Weekbook of reaction.

The daybook posts take too much time, and I’m busy. So, instead, I’ll keep a notebook during the week and post the good stuff later in the week. There is enough bad stuff out there, and they base their ideology on convenient untruths (regardless of the cost)

Adam Piggot has it right — as someone older than he is, I can confirm — do not let the old fella in. You are alive. Keep on pushing, keep on learning, keep yourself fit. You can rest when your time is over.

When Keith asked Eastwood how he does it every day at his age, the actor/director answered that he doesn’t let the old man in. The musician was moved so much by this simple response that he penned a song about the same theme. Sometimes, no matter our respective ages, we can feel overwhelmed with our circumstances and wonder if we are past it; if we don’t have the energy to rise above our most recent challenges. Clint Eastwood has 40 years on me. I found this both inspiring and comforting.

And more motivation, from the same source.

With that in mind, ask yourself a question right now – how problematic have I been this week? If you haven’t been problematic enough, or heaven forbid, problematic at all, then you really need to take a good hard look at yourself and your lack of dedication to the problematic cause. Being problematic is what sets us apart from the mindless NPCs of the world. Set yourself a problematic goal; today I will be problematic by openly refusing to participate in the recycling behavioral control and modification agenda. Or maybe you throw your work’s code of conduct back in their faces and tell them to lawyer up. The degree of problematicness is up to each of you.

The freedom to be problematic is the only true freedom that counts.

Do not be them: Adam is correct. It is better to be problematic. The Z man notes that in more sane times our spiritual needs were met by Christ and the Church. He describes how the woke corporation is a corporation of blasphemy.

Today, the spiritual is the domain of corporate giants. So-called “woke capital” is an effort to impose an official morality on the public. State sanctioned oligopolies control access to essential services like the internet, banking and the media. The result is anyone falling outside the accepted corporate morality runs the risk of being fired from their job, losing access to essential services and being socially ostracized. Woke capital not only has economic and legal duties. It has spiritual duties, as well.

A good example to see how this works is in professional sports, where the team owners are not just putting on shows for customers. They are expected to provide morality tales to the public within and around the presentation of the games. Owning a sports team is no longer about owning an entertainment business. It’s not just rich guys blowing their millions competing with one another. The sports team is now a public trust, supported with billions in public money, in order to enforce public morality.

Before and during the games, there are mini-performances that “celebrate our democracy” or “celebrate our diversity.” These little shows have no natural place in the game itself. People at a football game don’t care that the teacher of the month is a one-legged gender fluid person of color. No one cares, except for the people in charge of the show, who see the event as a way to promote their morality. The proliferation of pink, for example, is to display the dominance of that cult.

Sadly, this is affecting all forms of scholarship. There are very few good ideas. Most of the time we are just working on confirmation. Stickwick is that rare beast — an astrophysicist — and she’s given up: she has that option.

The reproducibility difficulties are not about fraud, according to Dame Ottoline Leyser, director of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the University of Cambridge.

That would be relatively easy to stamp out. Instead, she says: “It’s about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about.”

Bingo. That’s a problem even in my field (physics, astrophysics), which is arguably the most credible scientific field.

When I left my academic position two years ago, the acceptance rate for NSF grants was a paltry 7%. That’s down from 40% during my doctoral advisor’s heyday. Do you know what that kind of competition does to science? It ain’t good.

It almost entirely comes down to two major problems in science — there are FAR too many scientists, and there is FAR too much pressure to publish.

We have too many scientists for at least two reasons: 1) prior gluts in funding have created positions for them; and 2) science is seen as a respectable career that provides an almost priest-like stature and the kind of income that is likely to be worth the cost of education.

Now, couple that with the fact that many institutions have the ridiculous Lake Wobegon standard that all of their scientists should be “above average” (publication rates + securing grants), and what you have is a big problem. The last few years I was in my department, the deans of the college of natural sciences were pushing the goal of moving from top-10 status to top-5. The result was that all of the life was sucked out of the department, one reason I ended up quitting. When the effect of this kind of pressure was investigated through computer modeling, researchers found that it led to an explosion in published scientific errors. Not just fraud, but a huge amount of “innocent” errors, which is exactly what we’re seeing.

What’s the solution? Very simple: fewer scientists, smaller departments, scaling back ridiculous expectations in the name of vanity.

Now, via Stacey, this britllian evisceration of those who fight fair. The left won’t fight fair. We should not allow them to define the terms of conflict, because they do not accept any limits — and they do not care about the cost.

Nietzsche’s most dangerous attack was on Christianity as a death wish, as an elevation of death so total that it put a lifetime of abject servility—a living “death to the world”—even above prompt extinction. But it’s interesting to consider that Nietzsche’s complex and difficult relations with women led him to a place where, by the end of his life, he had not explored the connection between his theory of the deadly servility of the Christian with the deadly servility of the cuckold. Nietzsche’s attack on Christianity is notably desexualized. Today that theme is, thanks to the internet, inescapable. It is baked into reality. Today it is a fault that “the shame is part of the kink” doesn’t appear in Nietzsche’s genealogy of morals. He won’t quite “go there” in his probes of the psychological imperative to convert erotic urges into ethical principles that defines so much of contemporary life. Our contemporary sexual psychology now leads key critics of French-style defenses of “muh principles” to trace the genealogy of today’s worship of procedural liberalism not to “slave morality,” as Nietzsche would have it, but to “cuck morality:” Yes, another man should take my wife, I should go live in the shed, it is right, it is moral, it is justice… To live rightly, I must prevent posterity from being identical with me … Nietzsche doesn’t use the pathos of that kind of “conversion experience” as a precise metaphor or emblem for the kind of willed abasement that so many right-wing critics of liberal proceduralism-worship put central. It is weird that so little has been written about how and why cuckoldry welled up from the depths of online to become the precision-targeted trope that it is, selected out of the sense that none other would be more accurate or suffice instead. Of course Christianity and cuckoldry are not good metaphors for each other. No good Christian can embrace cuckoldry. But the charge of cuckery, leveled against Christians like French, has to do with the perceived untenableness today of staking out a middle position between the Benedict Option of evacuating from fronts collapsing in the culture war and the yet-to-be-named option of reasserting powerful constitutional authority for localities to resist and reject colonization by the revolutionary vanguard of institutionalized wokeness. Because there is just no question that the aim of that institutional vanguard is to choke off America’s production of a certain kind of adult male and the architecture of social order that radiates upward from him toward the heights of authority. This project is out in the open and the reams of academic and ideological writing about its details and justifications are widely available.

James Poulos, Geneology of Cuckery

The correction is a true sense of one’s place in the universe. We are not the centre: God is, and our chief aim is to know God and enjoy him forever. Without this, we do lose perspective, and look to build our own idols.

To Lewis, this was proof of the existence of God, although it might just as well be argued that this ingrained spirituality is an evolutionary adaptation (there are even some admittedly tenuous suggestions that some of our primate cousins observe a kind of ritualistic worship). But, regardless of where it comes from, it seems that Lewis is correct that humanity has an inborn need to worship something, anything.

Thus, Lewis further argued, if people are denied the chance to worship a god, they will worship “millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters”. While it might be argued that that sentence is in many ways tautological, it seems true enough. “Spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served,” as Lewis says. “Deny it food and it will gobble poison.”

Economics included.

Locally, the financial scene is getting dire, and the woke are getting annoying. Kea found this, and it is a warning for anyone who signs a contract for a house. Most of us are not lawyers, and don’t let your deal go unconditional unless you know you can meet your obligations.

I am not a lawyer, and sometimes you have to pay for one. I am sure the lawyers Mr Grey had to hire cost him close to the damages he now has to pay.

In 2014, David Grey reached conditional agreement with Matthew and Tracey Strack to buy the Stracks’ Maori Hill home for $1.2million.

Days later, Mr Grey tried to withdraw from the deal, citing concerns about retrofitted insulation and doubts that he could achieve a finance clause.

With Mr Grey resolute he would not complete, the Stracks cancelled the deal.

They later sold the home for $1.05million, and sued Mr Grey for the $150,000 they would have gained had their sale to him gone ahead.

In an earlier High Court hearing, the judge found Mr Grey’s concerns about the insulation were ill-founded, but awarded only nominal damages as his chances of obtaining finance were negligible.

In the Court of Appeal, the Stracks argued for full “expectation damages” of $150,000 – the difference between Mr Grey’s accepted offer and the eventual sale price to a third party.

For the Stracks, Dean Tobin said Mr Grey “had to do all things reasonably necessary” to satisfy the finance condition, but had not approached other banks or mortgage brokers, or asked the Stracks if they would consider a vendor finance agreement – which was a clause in a back-up offer to that of Mr Grey.

For Mr Grey, Len Andersen said the key issue was whether Mr Grey could have raised the money needed, in the time available and based on the facts the judge’s findings said were open to him.

At the time the deal collapsed, it was still conditional on finance, and there remained a risk Mr Grey would not have succeeded in raising the money.

The Court of Appeal said although Mr Grey’s position was that he would not have received a finance offer, he should have made appropriate efforts to try to obtain one.

“Having made no effort, he cannot seek shelter by claiming that he would have found any offer unsatisfactory.”

Mr Grey “plainly” should have pursued his own bank, and if there was any doubt about it agreeing to finance, he should have gone to the market.

“A court may excuse a purchaser’s failure to make reasonable efforts if satisfied they would have been futile … We are not satisfied of that in this case.”

Having not proven, on a balance of probabilities, that he would not have succeeded in raising finance, Mr Grey was liable for damages on an all-or-nothing basis.

Otago Daily Times

In the meantime, the litany of horrors continues. The disapproved minorities must be discarded, Justin Trudeau included. This all drove Adam to despair.

He should try living in NZ, where our very woke premier decided she would seek group approval by stopping all fossil fuel exploration, halving our GDP.

The first leader of the once free world to remove the country he represents from the UN will make history. Modern politicians are collectively desperate to be inscribed in the history books but only in a manner that will ensure that their future statues will not be pulled down, nor their future namesake buildings ignominiously renamed. Their desperate desire for group think approval has the effect of none of them standing out from the herd, which means none of them will enter history.

They are frozen into inaction by the horrible circumstances of their being unable to independently process information and form their own informed opinion. Their stupidity and their inability to see the wood for the trees manifests itself in ludicrous headlines such as the one quoted here. We are doomed because we are locked together with them. We are doomed because man turned away from God and sought to fill the void with whatever was at hand. It takes a long time to build things up and hardly any time at all to tear it all down.

The UN does not want us free. Ceterum censeo UN esse delendam.