No, guys, robots will not take away your jobs

February 7, 2016

This is a reaction to your column in blog@cacm in the printed edition of CACM for December 2015. My apologies for the timing.

I don’t think anyone can predict what humans will do in a future where robots could displace gainfully employed humans.

What has happened in the past is a hint at the answer to such an advance. In my opinion the technology revolution of late and the information and communications revolution the technology enables are bigger in their impact on human living in the future, or can be, than most articles imagine. A recent article predicted complication for income equality solutions.

The Gutenberg Press caused some upheavals in society. We all know how it made writings accessible to many more people than before. It expanded the numbers of people who could peruse and study writings for themselves. Books were cheaper, but libraries were still not found in peasants’ huts.

Nonetheless, preachers and peasants alike began to get astir at finding out what the sacred books actually said and there was indeed, upheaval among clerical structures, schisms, and nations. The Reformation opened doors for the Enlightenment, however much Voltaire fans might hurt about it.

But the effect of books on discourse was such that those that were critical of kings and royalty got more widespread hearing. Offended kings began to require a license to publish a book, to grant a “right” to make copies of a book. Thus began the custom of “copyright”. it was later evolved and “democratized” to the control of the author.

The books were augmented by telegraphed news reports in the 19th century, and then broadcast and other communications and data storage technologies developed in the 20th century. The control of the means of such media seemed to devolve in big markets to a few big organizations.

Then came the Internet. Many people credit government with its “creation”, but an expansive and inter-connected communications network was inevitable given the advancing computing and communications technologies of the last half of the 20th century. Before the Internet, there was not only Compuserve, AOL, Paradox, and others, but there were hundreds and maybe thousands of home-office and garage-based “bulletin boards” set up by young tech-minded youth who among other things used them to save money for more goodies.

Meantime, the industry of manual copies of manuscripts fell to book printers after Gutenberg. We all know the comparison to buggy whip makers.

This is no different. The economic central planners who thought they could whip up economic and monetary policies and even technology trends based on their so-called economic models have failed miserably to do anything to improve our lives. Prediction is very hard to do, especially about the future. And predictions are crazy when it involves human behavior.

Income inequality is a red herring too. In the poorest barrios in my wife’s country of Hoduras there are thousands of youth with the latest iPhones and other advanced technology. Almost nobody in the USA has to do their laundry by hand or down in the river. Air conditioning, refrigeration, heating devices have improved life’s material conditions.

CPF9898 The Revolt

February 6, 2016

This is what I’ve been saying. This guy isn’t even talking about rolling back out the craziness of the Ponzi social security program and the other or FDR’s upside down economics. Instead of admitting he kept the poverty going with his anti-poverty programs, while the richest bankers still made good, they loosed the market for awhile but kept the programs. Dumb. And wrote history backwards. AND THEY LET THE ARCHITECTS OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION GO SCOT FREE THE FEDERAL RESERVE.

“I think what were seeing is the long overdue reckoning for the mistakes of the 60’s and 70’s. The disastrous welfare programs, the massive expansion of the federal state, the rise of Cultural Marxism as the official religion of the ruling elite. The squalor of the 70’s should have forced a roll back of all these things. What should have happened in the 80’s and 90’s was a return to normalcy. Instead, the credit boom put all that on hold.”

From a former Fed Chairman’s Own Mouth

February 6, 2016

From former Fed Chairman Ben Bernake’s own lying mouth:

“….The bill would do this by repealing existing restrictions, imposed by Congress nearly forty years ago, on what the GAO can examine when reviewing the Fed…”

What a farce!

This means they hire the agencies that eat from their pork to say this is good pork and it’s good for all your suckers. The politicians hired a good external audit for Climategate too. Nothin’ to see here folks.

If the Congress (the Congress owns the GAO) audits them, there will be no hiding their crimes.

What that above quote means, and what they mean when they talk about “independence”, is that THEY DO NOT WANT YOU THE INDIVIDUAL AMERICAN TO KNOW WHICH LOOTERS THEY ARE GIVING YOUR WEALTH TO.

Grand theft nation.

Bernanke has opened his own mouth and condemned himself:

“If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse” – Job 9:20

The Establishment’s own anti-Establishment candidate

February 6, 2016

Ted Cruz: The anti-Establishment candidate the Establishment can live with…

Pretends to be against the police state, surveillance state
…but thinks the NSA should know about your ever phone call
….(Because the president needs to know who is against the Federal Reserve, who has a Ron Paul bumper sticker, who is a constitutionalist, who thinks the federal government should return Western lands to the ranching families they stole it from, who thinks they should abolish the IRS, who owns a gun, who likes guns…)

The “Goldman-Sacs husband” candidate that got his start in Texas financed (quietly) by Goldman Sachs..

The guy that went missing in the chance to vote for the first bill that would Force an audit on the bankers cartel that has been destroying the economy for 100 years… And gave trillions of dollars to European banks and private companies…

A libertarian who wants to keep giving money to the political rulers in countries that don’t need it..

One can agree that Cruz is not a “fire-breathing extremist”. No, that kind of guy cannot get big banker money.

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice… And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue — Barry Goldwater.

Ted Cruz says he’s not going to make a scapegoat sacrifice of the liars and cheats that said Carson was dropping out of the race. Carson supporters and everybody else reacted as anybody would but now he’s blaming CNN and media for trying to stir up trouble.

==> That kind of talk exposes him as a poisonous snake with a forked tongue. Better for him if he had said nothing but he had to answer. It confirmed it for me.

What did we get for near 10,000 Americans war dead this century?

February 3, 2016

Wikipedia says it’s 6.717 American military deaths in the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.
That’s not counting in other places that we don’t know about (National Security secrets), Europeans, allies, enemies, civilians, and future blowback deaths.

The people of the U.S. got nothing for its destruction of Libya but a free-range safety zone for ISIS. Stopping Gaddafi’s gold currency did nothing to save the power elite’s US$. Americans have nothing positive to show for Iraq.
Nothing positive to show for Afghanistan.
A bunch of problems and nothing positive to show for intervention in Ukraine.
Shooting down a Russian jet near the border of Syria and Turkey only showed Russia, Syria and the entire world that the rulers of the USA are not interested in finding peace.

Christians are worse off today in Iraq than before the Bush invasion (supported by Hillary and the Dems). For Saddam we got ISIS.

Christians are worse off today in Libya than they ever were. For Gaddafi, we got a safe zone for al Qaeda and ISIS, and arms for ISIS in Syria.

Christians are worse off for the drone bombing blowback for killing civilians.

Christians are worse off in all of North Africa.

More money for the Pentagon and things made worse. Solution, throw more money and make things double-worse.

Oh yeah, bomb bomb Iran? Loco loco loco.

The Internet killed Peer Review bottlenecks

January 31, 2016

“Peer reviewed research” is an argument from authority again. “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness” –1 John 5:19.

Let’s let Michael Crichton chime in, quoted on James Watt’s web site:

Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science-namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.

Read what he said about consensus. The cheap data communications revolution of the Internet has made Peer Review DEAD.

Let it sink in. So-called “PEER REVIEW” IS DEAD as a bottleneck now. DEAD.

The good part of Peer Review is accomplished on the Internet, for as long as the authorities keep their grimy nasty oppressive hands OFF.

Scholars keep going, but the smartest people in the audience are listening to their peers. Arguments from authority and system “Establishment” credentialing is a naked emperor.

Forrest, the most prominent amateur scientist put NASA to shame with a $300 interferometer.

Dr. Russel Humphreys put NASA to shame with his spot-on bulls’ eye prediction of the magnetic field strength of the outer planets based on specifics in Genesis One.

Crichton bested Al Gore on “global warming” with science.

Climategate exposed “peer review”.

Royal fellowship recipient denounced his own experience with “peer review” most scathingly, though they had to publish it finally, after two rounds more than anybody else with his variable speed of light theory. (He also did not hide the fact that he used the research of a certain creation scientist in Australia.)

Somebody posted a “proof of P versus NP” on the Internet, and it was peer-reviewed by thousands and refuted within 24 hours.

The same authoritarian arguments from authority are used against KJBO. It is their strongest argument too.

“Have any of the rulers believed [in this]”?

Westcott and Hort: “A corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.” – Matt 7:17

January 28, 2016

Bart D. Ehrman believes that some of the most known verses of the New Testament were not part of the original text. “These scribal additions are often found in late medieval manuscripts of the New Testament, but not in the manuscripts of the earlier centuries,” he adds. “And because the King James Bible is based on later manuscripts, such verses became part of the Bible tradition in English-speaking lands.”[2] This same sentiment is expressed by Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort.

These three wikipedia articles are meant to be mildly adulatory, but to me it’s like they “declare their sin, they hide it not”. They are the deadly duo, guilty of taking away and adding to the Word of God by the subterfuge of man’s wisdom. They still have “Accuracy Disputed” warnings, with good reason.

Besides the below points, they failed to mention the observation about “older” and “newer” manuscripts that the “older” ones only lasted from non-use. The one article does point out that Westcott and Hort claimed that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus documents were their favorite, that they called them “neutral”. The article does not mention that they are at or near the top of readings contradictory to each other and to the others, and the scriptures they leave out.

They fail to mention the “Shepherd of Hermas”, found with the Sinaiticus, a blatantly dubious screed.

Note two things about those articles about Westcott and Hort. One, they left out their “Ghostly Guild” association, that’s the seance circle they founded. Two, they left out the specific historical denunciations of their Greek NT by their contemporaries, except for a brief half-sentence generalization immediately followed by the “half-lie” that it was generally accepted at the time.

Oh yes, there’s Three: they left out the inside story, shared by Hort’s son later, that:

1. The two did not believe in Creation but praised Darwin for his origins theory.
2. They did not believe the Flood story.
3. They said the expiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross was a brutal barbaric horror.
4. They said the Resurrection was a myth.
5. They said the miracles done by Jesus as told in the NT did not happen.



The Earth and the Universe

January 25, 2016

The curvature of the earth was known to the ancients.

The “flat earth” was an invention, it seems, of one of the biographers of Columbus who exaggerated this, just like the shrills for Darwin who play up the lady’s retort with the infinite stack of giant turtles upon which the earth sits.

Then there is DNA. The “Authorized Version” is the only one that makes clear that Psalm 139:16 was, as we can see now, a clear specific reference to the way DNA works.

That shows the fruits of doubt of the translators of the modern versions who cannot believe it. So they translated it to God knowing “all our days” instead of what it says, “members”.

There is Job 26:7 also.

Astronomers and astrophysicists have found that the “neighborhood” of the Milky Way galaxy, and indeed the universe extended out from it, when viewed in a 3-dimensional model, have an apparent orientation around the Milky Way galaxy. This is not a Creationist discovery. This is the Darwinian long-ages guys saying this. Wired Magazine even printed an article on this (I read it with my own eyes). The writer visited one of those “natural history” museums or maybe a planetarium and they had a giant physical three-dimensional model on the floor. He said he was struck by that.

English Royalty rights to the King James Bible??

January 24, 2016

This from a critic of the King James Bible:

Distributed under a Letters Patent, and as such to print, copy, circulate, or otherwise distribute, is illegal, unless one has permission of the holder of the Letters Patent, in their office as Authorized Agent to act for and on behalf of Her Majesty, the Queen of England.
Now I realize that the United States of America prides itself of piracy, and breaking the laws of the land. That, however, does not mean that that is acceptable behaviour. jonathon


Who gave the English monarchy the rights to control the Word of God?

I don’t have any “social contract” (by which the philosopher meant “political contract”) with any government. Nobody asked me. Nobody said pretty please or tried to make such a deal. Null and void then, thrown out of the court of truth.

God forbid that this legalese be used to try to collect royalties from anybody who prints a copy of the Holy Bible. I’d bet that in a fair and just court hearing on the issue even in British courts, they would laugh it out of court in the first fifteen minutes. That’s how long it would probably take for the judges or jury to understand that (1) they didn’t really mean something else and (2) they were serious.

Satan HATES the KJB above all “translations”. When a “gay man” filed suit in Texas court against the publishers of Bibles, they made clear they were suing against the King James Bible; meaning, not publishers of other versions.

Wycliffe puts the whole idea to shame, supporting translators for some of the tribes of smallest population in the world, even while they themselves supporting the collection of royalties for the translation efforts of those who want users to pay for another of a HUNDRED English language translations and “paraphrases”. How many ways can you supposedly say the same thing?

This is one of the biggest Achille’s heel of the modern translation industry, in fact.

Every new version MUST make sure their words differ from the KJB and all other versions enough to get those precious royalties, from the sale of their version of the best selling book of all time.

The Papists once upon a time tried to blow up the King and the Parliament, in the Jesuit-led Gunpowder Plot. This is the first inkling I have heard of that they may even try to shut it down based on copyright law. Congress and their shadowy sponsors tried to use this and were blown back by the reaction.

But I figure they’ll use some kind of “hate speech” legislation against the KJB.

Figures though. After all, the whole idea of a “copyright” was created by kings in the first place, to censor books critical of them. You had to get a license, a “right”, to copy a book for sale. A “copy-right”. Oh yeah, that’s got to be why they call them ROYALTIES.

There is a popular romantic notion of royalty these days. Nice figureheads, but now we elect or select a king from among permitted initiates of the “Boss-man class” who serves a few years and then goes away. Unless he doesn’t go away.

Socialism doesn’t exist (because there is always the rich boss-class)

January 24, 2016

I just trot out the super-billionaires who get any money they want whenever they want it (and politicians) and their foundations.

The family names are kind of familiar and every one of their super-multi-billionaire foundations are ultra-leftist and have pushed socialist programs at every turn. Their banker members smashed the Fed onto us, like it or not, they pushed the United Nations down our throats, they financed every program that sunk their subjects.

The Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie Foundations, George Soros, and the rest of them. They finance all the non-profits including the 501c(3) Media Matters. Why do they support programs that are created to seize their own resources? Because they’re just nice? Why DID they support the Soviet Union, the nation that confiscated all private industry? Why did the promote their own demise, and end to their power, in other words, and promote a central command and control government to make it happen?

In the words of a friend who spent six years in the Soviet Union and saw what was reported as the short-lived coup by hard-liners, he said, in his words, “There is no such thing. Socialism doesn’t exist”.

Libertarians could learn something I think from the way he said that. Arguments against the stupid equality talk are missing the point and missing the mark, in other words. Those things must be said, and von Mises totally demolished all arguments for socialism, but most people don’t think that deeply because they’ve been conditioned to talk about “fairness” and “equality” and “democracy”.

Instead, use their own criticisms of the super-rich and blast the fire hose of truth at it.

The super-rich use their power to promote equality but in the words of the upper class of Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, some animals are “more equal” than others.

Pick apart the semantics of the “climate change” arguments for them and throw the pieces into their faces. “Some climate scientists” are more equal than other scientists? Okay then, my scientist can “beat up” your scientist. The famous Michael Crichton-Al Gore debate for a New York audience is egg in their face. The debate that flipped the majority opinion in two hours.

Take every chance in the gays’ “equal rights” debate to bring up the fact that there are thousands of outspoken ex-gays who are NEVER invited to debate in the media.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 195 other followers