Sunday, March 24, 2019

More Emotionalist Propaganda: Waving the Bloody Shirt in the Service of Bicycle Lanes and Anarcho-Tyranny

From the Queens Chronicle: Cyclist killed in Long Island City crash with car

This is an accident that will be exploited by ghouls in elected office and advocacy groups in a grotesque effort to promote their propaganda and to advance their agenda. It is, as usual, another dreary attempt by liberals to gain a privilege in the form of dedicated bicycle lanes for little more than their desire to consume yet another status symbol in their drive for virtue signalling. The set up here is the usual morality tale of leftist angels versus the devils where the angels in this case are the bicyclists who can do no wrong in battling against evil cars. To remedy this horrific miscarriage of justice, more protected bicycle lanes are needed and automotive traffic euphemistically "calmed" in gridlock. Yet, despite any sense of decency, these people will see the personal tragedy of the victim, Mr. Spencer, as an opportunity to wave the bloody shirt with vulture-like glee to advance their agenda. Really, how low can you go exploiting a man's death for the privileges of special interest groups.

That all the existent bicycle lanes are seriously under utilized, that bicycles, fun for recreational or exercise purposes but cannot serve as a viable replacement for the automobile makes no nevermind to these fanatical cultist advocacy groups. Like spoiled children, they will continue to make demands. Worse even with these types of creatures, even when their current demands are met, they will cry for ever more concessions. A social justice warrior activist is a liar and lives only for conflict so a wise policy would be never to believe any of their claims and never make even the least concession to them.

Let's see from the article what happened:
"The operator of the vehicles was traveling southbound on 2nd Street, in the right of two travel lanes, approached the intersection at Borden Avenue.  The vehicle entered the intersection with the green traffic signal.  The bicyclist was traveling westbound on Borden Avenue, approaching 2nd Street, and apparently disobeyes a steady red traffic signal.  The bicyclist continues into the intersection and was struck by the southbound vehicle.  The bicyclist was removed to Mount Sinai Hospital of Astoria and subsequently pronounced deceased.  The operator of the involved vehicle remain on the scene.  The investigation remains on going and there are no arrests at this time.

Although bicyclists and pedestrians always have the right of way, that does not protect them from the consequences of unsafe actions or bad decisions. Right of way does not protect one from the physics of momentum and kinetic energy from impact with a car. This accident should serve as a cautionary tale to bicyclists that for their own safety they must obey all traffic laws. No amount of protected bicycle lanes can protect a rider from their own bad decisions. Further, bicyclists should understand that a motorist may not always see them and may not be able to react in time to avoid hitting them. Always be aware of and respectful of traffic around you. In any confrontation between a motor vehicle and a bicyclist (or a pedestrian), the motor vehicle will win every time. Otherwise, a white painted "ghost bicycle" becomes little more than a Darwin Award.

Nobody sane who drives any motor vehicle wants the problems of an accident on their insurance and driving record or an injury or death on their conscience. Yes there are plenty of assholes out there behind the wheel as in the bike saddle or walking along and they should be given a wide berth.

"Several cycling advocates disputed the findings on social media, pointing out that the report is based on what the driver told police."

First of all, none of us should doubt the NYPD's findings in this accident. The police have no dog in this fight, no cause to promote nor axe to grind. The police investigator's findings will have to stand up in either criminal or civil court. Determining the cause and if any criminality is involved is all that matters. The physical evidence of skid marks, location of damage on both the car and bicycle alone tells the story.

If these advocates are right, then why don't they produce evidence to prove it instead of an assertion and innuendo. Obviously, they have nothing really to say outside of inane conspiracy theories and should be ignored.

And the political vulture, NYC Councilman Van Bramer, weighs in with an insipid statement of fact free histrionics:

“This morning, a cyclist was killed in LIC,” Van Bramer said. “Another awful tragedy. Another life lost. Another family shattered. We cannot normalize traffic violence and deaths. They cannot be a forgone conclusion. Cyclists deserve safety on our city’s roads like everyone else. It’s long past time to hold reckless drivers accountable and to invest in sustainable transportation infrastructure like protected bike lanes to better ensure the safety of all New Yorkers and to prevent any more needless loss of life.”

I do not personally know Councilman Jimmy Van Bramer so I can't say for sure whether if he is in fact an odious cretin, a ghoulish ambulance chaser, or just a plain slimy liar of a politician or any combination thereof. It doesn't matter as this statement stands as an asinine, one sided sermon of unctuous pandering to the bicyclist lobby. Really, a cringe-worthy effort overall that reflects most poorly on his constituents who keep electing him to office.

First off, see the police statement and understand that mistakes or bad riding habits can have terrible consequences. There must be some personal responsibility involved here. Next, who in the hell is "normalizing traffic violence" and death? Violence? Seriously? Right, Jimmy, gilding the lily a bit too much there but set that strawman up and knock him down.

Hold reckless drivers accountable, great idea, Jimmy. If only we had something like a police department that investigates accidents and who issue summonses for traffic violations or make arrests in cases of motorist criminality, that just might work. Oh, wait, just more Van Bramer verbal spew.

So yes, cyclists do deserve safety but once again, personal responsibility and obeying traffic laws should play a major part in safety. To try and make this all about all motorists being reckless is a disingenuous genetic fallacy. Being an assclown of a snowflake is a quality that cuts across all demographics (including politicians and bureaucrats too) so why get so sanctimonious about motorists only. Liberals are just not bright enough to think outside of simplistic, binary dichotomies.
And finally, how is moar money spent and moar protected bike lanes going to address accidents that happen at intersections? The sustainable transportation infrastructure thing is just an emotional throwaway term to trigger goodfeelz in liberal emoters. Otherwise it is completely meaningless nonsense.

But in all of this, are bicyclists going to pay registration fees to help defray the costs of dedicated bicycle lanes or are they going to be held accountable for violations of traffic laws by being issued summonses by the police? No, the SJW snowflakes want special privileges and freestuff in the form of bike lanes.

Well, maybe I shouldn't be so hard on old Jimmy. After all, being a liar and pandering to the interests of favored vassal special interest groups is in the modern politician's job description. No, really the blame lies with we the people who have been asleep at the switch for generations and have allowed many bona fide creeps to be elected to office and the managerial/custodial state to run wild. Worse yet for us is that there is no widespread public will to elect better people or demand the excesses government and their vassals be reigned in.

In conclusion:
It's a sad and tragic thing when someone is killed in an accident.Something no normal human being wants to happen (progressive leftists excepted) but any reasonable person understands that we are not perfect and accidents happen. We can take reasonable steps to significantly reduce the odds of accidents which first and foremost must be exercise of common sense and adherence to the rules but must realize that no system can ever be completely foolproof. Motorists, pedestrians or bicyclists disregard traffic laws, and yes, no one is blameless here. This is not in any way "normalizing" accidents but recognizing a fact. So no new sets of laws or unnecessary bicycle lanes, etc, will address the assholery of pompous, entitled douchebags that too often run amok here. Only by encouraging people to respect the rules of the road as created for their safety, promote use of common sense and respecting each other can we reasonably reduce accidents.

We must strive for the heuristic and not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. All of us, as human beings, must ultimately take responsibility for our actions and accept the consequences like rational adults.

Donald Cavaioli

Thursday, March 21, 2019

A brief hiatus

I don't usually post every day but as I've been busy with some other things, I don't expect to post anything until next week.
But stay tuned, I have some more things to write about.
I'm not finished here yet.

Donald Cavaioli

Saturday, March 16, 2019

The Deracination of Words

It's a prediction that George Orwell did not get completely right in his novel 1984. 

He did get a good deal right, give the man an 'A' for effort, including surprisingly, that bit about pop music for proles being composed by a machine called a 'versificator' or what we today call a computer AI program . But one of the major predictions, 'newspeak' didn't quite go the way he thought it would.

Orwell prognosticated that newspeak would reduce the ideas conveyed by language by limiting the number of words used and as a result, reducing the dictionary to only a few dozen pages. Wrongthink is eliminated by eliminating the vocabulary that could express it. The modern left, working towards the same glorious goal of eliminating wrongthink, went another route with spectacular results.

Perhaps because they did not want to be seen as dull, unimaginative Orwell copycats, or that their ripping off Orwell's act for most of what they use already was becoming too cliched. Nevertheless, they finally succeeded in only partially ripping off newspeak by giving it a new spin. The modern left retained the words but erased the definition and meaning of words and replaced it with a pure emotional connotation. Words in the leftist's lexicon, now only cause an emotional trigger of good feels or bad feels.

And here's where the left's twisted genius finally shines through. Not only do they eliminate wrongthink with meaningless, emotion laden, words, they also make doublethink a stunning reality by vaporizing thought itself. The goodthinker needn't bother to suppress the truth because lying requires using reason and understanding concepts first before one can mentally discard them and substitute the party approved narrative. An emotionalist language does not use reason and since the words no longer have any real meaning, one does not need to go through the mental gymnastics necessary of suppressing the truth and substituting the official narrative. Therefore it is impossible and even unnecessary to lie to oneself since there is no thought involved.

So one day soon, if all goes according to plan, all writing will consist of an ungracious crashing of words that will not be read for meaning or ideas as they will be little more than gibberish. No, writing will not be read in the currently accepted meaning but be skimmed over where the reader, lacking any critical thinking abilities, will be given emotional impressions.

Donald Cavaioli

Wednesday, March 13, 2019

The Apocalypse Con

Thinking back over the course of my life, if I were to have started to dig my own grave every time officialdom told me we were all doomed because of some predicted cataclysm, I'd be in fucking China by now. Be it DDT, acid rain, global cooling, the ozone hole, global warming, climate change, we had only 10 to 20 years left. When the doomsday clock ran out, and they all have, we were either given another 10 to 20 years or a new end of the world scenario was cooked up. The only thing that changed was environmental groups became richer and more influential, certain corporations made money and better paid bureaucrats became more numerous. And to the best of my knowledge, the world didn't end yet and we're all still alive. It would appear that we were lied to for the gain of others.

However, according to our betters, not being put in a car seat until I was 10 years old, having played in a park not encased in bubble wrap or riding my bicycle without a helmet, I should never have lived past childhood. There should only be a mere handful of my age group left alive today. But there are many of us still here. There were a few who did tragically die in childhood due to accidents, but they were really a tiny minority of us. As it is impossible to make the world absolutely risk free and safe, the hyperbolic appeals to the precautionary principle to justify new laws, rules and regulations were at best exaggerated and at worst simply lies.

No matter whether it is "for the children" or "we must save the earth", "banks (or other corporations) are too big to fail" (or we're all gonna die, the world economy will explode, etc.) there was a corporation there either to sell us government mandated good and services that will somehow save us or receiving a tax payer funded bailout. A warning sign that should make one suspicious is how shrill and extreme the threats are and how little time we have left to act before it's too late. So little time, there can be no debate and skeptics, let alone anyone who asks a question, are smeared as deniers or other weaponized terms. Deniers, who for some unfathomable reason, want the whole world to die as if they were themselves immortal and unaffected by global armageddon or were mindlessly suicidal.
But most suspicious of all is how much this is going to cost us.

Always ask questions of the apocalypse porn peddlers. The more urgent the call to action freighted with the most heart rending of sob stories, the more they should be questioned. Be the tenth man, not the gullible fool and look at the data carefully with a skeptical eye. If it's outside you area, look at what other experts say who are skeptical of what the apocalypse sellers are pushing. Evaluate the arguments, not the ad hominem attacks on the skeptics. Do not fall for the appeal to authority fallacy as even scientists can either get things wrong or being human, will be devotees of a political cult pushing an agenda or saying things the powers that be want to hear just to get grant money. Never believe anything based solely on the output of a computer model as computers are not magical fortune telling oracle boxes but know only what the programmer tells them. Most of all, don't be afraid of the name calling blowback from questioning the official "you're all gonna die" craze.

There is a saying from World War II that when you're taking the heaviest flak, that means you're directly over the target. The more smears you get for asking questions, the more shaming language or weaponized words are used by the doomsayers to silence you, the more certain it is that they are lying.

Don't fall for the apocalypse con game.

Donald Cavaioli

Wednesday, March 6, 2019

The GOP: Part of the ruling class clique or just hapless cucks

I've made mention before of the Republican party being part of a bi-factional ruling class party with the Democrat party. I still stand by this insofar as the leadership and upper ranks of the GOPe (Grand Old Party establishment) are concerned. There is plenty of admittedly circumstantial evidence to support this thesis; the higher ranking members of both parties attended the same Ivies, were in some cases members of the same frats, and studied under many of the same professors. Members of both parties have advisors that likewise were educated at the same Ivies, ran in the same frat circles and worked on and off at the same tax-exempt non-profit foundations and think tanks. This alone makes it reasonable to assume that members of both parties would naturally tend to think alike, agree on certain fundamental concepts of government and would likely cooperate on advancing an overall agenda and policies.

It would not be reasonable to assume that there would be a "smoking gun" in the form of a written conspiratorial manifesto, clandestinely passed around during meetings of the ruling class secret handshake society. If such an ill-advised document had existed, the law of averages would predict it would have come to light long ago as large groups of people are notoriously bad at keeping a secret over the long term.

No, it's more likely that these agreements in principle are verbal and take place at various cocktail parties, in clubs like the Harvard club and on sundry golf courses. Just as it is more likely to assume that this concord of the Red and Blue was not planned from the very formation of the parties but something that took place gradually over the course of the 20th century. The policies and agenda followed by the managerial state isn't any secret or conspiracy either. They can be found in the white papers at various think tanks and foundations, written by the people who become politician's advisors, upper level bureaucrats and cabinet secretaries.

But just to emphasize without putting too fine a point on it, the bi-factional uniparty is an agreement to cooperate on general principles as members in common of a self-aware, political/managerial social class. Not the product of a formal manifesto and accompanying ideology.
The only competition between the two factions is which gets to carry or whose turn it is to carry the presidential pennant, how fast to implement the agenda and the cost, and who gets the lion's share of the spoils. This can get nasty, at least outwardly, but in the end, these are not men of action but people who value status through empty words and gestures and consuming privilege.

This can be seen with presidents ultimately getting what they want from the opposition party with President Trump, the managerial state unapproved pleb hero excepted. The rhetoric one party hits the other party with, the promises made to their respective bases that are never delivered are just theater for the rubes.

But what of the commonly heard charge of the Republican GOPe being "the stupid party" and completely hapless cucks? They're just a bunch of idiots who can't do anything right?

To invoke the law of averages once again, not all of the GOPe can be completely stupid and hapless at the same time. Nor could all be cowardly cucks who prefer to foolishly lose all the time due to adhering to a set of rigid principles. Again, the law of averages. There must be some percentage of Republicans in the GOPe willing to fight and who want to win and do so. There must have been some occasions where they could have persuaded the cucks to stand up for themselves. But never in at least the eight years of President Obama? No. Neither possible nor probable.

Even an idiot will sometimes get something right or succeed at something if only by accident. For example, the Republicans who said they were against the Affordable Care Act and would repeal it (with the sneaky addition of replace added- a clue for you all) if only they could balked at the opportunity with majorities in the house and senate and Trump as a president willing to go along with it. Nobody could possibly be that stupid and incompetent to pass an opportunity like that. It was clear that the GOPe in fact had no real problem with the ACA other then they did not author it to their own specifications. In opposing Trump, they unmasked themselves as uniparty accessories after the fact. All the rhetoric to the contrary was simply Kabuki theater for the rank and file Republican faithful.

In conclusion, although castigating the GOPe as the stupid party of cucks who prefer to lose gracefully with their principles intact may be cathartic for some on the right but it is too facile and reductionist to pass a basic smell test. It then fails on closer inspection.

Donald Cavaioli

Tuesday, March 5, 2019

The Ruling Class Managerial Revolution: Overthrowing the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights

The Evolution of the Ruling Class Managerial State:
James Burnham in his book, The Managerial Revolution published in 1941, had as a central thesis that as the size of government increased, the bureaucracy would develop its own managerial class identity and work to promote its own class interests. Being that Burnham was formerly a marxist and friend of Trotsky, he used marxist class analysis to formulate this concept. However, even if other predictions made in the book did not come to pass, this managerial class theory proved prescient.

Burnham's later book, The Machiavellians, published in 1943, further argued that an elite class (including the managerial class) would form and further coalesce power with only the trappings of democracy remaining. One thing Burnham failed to notice or disregarded was the importance of the New Deal. This would not only form the basis of today's managerial state but as Garret Garrett points out in The Revolution Was it was in fact the start of the managerial state's overthrowing of the constitution and principles on which the U.S. was originally founded.

Burnham's work was later expanded on by Samuel Francis to include the concept of anarcho-tyranny and explored the concept of managerial capitalism. What Francis did not foresee was that managerial capitalism and the managerial state, rather than conflict, would form a mutually beneficial cooperative relationship similar to that of feudal lords and their vassals. This relationship is how the present defenestration of the constitution takes place.

The Problem of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights:
The present managers and planners of our government policy find the constitution to be too restrictive for them to implement their organizational blueprint for a top down centrally planned and managed society. They believe this system is best and tend to conflate what is best for them as a class, is best for the country. The plebs will be taken care of through the noblesse oblige of a vast welfare state, low level civil service jobs or what jobs are still allowed them through managerial capitalism. The outlines of this blueprint was first sketched in the early 20th century and fleshed out in the 1930's in the wake of the great depression. Under FDR the "brain trust" and their think-tanks fellows concluded that a government modeled on the Soviet system, adjusted and better scientifically planned and managed was the wave of the future. However, parts of the New Deal were found by the U.S. Supreme Court to be unconstitutional and were struck down while other policies of the Roosevelt administration that were arguably unconstitutional were unchallenged and remained in place. But that is a story for another day.

The constitution and the bill of rights was an impediment to the planners that had to be removed or worked around in such a way as not to be challenged in the courts or to arouse public opposition. But if it were done by banks and corporations, whose actions are not constrained by the U.S. constitution, not even the government's fingerprints would be found. Then through these private entities closing bank accounts, refusing credit or loans, and the deplatforming on social media of dissidents on the right, at the government's behest, then the constitution's bill of rights could be de facto overthrown and the plebs would be none the wiser.
It would be the perfect crime.

When one considers the bailouts of the American auto manufacturers and the banks, one must realize that this government largess was not given without certain strings attached. As well the same goes for the Silicon Valley tech giants who have received government contracts. Also there is the wall of costly regulations and fees that are in place which favor and protect big businesses with the necessary capital and army of lawyers and consultants to help navigate byzantine local, state and federal laws and regulations.

One may wonder why popular conservative and dissident right content creators be deplatformed, forced out of bank accounts or banks would refuse loans or credit to businesses like firearm dealers when these content creators and businesses make money for all these entities. What business person in their right mind would kick money out of bed?

It must be noted that the government, as a model of power, always has the upper hand over private industry, which is a productive model that only has influence or persuasion. But where too big to fail bailouts, lucrative state and federal contracts and regulatory walls are the carrot, there is always the stick of unevenly applied anti-trust legislation and governmental investigations (legislative and law enforcement) that can be brought to bear. To fuel any legal investigations, there is much information to be found in the NSA databases and failing that, petty process crimes will do. Even the big players on Wall Street who pay the political establishment very well are not immune from prosecution.
Power always rules over wealth and influence. And power never lets wealth and influence forget this.

Nevertheless, the carrot is generously given and the stick used sparingly in return for banks and corporations playing the puppet villains by doing the dirty work of suppressing political dissidents on the right. Beguiling the angry plebs and diverting them from seeing the sly hand of the managerial puppeteers is the price to pay for influence. Contrary to all commonly held beliefs, as vassals unswervingly loyal to their lords' agenda, it is a match made in heaven. And the result is our post-constitutional soft tyranny managerial oligarchy of today.

Donald Cavaioli

Monday, March 4, 2019

The Gulf Between the Political/Bureaucratic Class and the People They Govern

For all the Jane Jacobs style power to the people protesting done, for all the complaints about any given policies the New York City government institutes, or that the city will not administer basic services to our satisfaction, the city will not change its positions and bow to what we the people want.
It does not matter how you vote, protest or post rant porn on local blogs because the political and bureaucratic establishment in New York City is a ruling class unto themselves with their own agenda and class interests. The ruling class does not care what you want or think. They are in charge and will make those decisions for you. The citizens who disagree or actively dissent are viewed by the city ruling class as little more than noisome pests.

In more detail:
I've previously noted in two earlier posts, here and here, that no matter which party is in charge, public policy does not change. But it's worse than that. Our managerial government has evolved into its own class which promotes its own class interests and seeks to pass on individual member's power and influence on to their chosen heirs. The managerial class, at least in its upper reaches, becomes more of a closed circle, with few newcomers admitted, and is thus isolated socially and culturally from the people over which they govern, the plebs. Simply put, your city government will implement whatever policies they want whether you like it or not and they do not care what you think about it.

Part of the task of the managerial class is administrating the vast social welfare system along with endless rules and regulations designed to protect the plebs from all harm including the harm the plebs may do to themselves. Then the top of the managerial pyramid begins to take a dim view of the pleb masses over which they govern as being too incompetent to chart the course of their own lives and would be hopelessly lost without the intervention of their more intelligent managerial betters. Further, in time, the managerial elite begin to hold a view of the general ignorance of the masses due to not being as educated as their betters and having lesser cognitive abilities. This implies that the plebs are incapable of understanding the complexities of modern politics and economics and it is then therefore necessary to lie to the plebs to placate them as one would do with children. So when enacting policies the plebs may not approve of, the managers disregard plebeian protests as irrelevant and foolish obstructionism of the implementation of needed and necessary policies.

What the irksome pest plebs want or do not want is irrelevant as the managers are in power and will not tolerate interference with their plans.

For further reading, there are three posts from here, here and here, they are somewhat long but well worth the time. And one post from the Z man blog here.

Donald Cavaioli

More Emotionalist Propaganda: Waving the Bloody Shirt in the Service of Bicycle Lanes and Anarcho-Tyranny

From the Queens Chronicle: Cyclist killed in Long Island City crash with car This is an accident that will be exploited by ghouls in elect...