sábado, 28 de abril de 2012

El Estado de Derecho es para pobres


Lo mas siniestro de esta siniestra negociación de los partidos con ETA es que, aún si se llegara a un pacto medianamente duradero,  consagraría aún mas la conspiración de la casta política a espaldas del ciudadanos para todo tipo de problemas, empezando por el bienestar de la clase política. Y también consagraría aún mas el uso de la violencia por parte de los grupos fácticos como el recurso infalible para lograr sus objetivos.

Por eso aún en el caso de un éxito parcial, tendremos una sociedad mas violenta y mas conspirativa, donde el Estado de Derecho será  cada vez mas parecido a la Educación o la Sanidad públicas: un servicio cada vez mas degradado que todos van a elogiar y aparentar que funciona, pero todo el que pueda va a buscarse su propios protectores, al igual que ya los tiene la casta dirigente, gracias a nosotros.

Quizá pronto las gestoras de multas podrán asociarse con politicos, conseguidores y matones para ofrecer servicios como saltarse las colas de los juicios. Y con la opción VIP quizá podrán eliminar condenas de atracos y asesinatos.

No le echen la culpa a los políticos. Es nuestra culpa. Un pais que ni es capaz de  cortarle la cabeza a un gobernante ni tiene el valor y la virtud como para exigir de los gobernantes unos ciertos principios. Ni estamos en el Nuevo Régimen ni estamos en el Antiguo. Ni les inspiramos miedo, ni mucho menos les hacemos sentir vergüenza.


domingo, 22 de abril de 2012

Hiper-legitimados y maricomplejines


Como ya dije, desde hace tres siglos, la pregunta subyacente al pensamiento Español es esta: "Por qué no somos tan ricos como los vecinos del Norte y quien es el culpable?". Esta es una pregunta propia de gente localista y mezquina, preocupada únicamente por si misma,  que no tiene la menor intención de aportar nada de validez universal.  Quizá  esa es el ensimismamiento en el que cae inevitablemente el que fué el primero y se convirtió en segundón. Quizá es el tipo de decadencia que hay que pagar por haber dominado el mundo.

La decandencia se manifiesta en la forma de enfermedades sociales. Argentina, qno fue el país mas rico y culto del mundo, intelectualizó su decadencia con la teoría económica de la dependencia;  Los malditos Yankis y ahora los malditos Españoles dominamos Argentina y explotamos los recursos de los pobres gauchos. Esa disculpa es la idiotez a mano de un país de reciente origen colonial. Y no está exenta de mérito, porque esa patraña en forma de enemigo exterior mantiene unidos como una piña a los argentinos de derechas e izquierdas y hace posible el Peronismo, que no es de izquierdas, ni de derechas, sino un Movimiento Nacional.  En el caso de España, el pasado colonial queda demasiado lejos como para echar la culpa a los Romanos, aunque intentos no han faltado. Pero, nuestra larga historia da para una larga lista de candidatos a culpables externos y, sobretodo, internos. 


Es una batalla perdida para la razón y para el respeto a la realidad histórica el hecho de buscar culpables, porque cualquiera que asuma parte de la historia de España, por mínima que sea, tiene todas las de perder ante alguien que no asuma nada de ella. Cuanto mayor sea la cantidad de conceptos que uno asuma de la historia de España, mas se expone uno a ser presunto culpable. Un católico, cuya confesión influye en todo lo largo de la historia de aquí, tiene todas las de perder en ese tipo de discusiones con un protestante, que no ha tenido ningún papel y por tanto ninguna culpa achacable. Un Pepero centrista, que asume alguna que otra brizna de lo que ha ocurrido, tiene todas las de perder ante un nacionalista aldeano, o un socialista zapaterino, cuya "realidad histórica" está aún por venir y cuyo pasado que admite, se reduce, en todo caso, a inventados episodios de  victimismo.

Por eso, ante ese desigual campo de batalla en esa guerra perdida para la razón, es normal que surjan como hongos los adanistas de todas las especies e ideologias, que nacen cada mañana limpios de polvo y paja, sin historia, y por tanto, sin culpas y cuya preocupación es encontrar el culpable de hoy.  El camuflaje es perfecto porque garantiza la invisibilidad y la impenetrabilidad ante la critica. En ese deporte de tirar indiscriminadamente a los pocos que asumimos la realidad y la historia, los adanistas concluyen finalmente, para no discutir entre ellos, que el verdadero culpable interior es el mismo concepto de España y su realidad histórica, que hay que negar. Y si les apuran y hay que buscar un enemigo exterior, los mas radicales concluyen o concluirán a no tardar mucho, que el culpable es la misma realidad con sus leyes inmutables y opresivas. Para que andar con sutilizas.  

Lo que produce este tipo de "bucle melancólico" son por un lado, los consabidos adanistas hiper-legitimados, es decir, los protestantes, los socialistas, nacionalistas, ecologistas y demás istas, sin dejar de mencionar a la meritoria aunque minoritaria rama de mis amigos anarcocapitalistas. Por otro lado, abrumados por los ladridos de los adanistas, los que asumimos esta u otra parte de la historia dolorosa de España, no solo la inventada a medida del victimismo adanista, nos trasnsformamos en  lo que Losantos llama Maricomplejines. 

Excepto los que no nos resignamos a ceder ante este ataque frontal a la Razón y  a la Historia


Postdata: Los protestantes inventaron la Leyenda negra contra España. Copiando ese sistema de guerra ideológica, la izquierda ha inventado su Leyenda negra contra todo Occidente, incluidos los protestantes. Aqui está la raiz del auto-odio de Occidente consigo mismo. Hasta que no salgamos de esta irracionalidad anti-histórica no tendremos remedio.







miércoles, 11 de abril de 2012

Why 90% of television advertising target women?




I love Top-Gear, but I don´t like cars particularly. Iike their jokes, Specially when Jeremy Clarkson exposes what is now known as prejudices. Some people don´t accept them even in the context of a comic show. This is a sign of this time when idiots and cowards rule the World.

To watch  this program I have to pay in the form of advertising. For me even have been astonishing how even men directed channels such are National Geographic or specially, Discovery Channel or the Energy channel in Spain have a great majority of femenine advertising.  May be because many men watch these channels together with his couple. But, the reason why advertisers spend more money in these women rather than  in their men, who are more motivated to watch these channels is something puzzling for me.

I know that femenine directed advertising has dominated TV from the beginning. Even when women where not "liberated" payed professionals, and women used to care for their famillies, there were a disproportionate amount of advertising about product for women in the home. There were a ridiculous amount of happy mothers advertising cleaning products. After the women´s liberation, this same 90% of femenine targetted advertising now promotes  magic beauty products, magic fat reduction products, magic healt products, dietary products for women and so on.

Why? Do women spend more time watching TV than men? I don´t thing so. Specially now, when women work out of home. The fact that in the nigh when working and non workin men and women are at home, the advertising is still mainly about products for women. Are women more monetary affuent than men? Neither were before nor they are now. Do women buy more spensive productos?  No . In fact it is the opposite: Men usually buy more expensive products. They buy the most spensive car they can afford, for example. Do women spend more money globally than men? I think it is not the case; In the old times, when  the marketeers counted the buyers in numbers of familly units, women had a considerable buying power, despite the fact that they did´n made money for themselves. Now women do, so the manufacturers create products for two different and completely separated universes of men and women. but I doubt that women have more money to spend than  men. Women buy things more often, but they buy cheaper things. Men buy less but they spend more in each buy.

If an advertiser would be what now is called "rational" -a form of simple minded stupidity economically sanctioned- and if the car business is three orders of magnitude greater than the dietary yoghurts industry then there would be 1000 spots of sport cars for each spot of magic yoghurt for weight loss. But the fact is almost the opposite.

The reason is that advertisers know that the money spend in femenine targetted products has far more returns and are more inmediate. Men are not so heavily influenced by advertising. Men are much more conservative. Introducing a new product for men is much much more difficult. That is what advertisers and market researchers know.

The reason behind lies in the different psichology of men and women, based in the different life that in the past, they had to cope with.

Frist of all, the Christian tradition of strong attachment of the young couple to the girl's family is a conquest of civilization. And it is the exception. In other societies, and specially in the more primitive ones,  the women abandon the clan of his parents and enters the clan of his husband. In tribal societies, the kidnapping os women it is the main motive of -and the cause of- wars. The alleged cause of the War of Troy is a symbol of the deep cause of most, if not all the ancient wars.  In any case, since the beginning of times, by agreement or by force, women abandoned their society and entered other that they did not know, sometimes they did not know at all.

So women had a problem. They had to adapt as fast as possible to an alien environment. The fastest way to adapt to a new society is trough fashion sensibility. Forced by circumnstances to live from the first moment in an alien society, without having time to know the rationale behind each cultural fact, the best way to be successful is to imitate the best practices around. "where you go, do what you see".  The best to do is to imitate the most sucessful women around.

As result of this adaptive pressure for millions of years, since prehuman times, the femenine psichology developped a much more stronger fashion sensibility and a shallow thinking.  Fashion sensibility is an unconscious, hardwired instinct, immune to education that produces aestetic sensations. Men are not absent of this instinct. The atractiveness of an sport car is a result of fashion sensibility in men. The same impulse makes this same sport car to look ugly and ordinary 10 years later.  Yet it makes the same car to look classy and exclusive after 50 years more. But in women, fashion sensibility  is the dominant way of thinking.

Men, who stayed for life in their home societies, where their descendants live for generations and very often died for, spend more in rational thinking because for men things were less uncertain. Prediction of future from what we observe in a predictable environment is the purpose for which rational thinking was made for. Participation  in social organization  and solving collectively problems with a mix of technical skills and innovative social organization had a high return of investment for men. Men invested much more in their societies for the same reason women invested much more on their children, just because these investments payed more for each one. Destroy the male role and you will destroy the society. Destroy the female role and the society will depopulate. both things happens today simultaneously, by the way.

So this is the reason for fashion sensibility in women and this is the reason of the higher payment of women-targetted advertising: An spot with a successful women who uses a new product will excite a powerful impulse in the watching women to buy the same.

Finally, to deactivate aggressive feminists, i would say that I'm sure that Intelligent women will agree with me. A sucessful woman said me so ;)

miércoles, 4 de abril de 2012

Amazon promoting revolutionary warfare

So I ´m looking for history books, therefore I may be interested in some pieces of revolutionary and terrorist shit. Amazon told me it by mail.

Whoever has the responsability of this is either an stupid or an stupid leftists or an stupid leftists with no idea of how to use a computer for his job

Here the campaign mail of Amazon that I received  (images removed):
..........................................................................................

Are you looking for something in our History books department? If so, you might be interested in these items.

Guerrilla Warfare 
by Ernesto Che Guevara 

Price: $8.99 


On Guerrilla Warfare 
by Mao Tse-tung, Samuel B Griffith 

List Price: $16.95 
Price: $11.53 
You Save: $5.42 (32%) 


War of the Flea: The Classic Study of Guerrilla Warfare 
by Robert Taber 

List Price: $24.95 
Price: $16.30 
You Save: $8.65 (35%) 


The Red Book of Guerrilla Warfare 
by Mao Zedong, Shawn Conners 

Price: $12.95 


Small Wars Manual 
by United States Marine Corps 

List Price: $16.95 
Price: $12.71 
You Save: $4.24 (25%) 


See even more similar items

martes, 3 de abril de 2012

Faith, Order and Reason

The order of things in the world, and in particular, social order, the most appreciated form of order in which man lives, urges conservative men to thank God, the Source of this order, for creating and maintaining it. 

The progressive man, who think that the current social order is an obstacle for a more perfect future, tend to adore the principles that, he belive, has the promise of a better New Order.

Faith Order and Reason are intermingled in any attemp of man to find a meaning for his life.  Whatever it may be, there is no meaning without Reason, but there is no ultimate meaning without ultimate Truth and ultimate Truth needs Faith. We look for ultimate meaning because we needed it for long term planning, even beyond our own lifespan. We know that  biologically, our bodies are the vehicles for producing a wealthy  next generation, and spiritually, we discover in ourselves impulses that go farther that our individual interests and even our time. These wide, long term goals are meaningles in the first place without the presupposition of a certain order in our society that must be achived and/or maintained for generations. Such order, as I said before can  not be maintained without a certains faith. 

Order in society brings the phisical means for men to attain our material goals. This is not possible, by definition, without  some rules.  For daily life in society, men need to share a set of negative rules, a set of 'not to': not to kill, not to steal etc. But life in society is not a playground where rules are enforced by supernatural beings, where each individual pursue its own happiness. A society is not a kindergarten of any kind. The survival of the society against internal or external degrading pressures demand certain positive sacrifices from their men.  Obviously a society who does not maintain its own homeostasis will dissappear, and with this society, dissapear the long term plans for which the individuals worked  for and all that they constructed for them. The edifices fall in ruins, its knowledge dissapears, their organizations, under which they were far more resourceful than without, fade away. Agression, starvation and death follows.

Since the goals and rules should be administered by the men themselves rather than by supernatural beings, there is no way to maintain a society without the committed loyality of their individuals. To do so, they must internalize the social goals and rules. But first, the man must accept them according with its own reason and its own faith. Thus, this emotional loyality is not possible without sharing, in the frist place, some ultimate meaning that is maintained by a shared faith of one type or another. 

Along the History, the societies knew that their neighbours had a different organizational principles, and these principles were given by gods.  A god was greater than another if the city that he protected was wealtier and powerful. Such is the close relation between faith and order.

One can reverse the causality flow and say that, because shared belief in ultimate principles are critical for social order, men have an emotional attachment to ultimate Truth called Faith. The societies have organized religion,  that exalt, actualizes and put in common the beliefs necessary for social order.  But the search for ultimate Truth and the zealous keeping of It once he believes he found It, is an impulse inherent of any acting, intelligent being thrown into existence, simply, because without it he can not act.

Without faith, we are like amnesic patients found in an hospital in ruins where the doctors are equally amnesic. We must discover first who we are, and Who thrown us here and why, before we can organize our lifes beyond daily survival.

The modern secular, political faiths add nothing new to the picture. The contractual model of social order, comon in the Modern Age from authors like Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes etc either are too cold and deduce only negative principles, insuficient for social stability so they must be complemented by supplementary, traditional supernatural faith, or...

Or, instead of God an traditions, these organizational principles are hypostasizwed and idealized: The People, the Democracy,  the Nation or the Market,  Freedom or Rule of Law , the Proletariat, the Nature.  These hypostatizations are internalized not only rationally but emotionally, as a matter of faith and are adorned with supernatural powers, such are; "The People can´t go wrong",  "Democracy is the best organization anywhere", "The Nation is eternal". "Nature is good. Ever". At the same time these abstract but emotional principles have been complemented by the deification of their ideologues and rulers. This is part of the nature of Man´s faith. There is no faith that has no human like deities or prophets, because we are the way we are.

So modernity is a faith in wathever magic, supernatural principles masked as Reason, administered by divinized men.  That is the nature of modern secular society, ruled by beliefs disguised as reason, but devoid of Reason. So is  the weak order that it supports.  The cult of personality in socialist counties is the extreme example of this kind of modern faith, but this is only an example.

Faith as such, is not an option. A man without faith that has ceased in its search for Truth is in a paralyzed state that announces its inexorable death. A society without a shared faith will vanish.  But a faith is a necessary condition, not sufficient. A faith that depart from reason and reality, or, worst of all, a faith that claims that it is pure reason itself in order to avoid the critic of True Reason, is not a source of order, but the guarantee for social destruction.