Archives for category: Random musings
Photo: Ralf, Flickr, some rights reserved

Of the Pantheon & Pedantry

Note: the most memorable figures in history, according to, from Muhammad at #1 to Karl Marx at #37, are all of the male “gender” (read: sex), after which we get Mary, mother of Jesus (#38), Queen Elizabeth II (#40), and Joan of Arc (#49).

The order of famed composers descends from Beethoven (#5), to Mozart (#10), to Bach (#18). I would have thought that Bach was a bigger deal, even in the popular mind, than Mozart. But I guess I would have been wrong.

Of famed philosophers, Pantheon’s list runs as follows: Aristotle (#7), Plato (#11), Socrates (#16), Confucius (#28), Gautama (#32), Kant (#39), Descartes (#43), and — the only real surprise here — Avicenna (#48).

I repeat, for the inattentive — and apropos of my first paragraph — “male” and “female” pertain to sex, not “gender theory.” Which is a recent invention. This seemingly pedantic point is known and acknowledged by gender theorists, when they are being rational. That nearly everyone gets this wrong says something first about gender theory and quite a bit more about nearly everybody.


I suppose the “conspiracist” theory of Joe Biden would be that he was chosen by the globalists for a purpose: to destroy the power and prestige of the United States to make way for . . . world government . . . China . . . our alien overlords . . . something something something.

Biden certainly has left a dump on the floor and is making his followers eat it up. Still enjoying the cries from the coprophiles: ‘but look what Trumpians eat! What fascists! Racists!’

You cannot say this isn’t grimly funny.

Yesterday, in Walmart, a likely lad had a sneeze coming on — I could see it build — so he removed his mask to not mess up what he was breathing through.

Ours may be the first civilization to die off laughing at each other.

Beginning to realize why old people must die:
to allow them their illusions about their replacements.

The cult of the omnipotent state is something I have been fighting all my adult life. But the cults of tribe and mob and Kultur? These I opposed in the third grade. The emergent property of groups — what Herbert Spencer called “superorganism” — is fascinating, sociologically, and when the social connections become faster and more complex, amazing things can happen. But I still insist that what matters to me is what The Individual takes away from the group and guides independent thought and action, not what the group does or what individuals do in tandem with the group. It is the civilization we carry on our shoulders, in private, that should be the standard, not simply that groups create new realities.

Individuals’ own realities, and the fantasies they create, in turn influence groups.

My dubiety about the vaxx mania is quite strong. And it increases when I hear things like this:

Folks who spit fire, wishing the unvaxxed to die, mock those same unvaxxed when they express suspicion that the vaxx has been designed to kill.

Vaxx proponents assert that the unvaxxed are causing new, more dangerous viral variants, just months after mocking Vanden Bossche for his warning that the vaxxes, which are not effective enough to induce herd immunity, will likely lead to immune escape, breeding new, more dangerous viral variants.

Almost no element of the pandemic does not contain some bizarrely spiked irony. Novel coronamemes!


Asking what color a person thinks his or her mixed-race-parented baby might be is not racist.

What, you ask? Even Ben Shapiro thinks that’s racist!

Well, Ben’s as fallible as anyone.

Sure, speculation on skin color may be about a racial marker. But one marker does not an ism make. Switch markers. Is it racist to speculate if your baby will be a redhead? No, it is not.

Such speculations may be engaged in by racists, but they are not necessarily racist. They may be indelicate. Sure. But who should care about such speculations? Many or most are innocent. To get worked up over it all?

That may be racist.


If you tell me the Moon is made of green cheese . . . I’m going to laugh, of course, the idea being so preposterous. I could falsify the claim without much trouble, at least with extrapolations from facts and from theories well-established — like, you know, cheese is a product made of fermented milk, and we have no reason to believe in a lactose-heavy moon, etc. In addition, I would head you off at the pass, noting that the designation of our galaxy as “the Milky Way” can in no way excuse flights of fancy.

Now, were you to tell me that the Apollo lunar missions were all faked, I would express incredulity, again. But it’s not quite so far-fetched as the cheeze biz, and call me something less than a whiz, or wiz, I would have to take some trouble to process your claim. But I have looked into it, and can shoot it down. Though I admit, some of your points may continue to hold some interest. 

But if you tell me that the Moon has a titanium crust and a much lighter, lower-mass core, and that it “rang like a bell,” seismically, when tested in the Apollo missions, and that this is recognized by scientists and NASA but not often talked about, and that our Moon is very strange all around, and, moreover, that it isn’t the only moon in our solar system to be extremely weird — Carl Sagan having speculated that Mars’s Phobos could be a space ship, its orbit being (how shall we say?) as puzzling as our moon’s, and sporting a monolith on its surface that (ahem) sticks out like a giant crystal or an intelligently-made building, and, further, that Saturn’s Iapetus turning out to look eerily like Star Wars’ Death Star — well, what do I do with all that? Not much. But the fact that we have these peculiar facts that don’t fit in easily with the Nothing-To-See-Here-Folks attitude of professional astronomers, who pooh-pooh any talk of anything paranormal as if their job were poo-pooing rather than exploring — all this does strike me as very odd, and evidence of something. I just do not know what.

Meanwhile, my experiments in writing long sentences proceed apace.


It is not sexist to acknowledge differences between the sexes. It is not racist to recognize differences among the races. It is not ageist to accept that you will grow old and die.


…from the last few days on social media….

As anyone may have noticed, I’m not very big into “protests.” I turned on the idea of mass protest pretty thoroughly when I stumbled into Seattle’s 1999 WTO protests by accident, and then watched (from a safe distance) as the protests spiraled into mass violence.

Since I also opposed the WTO, you might think I would have been simpatico with the protesters. But no: they were mainly left-anarchist poseur hippie boys and their earnest, professional girlfriends, spouting contradictory and incoherent gibberish, unlearned and anti-factual and rather stupid.

The biggest difference never receives official attention: “right-wing” protests almost never lead to violence, “left-wing” protests almost always do. 

This wasn’t always the case, and much depends upon how you define left and right, which I blogged about once again today. But in recent memory, left-wing protest tends to lead to rioting.

Remember just a few months and then weeks ago normal Americans — mostly but not all white — were promoting the Second Amendment in Virginia and then protesting the lockdowns in Michigan? In both cases the major media freaked over the weaponry on display. But there was zero to scant violence, during and after.

The main complaints were “I saw a Confederate Flag!” and “They aren’t social distancing!”

But media folks — they don’t mind seeing commie and anarchist flags, pointing their cameras elsewhere, and I haven’t heard any umbrage taken about the protesters in Minneapolis not wearing medical masks.

There were mask-wearers, of course, but those appeared to be rioters — and the Men in Black who were instigating mayhem.

So, one reason there may be violence associated with left-wing protests is that right-wingers sabotage them. But that isn’t the full story, for the anarchists at the WTO riots, and antifa and BAMN at more recent protests, are very, very left-wing, and very, very violent. 

And do a lot of instigating.

While being institutionally supported by George Soros.

Further, masses of leftists seem more violent than masses of rightists.

The lack of objective reporting by the press is interesting. 

It could be ideological: we rah-rah our side, we boo their side! 

But it may be more craven: the media likes to cover violence, so encourages the protests that give corporate heads the stories that help with the bottom line.

I have never denied that SARS-CoV-2 is extremely dangerous. Why, it makes even the uninfected go mad.

Does it need to be said? No matter who instigates a destructive riot, riots are bad. No matter who casts the first stone, so to speak, does not let off the hook the second thrower, or the third, or the fourth. We can make judgments about people who attack innocent people and their property. Condemnation is the standard, traditional, and quite justified judgment.

“Outside instigators of violence” should worry those who think their protests are legitimate. If they go ahead and protest, and do not patrol their ranks, and their peaceful protest breaks out into looting and arson and street violence, then that’s a tragedy. If, however, every time a protest of your cause ends up that way, and yet you organize protests, you become complicit (to some extent) in the horrors of the crime wave.

I have seen credible (but not certain) accusations of instigation to violence in Minneapolis and elsewhere of undercover/off-duty police and of antifa and other anarchist groups, and much speculation about criminals, political groups, etc. What if it were a perfect storm of influences, from left, right and center?

Would it matter to protesters? If what they do is set off violence, then what they do is at best counter-productive.

Something other than protests need to be thought. I have suggestions.

But because they are rational suggestions, irrational people will not engage in them, now, will they?

Defending “peaceful protest” is fine, but if it always ends up violent, the defenses are inapposite.

Remember Martin Luther King, Jr.? Somehow, he took a lot of care to make his marches peaceful.

Today’s protests generally repudiate the principles of MLK. Yet everyone claims to admire him.

Par for the current course, though: seemingly earnest pieties are regularly repudiated in action.

Were you aware that notorious pick-up artist Roosh V. has repudiated his past and now preaches traditional Christian ethics?

I first became aware of him as he began undergoing his transition. It has been interesting to watch. I was of course aware of “the game” for many years, but had never really followed it. Roosh, however, is an interesting case.

So, the challenge is here: the famous anti-HCQ study is probably a fraud.

I had seen someone else make the case yesterday. On Twitter or Gab. Somebody else other than this linked author who deals with data on a regular basis was utterly incredulous about the data set described:

If you’re following at all the search for COVID-19 treatments, and possibly even if not, you will have seen the flurry of media coverage for the observational study in The Lancet ‘Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis. It made the news not least because hydroxychloroquine is the drug President Trump says he is taking in the belief that it will reduce his chance of catching COVID-19. This view is not backed up evidence until some randomised trials come in. Getting in before the trials, the Lancet study used propensity score matching to try to control for the non-random treatment. It found that taking hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine were associated with an increased risk of heart problems.
I am highly skeptical of the powers of hydroxychloroquine with relation to COVID-19 (‘skeptical’ in the sense that I have suspended judgement for now – there simply isn’t evidence either way). But I want the test of its properties to be done properly, with random controlled trials. And if we are to use observational studies (which I do not object to, they just aren’t as useful as an experiment where you can manipulate the treatment), they have to use real data.
The data in that study, and in at least one preprint on a second treatment, were provided by an Illinois firm called Surgisphere. Allegedly the data represents the treatment and health outcomes of 96,032 patients from 671 hospitals in six continents. However, there is simply no plausible way I can think of that the data are real.
I’ll say that again – I believe with very high probability the data behind that high profile, high consequence Lancet study are completely fabricated.

Peter Ellis, “A health data firm making extraordinary claims about its data,” free range statistics, May 30, 2020.

So, a major journal accepts a study on a highly politicized subject and — if this charge holds — scandal ensues.

This is par for the postmodern course, from what I can tell. We do not have as much actual science going on as we are led to believe. Much of it is scientism — pseudoscience. I assume you are aware of the replicability problem that has been dogging the heels of institutional science for the last decade. Many journals have also become corrupt or, at best, inefficient. (I just read the abstract of a paper co-authored by Dan Klein about “the paucity of theory in the Journal of Economic Theory.” Hilarious.) Much of the academic world has lost its way. The “scientific method” is not in practice when the “public testing” element is institutionally scuttled.

The problem, I believe, is government funding. For that puts science into the whorl of special interest incentives, and makes the subject area liable to something very much like “regulatory capture.”

Whole domains of science seem untrustworthy to me:

ancient history

. . . I could go on and on.

Only when academics are held accountable on objective grounds can they be saved from corruption by politics and funding. And since the academy is by definition an exclusionary institution, accountability has to be imposed. It is imperative that non-academics speak up. 

And let us be frank: this case is in part about TDS.

To what extent is COVID-19 panic driven by class insecurities? Most illnesses the well-off can avoid or pay for. The panic began when being rich did not seem to help, while lockdown mania grew as it became clear that the well-off were less negatively affected than the proletarian middle and lower income groups.


The startling horror of wearing stripes with plaid made me go crazy with the filter. Still: stripe v. plaid!

When I was a kid, my nightmares involved tilted houses with floors you had to climb up against the incline, roosters crowing at the window, and a yawning, chthonian Immensity that Jung would have loved to analyze.

The kids these days, though, have night terrors about environmental catastrophe:

One in five children are having nightmares about climate change, according to a British survey on Tuesday, as students globally stage protests over a lack of action to curb global warming.
About 17 percent of children in Britain said worries about climate change were disturbing their sleep while 19 percent said these fears were giving them nightmares.
The survey of 2,000 children aged eight to 16, conducted by pollster Savanta-ComRes for BBC Newsround, also found that two in five, or 41 percent, did not trust adults to tackle the climate crisis.

The Jakarta Post (Reuters), March 3, 2020

While I suspect that the brand X prophecy of CO2 increases leading to “climate catastrophe” is little more than a psy-op, the more I learn about the end of the last Ice Age, which humanity somehow survived — while most megafauna did not — indicates that we can indeed encounter great climatic terrors and that those terrors can haunt humanity for millennia.

Indeed, I suspect that the notion of an underground realm of the Dead as well as the terrors of “the Tribulations” and our civilization’s fixation on the very idea of a Millennium could all derive from the strange thousand-plus years of the Younger Dryas, through which humanity may have had to live in caves to survive:

I reference here the Human Origin Project, which does not appear to be academically acceptable, because the academics have, so far, proved remarkably reticent about incorporating newly discovered facts into the stories they tell.

The kiddies, these days, are told stories about a counterfactual present and imaginary future by adults who pose as their authorities. From these serioso story time moments many quivering true believers are made.

It is not necessarily a conspiracy theory to conjecture that one reason modern academics routinely evade discussion of the astounding destruction that occurred a mere twelve thousand years ago is that by denying the facts they can better parlay pseudo-science to make plausible weak-tea terrors like “man-made climate change.”

What is going on in our current climate is mere urination into the wind compared to the fire hose of the end of the Ice Age.

It may be the job of us heretics and apostates to throw a monkey wrench into the Great Global Warming Psy-op: tell your kids and their friends that their tax-funded teachers are almost certainly misinformed, and that they should be skeptical of adults (as well as, of course, children) telling tall tales to scare them into demanding political changes neither their teachers nor they, themselves, understand.

There are plenty of real terrors we must all confront.

Including that great, chthonian enormity of our future non-existence.

Sleep well.

Is it the wise man or the fool who offloads his folly onto his politics?

What if most of us suffer from responsibility homeostasis? That is, we have only so much capacity for responsible action: the more responsible in one area of life, our irresponsible daemons must burst out in some other domain, like imps of the perverse.

This might explain the hordes of competent people, successful folk, supporting insane social policy and political programs.

But the worst ideologues are themselves foolish every which way. Responsibility homeostasis cannot explain them, can it? 

Perhaps their mastery of video gaming or hackey sack or farding face is where all their sense of responsiblity winds up.

A grown man defending, today, Castro’s Cuba while continuing a long history of communist apologetics is hardly different than saying, in public, that “Hitler did some things right.”

Now, honestly, nearly everyone in America save my fellow individualist compeers would have to confess that Nazi Germany did a lot of things right. The war and racial policies aside, most of the Third Reich’s domestic policies would fall closely into line with today’s trendy socialists’ favored policies of heavy regulation, bureaucratic management of corporate enterprise, and radically egalitarian wealth transfer programs. The commonality between “national socialism” and “democratic socialism” should be pretty obvious — if you have at all studied the economic policies of Hitler’s Germany. 

But that is not quite the point. Most Americans have the sense to treat Nazis as tyrants and therefore as political poison. A person — a politician! — not having the sense to regard Castro and Ortega and the USSR as tyrannical doesn’t show the good sense of your modal voter. It should be impolitic to defend even the “good” programs of totalitarian communists . . . unless you honestly itch to be a totalitarian yourself.

So, Bernie Sanders’s continued hard-socialist apologetics and general commie defensiveness is more than a mere tell. He is raising the gonfalon of his hatred and wickedness. He is basically signaling to us that we will have no standing to complain when the goon squads are set free.

…a demonstrated preference?

Alternatives to the contagion-spreading handshake:

1. mutual bowing
2. Roman forearm shake
3. “American Indian” salute (in the movies, “how”)
4. elbow bump
5. hip bump
6. prayer-hands “Namaste”
7. tap-dance routines

It has been 16 years since an Apollo astronaut who walked upon the Moon publicly insisted that the government (which he had worked for) had recovered crashed UFOs and were studying the non-human and presumably extra-terrestrial bodies found at the crash sites.

It has been the same amount of time since journalists brushed right over that story as non-news. Nothing to see here.

Most people have no knowledge of how eminent are many of the people who have confessed to UFO knowledge.

Journalists were either too chicken (cowardly in the face of shaming campaigns) or too CIA-controlled (look at the Who’s Who of intelligence-agency interns in major media) to follow up on a HUGE story.

So draw the conclusion: we cannot trust most journalists to frame the stories we read or listen to daily, especially those about foreign policy, government accountability, or anything of a partisan or even merely controversial nature.

And note: itnis apparent that UFOs are of vital “foreign policy” interest — there is nothing more foreign than “aliens.” If aliens they be.

The best thing our current president has said was to characterize the major media outlets as “enemies of the people.” They are, basically, enemies of the truth, of inquiry, of freedom of speech and press as general rights rather than as special privileges of members of their messed-up guild.

And the legacy of the Apollo astronaut whistleblowers (yes, multiple individuals) on the post-war official line on UFOs is now finally leaking out into the public. 

What the upshot of the whole thing is, I don’t know. But I do think we should not be cowards or government stooges, like journalists, generally, are.

If Bernie gets the nomination he seeks, then we should overturn Tim Russert’s psy-op and label, as traditional, the GOP ‘Blue’ and the Democracy ‘Red.’

My own color would remain off-spectrum; perhaps, per David Lindsay, ‘Jale’ or ‘Ulfire.’

If environmentalists really believe the world is ending in 12 — no, that is so last year: eleven — years, I expect lots of savvy folk to renegotiate their mortgages to obtain lower rates in exchange for a balloon payment due at the end . . . after our prophesied enviro-Armageddon.

Of course, as is often noted, were catastrophic global warming with massive sea-level rises and hurricanes abounding really in our future, in-the-know folks like Barack and Michelle Obama would not be buying multi-million-dollar beachfront property.

Climate change cultists would head for the hills.

My checkmark for Tulsi will not be counted, for I cannot honestly say I prefer the Democracy or am a Republican. So this goes into the trashcan.

The Following Comment Led to a Debate Requiring Me Actually to Order a Book on “Gender Theory” — Sad Day

I have a different take on this [joke image below], as many of you know: while gender is said to be a social construct, the very idea of gender is an ideological construct, and I reject the groundwork ideology on multiple grounds. We can pretend there are four genders or a thousand, and it doesn’t matter. What matters is sex, and how we handle it. So, this joke is not quite as funny for me as it may be for some others.

If you admit the official definition of gender, though, you cannot then decisively state that there are only two. The word you are looking for is sex.

But because we were all timorous/obnoxious children once, we tend to wince at that word, or blush, or guffaw, so we have unthinkingly let ‘gender‘ gain ground as a euphemism, wreaking havoc on thought and culture.

Still, marginally funny joke. But of most interest as a sign of the times.

I will not be using this on my tombstone:

Epigraph to In the Valley of the Kings (2009), by Daniel Meyerson.

This epigraph is more apt for me:

With the majority at last.