Incompressible

There have been suggestions from the more conspiracy-theoretic end of the spectrum that Wikileaks may be a CIA front. After this latest " leak ", I think it's pretty obvious. I saw this news item on CNN which is what tipped me off that it must be "safe for public consumption." If it's safe for public consumption, it sure isn't a leak that's worth a damn. Why would someone go to all the risk to themselves and their career to submit Secret clearance docs that get handed around to thousands of people? It doesn't make sense. And why would the only really sensitive documents finger the ISI? Isn't the point of leaking to blow the whistle on your boss ?? This seems like a rather transparent attempt to put public pressure on ISI to reduce their support for the Taliban while pretending that it was an uncontrolled "leak". What also doesn't make sense is where Wikileaks gets its money. If Wikileaks really were the grassroots organization i...

I enjoy power-elite analysis. I did some amateur research on the JFK assassination last weekend and have been piecing together all sorts of decade-spanning conspiracy theories for some time. These theories exist in a sort of "quantum superposition" since there is so little solid information and evidence to work with. When dealing with such difficult problems, it's helpful to use metaphors to keep things straight in your head. One such metaphor I've recently adopted I call "Kingpin theory." The Kingpin is a character in the Spiderman comics. He has no superpowers but he is Spiderman's arch-nemesis, more powerful than all the other villains who do have superpowers. The Kingpin's power comes from his mastery of human nature, his willingness and ability to manipulate people by threatening their loved ones and his uncanny ability to remain at least one step ahead of everyone else. In the real world, there are villains and then there are Kingpins. Pablo Es...

Here 's an astounding news item: an "oil executive's wife" in Houston has been targeted by an exploding box of chocolates. I would desperately like to know if this "oil executive" is in any way connected with BP. Godfather Part IV?

Rothbard and Hoppe use the idea of a "natural order" against which to criticize the State. One of the difficulties of this approach is that it makes an arbitrary distinction between what is "natural" and what is not - why is it the case that the State is unnatural and what does it even mean for something to be "unnatural", given methodological naturalism? Whether the government is "natural" or not, the question remains: why does it exist? Here's my video on what the government is . My current view regarding why government exists: The essence of the State is the accepted or legitimized double-standard This is puzzling since humans generally find double-standards revolting... the Golden Rule is a culturally universal ethical principle My solution is as follows: Humans evolved from primates which largely engage in alpha-male mating patterns Alpha-male mating separates the males into two categories, the commoners and the elite (alpha) The costs...

I've noticed a collectivist under-current in some of the thinking of folks involved in the Free-State Project and other libertarians. This collectivism is subtle but real. Sure, "live free or die" as a personal motto or ethic is ultimately an expression of individualism. But many libertarians incorrectly diagnose the ills of modern statist society to be due to a lack of willingness to die for one's liberty on the part of the masses. They are asserting something along the lines of "if only people were more generally willing to die for their liberty, we'd all be truly free." The idea is that a tyrant can't dominate a people composed of individuals who are mostly willing to die rather than be enslaved to the tyrant. But I think this is subtle or stealth collectivism because dying for one's liberty is not really dying for one's own liberty (you can't be free when you're dead). Instead, dying for liberty is dying for the liberty of others...

So, I spent all weekend watching JFK assassination videos and doing armchair JFK assassination research. Here are my notes: 1) Most of the debate seems to rage around trying to get evidence or proof that JFK's assassination was a conspiracy. This is silly because it grants - from the outset - the bizarre assumption made by the official theories that political figures are as likely to die at the hands of "mad attention-seekers" as they are to be assassinated by their enemies who actually stand to benefit. How many people are insane enough to think that the electric chair is a fair trade for "being remembered" by history, even if in infamy? And of those people how many are resourceful enough to pierce the security perimeter of the President of the United States? Kennedy was threatened by Richard Pavlick in 1960 after Nixon lost the election and, by all accounts, Pavlick was a lone nut. But all we know of his "assassination attempts" are his own tall tale...

A gaggle of Senators including Chuckie Schumer are clamoring that BP may have been involved in the repatriation of the Lockerbie bomber back to Libya as a concession for removing drilling restrictions off the coast of Libya. Clearly, there's some kind of political tug-of-war going on under the surface.