Work On What’s Been Spoiled By The Father

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

The Chinese character ku represents a bowl in whose contents worms are breeding. This means decay. It is come about because the gentle indifference in the lower trigram has come together with the rigid inertia of the upper, and the result is stagnation. Since this implies guilt, the conditions embody a demand for removal of the cause. Hence the meaning of the hexagram is not simply ‘what has been spoiled’ but ‘work on what has been spoiled’.

At various times in my life I was friends with people who used the i-ching for divination. I’m not going to pretend I never had an interest in it in that way, but I got over it. Mostly because I’ve learned there is no percentage in trying to know the future, PARTICULARLY if you divine it properly.

But I was even more fascinated by it from an historical perspective — there’s this long history of the early divination being done by applying heat to old tortoise shells and studying the split? — I’ll have to review it eventually for Great Sky Dragon reasons for the Shifter series. And of course, it is part of Science Fiction lore that Phillip K. Dick plotted The Man In The High Castle using the I-Ching.

None of which is even vaguely germane to this post, except that the hexagram above is called “Work on what has been spoiled by the father.” (Okay, so the search engines insist it’s just “work on what’s been spoiled” but that’s what my friends called it.)

This means basically, it’s not your fault, and it’s horrible, and it’s up to you to fix it.

I thought about this when I read this from Data Republican.

MAJOR BREAKING: International actors are involved in the State Department led color revolution

This is not speculation; it’s straight from a recorded call. Ex-USAID employees describe how, before January 20, they moved internal groups off government systems and into encrypted Signal chats, then quickly linked with foreign partners and NGOs after the inauguration. This attempt at creating a color revolution isn’t new news; this part was already reported in NOTUS earlier this year. But what’s not reported is the international aspect. One participant explicitly frames it as “a global anti-authoritarian movement,” connecting U.S. officials with “colleagues from around the world who have dealt with this directly.” They reference coordination with Johns Hopkins, “international democracy and conflict mitigation spaces,” and efforts to mobilize across borders against what they perceive as domestic authoritarianism. At what point does this become treason? As always, patience as I pull together this thread.

Now before you freak out too much on the above:

We knew this was going on.* More about it later. But it’s good to have proof, of course, and Data republican is a treasure.

AND it’s one of the worst cases of drinking their own ink and poisoned by story I’ve ever seen. No, not Data Republican. The conspirators on this.

Look, they can do and have done a lot of evil in the world. Their NGOs spread misery. Here and there they actually achieve dystopic levels of rule.

What they can’t actually do is what they want to do. They can’t do it for the same reason all totalitarians fail: because humans aren’t widgets, and because the information breaks down the more concentrated power is.

Some people in the comments of DR’s post are obviously also poisoned with story because they’re so terrified of this magnificent plan and the communist plans, and and and.

Furious? Yes. Shocked that grown ass adults who run businesses can make these plans in all seriousness and expect them to work. (Or do they just use it as a vehicle to steal a lot of money and get their sadistic jollies? I don’t know. I report, you decide.) Absolutely mind-boggingly tired of this sh*t? Yes. With bells on.

Convinced their plan has a chance in h*ll of succeeding? Not even a little bit.

Listen, people, if we can clean things up so the US doesn’t bleed taxpayer money to this kind of scheme, it will all fall apart. They know it too, which is why they’ve tried to kill Trump twice. (That we know of.) And why they’re big, hopping mad at Elon. And why you and I, my friend, are probably on a lot of their lists.

But note that all of us are still around. As is Data republican who is more effective than any of us. Possibly than all of us combined. And that these things keep being revealed.

I’d say they’re a paper tiger, but they’re not even as convincing as China. They are just grown men who believe childish fantasies.

Now to get back to the *: we knew this was going on. Because first comes the story. And every early science fiction writer envisioned this kind of world-control over everyone and everything, a rule of the geniuses, a rule of the powerful. Yes, even Heinlein, who unlike most of them — at least after his very early books — carefully and sometimes underhandedly showed it to be a bad thing. But even he expected it to get to the point you had to get a license to have children, and this would — somehow — be enforced. You had your profession chosen for you. You had…. horror and evil and total control by a cabal of “elites.”

Most of the other people writing science fiction though? Fully aboard with it. Fully aboard with an oligarchy of the best and most enlightened.

This is, of course, the story that the would-be oligarchs are poisoned with. Oh, fine, part of it is that this is the story at the back of their head and what they always wanted to believe. In fact to some extent, the stories might have come about because it’s what these people wanted to pay for, to distribute to incentivize.

But the truth is that that party is over. They can no longer fund and control what is published. And they only needed money for it, because the more they pushed their “enlightened” stories, the less people bought them.

So.

So, what worries me is not the would be oligarchs, the would be dictators, the would be rulers.

What worries me is how far and wide this idea that a small, poisonous, incredibly rich cabal COULD do this. Because the story will cause the weak and cowardly to cooperate and the ambitious to think they can join it if they’re smart enough.

And again, while they can’t achieve it, they can cause a lot of evil, a lot of suffering, a lot of needless death.

Years ago — wonder if she remembers — Toni Weisskopf and I were speaking and worked around to the idea that in fact while the early science fiction had worked to tear down a lot of nonsensical rules, they’d ended up by tearing down everything, and it might be time for science fiction to “rebuild.”

She wasn’t wrong. There’s no point doing the full deep dive looking for a rule you can stand on, unless you eventually arrive to “I think, therefore–“

But it goes deeper than that. Because of when science fiction came to be, the early 20th century, when the faith in “genius” and the mechanics of technology, it has a lot of the “best people” belief in its DNA. And because it was very popular during the progressivist reforms in this country, it absorbed quite a lot of the “we can change everything top down, and it will all work” ethos.

And while the James Bond villains rubbing their hands and twirling their well groomed mustaches in their extinct volcano lairs will never win, that nonsense is still poisoning the culture.

Well…. We’re not dependent on the gatekeepers letting us say what we want, or the oligarchs financing only what agrees with them.

It’s time to start correcting that nonsense. No, it was not our fault. But it is our unenviable task and our very great privilege to “work on what was spoiled by the father.”

Note this is still me. (I just checked.) And, being me, I’m not telling you to push any particular theory, any particular idea.

What I’m telling you — begging you, with tears in my eyes, even — is to study reality. To reality check these grand conspiracies, these planned coups against humanity, and see how they always fail. And also how they’re things of tawdry, petty minds who want to control everyone because they understand no one.

I want you to look at what every attempt at “rule by the best” has done; at the unmitigated evil of every top-down rule. And how increasingly impossible it is.

And then?

And then I want you to write about how these conspiracies fail. And the evil they do while trying to work.

The Chinese character ku represents a bowl in whose contents worms are breeding.

It’s time to pour some bleach in that bowl and stop the stench filling up culture.

Let’s roll.

101 thoughts on “Work On What’s Been Spoiled By The Father”

  3. Yeah, that was again the case where I saw the thing, got the notes together, outlined an idea or two, and then dropped things to move on.

    (Ward and Data are maybe having a few ideas wrong in their spin of this, but, well, if I am correct on a point it is after years of being wrong, and patiently working past that.)

    1. Correia et alia have military operator friends who were ‘trained to overthrow countries’. Yes, they were trained to that end, but that does not mean that the training was successful in providing the skills, because the bureaucracy may have assumed the existence of the skills, or misunderstood the skills. It is basically hard to evaluate whether such a skill set takes down countries, or contributes to problems in vulnerable countries, or whether the countries were going down anyway. (Metric becomes a measure, ceases to be a metric, etc.) So military operators, intel, and lefty NGO wackadoodles can have a shared failure to understand the limits of special skills that they have. But, the lefties are not the same skills as the operators, and are perhaps quite a bit stupider and blinder.

    2. So this is maybe ‘they tried to levitate the denver mint’ or ‘they made a curse bowl’.

    3. An element I have been studying in recent years, is lunatics at universities who are dangerously and destructively insane.

    4. The thing that I was keying on to was again that frustrated matter of a) understanding the narratives people were telling themselves of the context of ‘we must do something’, for all factions b) narrative they told themselves about what they were doing and how it would work (less interesting part) c) what a) means in terms of broadly proving the guilty or evil mind for a felony conviction d) hadn’t noticed the tarbell of ‘what happens after a failure to convict on felony charges’, but that probably would have screwed me over again.

    Anyway, in conclusion I decided it was not the most helpful thing for me to comment about or write upon.

    I have a this time for real deadline that I am making progress towards satisficing. I dropped the DR follows ups entirely, and got a chunk more done on my own business.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. There are some very capable folks in US Army uniform with quite a track record of removing regimes. What comes next may be debated, but the “removal of current a-holes” is well understood, and practiced.

      Anyone ever read the original “Seven Days in May” novel? There is a decent B&W movie version from the 60s, but it does tweak the ending a bit.

      Like

      1. My exposure to it was in a Reader’s Digest anthology. It’s a good read.

        It came to mind again early this year when lefties were suggesting that the flag ranks should remove Trump

        Like

            1. Sarah, I tried sending my contact information to your hotmail inbox, but got a bounce message; it’s full. (No surprise with life at nuclear blast levels.) Will send again when you say so, or is there another way that doesn’t violate OpSec?

              At worst case, I’ll snail it to the Las Vegas address.

              Like

                1. OK, I forwarded it to you (I’m at the non-ferrous metal address). We’ll see if I did it right…

                  Thanks!

                  Like

                1. Didn’t help that I used the wrong prefix (sah vs sahoyt). Mom said there’d be days like that. She didn’t say they’d be strung together for a few years. Or decades. :)

                  Liked by 1 person

          2. Silliness like this is what very strongly illustrates that even our enemy within does NOT grok Americans (actual Americans, that is). Anyone tries that on an actual American, they’re going to get laughed at to the nth degree.

            Like

      3. Dictatorships are inherently fragile to outside removal of the dictator.

        Removal of dictators is a skillset which is relatively verifiable.

        The information warfare stuffs is less so.

        In particular, can information warfare overthrow a society which has a relatively robust bottom up peace consensus?

        There’s basically a wide space of possible countries.

        Rhetorically, there should be possible hypothetical countries where outsiders can absolutely violently remove people they have identified as a problem, and everyone else inside does not care, and replaces them with figures equally objectionable to the outsiders.

        Army has a wide range of skillsets for regime change, ranging from the as you say verifiable to the eccentric.

        IC has a range, sampling the eccentric more heavily.

        USAID is very likely ranging from US government eccentric to communist eccentric.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. The American Revolution was originally just loyal colonists, trying to fix and clean up some corruption and unfairness.

    We ended up having to do a lot more than that, and it took until 1865 to do some of the cleanup; but all this is nothing we haven’t done before.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I have no contemporaneous evidence to hand on this, but I suspect that the Brit position was the redcoats were doing just fine until the damn frogs intervened.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Burke’s speeches in Parliament tend to indicate otherwise… Of course, he was in the opposition to the war, and in the opposition party, but still.

        Whether or not the rebels were able to fight and win without the French, the Dutch, and other bits of help from interested states… the general point of the American Revolution is that it didn’t have to happen. If England hadn’t been so hep on mercantilism, to the point of not investing in its colonies sufficiently, it wouldn’t have happened. If England had just thrown a bone of local parliamentary representation, it wouldn’t have happened. If various stupid legislative stunts hadn’t been pulled by England, it wouldn’t have happened.

        And even small revolts are expensive. If you really want to milk your colonies for resources and taxes, you have to have colonies that aren’t engaged in warfare, banditry, smuggling, and what have you.

        If England had won… how long would it have taken exploitation of the Colonies to pay back all that loss of steady resource shipment, and all that loss of lives and military resources, and so on? How would the pace of settlement have been kept up, to be able to increase production of resources? Assuming the treaties with the various tribes were kept and not broken, and assuming that Napoleon would have been uninterested in selling Western or Northwestern access to the UK, how long could development have been sustained?

        Liked by 4 people

        1. As you note Burke was opposed to the entire thing, so he was steadfastly saying it was a bad idea, and proven right.

          And, after Yorktown and the treaty ending the war, I doubt any member would have stood up in Parliament to make a speech that basically said if only the big bad French hadn’t come in and beat up our poor redcoats, we still could be fighting and not winning over there… Better politically to just not bring the subject up at all if one was one of the previously vocal supporters.

          Certainly Cornwallis wanting to surrender to the French instead of Washington was political positioning along these lines.

          As far as I have seen in fiction, so caveats apply about the quality of those authors research, privately it was basically “Well, I was just supporting what the King wanted to do…” with nods and winks about mad kings and “what else was one to do?”

          Like

          2. After Parliament resolved that war no longer be carried out in the American colonies with the impractical object of reducing the inhabitants by force, the king drew up his abdication. His ministers told him to go ahead and abdicate; they would crown his son and make peace.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. “To impoverish the Colonies in general, and in particular to arrest the noble course of their marine enterprises, would be a more easy task. I freely confess it. We have shown a disposition to a system of this kind, a disposition even to continue the restraint after the offence, looking on ourselves as rivals to our Colonies, and persuaded that of course we must gain all that they shall lose. Much mischief we may certainly do. The power inadequate to all other things is often more than sufficient for this. I do not look on the direct and immediate power of the Colonies to resist our violence as very formidable. In this, however, I may be mistaken. But when I consider that we have Colonies for no purpose but to be serviceable to us, it seems to my poor understanding a little preposterous to make them unserviceable in order to keep them obedient. It is, in truth, nothing more than the old and, as I thought, exploded problem of tyranny, which proposes to beggar its subjects into submission. But remember, when you have completed your system of impoverishment, that nature still proceeds in her ordinary course; that discontent will increase with misery; and that there are critical moments in the fortune of all states when they who are too weak to contribute to your prosperity may be strong enough to complete your ruin. Spoliatis arma supersunt.” Burke

          Liked by 1 person

  5. Still too many afflicted with the “Great Cause for World Control” mindset or idiotic crap like this wouldn’t be happening. Deluded fools led by out of touch, would be rulers. Sadly, I fear they will end up causing more damage to people and societies before they are finally shoved into the dust bin. They will not “win” in the long run and the more they are exposed as the fools that they are the better.

    Like

  6. My advice? Start showing where geniuses run into problems as their high IQ makes them very bad at figuring out the humanities: https://carolinefurlong.wordpress.com/2025/08/29/accidental-misuse-of-power-part-1-how-tony-stark-ends-up-thinking-his-dad-was-bad-when-they-both-made-mistakes/

    From there, you can then show the darker side of the genius world: https://carolinefurlong.wordpress.com/2025/11/07/accidental-misuse-of-power-part-3-how-the-movie-gifted-shows-proper-versus-abusive-parenting-techniques-where-geniuses-are-concerned/.

    Genius has limits. Hard ones that can hurt as much as help. Even those who figure it out still make mistakes, run smack into trouble, or have lessons to learn the hard way. It might hit audiences on a more personal level to see it from a genius character’s POV – or that genius character’s caretaker’s POV – than the more traditional “this type of organization is evil” route.

    Because even if the genius in question is actually evil, she’s still human. There are still things she can’t get or acquire, and there are still people willing to fight her. Including other geniuses.

    Liked by 1 person

  7.  They can’t do it for the same reason all totalitarians fail: because humans aren’t widgets, and because the information breaks down the more concentrated power is.

    “The plans and schemes of tyrants are broken by many things. They shatter against cliffs of heroic struggle. They rupture on reefs of open resistance. And they are slowly eroded, bit by little bit, on the very beaches where they measure triumph, by countless grains of sand. By the stubborn little decencies of humble little men.”

    David Drake; In The Heart of Darkness

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Last night, I stumbled across a YouTube channel that reminded me of AM radio conspiracy shows (Art Bell, maybe?). Tesla is taking over the world by building Skynet, but a friendly, useful version.

    It’s a very well presented conspiracy theory. More of a “this is what the business plan means” than a “conspiracy theory”. I have no idea if it’s true, but it is interesting. The channel is Life in the Future: Tesla and the world ahead.

    I’ll go with Sarah’s perspective: I report, you decide.

    Like

    1. Elon’s been talking about all that spare high powered compute capacity just sitting there when the cars are parked. The main issue using it for SkyNet is that will reduce the range by running the battery packs down, ruining the justification for owning an electric car in the first place, causing fewer Teslas to be sold and reducing the compute capacity available for SkyNet.

      The space-based data centers are a better bet for SkyNet – all that free solar power and no on-site IT folks to intervene.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The effect on range is as bad as some would have you believe

        Tesla cars currently travel 4-5 miles per KwH (other brands less), and the computers in the cars are ~1Kw to run, so each hour that you run them, you loose 4-5 miles of range.

        Yes, it can be noticeable but depending on how much you are actually driving, it may not matter. if you leave it plugged in overnight (8-10 hours) that leaves 16-14 hours that it could be draining the battery. If you only drive a couple hours a day, then you have lots of battery left to run the computer.

        It’s only if you are driving close to your max range that it will matter.

        Liked by 2 people

    1. I don’t. But I’ve been pounding this drum for a while. Both the prevalence of story and its ridiculous unanimity (the second a result of the never sufficiently damned 20th century) are distorting our actions, because they’ve distorted our views of ourselves and the future.
      That’s the ultimate battle on which we must fight collectivist Marxism which has infected EVERYTHING. (No seriously, even though I was always anti-communist it took me forty years to clean up the small Marxist rats in my head. Like assuming that inequality itself is enough for revolution, say.)

      Liked by 1 person

  10. I figure it’s that bit of flawed programming buried deep inside us–and in some it is far worse than others–that craves a king to rule over us. Now from a Christian perspective, that itch is scratched (or ought to be), so to speak, by our divine Ruler who also is interested in us applying our free will, not dominating us (that was the opposition’s game, after all). But just look at the Old Testament (and/or the Book of Mormon, if you are my religious persuasion, or curious): people had judges, elected in some form or fashion, but kept demanding a king instead (in the BoM, it wen the other direction–a righteous king reforms the government into elected jduges before stepping down, and then the next several centuries are spent fighting people who want to put kings–or cabals of a similar bent–back into power). And when that happened, things always went to the crapper sooner rather than later (just look at the mess David made, and Saul before him). The way I see it, this is a variation on the theme, and it all boils down to Lucifer trying (again) to overthrow free will. It never works permanently, and it never will. And it’s going especially badly right now because frankly, the tools are idiots and have been selecting for ideological purity for the last hundred years or so. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight it, though, or expose it to the light (and scorn) for all the world to see, or that they can’t, as our esteemed hostess said, do a lot of evil and damage. But as she also says (and with which I heartily agree): in the end we win, they lose. It just might take awhile, and it might suck (for us, and then really suck for them).

    Liked by 1 person

  11. (I hope this doesn’t end up being a double post, but WP is acting weird this morning…)

    I figure it’s that bit of flawed programming buried deep inside us–and in some it is far worse than others–that craves a king to rule over us. Now from a Christian perspective, that itch is scratched (or ought to be), so to speak, by our divine Ruler who also is interested in us applying our free will, not dominating us (that was the opposition’s game, after all). But just look at the Old Testament (and/or the Book of Mormon, if you are my religious persuasion, or curious): people had judges, elected in some form or fashion, but kept demanding a king instead (in the BoM, it wen the other direction–a righteous king reforms the government into elected jduges before stepping down, and then the next several centuries are spent fighting people who want to put kings–or cabals of a similar bent–back into power). And when that happened, things always went to the crapper sooner rather than later (just look at the mess David made, and Saul before him).

    The way I see it, this is a variation on the theme, and it all boils down to Lucifer trying (again) to overthrow free will. It never works permanently, and it never will. And it’s going especially badly right now because frankly, the tools are idiots and have been selecting for ideological purity for the last hundred years or so. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight it, though, or expose it to the light (and scorn) for all the world to see, or that they can’t, as our esteemed hostess said, do a lot of evil and damage. But as she also says (and with which I heartily agree): in the end we win, they lose. It just might take awhile, and it might suck (for us, and then really suck for them).

    Liked by 1 person

    2. Blame the Serpent, or human nature, but there always seem to be 1) people who want someone else to do all the thinking and giving of orders, and 2) people who are 100% convinced that if their sort were just in charge, Paradise would ensue. Who “their sort” are seems to vary across time and cultures, but there’s always someone who wants a king, if only because all the neighbors have one, and someone quite happy to be that king.

      [As an aside, I was mildly depressed when I counted how many times the Most High had to repeat to the Children of Israel, “No, do NOT sacrifice children! Just because the neighbors do it is no excuse. Quit. QUIT!”

      Followed by SMITE. “I warned you.”]

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I mean, that’s the entirety of God’s more dramatic dealings with humanity in a nutshell (and hilarious, in a tragic, tragic way):

        God: Don’t do the thing.

        Israel: [does the thing]

        God: Alright, you’ve been scourged and smitten for doing the thing. NOW DO NOT DO THE THING.

        Israel: [does the thing]

        Liked by 3 people

  12.  the information breaks down the more concentrated power is.

    Is that inherent or an artifact of “real communism has never been tried”?

    The earliest example of this that I recall reading is Boskone vs Arisia in Lensmen. The Boskonians were always misinformed due to “look bad to the boss, get killed” incentives. However, the Lensmen were also a centralized hierarchy (the Galactic Patrol being a clear military hierarchy). They just had a different incentive structure. As a side note, I found Russia “disguised” as Boskone and American not-so-disguised as Arisa amusing.

    Hayek argues it is inherent. I’m not sure his arguments stand up to contemporary (or soon to be) data collection methods. On the other hand, being unable to keep up with/understand a gargantuan flood of upward bound data and simply not getting that data have very few practical differences.

    Liked by 1 person

    2. The Lensmen had the advantage that the lenses made it impossible to lie. So if someone was communicating with you via lens, what they were saying was the absolute truth as they understood it.

      So the low-level bureaucrat frantically trying to paper over a crisis in the mistaken belief that he or she can fix it before the higher-ups notice can’t happen if that low-level has a lens.

      Liked by 2 people

        1. Lensmen are specifically chosen for incorruptibility. So any planet of Civilization that produces Lensmen has a natural advantage. However, a lot of worlds don’t produce Lensmen and the cultural matrix enshrines the idea that “people generally get the government they deserve.” So in, Masters of the Vortex, you visit a world with thoroughly corrupt local politics, and it’s made very clear that many (more likely all) worlds have criminal groups that local and galactic law have to keep rooting out.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. There are a LOT of Lensmen, but they’re not omnipresent or omniscient. Nor even omnipotent. Both thought screens and simply people with natural blocks work.

            Like

          2. Most races have some trait necessary to be a Lensman that is rare. For mankind, it’s incorruptibility.

            Aliens have it more easy on that one.

            Like

        2. No, the lens only works one way. There’s nothing stopping someone from lying to a lensman, and there are only a limited number of lensmen.

          However, having a form of communication, even if limited, in which the speaker *cannot* lie is an advantage for any society that is capable of accepting truth (even unwelcome truth).

          Liked by 1 person

    3. Well, is an inherent limit of human minds and mental filtering inherent more broadly?

      We can definitely defend concluding that speed of light limits have implications.

      Symbol encoding/decoding has some issues with the map to mental function, or with the map to calculations. Mental function type issues include the ‘similar to dunbar’s number’, ‘if the czar only knew’, etc., stuffs where the mind doing the thinking fundamentally cannot perceive things the way that the others do. Calculation issues, even if perfect answers for a given set of numbers can be proven, that is different from all of the intangibles inferred by individuals who would otherwise be making those decisions.

      The core problem with computers as a remedy for government problems of economy is security and the non-ergodicity of human behavior.

      If, hypothetically, the only way to rape women was to hack a computer to instruct the woman to comply, then people determined to rape women would focus really hard on learning to hack computers. (Of course, this is a rhetorical example that would not work in reality, all humans can choose to disobey the computers.)

      Software security needs hardware security needs physical security.

      I have not studied quantum computing, so it is possible that some property of those would allow one to trust the quantum computer without trusting the people who made the quantum computer. However, to my knowledge the interfaces to human contact are ordinary electronics, and ordinary electrical or electronic circuits are not totally secure if you do not trust the people who make them, or if you cannot trust people with the technical chops to verify all functions.

      The basic problem with computers bypassing economic information bottlenecks is if the broad majority of the crowd detects a positive for ‘the experts making the computer are cheating, and screwing us using the computer’. And ceases to obey or bypasses the computer.

      (An all deciding computer is a situation that addresses itself, as the psychos push their way into programming and electronics engineering, and push out the people who want to make machines that work. This tends to kill the ability to make machines and spare parts that work.)

      Yudkowsky wanted to make the ‘computer people would obey’, and is one of the lunatics who have missed this second order effect.

      The core of MAGA is basically about the educated as proxies for the public, and the widespread sense and willingness to believe that we are being screwed by the over credentialed idjits. Some of the worse idjits were clever enough to fear the loss of power, and stupid enough to gamble on proving what people had only suspected.

      Anyway, women were not believing computers on rape, but they were willing to somewhat conform to a seeming majority of socially prominent women. So the feminists were basically hacked to that end, or rather they sold feminism to that end because of their need to purchase leadership magic.

      Anyhow, I don’t know for sure that Hayek still holds, I’ve been needing to read him properly anyway.

      But the ‘uneducated’ crowd is actually much more expert than the experts when it comes to estimating whether the experts are screwing the crowd.

      Like

    4. While the Galactic Patrol was a hierarchy, it also had individuals that stood completely outside the hierarchy – Gray Lensmen.

      Like

  13. As per usual, this was an intelligent article. Science Fiction from the beginning had a difficulty. It was much easier to state the problem then to figure out a solution. So they over simplified. Unfortunately people still seem to think solutions are that easy. Look at NYC where I live. Socialism will do it. Etc.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. The ICs job one, and these are all ex-IC low level assets, is to collect and analyze information to report capabilities and intent, and then job two is to intervene on behalf of U.S. interests covertly.

    They have, what, three or four successful “color revolutions” on the job two covert intervention ledger in the past decades, with several subsequently reversed spectacularly, and for job one a whole bunch of “oopsie!” intelligence failures where either capability or intent were analyzed just full on wrong. And then there’s the deep state domestic conspiring that will absolutely come out that forces the elected side to discount anything they say – even their “friends” for whom they were conspiring, who know that they are one decision away from becoming targets instead of best buddies.

    Given that landscape I have to assume these idiots we’re burned like this to try and cauterize the wounds DJTs housecleaning have inflicted so far – dispose publicly of these idiots so the real pros can maybe retain some influence.

    With DJTs time in the wilderness experience I doubt it will work.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. I love the work that Data Republican does. I’ve been involved at a smaller scale with a few people for about 30 years, but we never had the level of access, tools, and transparency in the past that she and her peers have now. Internet and modern tech is a godsend.

    But following the money and the relationships has been proving “conspiracy theories” for decades. Almost everyone was blinded by the MSM or comfortably apathetic.

    One realization is that there isn’t enough uncorrupt courts to handle all the thousands of cases of malfeasance and treachery. The “usual” process at the “usual” pace isn’t going to work. There is probably enough solid evidence to go full Abraham Lincoln, but odds are that can gets kicked down the road until it’s way too late.

    Most of the folks still haven’t adjusted their frame to understand the total picture. If election fraud, cultural invasion, and basic economic stresses aren’t corrected soon, then we are looking at the successful far end of the conspirators damage curve, destruction of whatever this Republic currently pretends it was.

    The big questions are: How much more damage? Who and what survives?

    Like

      1. So thought Tiberius Gracchus. (And later, his brother.)

        They can’t win.
        But our winning is far from certain.

        Keep plugging away, where and when you can.

        If we can recover a Republic that fell into Oligarchy, it will be a historic first that we can all be proud of.

        Else, we’re looking at a civil war and the eventual rise of a strongman.

        Like

        1. “Else, we’re looking at a civil war and the eventual rise of a strongman.“

          –

          Several strongmen. If it goes to civil war, the states will be carved into multiple territories.

          Liked by 1 person

              1. Alberta would not surprise me.

                If Alberta goes, will the rest of the west, and far north be far behind?

                Asking for a friend.

                FWIW. Quebec never has/could, for all their long term off/on screaming about independence, because Quebec needs someone (western provenances) paying into their coffers.

                Liked by 2 people

  16. A major flaw is “geniuses” assuming expertise in one field either applies to all fields, or the other things aren’t important. They assume those without degrees are stupid and need to be led by their betters, and any degree except for their approved list are also unimportant.

    This was first seen with monarchical systems, then after evolution became accepted, they were the fittest because they were on top.

    And there are always the disaffected who see that the world could be perfected if only they were in charge.

    I thought I had a point when I started this, but I seem to have lost it in the typing.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. What “genius” would aspire to power like this? And plenty of individuals of less-than-genius do aspire to power like this, who would certainly be willing to defenestrate any geniuses that stood in their way. That’s the actual problem with making power levers such as this – the job of levering is too attractive to the exact people you don’t want in that job.

      Like

    4. Entertainment media’s love of portraying geniuses as being geniuses in everything has certainly not helped. I am allegedly genius-level when it comes to language based stuff (reading, writing, learning languages), and I’ve got talents on the art front (but I am no genius, thank GOODNESS), but math? Hell to the no. I might, if I work hard, be average. If I didn’t have discalculia, I might be pretty good at math, but likely still only barely above average if above at all (but more likely average). Same with science, and any number of other subjects.

      It’s taking me night on thirty YEARS to realize that I’m not a failure because I’m not good at everything, nor that I am “changing the world” like they told all us gifted kids we were supposed to do. In all fairness to my parents, they never put that pressure on me at all…but the rest of the world sure did.

      I now sneer at “geniuses” in tv shows. If they truly were THAT good in ALL those subjects…they probably would not be functioning in any remotely normal human way. I struggle with that–and I was only unfortunate enough to be gift-cursed in one area!

      Liked by 1 person

  18. Technically, it’s not treason until we’re at war with the nation these traitors are coordinating with.

    You want to know how far and wide? Look no farther than DAVOS, your World Economic Forum Annual Meeting of the people who consider themselves the rulers of the planet Earth.

    I’d love to shine a 1 MT Atomic Spotlight on those cockroaches.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Since as many locals as can leave before the Elites arrive, you’d miss a lot of innocents. I would feel sorry for the poor folks stuck doing the hospitality services, though.

      In the hypothetical event that in a novel, someone did indeed somehow off that crowd.

      Liked by 1 person

  19. l. Yes, even Heinlein, who unlike most of them — at least after his very early books — carefully and sometimes underhandedly showed it to be a bad thing. But even he expected it to get to the point you had to get a license to have children, and this would — somehow — be enforced.

    That ones’ still popular all over the place, in the closest-to-enforceable form, as shown by China:

    mutilate the women.

    Even when the issue is one guy ducking out on a half dozen different women, and not taking care of his kids– mutilate the women so they can’t have kids, or leave them to starve.

    Notably lacking is anything like “vasectomies or no SNAP,” but chop out the girly bits in a manner known to have life threatening complications before you’ll feed abandoned children? Supposedly freedom loving folks’ll go for it.

    I suspect it’s some bug in our programming, but it’s getting pretty boring by this time.

    Like

    1. I’m going to guess that it’s easier to go after the mothers. They’re the one who have the kids with them, after all.

      It takes legwork and investigation to go after the fathers.

      Y’know, if they don’t self-identify on social media.

      Like

        1. There’s a thing in Chinese culture where everything in the realm of intercourse or reproduction is the females “fault”. You can find all kinds of vids where the woman the married guy slept with is hunted down in public spaces by a groups of females related to the wife, beaten, and stripped on the street of the shopping district, where apparently the guy gets an “oh well”.

          Forced dangerous sterilization for indigent (i.e unclaimed) children rhymes with this.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Not just Chinese. Our church sponsors a missionary in Honduras who says the women are very supportive of anti-rape messages and rape victims…..until they learn the rapist is a brother/cousin/spouse of theirs. Then the little bitch had it coming.

            Like

            1. It’s very simple. It is always the womans fault. A girl is rap*d on the way to school, why wasn’t her mother with her? How did she tempt him? Etc.

              The women who blame the victim do so because if it’s not her fault it’s theirs. The wife must not have been satisfying him, or his mother didn’t teach him properly. If they admit fault (even by admitting he was wrong) they are blamed. Socially it becomes their responsibility and they get the repercussions.

              Liked by 1 person

    2. If you have six men ducking out on six women, all that is required for all six of the women to have another child is for one man to not get snipped. That’s the downside of promiscuity.

      Like

      1. Now try it with humans, were basic familiarity with patterns shows that you’d get the highest bang for the buck by going for the manipulator who is very good at getting a woman into bed. (see footnote)

        By lucky happenstance, guess who tends to live off of various forms of welfare and manipulation?

        But there is a normalization of sexual mutilation of women being acceptable– to the point that we’re well into a century of catching people doing it to “help” their very dehumanized targets– while even the most reversible, low-risk male sterilization is RECOGNIZED as mutilation.

        Footnote: there does happen to be a thing that results in a massive drop in offspring born to the ditch’em dudes. NOT having “birth control” programs. There’s massive pressure to use them now, in order to get benefits or even be accepted in polite company– and they strongly correlate with removing a defense to these predators.
        But, again, that involves treating those involved as humans, rather than cats on a spreadsheet that isn’t even checked against real life patterns.

        Like

        1. The sort of culture where these women live, that’s the average man. Let one escape your net, and you get six pregnancies.

          Like

            1. You need to produce this evidence, and it has to be good enough to trump the evidence I’ve seen the other way.

              Like

              1. :Snorts:
                “Sure, my assumptions don’t match anything but my stated assumptions, and I haven’t managed to engage with the arguments on hand, and I’m pushing century old failed notions as well– but if my mind isn’t changed, you need to work harder.”

                Head on out to New York, I heard they’re also serving up century-plus old nonsense and insisting that the objective failure and lack of connection to reality is no reason not to do it harder.

                Like

                1. And here we go again.

                  The one constant is your abusive tirades that the other person has not looked at the evidence is you. And don’t try to give me that song and dance about you are the innocent victim of so many people who refuse to look at the evidence. You go off on these tirades against people who never get that complaint from anyone else, and whom I have seen enough to get a good sample. The problem is you.

                  This is especially egregious in this case because you have not, in fact, produced any evidence that sterilizing these men would help.

                  In reality, as Theodore Dalrymple’s Life At The Bottom would explain to you, these men are ubiquitous in that culture, capable of impregnating many women before the first one is born, and also perfectly capable of living without SNAP — they will simply mooch off the women of the moment.

                  Like

                    1. The culture in the US where a man gets dozens of women pregnant and skips out on them is very much the same.

                      Like

                    2. The women’s culture is different, Mary. The expectations are different. I don’t think ANY of you understand that.
                      As for that culture in the US, it’s tightly focused and in SMALL enclaves.

                      Like

                    3. In what way is the welfare-dependent portion of the US significantly different from the UK, so that the proportion of predatory men is not high enough to keep all the women pregnant?

                      Like

                  2. “perfectly capable of living without SNAP — they will simply mooch off the women of the moment.“

                    –

                    Mooch? I guess beating the women, and guarantied the “moochers” will have multiple at once, never clumped together. Mother-to-be then with infant homeless often as not. Mooch does not just take advantage of the woman getting WICKS and SNAPS, the “moocher” is stealing the cards. No, these type of men are “moochers” at minimum. They are flat out abusers of women, infants, and children. These men belong in jail. The women and their children would be better off.

                    Least anyone say “but the children need the support of the man!”. Spits. The children do not get support from these men. They get to starve while these men take the government support meant for the children.

                    Dealing with these abusers with sterilization will prevent them from making new victims to mooch off of and abuse. But it won’t stop the existing abuse. It takes removing the victims from their reach and influence. Good luck with that. Doable.

                    Ask how I know. Never mind I’ll just tell – from the POV of extended family member. FYI, the families, including beyond the parents and siblings, of the women get to watch helplessly while this happens. Provide assistance to the women and children, and it is stolen by the man. Can’t press charges because the woman is complicate (has no choice) in giving whatever to the abuser. All one can do is get the woman to open their eyes to extract themselves and their children from the situation so the abuser can’t do the damage. FWIW, this did happen, when the infant was a month old. As far as I know the pedophile (older children of the other baby mamas – the “s” is not a mistake) is still in prison, his parental rights severed. (From all offspring? At least from at least one child (3 months at the time of severance).) Plus several no contact, protection orders, for the victim, the infant, victim’s parents, and minor siblings. Since it has been 13 years and protection orders are not permanent, should release ever happen they’d have to be renewed.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. Dalrymple observed that what induced the women to leave was the discovery that the violence was not indicative of commitment. He’d beat her capriciously to ensure her every thought was of how to stop him — but he’d also be sleeping around — and when she found that out, she’d leave.

                      Like

  20. Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » AND THEN READ THIS:  Work On What’s Been Spoiled By The Father.

  21. Bleach the worms?

    Not create recipes?

    “Bol de vers ronds saupoudré d’insectes à la Klaus ‘Blofeld’ Schwab“

    Like

  22. I once read that the roots of science fiction, back at the Gernsback genesis (which sounds like a failed Star Trek pitch by the way) was Technocracy, a millennial theory of rule by the most technical competent, and since it was expressed as the scientists or smartest guy saving the world by being the best, it seems to track. I love reading 30’s Astounding stories though they are not the quality of story telling as what you find today.

    The magazines needed something to keep attention and the genre turned into something new, adventure stories with fantastic science, often underpinned by the newest science discoveries. It was, as the essay I read on it said, similar a conversion as if Soviet Realism art had survived an abortive Soviet Union, and survived only as a school of art of squarish tractors, industrial scenes and grain harvests.

    Like

Comments are closed.