Merry Christmas

Shared without further comment.

Solvable Problems

 If you've spent any time teasing apart the ideas of any philosophy you will likely know that each has some kind of foundational statement or concept upon which everything else is based. For example, Jordan Peterson's attempt has the foundational concept "Everyone acts as though pain is real, therefore pain is real." He cites this in one of his early Maps of Meaning vid's as the foundation by including the statement "You have to start somewhere." Taken at face value, that might pass, but the statement is false: Sociopaths do not feel emotional pain at all, they literally have no idea what it is. Those rare individuals with congenital analgesia do not feel physical pain, they literally have no idea what it is. Peterson's attempt at a coherent philosophy abruptly has the foundation snatched out from beneath it and everything stacked on top collapses into the component parts; some of those are interesting, and some may have some value, but they are bits and pieces, not a coherent whole.

The entire body of left leaning philosophy has the concept of equality as it's foundation. Yanking the foundations out from left-wing thought is effortless; there is no equality in reality, you can't have or enforce what does not exist. Impossible things don't happen. Equality of opportunity is just as absurd a goal as equality of outcomes. Variance obliterates any idea of equality. It's no surprise that any attempt to implement the ideas stacked on the false foundation always lead to mere failure at the very best.

What brought that to mind was something said in the linked interview below; at around 61:07 the question is asked, can these problems be solved? The answer involves the different between solvable problems and manageable problems, and is worth your time - the whole interview is but this bit particularly.

https://rumble.com/vbkjyv-ep.-1407-exclusive-interview-with-general-mike-flynn-the-dan-bongino-show.html?mref=16emn&mc=6kk5f

The idea of holding people elected or appointed (or in general for that matter) accountable is hardly new, but has grown in importance over the last few decades.

On a related note, Vox Day shares a link to work being done to shine a light on recent electoral fraud that the msm would have us all believe is imaginary ("Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" - Groucho Marx, if I remember correctly).

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2020/12/dominion-and-virtual-precincts.html

There are further links within Mr Day's post, and if you have the time they are worth your time.

I seem to be on a roll here, so I'll just link one more site that is significant and of interest, just in case you are unaware that there are an army of citizen reporters stepping up to the plate to do the work journalists of the msm choose not to do... well, there are. I picked a vid' not entirely at random.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4cZ65HZfEk

Where's The Evidence Of Vote Fraud?

 Where isn't there evidence?

The Biggest Crime In History

The false media narrative(s) must be apparent to everyone by now. For example, almost all media are calling Biden the President elect, which they cannot not know to be false. The only reason I've looked at the msm for roughly twenty years is to see what they are lying about, then go find out what the truth might be.

 

The difference between these and msm outlets (including goog/twit/tube/booface etc.) is striking.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-rep-devin-nunes-biden-team-is-putting-on-a-facade-that-theyve-won_3587971.html

Devin Nunes has a few interesting things to say here.

"It's so much worse than people imagine." Including even myself, he goes on to say.

Sometimes I stumble onto interesting speakers on Tube, only to find them removed from the 'platform' within days. It's been getting worse, numbers are increasing, and thus it's becoming more obvious.

Well, alternatives exist. I recommend people use them (parler etc.). After all, it's no coincidence that I can only directly link to Tube here, and have to put in a raw link to rumble.

https://rumble.com/vb8jzh-teaser-devin-nunes-the-man-behind-the-explosive-memo-american-thought-leade.html

This is the point in our story where our heroes are being overwhelmed, but there is a way yet to win a path to freedom.

As individuals we should do what we can; after all, it is our freedom that is at stake.

More Lies Exposed

A huge number of employed medical specialists know they are lying, and do so because their careers/incomes depend upon it.

There's really too much covered here to comment on any individual point. In short, everything the msm and governments are telling us is false, and known by them to be false. In the last 20 years or so, this has become increasingly blatant. 

Perfectly Normal.

 

I'd love to say the current situation is shocking, surprising or even mildly unexpected. But let's face it, everyone knew this was going to happen.

I mean, he told you what he had done and was doing:

And Pelosi is on record with a parallel quote: "I feel very confident that Joe Biden will be elected President on Tuesday, whatever the end count is..." Whatever the count is, because that's totally how elections work.

The only thing that has changed here is the scale and the brazen nature of the fraud. Optics? At this point, caring about how things look is irrelevant. Don't waste too much time on this vid', unless you are lucky enough to have massive amounts of spare time, but there a a few interesting points here and there: The Pelosi quote from above is at about 11:30

An former auditor has a few interesting points to make (he's a little sweary about it).

In auditing you look for red flags. That’s weird bits in the data that suggest something shifty is going on. You flag those weird things so you can delve into them further. One flag doesn’t necessarily mean there’s fraud. Weird things happen. A few flags mean stupidity or dishonesty. But a giant pile of red flags means that there’s bad shit going on and people should be in jail.

The massive turn out alone is a red flag.

But as for doing better…

The late night spikes that were enough to close all the Trump leads are a red flag.

The statistically impossible breakdown of the ratios of these vote dumps is a red flag.

The ratios of these dumps being far better than the percentages in the bluest of blue cities, even though the historical data does not match, red flag.

The ratios of these vote dumps favoring Biden more in these few battlegrounds than the ratio for the rest of the country (even the bluest of the blue) red flag.

Biden outperforming Obama among these few urban vote dumps, even though Trump picked up points in every demographic group in the rest of the country, red flag.

The poll observers being removed. Red flag.

The counters cheering as GOP observers are removed, red flag.

The fact that the dem observers outnumber the GOP observers 3 to 1, red flag (and basis of the first lawsuit filed)

The electioneering at the polls (on video), red flag.

The willful violation of the court order requiring the separation of ballots by type, red flag.

USPS whistleblower reporting to the Inspector General that today they were ordered to backdate ballots to yesterday, red flag.

The video of 2 AM deliveries of what appear to be boxes of ballots with no chain of custody or other observers right before the late night miracle spikes, red flag.

Any of those things would be enough to trigger an audit in the normal world. This many flags and I’d be giggling in anticipation of catching some thieves.

And it isn’t that I have to do better. I’m just an gen pop observer who happens to be a retired auditor with a finely tuned bullshit detector. This is going to the courts.

https://monsterhunternation.com/2020/11/05/the-2020-election-fuckery-is-afoot/

When I say that the only thing that has changed here is the scale, here's a lone example that can stand for the hundreds that exist in American history.

"Johnson election theft took place in 1948, when he was running for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate against Texas Governor Coke Stevenson, one of the most admired and respected governors in the history of the state.

It was later discovered that one of Parr’s men had changed the total tally for Johnson from 765 to 965 by simply curling the 7 into a 9."

And somewhat later in the text...

"Where did the extra 200 votes come from? The last 202 names on on the election roll in Box 13 were in a different color ink from the rest of the names, the names were in alphabetical order, and they were all in the same handwriting. When Caro was researching his book, he secured a statement from Luis Salas, an election judge in Jim Wells County, who acknowledged the fraud and confessing his role in it."

https://www.fff.org/2020/11/02/dont-forget-lbjs-election-theft/

At least in America there is a reasonably clear choice on offer in this specific election. Here in the UK the situation has developed to the point where it visibly and obviously makes no difference where the X goes on the ballot, the people will get the merely a slightly different version of the same thing. That may change, but is unlikely to change fast enough.

History continues to unfold according to the scripts already written, but remember that causality runs in one direction only and nothing is settled until the present becomes the past.

We do what we can.

Fun (or should I say Interesting) Times

Billed as satire, but these people - individually and as groups - are entirely serious and acting to 'muster their forces' and force their dreams to be our nightmares.

It's not a conspiracy theory when they tell you what they are doing.

Harrison Bergeron & Us

Harrison Bergeron is a short story by Kurt Vonnegut that I've seen mentioned several times recently, including here (fairly randomly as this is simply the latest place I saw the story mention and discussed):

And here's a link to the story itself: http://tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

It's a short read, and not desperately subtle. The underlying theme is those that believe everyone should be made equal do not have anyone's best interests at heart, coupled with the idea that the innately superior will always rise above any amount of handicapping and therefore must be ended by the equalizers.

Whoever does the deciding is obviously motivated to disadvantage everybody else so that they themselves are and remain advantaged. This is how this philosophy has always played out when implemented in reality. It is no coincidence that any implementation of a plan to pick out any group deemed to be disadvantaged and rise them up always ends in that group being further disadvantaged.

On what may seem to be an entirely different topic, and while I'm in the mood for sharing things, here's something rather more interesting (in the sense of being rather less obvious and therefore rather more worth your time). There are roughly a dozen in this sequence and each is short and to the point.

I just spent a little time looking around for a transcript of these, for those who read faster than people speak, but can't find one in a reasonable amount of time and don't have time to do that work. Pity, but there we are.

How Do You Go Bankrupt? Very Slowly. And Then Very Quickly.

You want the truth? You can't handle the truth.

Or maybe you can. It hardly matters. The truth correlates to the facts and the facts are embedded in reality. Reality doesn't change, so you are going to handle reality, the facts, the truth, like it or not. Or, put another way, failure to observe reality will not stop reality impinging on you. So far, this all sounds self-evident, but give me a minute and I'll get to where it isn't. If you find the current reality confusing, it will all become clear by the time I'm done.

To clarify requires some structure that is solidly based in reality. The first questions should be, what is real? What is the most fundamental statement about reality that pertains?

Biological organisms compete.

If anyone cares to undertake the endless quest for a biological organism that does not compete, feel free.

Competition is conflict.

No matter how passive that conflict may be, it is still conflict. A strangler vine is unaware of the existence of the tree, but at the end of the day the tree is still dead.

Conflict is war.

That may seem a little less firm, but observe that though there was no malice on the part of the strangler vine, the tree is still dead. It may have reproduced before it dies, but so did the strangler vine. The conflict continues. You might argue that war is a property of organisms that organise, but that is us so I find no comfort there.

Competition is conflict and conflict is war. No malice is necessary on the part of anyone at all.

Just for fun, let's take a human example. 'The abiding mystery of Easter island' is one of my favourite falsehoods. Observe the events in sequence and there is no mystery. Europe stumbled across the island accidentally; Europe being the Dutch, the accident being that they were looking for a posited continent that didn't exist. They fund an isolated nation, a people of one culture, without internal conflict, without external contact and so no external conflict. They apparently didn't even have weapons, subsuming the natural desire of young men to compete in an annual competition, the winner gaining some advantage. The Dutch describe a fairly stable farming nation. The statues were in place at the edge of the island. By the mid 1800's the statues had fallen and the island was a depopulated ecological disaster zone.

So, what happened? Did the Dutch arrive with the malicious intent of destroying the nation of the people of Easter island, wrecking the totemic statues and destroying the ecology? No. They primarily stopped to re-supply food and water. The conflict of cultures was sufficiently immediate that on the beach a dozen people died, despite being welcome enough to land, lead by a local, greeted with curiosity by locals who didn't recognize a gun as a weapon and so tried to take it from the hand of someone who did know it as a weapon. The Dutch wanted food and water, they got food and water, they left.

As ships from other European nations stopped by to visit, the interactions resulted in further losses. Pathogens from outside the isolated people took a toll, the introduction of a non-indigenous religion lead to internal conflict, they people toppled their own totemic images, ships took some for sailors due to losses of their own men to disease, some were taken as slaves and were later freed from Peru, taking smallpox home with them. This would be the mid 1800's and soon after the almost unpopulated island was turned into a sheep farm – and that accounts for the destruction of the ecology.

Competition is conflict and conflict is war.

How much malice was involved in the destruction of the nation of the people of Easter island? Some at some times over that few hundred year competition-conflict-war, but for the most part, very little.

[If you're wondering how the statues were moved into place in the first place, the locals were asked on many occasions and answered the same way, “They walked.” I see no reason not to believe them. Having walked an upright fridge-freezer across a kitchen floor and a wardrobe across a bedroom floor, it looks to me like an eminently sensible answer. The scale is different, but the principle is the same.]

Off the coast of India, there is another island. The nation of people here kill anyone who turns up. No one goes there.

Competition is conflict, conflict is war.

Views through this lens, the whole of human history adjusts itself into better focus.

It should be obvious that a competition of ideas is a conflict of ideas is a war of ideas. Any doubts about that are easily dispelled by by a brief examination of The 30 Years War, The Cold war, or indeed most or even all wars to some degree or another, in that ideas played a part in the divisions.

If you think that's bad, this next obvious logical deduction will make you wince (or howl or something). Different nations of different peoples express different cultures and have different ideas about what is right and wrong, good and bad, lawful and unlawful, and self-evidently want to live under political systems laws that reflect that. Where two nations inhabit the same territory, there will be competition to determine these things; some people(s) will find themselves living under laws they find abhorrent, and this will lead to conflict.

Shall we take a look at some of these conflicting idea? Well, why not. You must be familiar with some of them, or at least aware of the existence of same.

Equality.

Of all the dumb ideas I have come across, this one is so self-evidently absurd that it's barely worth a mention, yet it will get the longest. There isn't any. It isn't possible to have what doesn't exist. Equality of outcome is impossible, equality of opportunity is equally impossible. That the bell curve concept exists in mathematics and can be applied to any and all areas of human endeavour makes the impossibility of equality obvious. The consequence that there are things I can never have and never be is mitigated by the fact that there are thing is I can be and can have. Same for everyone.

Tolerance

You won't have to think very hard before you stumble across something you will not tolerate. It probably took you about three seconds.

Inclusion

The same as tolerance. No, I don't want to include cannibals in my family, community, town, country, culture, nation.

Diversity

Diversity simply ensues competition of what must by the definition of diverse be different from each other, ensuring competition between the diverse, and competition is conflict and... well, you know the rest.

Freedom of Speech

If you are surprised to see this one included on the list, I would respectfully suggest that you have not been paying sufficient attention to some of the things some people are openly saying. Some of those things are openly and self-evidently evil (and there's a word I don't use often) and no, I can see no justification for a society permitting freedom of lying and freedom of promoting evil things. A society is partly defined by those things which are a taboo, verboten, or whatever. The only competition is over which things, competition over this is conflict, and I'm not going to bother saying it again.

That there are people who will immediately attempt to jump all over me for expressing the above repudiation of ideas that have been permitted to become so mainstream that conservatives now passively or actively defend them will be proof of the underlying reality – competition is conflict...

While I'm here, a quick word about Sumto. The series is called The Price of Freedom, and really that should have been phrased as a question, because that's what I was trying to have Sumto work out over time. Well, reality overtook the project and I have put the work aside for now. The truth is that the price of freedom is everyone else's freedom. And the price is too high. A culture develops over time, through competition and conflict and war, over what freedoms the people of the nation decide they can give up, enforce others giving up, and which freedoms they can afford to keep or cannot abide to live without. This process is ongoing. It never ends. These are decisions the individual doesn't get to not make. They are what make an individual who he or she is, a family what it is, a community what it is and a nation of people what it is. The process becomes particularly sharp where different nations of different peoples inhabit the same territory, as they have different answers and … well, again, you know the rest.

I'm about done here. Read back from the top and you will come to a place where I point out that malice is not necessary for competition to be real (it's optional). Competition may be real yet unnoticed by one or either party, that conflict arises by the nature of the competition inherent in being a biological organism, no matter how passive that competition may be. As we are a species that organizes, war is an inevitability and viewed through this lens it should now be no surprise that history is written as though it were the history of war (and attempts to avoid or defer war), as war is conflict and a history of conflict is a history of competition, and competition cannot be avoided, even if no malice existed in any human heart.

Now I recommend that everyone go and sort themselves out.

I was going to leave it there, but by chance I came across someone literally frothing at the mouth. This concerns specific subjects, current subjects, but is as an apt expression of the foundational reality expressed above.

Competition is...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkP65B8q0pU

https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkP65B8q0pU