Thursday, August 15, 2019

Epstein

There may be way more, much more, to the Epstein life story than underage prostitution and suicide awaiting trial for sex crimes at 66.

The most lurid account I've found is this one, which claims that Epstein fell into place as the leader of Roy Cohn's sex and blackmail operation in 1986 after the legendary Cohn died of AIDS at 59.

Appearances are that Epstein died of suicide.  It is very plausible to believe he wanted suicide and it appeared he had already tried once.  This is supposed to be as impossible as it can be made in Federal Prison, but in Epstein's case there were a series of irregularities.

It was not money alone, but connections, that kept Epstein out of prison since 2007.  Epstein had enablers and clients, none who wanted exposure.

But in this case, money alone might be sufficient to engineer the irregularities that made Epstein's suicide possible, and his enablers and clients would be fine with that also.

I believe this case demands an independent special investigator, given Epstein's broad list of contacts.




Wednesday, August 14, 2019

Industry Contributions?

Recently Joaquin Castro circulated a set of numbers, later said to be sourced from Indivisible, showing contributions from known evil industries, such as pharmaceuticals.

Bernie was not at the bottom, as you might expect from his speeches.  He was below average, among the Presidential candidates, but not much below average.

I think these "industry contributions" may come not just from the titans of the corporation, but the ordinary workers.  When you make a campaign contribution, you are forced to specify your occupation and employer.  Then, someone can simply assign that "employer" to an industry, and we have the "industry contributions."

I believe Bernie when he says he doesn't take corporate PAC money, and certain other things.  I think he's more principled about these things, say, than the brother of Joaquin Castro.  The numbers are giving a false impression of Bernie's attachment to large corrupt donors, CEO's and so on.

I see nobody else talking about this online, perhaps my googleverse simply doesn't go there.

Perhaps it's just a local thing too, since it came from Joaquin Castro, but the numbers were said to be sourced from Indivisible, which actually seems to have a positive relationship with Bernie, unlike the DNC of 2016 and perhaps today.


Oppositional Argumentation

FAIR documents well  how the New York Times uses twisted pro-war arguments against war with Iran.

This is nothing new, this is how it's done, in disinformation, concern trolling, etc.

All part of Manufacturing Consent (which mainstream media is constantly planting false arguments against, while denying they are "fake" which they are--where it counts).

The end result is further social division, and having those opposed to war lacking powerful arguments, and so off we go.

The war boosting wrt Venezuela doesn't even need the pretense of opposition to war.



Monday, August 12, 2019

Eco Fascism

While I share the goal of reducing human population, I do not accept their way of getting there, or the racial selectivity of it.  White "People" have no special claim on North America, "we" stole it by force after European diseases did the bulk of the work.*  That we remain here is a grace my ancestors enjoyed greatly and me so far.

(*To be clear, my ancestors were not at all part of the original theft, but accepted immigration through the regime of the thieves long later, which was greased by the thieves further for internal occupation purposes, which my ancestors should have been smart enough to understand.  Also, there is no such race as "white race," it's an imaginary construct wrapped around many different ethnic traditions, and race in general is a social construct invented tailored for social control.  The correct answer to "Race?" is "Never!"  The correct answer to "Sex?" is "Not enough recently."  The correct answer to "Religion?" is "Not if I can avoid it."

Ideally, the required future global population reduction is achieved across all races (and ultimately nations) by the correct combination of carrots and sticks.  Education and empowering women in saying no is first, combined with free contraception and abortion.  From there, I'm not sure about the correct carrots, but I think the deals regarding retirement and guaranteed income be slightly better for 0, 1, 2, and 3 children respectively.  After two children, you are advised to get sterilized (male and female).  After 3 children, it's mandatory.  Combined with the greater support and endorsement for a childless life.  I've already calculated the optimal rate of childbirth: 0.5 children per person.  That would produce fast enough population reduction to considerably assist in reaching a sustainable society without total collapse.  Even then, it's only one of many almost unthinkable but needed changes.  I'm a zero childbirth producing individual myself as are many of my friends.  It's not hell, some say I have it much easier, which I do.  But still, I feel society is misdirected in many ways that affect my needs too.  Single people need less short-term-profit and/or religious institutions to hang out in, unhindered access to recreation drugs, and regulated prostitution.  All the kinds of distractions traditional societies prohibit to direct the tribe to growth above freedom.

I'm dreaming, of course, because the last thing the ruling class wants is population reduction.  They want growing income from a growing number of serfs and slaves.  But they don't much care about social liberals.  They can all be lonely singles, while religion keeps the right wing expanding, or at least producing enough victims before they defect from it to keep from collapsing.




Sunday, August 11, 2019

Satanism

Satanism is not "leftism," it is essentially libertarianism taken to extreme.  Perhaps you could call it "libertinism."

The Satanist churches of the 1970's and beyond worship personal success and violence.  The political views of Satanists has been described as usually similar to American Libertarians, or more extreme, such as no taxes at all, and certainly no government welfare or healthcare programs.

In the Satanist view, anyone poor or sick or who loses a fight deserves it.

There is some evidence these churches were created by and for spooks as a bed for recruitment and fun, and/or possibly surveillance.

Does that make it right wing?  American Libertarians would create a 2-dimensional matrix to show where they are, instead of left right.  But in the more traditional left/right, American Libertarians lean right on things of importance to society, such as taxes and government spending, and are generally considered to be on the right more-or-less.

A right centrist but anti-corporate and anti-prohibitionist friend of mine used to think of himself as Libertarian until he attended a Libertarian meeting.  He decided they were too uncritical of corporatocracy, and henceforth he would call himself a Conservative.  He almost always votes for Democratic candidates basically because the Republicans are Movement Conservatives who are nuts.  But he hated Bill Clinton, who he saw as immoral, believing the allegations of Jennifer Flowers.  So no amorality for that once self-described Libertarian.

The Dayton shooter does not appear to have been inspired by his allegedly favorite Presidential candidate.  He did not use her words.  He could hardly be more different on matters such as gun control.

Basically, his thinking appears to be incoherent, and the fact he preferred Warren reveals nothing but the popularity in his circles.

Warren herself is not exactly a leftist, a better description would be left liberal.  There is only one Leftist among the Presidential candidates, Bernie.  There was a second Leftist protest candidate Gravel, but he withdrew and endorsed Bernie.  The other Democrats are centrists, with Biden being center right.

Satanism is also not associated with Athiesm, despite many religious right trying to make this association.

Athiests do not believe in supernatural entities, divinity or divinities, god or gods, etc.  Satan is a supernatural entity who, when he appears at all, is always part of a Christian story, as the antithesis of Jesus.  Satan is not found in the worldview of other religions, or in Atheism.

Athiests are not free of moral or ethical values either, just because they don't wrap such things in the language of revealed truth.  They get their morality and ethics from Humanism, Rationalism, Utilitarianism, Stoicism, Mutualism, or similar schools of human thought, which would not allow you to hurt another if it could be prevented, and would mandate giving aid to those hurt by others if it would not create an equal or worse problem for yourself.  There is nothing uniquely Christian or even uniquely religious about such ideas, and especially, they don't require a belief in God (and/or Satan).

To be clear, it is unlikely the Dayton shooter was actually a Satanist church member, and shouldn't be associated with them either.  He just chose Satanism as one name for his identity.  A devout Satanist would traditionally disapprove of a shooting spree unless somehow you could get away without being killed or captured.  Mass shooters who shoot themselves or get captured are losers.

Friday, August 9, 2019

Preventing El Paso

1) The President should tone down his demonization rhetoric.  Failure to do so is grounds for Impeachment, and one of the best.  It's proto-Fascism, which inspires vulnerable people to do terrible things.  In the fascist playbook, this eventually leads to some kind of response by the target, which becomes justification for all out Fascism.  We do not want to go through this playbook, it's bad all the way and leads to worse.

2) Gun Control Improvements.  Background Checks is a fine start.  Do we still have that Gun Show loophole?  That should be eliminated.  I like the idea of gun licensing.  Restrictions should especially apply to ammunition, which now is sold fairly free of oversight.

It's not clear that any of those things would have made a difference in this case.  The shooter was alienated, isolated, "radicalized", but in no legal way would he be ineligable for a gun license, if such a thing existed, and buy everything he did.  He was not "mentally ill" (our society, however, is mentally ill in a systemic sense, to be discussed later).  He was isolated, angry, and inspired by bigotry.

Guns and magazines capable of more than so many shots* without manual reloading should be restricted to various military, police, authorized state militia.  This, actually, might have been effective, though such things already exist in masse, can be sold by private parties easily if sometimes in violation of law.

(*I'm not an expert, but 6 sounds about right for the maximum.)

So, add to that mass seizure of such weapons already in general circulation.  Now we're getting somewhere.   I'm not holding my breath, but other countries have done this...for ordinary handguns.

NOW, what's an authorized state militia?  Well there are rules and regulations to be a member, including training and regular meetings.  Is that enough?  Could you have an authorized neo Nazi militia, and would that be ok?  I don't know how these things could be properly regulated, but it's worth trying IMO.

3) Gun Liability

Should Gun Companies be liable for illegal deaths?  Gun Sellers?

Along with your Gun License, should you also have Gun Insurance, and how is the coverage defined?

I believe these are very serious concepts, and suited to the seriousness of the issue we are discussing.

If gun insurance cost makes it virtually impossible for less than 25 year olds to buy larger amounts of ammo, or large cartridges, that might be a good thing.


4) Video Games

I have very mixed feelings about censoring Video Games.  Evidence of causality is limited in most cases.  Some age restrictions are appropriate.  This is getting dangerously close to restricting freedom of speech.


5) Social Media

Somehow, this is the current poor kid on the block that the bully always picks on.  Already, websites have been shut down.

Social media is speech and should be beyond restriction and carriers of such speech should not be liable for content.

People spouting off aren't killing people, unless they're simultaneously firing guns.

Censorship is another slippery slope to Fascism.


6) Mental Health

While no mass shooter is a "mentally healthy" individual as it happens, beforehand such an individual can seem fine enough to get a gun license, etc., in many cases, and pass whatever kind of mental health test you can devise that's reasonable.  That is what we have observed in most cases.

Meanwhile, most people with mental illness are possibly even less dangerous than the population at large.  They should not be stigmatized, and in many cases allowed to have gun licenses.  Only certain mental illnesses might qualify for restriction.

7) Drugs

I am not aware of drugs in this case and most others.  Recreational Drugs are unfairly criminalized, discriminated against, etc.  ALL this is essentially political.  If drug abuse were treated as illness to which people could get free voluntary treatment (funded by a tax on recreational drugs) it would be handled much better.

Drug prohibition has been terrible destructive and anti-social at every level, from Plan Columbia on down, a total disaster.  Noam Chomsky calls it the War on Poor People.

Without drug prohibition, we could have a much better society.  Rather than angry young men behind screens, we'd more marijuana and psychedelic "coffee houses" and the like, where people could positively intermingle under their chosen influences.

While at ending prohibitions, prohibitions on prostitution and the like should be eliminated, and replaced with sensible regulations.  This is another way our "angry young man" gets relief, and someone else makes a good (legal) living.


8) Social Health

I think pretty much everyone except a flak (including Trump) can agree we have a sick society.

But what constitutes healthiness and sickness is in vast dispute, so much that some ideas of utopia are another's idea of hell.

That may be part of the problem.

But obviously, we must provide more pro-social opportunities for people.   I've already suggested two ideas that are somewhat different than what one often hears.

I do believe, indeed, this is the thing.

But quite possible, even a healthy society would have reasonable gun restrictions outlined above, along with all the other great ideas I've suggested.  Capitalism limits the ultimate potential in ending prohibitions, but even with capitalism full spectrum of personal choice is preferable to none.

(Even with capitalism, however, pressure free Drug Clubs could be a step beyond Coffee Houses--whose incentive like bars is to sell you more intoxicants.  Likewise, Sex Clubs rather than Brothels.  I was surprised to find in Amsterdam, noted for liberalism, that dancing establishments had to be clubs...though one could often get a one night invitation just standing outside.  Requiring club membership for certain dangerous activities may be part of the best regulatory system.  And having the property not making money purely or if at all from selling drugs, sex, whatever, but rather from club membership and keeping its good name.)

In an unheathly society, we may need the gun restrictions even more.

The primary illness our society is suffering from is late stage imperial capitalism.

The prescription is full bore green socialism.