KulakRevolt
Writes at https://anarchonomicon.substack.com/
Writes weird Twitter Threads @FromKulak
Rides motorcycles... poorly.
.
Winner of Motte Post of the Year 2019
User ID: 905
KulakRevolt
2yr ago
I remain deeply ammused that not only is "Social Contract Theory" bunk, but its official court doctrine that its bunk.
The state is under no obligation to protect you. You pay taxes and obey it because you are its slave. There is no exchange of of any good or service for you're obedience... you're just a coward who obeys because you're afraid
KulakRevolt
2yr ago
The Ohio train spill was kindof right on the edge between nothing burger, and massive disaster, and a key demonstration of the media and influencers rank incompetence to do even basic research.
Vinyl Chloride is nasty and carcinogenic as hell at any reasonably large concentration and its airborne. So whats the area where it'll be concentrated enough that you're fucked if you're exposed to it?
You actually have to do the math or atleast eyeball it to figure that out.
So 10 DOT 11 Tank Cars is 1,139,790 Liters of Vinyl Chloride or 1038 metric tons.
Doing the math thats 1 ppm if evenly distributed over a cubic kilometer of atmosphere.
Ok what the hell does that mean? Well then you have to look up the OSHA safety data sheet for vinyl chloride and see that do to its carcenogenic effect the maximum safe exposure OSHA allows 1ppm over an 8 hour shift and 5ppm for only 15minutes maximum during emergency exposure.
So now suddenly you have the scale of the disaster. In the immediate locality of the crash 1-5 km they should be evacuating people since you could absolutely get larger concentrations than that, and living somewhere 24/7 is a more intense exposure than an 8hr shift.
But people 100kms away shouldn't be worried, and as it dilutes it really shouldn't be a concern unless you get areas of extreme concentration or it builds up in like the the regional water, or local fish people subsequently eat.
Then there's what they're doing to mitigate it. Burning mostly breaks it down into CO2 and Hydrogen Chloride, two "pollutants" that aren't carcinogenic and are both byproducts of the human body (Your stomach acid is hydrochloric acid (what hydrogen Chloride becomes on contact with water))... Sure you'll also get incomplete burn and some nasty byproducts, but on the whole this is vastly reducing the danger and long term toxicity, and even the low level acid rain the hydrogen chloride will become will be one mild day compared to what heavy industry produced for decades in the 20th century. Might hurt be rough on your garden for a week unless you're at the epicenter.
From all that you can conclude a lot and raise a lot of questions, people 100s of kilometers away are almost certainly fine, but was the evacuation as wide spread as it should have been? How accountable should we hold authorities if those near the crash develop nasty symptoms from not being evacuated?
Presumably someone at somepoint did these calculations... but they've utterly failed to communcate any of this and everyone is rightly primed to assume the company and the government is going to lie to their face and act with reckless indifference for their well being because.... well have you payed attention to anything ever?
So an authority or media figure has to actually show their work, and break down the above, Ie. Highschool math just basic unit conversion, a safety datasheet we'd expect any industrial worker to be comfortable with, enough highschool science to describe a combustion reaction... And not one of them is capable of or at all cares to do it.
Meanwhile hydrogen Chloride is the chemical that makes Volcanic clouds dark and ponderous, and hundreds of tons of it are visibly darkening the sky... So it looks like fucking Armageddon.... And not a single media figure of county official, or authority figure would ever be competent enough to say "Hey here's a photo of an volcanic eruption in Fiji, the village in this photo was fine... if you're asthmatic you should probably stay inside, but the chemical composition is largely comparable, its not a major concern as long as the immediate plume doesn't blow in your face".
.
Like this all would be so basic for a competent to explain to give the scale of the disaster... but we live in a society where not a single competent human being works in government or media, and so I had to do the math and look it all up when my mother and half the internet was freaking out 600km away from the crash thinking this would take years off our lives, and all the media could do was scoff and call you a conspiracy theorist for not trusting the company and locality that would be liable.
KulakRevolt
2yr ago
And how do any of those laws or "Roll-backs" actually prevent any woman with a credit card from actually getting an abortion?
Demand for abortion is inelastic. Keeping the child costs 100-200 grand + 100-200 grand in effort in the first 18 years, getting the abortion... even if its fully banned, costs a $200-500 plane ticket to the nearest jurisdiction that will perform one... and every single american can get $500 in credit (seriously when i was young I worked in collections... doesn't mnatter how many times an american has gone bankrupt... they can get that lone at some interest rate)
.
Unless Anti-abortion activists start proposing hard travel-restrictions for pregnant women, or serious infanticide level (decades) prison time for women who can be proven to have had abortions... its all symbolic
KulakRevolt
2yr ago
And highwaymen only shoot their victim 1% of the time... the rest of the time they reach and agreement to surrender their valuables.
The threat of the court and violence fundamentally makes all of these agreements coercive... Just because the guy with the gun (the government) is standing in the corner and not saying anything doesn't mean he isn't the most important factor in the outcome
KulakRevolt
2yr ago
Its really bizzare because like everyone of every gender hates everyone else... resentments are just the baseline of the adversarial/cooperative game that is any negotiation or sexual relationship.
Straight women bitch about men.
Straight men bitch about women.
Gay women bitch about Gay women.
Gay men bitch about Gay men. (I swear...the shit I've heard from my gay friends, They're more "homophobic" than my most conservative relative could ever be)
And trans people of both types bitch about both genders, cis and trans.
.
Resentments and frustrations with the desired sex is like the baseline of all people everywhere...
The fact that we expect "Oh you just hate women" for any male perspective political discussion that touches on the sexual... but would be agast at anyone dismissing a feminist or abortion rights activist "You just hate men" is deeply telling of how poisoned these conversations are.
KulakRevolt
2yr ago
Lowball well over 50% of those wouldn't surrender, and if they're recieving child support then there's a father who hasn't disappeared who would presumably be willing to assume custody in again over 50% of cases...
Considering any woman getting child support is middle-class enough to have gone through the legal system and won a court case... the final number who might surrender is probably under 5% of women receiving child support.
KulakRevolt
2yr ago
Abortion rights effectively can't be rolled back. Rolling back abortion in America is like trying to Ban guns.
You're never getting the guns back, and you're never going to be able to stop anyone of any means (like anyone who has a credit card) from just buying a $200 plane ticket to a sanctuary city or second country and getting an abortion there... And that's if you somehow got a federal abortion ban that's never going to happen, and was actually enforced with a new federal agency, which is even less likely to happen.
Abortion has joined gunownership and porn access in the category of things that are literally inalienable... Like I doubt any possible series of votes or governments could ever get rid of them.
KulakRevolt
2yr ago
infertile couples, as well as single people who can't have kids the old fashioned way outnumber the available adoptable children by a massive percentage.
The reason there are foster homes at all is government bureaucracy, and problem children who realistically can't be raised by anyone.
If the standards of adoption were lowered to what they were in the 1890s damn near every child under 5 would get adopted.
KulakRevolt
2yr ago
So just don't fund them through tax dollars.
A child is an expense little different from a dog. Its 20-100 lbs of mammal. Everything else is social signalling.
If a mother actually can't earn enough to afford to feed it in her studio apartment... she should give it up for adoption as anyone that incapable is clearly also going to be incapable at everything else to do with child rearing.
We have millions of competent well adjusted infertile couples who wish they could adopt... why the hell do we subsidize incompetent mothers one penny?
KulakRevolt
2yr ago
My solution is the same one that has worked throughout all of history in every institution that's been functional:
The person with the power is the person with the responsibility.
If women are to be empowered to abort whenever they like, surrender to adoption or the state whenever they like, and generally have full control... THEN THEY SOULD BARE FULL AND TOTAL FINANCIAL RESPONCIBILITY.
These are the conditions that produced the sexual norms conservatives were so fond of In the 19th century and before if a man got a woman pregnant out of wedlock, that was a her problem. Full stop.
Even if a community thought they could try to force the responsibility on him, he could just disapear a few towns over.
This is what created the intense emphasis on chastity, and the sense of ruin that accompanied fallen women.
THESE ARE OUR TRADITIONAL SEXUAL VALUES AND INSTITUTIONS.
And not a single conservative will just full mouthed endorse a return to how things worked in 1890, instead they gesture at some version of a welfare state that never existed and lament sexual morality is collapsing whilst they use the violence of the state to prop up that immorality
KulakRevolt
2yr ago
Father should be able to elect for a "Legal abortion/surrender" where he surrenders all rights and claims to the child, at any point in the child's developement.
If the mother then decides she can't support the child and elects to abort or put it up for adoption so be it.
This is the only solution that doesn't get into absurdities of women somehow having the inalienable right to abort or surrender their child, yet men somehow being bound from the moment they (or their wife's boyfreind) ejaculates.
Couples looking to adopt currently have to wait years and there is a dearth of adoption candidates. Or social problem is not a surplus of children but a surplus of legal and social regulations destroying the impetus to have children
Where are the Conservative Critiques of Family Court?
Conservatives, especially religious conservatives go on and on about the collapse of the family, declining sexual morality, and the increasing millennial failure to form families or have kids...
And yet I cannot think of a single major right wing thinker who's talked about one of the top 3 things causing all of this and which, unlike the pill, is a pure matter of public policy and government officials preying on the populace: Family court.
.
Just as abortion was sacralized in post-60s as fundamental inalienable right, that women should not be forced to carry to term or have a child and deal with the financial and social burden it represented... and just as religious conservatives the country over started begging and pleading with women to not abort, but instead to have the child, and then give it up for adoption, that "obviously" they should not be burdened personally and financially with raising a child for 18 years over 1 night's sexual concourse... just please don't kill.
A new set of institutions were put in place to recreate every social, financial, personal, and hypothetical legal burden that even the most fever dreamed feminist never imagined a patriarchy might impose over one night's coupling. But for men.
Just as it became sacrosanct that every woman should be able to have sex and escape any possible financial or personal burden, even if she doesn't use protection, nor takes the morning after pill, nor avails her self of first trimester abortion, nor second, nor third, nor gives it up for adoption in the first, second, third or forth year, but in the fifth year, or even the fifthteenth! surrender the child to the state or for adoption with no ongoing legal, social, or financial penalty...
It became equally understood that the very second of coitus (or even without it if the sperm is stollen). That absolutely an child conceived will result in the man's complete legal and financial ruin. That the legal system gains full power over every asset, skill, or income source, he has ever or might ever have, and that if he tries to evade legal """Responsibility""" (as if this something that would ever consider being applied to a citizen of one of the other 82 genders) his wages will be garnished, his assets forcibly confiscated, he may be imprisoned, and in many jurisdictions his passport might even be confiscated.
.
And yet Conservatives who claim to be critics of the state and claim to be critics of state intervention in family life... seemingly have nothing to say about marriage and the family being converted from an inviolable religious and moral compact, to a state contract whereby the entire thing can be disolved, and indeed is financially incentivized to be dissolved... except for the part where every asset and dime you might ever make is now at the sole discretion of the state for how it would like to redirect them.
They have nothing to say about a religious partnership essential being converted into a slavery contract. Nor that instead of doing the reasonable "Egalitarian" thing like setting a standard child support amount that all non-custody parents should be expected to pay as a universal obligation (all children being equal) family court judges are instead allowed incredible discretion to assign amounts based on the income or percieved competence of the non-custody spouse... because obviously bieng productive is the worst possible crime in our society.
.
This is the great trend of conservative criticism. Point at the decay, (failing families, schools, communities, ethics) but cower from even raising the possibility that the laws and policies which caused the decay might be reversed.
Every conservative laments the decline of the family... none will suggest ending no-fault divorce or reversing the presumption of custody, such that a parent who cannot afford to raise a child on their own is presumed to be the parent less qualified to receive custody, thus removing the incentive for an unproductive deadbeat wife to divorce as a means to take her husband's assets.
Every conservative laments that social institutions used to work better, and that social values are decaying... none will broach returning to the policies and matterial realities that produced those quality institutions.
.
.
Edit/ Addendum: (realized I didn't include this las night)
My solution is the same one that has worked throughout all of history in every institution that's been functional:
The person with the power is the person with the responsibility.
If women are to be empowered to abort whenever they like, surrender to adoption or the state whenever they like, and generally have full control... THEN THEY SOULD BARE FULL, TOTAL, AND FINAL FINANCIAL RESPONCIBILITY.
Family court should not exist.
The names on the bank accounts keep the accounts. Same with the houses and assets. And any joint assets accounts are divided in even... you don't even need a court all these things would happen naturally and the banks, etc. would oversee the pre-arranged division.
80% of divorces are started by women... this would end that very quickly and defacto limit divorce once again to real documentable instances of abuse. Since there would no longer be a financial incentive.
.
Out of wedlock births should never result in a court case unless there is a criminal charge of sexual assault.
It should simply be the woman's full and final responsibility.
These are the conditions that produced the sexual norms conservatives were so fond of In the 19th century and before, if a man got a woman pregnant out of wedlock, that was a her problem. Full stop.
Even if a community thought they could try to force the responsibility on him, he could just disappear a few towns over.
This is what created the intense emphasis on chastity, and the sense of ruin that accompanied fallen women.
THESE ARE OUR TRADITIONAL SEXUAL VALUES AND INSTITUTIONS.
And not a single conservative will just full mouthed endorse a return to how things worked in 1890, instead they gesture at some version of a welfare state that never existed and lament sexual morality is collapsing whilst they use the violence of the state to prop up that immorality
.
If the founding father's had been threatened with a coterie of lawyers threatening to drive a wedge between them and their wives, then claiming for themselves the power to divvy up every child, animal and asset whilst claiming for themselves a share (often the lion's share)... The founding father's would have slaughtered them to the last.
KulakRevolt
2yr ago
Blacks who were freed before the civil war were either freed by their masters or freed themselves via escape.
if freed by their master's this was down to 1 of 2 selection effects. Either they were intelligent and enterprising enough to become skilled and bargain a sum of money they could earn and pay for their freedom, or their master was sentimentally disposed towards them, quite possibly because they were his illegitimate offspring.
Indeed we see an overlap of these selection effects in escaped slaves. Frederick Douglas (an escaped slave) speculated himself that he was the son of his master, and implied this was common knowledge amongst the adult slave of the plantation he grew up on.
.
The hypothesis that absolutely everything is biologically heritable and informed by such biology, and nurture is completely discredited remains very very difficult to challenge.
If conditions were the cause of the discrepancy we'd expect a change as large as literal slavery vs literal freedom to account for the major difference and the gap to close as soon as that difference was gone.
If something like intelligence or heritable traits were to blame, then we'd expect changing the conditions via external forces (the union army) to not really alter the positional gap.
Otherwise we wouldn't expect a mere 10-20 year gap in date of liberation to make that big an impact 7-9 generations later
You can just say you believe in exterminationist revolutionary terror against your class enemies and enemy ethnicities...
You don't have to pretend this somehow has something to do with the ideology of John Stuart Mill.
You can just say "Indifferent universe I've seen what you've done for Mao and the Khmer Rouge, and I want that for America."
.
Like what parts of liberalism do you even think you believe in? Clearly not freedom of concience, association, speech, contract, travel... nor the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.
KulakRevolt
2yr ago
Its really hard to tell class from old movies...
Housing and shelter didn't used to be such scarce resources, it used to be something groundhogs could provide for themselves.
KulakRevolt
2yr ago
Very True.
I think this is why Die Hard has such a lasting impact (just watched it last night).
Hans Gruber and his Gang could be the protagonists minus a few brutal scenes, indeed the entire film is very compelling heist without John McClain, and there's enough characterization that you can see the entire backstory of Gruber's disillusionment with the radical German left ("nice suit. John Phillips of London. Rumor has it Arafat buys his there") and why he chose the Nakatomi corporation (construction in Indonesia? And they just have 500 million in bearer bonds?) that he and his crew become compelling tragic figures instead of just mooks.
KulakRevolt
2yr ago
IQ is corelated with socio-economic status, which is heavily correlated with ideological compliance since they intellgently intuit what's good for their careers and social advancement (though such a motive is disproportionately the subject of self-delusion).
The high-IQ in the Soviet Union disproportionately became Party Members.
The High-IQ in Medieval europe disproportionately held non-heretical beliefs.
The High-IQ in Imperial japan disproportionately worshipped the emperor.
The High-IQ in Nazi Germany disproportionately supported the Fuher.
The High-IQ in Saudi Arabia disproportionately support Wahhabi Islam.
The High-IQ in China disproportionately support "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics".
And the High-IQ in the US disproportionately support "Liberal Democracy"...and will endorse whatever economic and political system the US has as "liberal democracy" until someone in authority tells them those aren't the words they're using for the regime anymore.
They'll support "Our democracy" and the "liberal international order" no matter if a majority of the people oppose it, and no matter if it tramples every single liberty and free market norm ever referred to as "liberal"
KulakRevolt
2yr ago
Birthrates are down, cardiac incidents are up.
If you expect random High-school graduate citizens taking a side in a political debate to quantitatively accurate instead of merely directionally correct, then you're holding them to a higher standard that the government, media, and the academic-medical-industrial complex have held themselves for the past 3 years.
KulakRevolt
2yr ago
Then a week later they conceded all the policies the truckers were demanding and by summer Canada had fewer restrictions than the US.
.
Jan 6th turning into a Russian style bloody Sunday would have been the end of the republic. Every single faction would have embraced armed struggle after something like 100 protestors killed
KulakRevolt
2yr ago
Dude the banking maneuver didn't even work in Canada... It lasted 3 days effected 10 people and became a scandal large enough it almost brought down the government (in the Westminster parliamentary sense, not the total system collapse sense)
If the US military tried to deploy as a security force within the US it'd immediately be drowned in the vast scale of the country, whilst simultaneously setting off a powder keg of reaction.
There's a reason the Military was so adamant it not be used during the George Floyd protests... Given the scale of the protests it wasn't obvious they'd win, and even a temporary retreat would have probably gotten out of hand
KulakRevolt
2yr ago
Violence isn't futile. the opposite.
The us government simply cannot control America if violence peaks above a certain level. Their military assets aren't sufficient for a country of 330 million with 400 million gund, their recruit pool would collapse and their ability to raise taxes and thus finance the debt would evapourate.
The American government would simply not remain stable if levels of violence reached even a dull roar. Whether it'd result in regime change or dissolution is anyone's guess
KulakRevolt
2yr ago
Well that's the thing. Verifying who's who isn't actually the issue. The internet is full of gags and impersonations. The Verified account that posed as GWB and said he missed killing Iraqis wasn't a pr problem because anyone actually mistook him for Bush... It was a PR problem because it was embarrassing and hurt the prestige of the former president.
Brands aren't buying identity verification they're buying prestige verification. The Value of Wendy's maintaining their verification and not letting them lapse to Wendy the porn actress, isn't that people will think "Oh guess they swtiched from hamburgers to adult entertainment"... Its that it will hurt the restige and brand value, that it will shift the cultural meaning of what "Wendy's" means to people and hurt their brands going forward.
This is why the argument governments should regulate it under trademark law would be so laughable. If it was just impersonated products it wouldn't matter, the real threat is its true parody and satire, and is exactly the kind of culturally relevant speech that should be protected, and thus is exactly the kind of speech that is corrosive to brands.
Brands get around the corrosive power of culture by pouring billions of dollars into shoring up those brands. Sure every sexual, political, moral, racial, and cultural norm might have changed since the 50s... but Coke is still coke, because the cocaCola Corporation spent billions each year shoring it up... and brute forcing something permanent in the impermanent world of culture...
Take some of those support sturctures, or start facilitating cultural shift by actively selling those support structures to the new interpretation and a major brand can die as fast as disco.
Like the hypothetical porn actress wendy could theoretically become more famous than the resturaunt itself if she played her cards right... in 10-15 years there could be people who didn't know the Restaurants preceded the porn icon and think it weird there's a burger joint named for her. Mothers would avoid the restaurant to keep their boys from interacting with such a degenerate brand ...
It sound absurd now... but such cultural shifts have happened before and very very fast.
KulakRevolt
2yr ago
Well that's the Beauty... you'd probably set off legal alarm bells directly selling "Coca Cola"... but most brands are neither that specific nor specialized.
Even taking Coca-cola if Twitter felt it couldn't resell that verification it still is under no obligation to enforce the verification. So you'd get millions of CocaCola impersonator accounts all fucking with the brand.
Meanwhile every Coca-Cola related term and brand that can plausibly be sold would be "Coke" "Sprite", etc. The company has hundreds of brands, most of which twitter could sell off the verification for with enough plausible deniability that it wouldn't set off trademark law.
Sprite for instance has dozens of possible meanings, digital, fantastical... the only reason Twitter would ever enforce one meaning or verification against all the others that even might be brands in their own right is CocaCola paying them to do so...
KulakRevolt
2yr ago
Yes thats what the big brands and personalities would like, but they're not nearly coordinated enough to actually pull of or prevent the switch if Elon starts divide and conquering them and slowly changing the norm.
I said it would be a battle and that I have a part 2 coming that deals with exactly how to implement it in a way that will be very hard to prevent.
Be patient its a 3-4000 word plan of attack
In two words? Psychological warfare.
Women are the meme sex. They're shockingly vulnerable to memetic infection. Peer-pressure, social contagion mental illnesses, god awful fashion trends... Cutting didn't meaningfully exist before the 90s and now a double digit percentage of girls have done it at some point.
Remember that sex ed class exercise from film/tv where students would be paired up and have to look after like a bag of flower for a week as if it was a baby? Ever notice how after the 2000s that just stopped? (I never did it in highschool) Studies were showing this teen pregnancy deterent was INCREASING teen pregnancy and subsequent births... Girls were memeable enough that merely acting out motherhood with a bag of flower made them uncontrollably want kids.
You could boost fertility rates just by subtly changing the sex ed and school curriculum to encourage fertility instead of discourage it, stretch out sex ed/pe to all 4 years of school (will make kids more attractive too) pay young, stay at home, new mothers (selected for perceived attractiveness and status, must be superior to the professional woman teachers) to come in with babies and talk to the girls about their experiences and just ensure every 14-18 year old girl is interacting with a baby at least once a month...
aside from that there's lot of finacial and career jiguring you could do around the side, end all state funded girls scholarship/replace with boys ones, subtly change antidescrimination law so employers can once again subtly refuse to hire/promote women on the assumption they'll get married/pregnant and training will be wasted... which will become a self-fullfilling prophesy as women fall ehind their male peers... use the security states defacto control of the media to make sure that instead of every Teen Comedy and TV show having a requisite 1/6 characters be gay, instead 1/5 characters must be pregnant at all times... Hell if you just replaced every coming out storyline with a pregnancy story line, we'd be back at replacement fertility.
Subtly change highschool and university mandates to have 3x the dances, coed sleepaway trips, and as many social events as possible... With free tution, volunteer opportunities, preferential hiring, high status make work etc, to pregnant/recent mothers to get as many big bellies and babies in highschools and on campus as possible so that girls are constantly seeing slightly older, wealthier, higher status girls swelling, nursing, tending, and cooing at all hours of the day, every day.
They should see it in school, on TV, around campus, in the classroom, with a goal that by the time a girl is 20 she'll have interacted with 100 pregnant women of higher status than herself and 100 babies.
Before the 80s most women got married and had kids ages 18p22... this should be the goal. To effect a real change we should be aiming to meme women into getting pregnant in that age bracket.
Given how many girls still feel compelled to get pregnant and have kids in their teens, despite society waging an endless propaganda campaign not to and instead to become some aging girl-boss middle manager ... merely inversing the propaganda and who they're exposed to on "career" day should reverse the trend very quickly and then become self-fullfilling as more and more of their friends and classmates become memetic vectors themselves.
More options
Context Copy link