Big Brother doesn’t really need to watch you

As per Orwell, the all-encompassing state would set up the surveillance. But as per Tech Crunch, they hit upon the much more elegant solution of freely selling it to us for a premium.

How did they do it? Well, as I’ve joked before, we all want to be like Picard ordering our house to make us a drink and play us a tune. That future is essentially here. But Picard never had to worry about the Enterprise selling his information to the Romulans.

The further joke is that some people don’t seem to care if the Romulans do find out; in fact, they assume that they would find out any way so why bother?

Name an app that doesnt ask you for access to a whole bunch of your personal info just in order to use the app. You’re on the internet, with a device that tracks your location… you grew up in the age of Facebook and consent documents signed with the push of a button… you’ve been adequately warned.

I think this may be overlooking the point.

The issue here is not that you may get some targeted ads, but that literally everything about you – your movements, behavior, purchases, etc. – is being used by other people, without your own consent, and often without even your knowledge. That info is currently used mostly for marketing… until it’s used for other things that nobody wants to happen.

Seriously… like what? And again…. you’ve given your consent to allow them access to all of this info.

Well – like a government getting its hands on what the companies know and just keeping tabs on people whom they think are troublesome. Look at Virginia today and ask yourself, to what ill use would such a government put that info as pertains to who owns what, where they work, where their kids go to school, etc? As it is, we have private persons getting their hands on that info and stealing people’s identities, or swatting them for slights real and imagined, or causing them endless grief by leaking private data to employers or places like Child Protection Services.

But even if that worst fear is never realized, it’s the principle that matters: nobody should know your personal business. Using a program and device to help you with your finances should NEVER give the programmer of the app, nor the creators of the device, blanket permission to also use that data. Neither should they force you to give them that permission in order to use the app. You used to buy a computer and a program and it was understood that whatever you did with them was your business alone, unless you were trying to invade other people’s business thereby. Now the computer and the program themselves are routinely invading our business, and we’re not supposed to be alarmed merely because they all do it? That’s MORE alarming, not less. Imagine a world where your car rats you out to the cops when you speed and they can kill the motor remotely… or where a contractor claims 24/7 access to your home because they’re the ones who built it… or a grocery dictates your diet because they sold you the food.

It might sound paranoid, but the idea was once equally absurd that Apple or Google would be entitled to unfettered access to everything you did with their device or product. That certainly wasn’t at all the situation when it was a Commodore 64, or an IBM clone running DOS and Netscape. Now it’s actually the default assumption! In – what, twelve years? – we’ve gone from “It’s yours once you’ve bought it” to “Well, what do you expect? You were warned!” People are completely losing all sense of privacy and agency and it won’t end well.

Listen to The Fred. He knows.

Some of these programs don’t offer any alternative to letting them spy on your most sensitive personal information; or else they let you “change” the option from “Hey, go ahead” to “Hey, pretend not to but still go ahead.”

It doesn’t stop there, of course. Streaming’s great for convenience, but that means that the movies and music you enjoy aren’t ever really yours. Again – you used to buy a record or a CD and that was that. Now if someone else thinks that you shouldn’t be listening to this or watching that, they can just yank it from the service. Or, worse – nobody has to really think about it at all, it can just be run remotely by algorithm, and there’s nobody to appeal to because there’s nobody who actually made that decision, and thus no individual who’s responsible… least of all YOU, the end user. There are many such stories of people who bought digital copies of items that were altered or erased, and many others of news sources stealth-editing their articles and binning the originals, without so much as an acknowledgment.

Totalitarians of old could only dream of such reach, such power. All for our own good, I’m sure we’ll be told, exactly as they say now when they remove more and more choice from we, the actual people who must live by those choices.

Unraveling

I won’t sugar-coat this – society is more polarized than a stack of Ray-Ban lenses and I’m getting heartily sick of it. But even worse are all the nauseating lies people tell about it.

When you are a single person, a small company, or a private forum, your exercise of the freedom of association doesn’t really cause any loss or inconvenience to anyone else. A person who can’t get a cake at my place can get it two blocks away. A person who can’t post on my blog can make their own.

But if an entire industry blackballs you? That’s a difference of kind – the choice to block someone else on Twitter is a lot different than Twitter itself banning a user. The one is idiosyncrasy, the other is policy; and both law and common understanding can recognize that a policy that is neither objective nor transparent is trouble.

Yet we’re told exactly the reverse: personal choices that must be controlled and enforced, while public policies are beyond reproach.

This inversion of term and meaning is the norm in other areas as well. If I express a different opinion it’s called violent, but if I’m punched in the head it’s called just an expression of opinion. If someone is provoked, they can’t fight back, but if they are attacked, it’s because they provoked it. Journalists openly alter, edit, and lie; those who merely report as is are called “not real journalists” who “distort the facts.” Misandry is called “feminism” and propaganda is called “education” and one’s sex is a matter of subjective declaration rather than biological fact.

This is the reason why I am often dispirited about the society my child is going to inherit. He is growing up in a world where terrible problems are growing worse and nobody can begin to solve them because the attempt to even talk about them is shouted down as “hate” and “bigotry.” It’s to the point where even the attempt to NOT talk about them, in favor of talking about just about anything else, is itself banned; and further, nobody who has disagreed about such things may be allowed to mingle. The common ground we used to have as a starting point has been seized by force.

This wonderful article makes this point (and more) about the recent decision of Ravelry’s founders to banish all pro-Trump users from their site. Note, this isn’t a decision to ban pro-Trump commentary, which would at least be arguable (if still ultimately unhealthy). It’s the people themselves, and anyone who protests the decision.

Those of us who are old enough to remember the 60s, 70s, and 80s remember the problems we faced far less than the ideals we faced them with, because we shared those ideals and faced the problems together. Such things were far bigger than any difference of opinion. We put unity into practice by setting aside differences to do things together – worship, watch the big game, listen to music, pursue hobbies, learn, explore, play – and we grew as people. We learned that many of those differences weren’t a matter of right and wrong, some very different people were actually pretty cool, our hearts were broadened and our minds were sharpened as we heard new ideas and explained our own.

A place like Revelry served as that common ground to grow together. Twitter, Google, YouTube, Amazon, Facebook – all the major players – grew into what they were precisely because at one time they WEREN’T “players.” They were the playing ground upon which the game was set.

One by one, all of them have become polarized, declared off-limits to the Wrong People by would-be kommisars. Now there are all these odious gatekeepers -who join these communities and assume control of them, then demand conformity of everyone else. They even dictate terms to anyone they’ve chased off. It’s more than just “We won’t read what you wrote, we won’t buy what you’ve knitted, we won’t listen when you sing,” it’s “You must never write, knit, and sing ever again. You will be punished for having done so by losing your job, even if you stop. You can lose your kids or be doxxed and attacked if we really feel like it, so you must not protest either.”

Worst of all is that this sort of anti-thought is now in government. People are winning office or lobbying the state or advocating in public to enshrine, in law, an official sanction against unapproved ideas. They have already begun a little ad-hoc private enforcement of same via their costumed mobs called Antifa.

They then claim that all of this is diversity, love, and inclusion. One might as well claim that arson, poison, and fasting are forms of good cooking.

A familiar driver

If you spend a lot of time commuting, you have seen something just like this guy.

Maybe you’re trapped behind a semi and he’s the one zooming around you despite your blinker and your patient wait for passing room. Maybe you were already passing, in which case he’s riding your bumper like you hitched him up, eager to dart through a gap approximately six inches larger than his own car. Maybe you’re stopped altogether and he’s rolling the shoulder.

In any scenario the common denominator is that you are In His Way, much like one of these unfathomable stacks of pixel and polygon:

Same concept, really. Jack Baruth quotes the Last Psychiatrist’s definition of narcissism, that the narcissist is the star of his own movie. Even that, I think, might sell it short, unless the movie is an epic in a Cinematic Universe and he’s the only one with standalone films. But watching that fool in the race video slaloming around all the other drivers put me much more in mind of a video game player. After all, in a movie there may be one major star but the other characters are, at least, characters… in a video game a person might be the only actual human player, and everyone else around him is by definition obstacles to surmount: some enemy to dispatch, or someone whose sole purpose to exist is to give him the geegaw that completes a quest or lets him defeat the level boss. Or worst of all, just something that is stupidly, pointlessly blocking his way when he has Important Him Stuff to be done.

Well, eff you for being In His Way.

I will admit that I haven’t read the comments there yet, so I don’t know if one of those folks has made either of these connections. I was away for a week and missed the column at the time. Still worth bringing up here not only for the video game player angle, but also because it was the first thing I noticed when I was watching the embed at Riverside Green… this guy didn’t notice that suddenly he was torching a track full of cars? Even from the camera I could see the flags he tore past, but more to the point, I also saw that very few, if any, of the other drivers were trying to block him or – and this is key – pass each other. Sure, he’s dusting them so in his mind, haha, they can’t catch me… but they would also be trying to move up all around him. Even in a racing game the CPU drivers are jockeying with each other for position.

So in one way, this guy is worse than a video game player because even that detail misses his notice. But beyond this, I brought up commuting because anyone with even passing familiarity with highway driving recognizes the signs of a whole roadway slowing down, even in mid-pass: it means the State Patrol is waiting on the shoulder, harvesting the ignorant. So even if this gentleman was just a dabbler in his very first road race, he should have picked up on this. It takes no skill. All you need to do is not be obsessed with what’s going on in your own imagination.

(As an added wrinkle – I was on an out-of-state trip to visit with family when I missed Jack’s post. It’s a substantial, all-day-in-the-car affair to make the trip, more apt a comparison to an endurance race like the one shown than is a daily commute, even a lengthy one. You have to keep aware at all times. If the trip’s 12 hours, it’s not good enough to be crash-free for 11:58 and then tell everyone “Eh, what can you do, right?” while they airflight out the family in the minivan you crushed. You are the jockey, not the horse, and cannot drive with blinders on.)

A quick talk about cancelled talk

Ho-hum, another day, another disinvited speaker.

Something about the account (excerpted below) stuck in my craw, and I’ll get to why in a minute. But first, let’s catch up with the facts.

Middlebury College has canceled a campus speech by conservative Polish Catholic philosopher Ryszard Legutko in response to planned protests by liberal activists.

A professor of philosophy at Jagiellonian University and a member of the European Parliament, Legutko was scheduled to speak Wednesday at the Vermont college’s Alexander Hamilton Forum, delivering a lecture entitled “The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies.” A member of the anti-Communist Polish resistance during the Cold War, Legutko warns that western democracy is also susceptible to creep towards totalitarianism.

Why? Well, he doesn’t pay much respect to the proper current pieites, of course. It’s all too common a story today – an institution allegedly devoted to free thought and higher learning refusing to let its students learn something new and think for themselves. The excuse they use will be familiar as well to anyone who follows current affairs and is familiar with the Orwellian inversion of words and reality:

“Inquiry, equity, and agency cannot be fostered in the same space that accepts and even elevates homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic discourse,” they demand. “Bigotry of any kind should not be considered a form of inquiry.”

I don’t know about any of that, and neither do the would-be protesters to Prof. Legutko’s presentation, since he was never permitted to give it. What I do know is that stopping other people’s ears to anything that doesn’t come from one’s own mouth is actual bigotry, and it seems much more likely that such would-be tyrants have, shall we say, ulterior motives for shutting down a speech about how tyranny might arise in the West.

In fact, at first the college held firm, until, mere hours before the event, word came from on high, citing the normal problems with “ensuring the safety of students, faculty, staff, and community members.”

“This decision was not taken lightly. It was based on an assessment of our ability to respond effectively to potential security and safety risks for both the lecture and the event students had planned in response.”

In other words, these jokers learned exactly the lesson they were meant to learn from the incident involving Charles Murray’s talk there two years prior. The hecklers didn’t even need to veto this one. And the next time, things will go down even smoother… until the day when things suddenly go down very hard indeed, and everyone wonders how and why such a thing could happen – and then comes to the exact wrong answers because of all the times they’ve been ignoring people like Prof. Legutko.

In any case, a story like this is so common that anyone hearing it is likely to shrug and move on… which gets us to the thing I noticed, that bothered me so, and that I’m going to share with you. See if you can spot the difference in comparison to the lead quote up top:

Middlebury College has canceled a campus speech by Polish philosopher Ryszard Legutko in response to planned protests by activists.

If it were written that way, would people still be upset? Would they bemoan that an institution of higher learning would let its pursuit of knowledge and debate be thwarted by mere foot-stamping… or would they absolutely need to know first more about the viewpoints of the professor and the foot-stampers before they decided if it was good or bad?

THAT’S what sticks in my craw right now. Not just the intellectual ghetto and the last-minute cancellation (done of course so that no alternative venue could be arranged), but that even in the reporting of it, it must be specified that the speaker was conservative and the activists liberals. The point isn’t just that such things only run one way – it’s that they should not run at all, regardless of which nouns get what adjectives.

Eventually you’d have to get around to saying what the talk was about and why the activists were in a snit, of course… but I think that pointing out the specifics in the lead sentence just accepts an unhealthy premise: namely that it’s wrong based on the identities of the parties involved. That just gets our side – remember, the side that’s supposed to stand for personal and intellectual freedom and the marketplace of ideas – to subconsciously think in the other side’s terms of Good Group vs. Bad Group. Without those details, you encourage the reader to actually try to think about WHY this is wrong, and thus have more of an informed opinion, instead of relying on pre-digested conclusions based on labels. Its wrongness doesn’t depend on the point of view of the speaker or the protesters.

The Estonian Who Went Up a Hotel Lobby and Came Down a Mountain

If one of us stumbled out of a roaring party and got a little disoriented trying to get back to our hotel room, we might wind up crashing at a buddy’s house… or in an Uber headed three states away… but which of us would have the oomph to stagger drunkenly up the side of a snowy alpine peak?

An Estonian tourist known as Pavel, had one too many drinks at Cervinia Resort when he decided to call it a night and head back to his hotel. Unfortunately, he took a wrong turn and began heading up the mountainside.

After a few hours he realized he was not on the correct floor (so to speak), so he did what any enterprising fellow would do, and broke into a different restaurant to sleep it off. Rescuers found him there, safe and sound.

No doubt, if he had been located by one of the famed St. Bernard rescue dogs, he’d have drained the cask and carried the bewildered pup back to the monastery for free refills.

What makes a red pill grow?

I’ve been thinking about this post from e-migo Severian (and the two posts preceding it) for a little while now.

I used to think it was an accident, or a quirk, that so many of the hard Left are so gung-ho to erase competition among youngsters – you know, the whole “everybody bats and nobody keeps score” sort of thing, not using red pen to grade (and making judgments of correct and incorrect open to interpretation), replacing actual learning and character formation with “affirmation” and “self-esteem”… in matters great and small, insulating generations of kids from the tough-yet-healthy lessons about not getting one’s own way all the time.

Now I realize it was calculated. All their blather about the Brotherhood of Man is a lie. They *want* people who never learned how to handle success and failure with grace, in order to convince them that those things are completely beyond any person’s control, and therefore “the system” itself is the problem – randomly assigning riches and power to the undeserving! You should be successful too! And since these fools never learned what it takes to gain success for themselves – never even dreamed it was possible – they fall headlong for it. “It’s NOT MY FAULT!” is a helluva drug. And in their case, it might even be true… but they’re aiming all their rage and frustration in the wrong direction. The pushers are the ones who made them what they are, for their own purposes, and they won’t be any more successful under the Perfect Order… they’ll be “the foundation” of such a regime in the most literal sense: dead and buried, with the headquarters of the Order built upon their graves. Because what use will they be as anything but loyal human shields for the Brights, the Elites?

Can they be convinced that it was, in fact, a gigantic lie to make them into drones? Tough call. For one thing, being among the glorious fallen in the “vanguard of the proletariat” is given great weight, so many of them often delight in the realization that they’ve been turned into mulch for future crops of fellow drones. For another, they’ve been taught defiance of reality as a virtue. It serves as an effective inoculation against those annoying gleams of real thought and feeling.

CS Lewis was so good about so much of this: the Screwtape Letters talks a lot about denying “the patient” any contact with real pleasures or pains, even if they are “innocent” or seemingly inconsequential, because they are cracks in the perfect shell of unreality, and who knows what will happen then? And The Pilgrim’s Regress has that great chapter in the giant’s prison. Reason has killed the Giant Zeitgeist and freed the prisoners, but those who have been under his care too long are too afraid to come out, and lock themselves back in once the protagonist and his troublesome rescuer have gone.

(And just as an aside – Regress was Lewis’ first major work, even before Screwtape, and the “hero” is rather a bungling everyman whom the “strong female character” Reason often keeps track of and saves. It wasn’t a one-off either, as Lewis’ favorite Narnian protagonist was clearly Lucy Pevensie, and his last novel, Till We Have Faces, is entirely from the POV of the main character, Queen Oural of Glome. Enough to make modern heads all splodey-sploo that the mean ol’ Christian patriarchy has so many examples like this, beloved by us thought criminals.)

So to the task at hand – tossing a line to those who have jumped overboard from the Barque of Mankind, after being told by frauds that since water is essential to life, they can go ahead and breathe it. The good news is that rescues happen all the time. In truth, every last one of us is one. Hence we ought not to despair; people are “redpilled” all the time, as the hep kids were calling it for a while. But we ought also to soberly reckon on the odds. The Perfect Order punishes apostates most grievously of all, as a warning to the rest… and that’s only if they can even get that far. Remember that lies always bear that superficial resemblance to the truths they’re designed to replace, usually by a simple re-ordering of good things into an unhealthy heirarchy: for example, people betray all truth and decency, but consider themselves true and decent, because they are being loyal to their side and Loyalty Is A Good Thing. In fact, it may be the only good thing they’ve got left, and thus the sufferer will cling all the more to it. Hence, being shown that “it was all a lie” actually reinforces what they’ve been told by the master liars, and so the cure looks suspiciously like more of the same if they’ve been “handled properly,” to use Screwtape’s expression.

This is why it’s often something unexpected that first raises the questions that their current life cannot answer. All the logic and argument in the world can be spun off into pointless tangents, buried under jargon, handwaved by dialectical hocus-pocus… but a real love for a real thing, be it as simple as gardening or pottery or watercolors, can be the spark. Simple friendship, a real thing with real loyalty and real compassion, can be the steady fire that shows how cold and hollow it is to center all relationships around power and zero-sum attitudes. The best advantage we have is that real things are real. The frauds always show themselves as such by betraying the thing they claimed was the Good Thing: the “we frikkin’ LOVE science” folks end up suborning science in favor of activism; feminist “allies” all turn out to be stealth predators; the prophets who cry “success and failure are random and undeserved” nonetheless promise their followers the power to determine success and failure for all the world; in the pinch the “you must be loyal to the Party” crowd won’t be loyal to anyone… but just when everyone else in the world has shunned you for taking them at their word, when you stand condemned for actually trying to live as they commanded you to, it’s boring old Joe and Jane from the craft shop who suddenly show up at the door because you’ve seemed down lately, and they want to help.

Doctor New

And there it is.

Like many current events, the reaction to “the backlash” far outweighs the backlash itself: nowadays the revolution will be televised, but nobody will tune in. Revolution is clean out of style. And in this sense, the BBC is way late to the party: they sex-swapped the Doctor’s venerable enemy, the Master, and pretty much nobody cared. And that follows years of other substantial changes to beloved characters the world over, none of which really have done much – either they’ve gone back to the old status quo ante, or else the changes killed the story – and after enough of that, well, the law of diminishing returns sets in. As a means of drumming up some welcome controversy to goose flagging viewership numbers, the Lady Doctor thus fails on two counts: it’s not all that controversial, and it entirely misses the reason why viewers have been falling away. And that reason can really be summed in three words:

STORY IS KING.

So, as for this change? Well, if it serves the story, sure, it could work, and Jodie Whittaker has a fine reputation in her field. But increasingly, it serves merely as the punchline to a joke nobody is telling. I doubt that THIS is the time we’ll all finally laugh. And on those terms alone, this is probably something the BBC should not have done.

But of course, they didn’t do it for story reasons, and that’s another substantial objection…

Continue reading