits and activists are mostly just preaching to the choir. this is why the greatest graduation speech ever contained only 2 words:
"wear sunscreen"
if i was a leftist i would go to venezuela and urge them to move to the coast and learn to fish or to the rural areas to farm. although i don't think venezuelans can be that stupid to not think about this on their own. maybe the situation isn't really that bad and they are not starving. in any case, i would inspire them using the movie "the martian" where he was able to plant potatoes and feed himself even if mars does not have water and fertile soil.
8. overreach
both the left and the right have important causes. but too many times, they overreach and ruin their core message. quick examples are the clinton impeachment, birther movement, anti-gay marriage, russian collusion, etc ... which has nothing to do with putting food on the table.
i think it's an overreach to force wedding cake caterers to make a gay wedding cake and attend the wedding ceremony. of course the business license should be revoked if they refuse service to gay people who wants to eat in their restaurant or buy a cake that is already made. but it's a violation of individual freedom to force someone to toil for many hours doing something that's against their religious beliefs. it's really not an issue anyway because if i was gay, i still wouldn't want a bigot to bake my cake for safety reasons. the gay couple who insisted that the bigot bake their cake are probably leftists because they have poor instinct for self preservation.
another example of overreach is when LGBT group wants to make it legal for men to enter the girl's bathroom. why not just use common sense or case by case basis to allow vulnerable looking transgenders to use the bathroom where they will be safer? - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2017/12/brain-dead-ideologues.html
9. leftist sperm bank
making morality speeches hoping america will become humane and selfless is like convincing gay people to become straight. what really goes on in those leftist sermons is preaching to the choir or a cult gathering of straight individuals ridiculing gay people for refusing the pleasures of beautiful caring women. it's like - "miss universe is courting him and he rejects her. such an idiot !!!". then the audience goes - "hahahahah !!!! right wingers are so stupid !!!". what i'm trying to say is that psychopath americans don't care about workplace democracy or infants dying from malnutrition. they just want to ride jet skis and go shopping.
the good news is that human society is always improving. but it's not because of activist's lectures on morality. slavery in america was not abolished because of lincoln's gettysburg address.
immorality is actually a survival necessity for less civilized or industrialized societies (e.g. morioris decimating the maoris). humans are becoming increasingly moral because there is less need for immorality due to technology. right wingers are actually moral people from "country is my tribe" perspective. apparently country to country immorality still feels like a survival necessity because although women nowadays tend to refuse to procreate with a criminal, women don't get turned off by international war criminals. i'm sure the united fruit company oligarchs and their puppet politicians got lots of tails.
i notice that although mankind is getting increasingly moral from the "country is my tribe" perspective, it's becoming less moral from the "world is my tribe" perspective. the reason is leftists are procreating less while right wingers are multiplying like rabbits. the population of countries that fit my socialist and socdem personality criteria are plummeting. a good example for this is japan and germany who now have reverse pyramid demographics (more old people than young people). meanwhile, population of countries that are corrupt are booming. no amount of lectures on morality can stem this tide. the only way for mankind to progress towards pure morality is for leftists to donate to sperm banks and everyone use them (but only the leftist intellectuals should donate their sperm, not those leftist guerrillas that massacred my dad's employees and threatened to kill my dad - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/05/apple-falling-far-from-the-tree.html). if i was married i would rather use kyle kulinski's or yanis' sperm to impregnate my wife because this world because the last thing this world needs is another human being like me.
10. androids
if technology advances to the point that androids farm our food and we have machines that would produce iphones with a press of a button, then libertarian socialist (libsoc) society will be the perfect system. that's why i find that movie "passengers" flawed because with technology that advanced there should be no more inequality and he should also get the premium breakfast.
i sound like i'm just clowning around but yanis also said something similar when he said 3d printers might be the only way to realize his marxist dreams. that means yanis also agrees with me that the current state of human nature is just hopeless. i'm probably not that dumb after all.
trump is the biggest libsoc because he cut corporate taxes which allows the corporations to invest more on research and technology thus accelerating our progress towards libsoc (joke).
11. watch cosmos
if my rants make you sad, watch the tv series cosmos and realize we are so insignificant and nothing really matters. humans will only be around for another 5 million years even with zero carbon emissions while the sharks have been around for 420 million years. we are just visitors. so might as well not worry too much and just do what you can do to help. but we do the same anyway like when that 2014 tsunami killed 230 thousand people. we accepted that it's just a natural calamity. so why not consider those who disagree with you politically as just another natural calamity so you can accept them and work with them? maybe it will make us happier and increase the chances of solving problems instead of worsening it because of lack of compromise. i just ended my thesis by violating my thesis - "you can't control your feelings".
VI. updates
3/16/21 facebook post -----------
now i understand why even if 80% of americans support universal healthcare they did not vote for bernie sanders. humans are so complicated. i watched this yt video "fleeing south korea" by al jazeera (Fleeing South Korea) and was wondering why they would flee a country with the #1 universal healthcare system in the world and go to america. it's like if toyota camry owners are asked if they prefer a BMW, most of them will say yes they prefer a BMW over a camry. but if asked if they are willing to pay extra $500 a month for the BMW, most likely they will say no. similarly most americans would prefer universal healthcare but would not want to pay higher tax like canada and norway. the campaign message of the left should focus on - "universal healthcare lowers your taxes" and not "it saves OTHER people's lives". the video also shows that for most people, freedom is a very high priority, and it explains why the republican oligarchs have successfully transformed the democratic party into the earlier version of the republican party. freedom is the core principle of republicans while the core principle of the democrats is "helping other people". the republican oligarchs were happy biden won because biden is practically a republican. even the oil oligarchs didn't like trump because more drilling means oversupply and lower oil prices. it was just the oil workers who supported trump because more drilling means more jobs. the oil stocks have been going up a lot since biden won despite a boom in renewable energy. chomsky said that the democrats today are farther to the right than the republicans in the past. can you believe bob dole advocated for food stamps? search in yt "bob dole food stamp". can you believe that obama said if we were in the 80's he would consider himself a moderate republican? if you don't believe me, watch "Obama: I'd be a moderate Republican if this were the 1980s". if you want icecream for you brain, watch CNN and fox news. if you want meat for you brain, read chomsky. if you want vegetables for you brain, search "ian's knowledge bombs" on the web and click "politics-for-dummies" in the table of contents.
7/14/20 facebook post -----------------------
the normal cycle of society: strong society produces weak people. weak people produces weak societies. weak societies produces strong people. strong people produces strong societies. strong societies produces weak people and the cycle continues. america will soon be taken over by leftist social democrats just like the one in greece where the leaders will just depend on unsustainable financial capital for growth just to keep getting re-elected instead of the more sustainable industrial capital which requires people to work hard. the democrats will sweep the elections this november. the next time republicans will win the presidency or have majority of congress or senate will be in year 3048.
bernie sanders just dropped out of the race. he wants everyone to focus on fighting this pandemic. this means social democracy is in hibernation for now. but social democracy is the future of america simply because the newer generations prefer it. political discourse is really a battle for way of life. it's really like settled farmers battling nomadic herders on the best use of grazing lands. there is no right or wrong because what's best for a person depends on human nature. a person with herder genes will suffer living the supposedly more comfortable life of a farmer simply because a farmer's way of life is not compatible with his/her biology or personality. same way extreme leftists such as chomsky feels wage labor is different from slavery only that it's temporary so he wants to dismantle the corporations. extreme leftists think it's immoral to own properties but eats innocent cows and chickens. they don't realize that most people would rather suffer poverty and have a chance to own a car or cell phone than have all the basic needs but no chance in owning anything. extreme leftists (anarcho syndicalists/libertarian socialists) are so out of touch from the realities of human nature to the point that they have no choice but to strangely be huge supporters of bernie sanders who's big government agenda is actually the extreme opposite of their main objective which is no state or government. even if there is such a thing as the moral choice, it's still irrelevant because the native americans who were decimated to near extinction where the good guys and the slaves were the good guys and i don't think anyone wants to be enslaved or massacred. morality is dictated by whoever has the power. the good news is that libertarian socialists are free to live their anarchist dreams like the quakers of pennsylvania, where they will be protected by the united states constitution from external and internal aggression. libertarian socialists can also start or join coops or workplace democracies which are a thousand times closer to libertarian socialism than soviet state socialism or bernie sander's big government social democracy. don't be a fascist and force your preferred way of life on others. arguing about politics always boils down to arguing which color is more beautiful.
(for more of my knowledge bombs, click the "ian's knowledge bombs" banner at the top of this article and choose any article in the table of contents that piques your interest)
You have been infected, brains worms, origin of all disease, Introduced pathogen, Judeo Mononucleopsychosis the symptom. Wendigo Psychosis, oriiginal Indian, Sanskrit description of your diseased mind. Trace it back to the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind. The brain worm severes essential analytical capacities. Columbus and other Cannibals, UC Davis DNA blood hounds track to ground zero. Unfortunate, Carl Jung explains, Astro Mechanisms, for you. Sanskrit record is clear. Christian, Muslim, and Jew, Abrahamic Delusions. 'Belief' is a stop thought pathology. 'Faith' in the delusion s between your ears. M.A.S.H. Army solution, no organism can grow until it learns to eliminate. Your responsibility to humankind. Suicide is painless.
ReplyDeleteCivilized communities arouhd the world suffered the Roman Reich, genocide, documented 400 million murders, Mononucleo (abrahamic one god center) The Horror story of 6,000 years Judeo Foundational Holy Roman Amplified Sky Skyscraper Fraud. Unconscious driven Manifest Destiny 'Consume" Flesh and Blood 'Holy Mary' Jung explains, the 'All Devouring Mother' 'If you can swallow god in cracker you are insane, most likely criminally' Origin of societal ills. Holy Empire of Rome, it has suffaced from the depths, 4th and Final Reich as scheduled. Joe Mengele contractual partnerships, notarized, in possesion Scotish Rite. Metempsychosis is beginning understanding of Reality, Universal Oscillation is no bullshit. They've walked to their own Ambush , not knowing, not capable of seeing the own mirror image refleted personality, Defined not:see NAZI Carl Jung and the psychology of the unconscious, transformation of the libido, the Devil has walked right in on his own volition, The GOD of Abraham, the Last Round Up @ The Ok Corral. Got every last one of them, Christian, Muslim, and Jew.
ReplyDelete