Messages about the blog

Perhaps because I don’t take prisoners at the comments section, or maybe because people prefer to thank me more directly or specifically while remaining more anonymous, I often get emails instead of comments.

It would appear the blog is proving useful to more people than I expected, and they are learning to use the search me function on the blog, as I see much older articles being brought up. Honestly that does make me feel good, not in the usual egomaniacal way of “oh I am so smart”, but because it genuinely gladdens my heart when someone’s life gets improved somehow, and honestly, I don’t cate at all about taking the credit for it, and my usual response to the thank yous is that they did the work and any glory belongs to them and God. At best,I was just an incidental tool.

The more important point is that I noticed that the ratio of email to comments is roughly the same or a bit more on the emails, but the ratio of spam email is practically zero, and given the readership of the blog, which is relatively small, perhaps if it had wider exposure it would help more people.

I don’t do any SEO or any of that stuff, so any increase in traffic is purely organic by people forwarding a link or word of mouth etc. in short, I know my readership is of real people because I do not bother at all with all the usual “marketing” stuff beyond altering people I have a new post up on Gab and SG when I recall. And on telegram. But I think I may even phase that out like I did for the last two days.

My intent is to have my readers come here daily because they choose to and enjoy it and/or find it useful, entertaining or stimulating. So, it’s up to you guys and girls, and I hope you share the blog with your friends if you find it worthwhile.

From my early teenage years on, I have always thought the phrase “The ends don’t justify the means” as pretty idiotic.

It’s right up there with the absurd and fantastical concept of “free speech”. Speech has never been, and will never be free. Nor should it be. But that’s another post I’ll get into later.

The ends not justifying the means, in an everyday context of work, general life and especially war-related issues or justice related issues was, in my opinion, coined to curb the baser instincts of mediocre men of questionable character. You know the types: soldiers, cops, lawyers, judges, and probably most of all, bankers, traders and finance industry types.

If you’re an average intelligence cop (remember, they are not allowed to have an IQ of 120+ by imposed rules of hiring!) who “thinks” that mr.X is guilty and you plant evidence to make the case, chances are that a bunch of mr. Xs that end up in jail are actually innocent.

In short, it is an admonition to follow proper procedure (whatever the context) even when it is uncomfortable, non-ideal, and may produce less than optimal results. As a general rule, of course, this is good advice. Especially seen from my selfish perspective. When the average person around you has more than a 50 point IQ gap from you, and the smart ones more than 30 points (the limit of communication IQ gap), the last thing you want is the monkey and apes taking what they consider to be “smart” shortcuts.

And frankly, in that context, it applies to me too.

One of the reasons I have been successful in my work is that, unlike most people in the construction industry, I always stuck to the rules. In fact, because I did, I was able to often outperform my counterparts. Their “shortcut” filled work generally allowed me to take advantage of their gaps and make more of a margin for the people that employed me.

That all said, as an absolute and literal statement, which is how my aspie-brain processes such popular phrases (because language can be, and should be, precise) it is complete nonsense.

The equation is very simple.

On the result side you have the total value of the result: moral considerations, ethical ones, legal ones, financial, material, spiritual, physical and whatever other measure of value you can think of.

On the cost side you have the total of exactly the same items you have on the results side.

If the cost (means) of doing a thing outweigh the benefits of the results (ends) then, clearly it is worth doing. And if not, not.

This is elementary, however, note that your cost/benefit analysis is particular to you and you alone. Certain actions that would be perfectly acceptable to you, on the cost/benefit analysis might be absolutely abhorrent to me, and vice-versa.

So once again, we see that the original phrase only makes sense in a general and social context, not on a personal one at all.

Since as a functioning civilisation we agree on certain procedures and rules, we all need to respect them in order to keep that society functioning. In our personal life, however, the equations can yield different results.

And now we enter an even murkier realm.

If in your personal life you do what in neurolinguistic programming is known as sort by self instead of sort by others, you may, or will, take actions that tend toward the narcissistic, which, in broad terms, is NOT a good thing for society at large. Since you put yourself first, and you act in ways that ultimately are more beneficial to you, and you value others less than you do yourself, your actions will tend to be what we may refer to as selfish. And possibly extremely so.

If, on the other hand, you sort by others (that is, place other people, in varying degrees, before yourself) then your actions will tend towards an ordered and well-functioning society.

This is the pattern in normal times and situations. Under duress though, most people, beyond a certain level of stress, will have their survival instinct kick in and begin sorting by self, including to extreme degrees. Afterwards, depending on if they normally sort by self or others, they would either go on normally, believing their actions where necessary and they had no other options, or, they might be wracked by guilt and self-recrimination.

As a general rule, women will tend/pretend to sort by others, but their general tendency, for biological reasons, is to extreme solipsism, and it only takes a relatively tiny amount of stress to induce the survival mechanism to kick in, and hence have the potentially narcissistic behaviour kicking in.

Men, as a general rule have higher stress tolerance, but those who sort by self are tendentially on the narcissist axis from the get-go. In short, men can be assholes pretty much top to bottom as a whole, while women tend to have at least a veneer of civility. But… scratch the surface and most women will turn out to be assholes on a broader spectrum than men.

This is largely a biological issue and as such there is nothing much you can do about it in general terms. The first step to wisdom is to accept things as they are. To then try and better them is the work of saints and madmen.

I say biological because the primary motive of self-preservation is always higher in the female. The reason is simple. While one man can produce many offspring with many women, each woman can only produce one or maximum two or so (rarely, twins, triplets, etc) babies at a time and then remains occupied for several years to ensure that child’s survival. In short, men are far more expendable than women when it comes to propagation and survival of the species. And while our present day technology means these biological imperatives are not necessarily as stark and absolute as they have been, you’re not going to just be able to ignore a couple of million years of genetics because now we have striped toothpaste and underground trains.

All of the above, explains a lot, perhaps even most of the serious disagreements between couples that may be in a high stress environment for a time. We all have tolerance levels of stress beyond which mechanisms of survival kick in.

If you comfortably navigate trench warfare in your day to day life, your tolerance level is going to be considerably higher than someone who had to survive a childhood with abusive parents.

To the extent that one person’s well intentioned actions, can be interpreted by the other person as either insane, dangerous, or manipulative, when in fact they are none of the above. Similarly, and unfortunately in direct contrast, an actually selfish manipulator can gaslight someone with relatively high stress tolerance into thinking the manipulator is somehow being victimised by them.

Being aware of your own stress tolerance, whether you sort by self or others, and where you fit in the general hierarchy of humanity on those traits is a useful beginning, however, until you are able to also know what those parameters are for others is when you can begin to have meaningful successful relationships.

It is by no means an easy skill to master or even become aware of, but most interpersonal relationships, whether intimate, or work, or friendship related, will play out on those axis at a fundamental level. Other aspects, like mutual respect, mannerisms, quirks etc also obviously play their part, but the underground foundation of the entire edifice is based on these concepts of biology, means, ends and sorting by self or others.

I hope this is useful to some of you.

Vox was commenting on the recent merger of things I could not care less about, two golfing organisations, PGA and LIV and predicting that LIV football (calcio) would be next , because LIV is backed by Saudi Oil money.

He ended the post with this:

Whenever money or power become central, the richest and the most ruthless are guaranteed control. Keep that in mind when you set your own priorities.

Which is perfectly true.

There is a however though.

The richest can buy almost all the power.

Almost.

And the powerful can monopolise almost all violence.

Almost.

But there are some men, few, it is true, and a lot fewer these days proportionally speaking, than say at the time of classical Greece or Rome, or feudal Japan, or the Catholic barons and knights of only a few centuries ago, that cannot be bought, and that are very hard to kill even when you have overwhelming firepower.

The classic version is the noble Samurai or the fearless Spartan.

Less classic and generally less liked, is the jihadi martyr willing to make himself into a human firework.

They are not confined to one nationality, ethnicity, race, age or religion.

And while —if and when they act against the most ruthless and wealthy— they are unlikely to survive, the damage they can do is considerable.

And if so much as five such men got together and agreed on a course of action, with their leader being the unquestionable decision maker, there is not a wealthy and powerful tyrant on the planet that doesn’t shiver in fear at the thought of it.

Furthermore, my more than half century on this Earth, has shown me beyond doubt, that you can’t predict very well at all who might turn out to be a secret samurai.

This report by Vox on the current state of Germany makes it clear there are no actual Germans left.

Ethnic Germans, faced with one of their own having to undergo this sort of ineptitude would already be building camps, with gas chambers this time, and making sure the wagon trains to them run on time.

Apparently the threat of death cures homosexuality, at least in the corporate world.

Individuals may still get beheaded or thrown off roofs, I’m not sure.

I have pretty much known that all the alphabet soups style letter agencies, from any government in any country are entities that serve evil from a pretty young age, and now that we have absolute confirmation of their involvement in assassinations, mass shootings, false flags, child trafficking and literally every sin under the sun, enjoy this rather mild reaction towards one of their own that simply tried to tell the truth.

https://youtu.be/BuDLEEloB1A