Single women with many children are targets for pedophiles ?

 I watched HBO series "Allen vs Farrow" where Mia Farrow a single mother with many children (2 of hers,3 adopted), meets Woody Allen, who convince here to adopt a girl Dylan and they have a boy together Ronan.

Dylan accuses him of sexually abuse when she was 7 years old. Other persons testify Allen's strange behavior. He marries his adoptive daughter Sun Yi age 21. This would be considered incest according with France's penal code. 

On the other side of Atlantic,in France,Evelyne Pinsel-Kouchner, divorcee with 3 children marries Olivier Duhamel, a known advocate, and they adopt 2 children.

Now Camille Kouchner accusses him in a book of raping her brother at age of 12. Oliver Duhamel finally admitted guilt.

Also in arts and literature we have such cases: in the movie Lolita , Humbert the pedophile seduces Dolores's mother to have access her.

Now I am thinking that Lolita story should be mandatory reading for single moms with children.

What is interesting is that Mia Farrow and Evelyne Pinsel, lived in a libertine environment, where sexual boundaries were transgressed. Mia lived in Hollywood, Evelyn in left leaning caviar socialist community from Paris, where they changed lovers like socks.

This environment attracts all kind of sexual deviants. 

Yet, not even in a strict environment like catholic church,your children are not safe.

If in a strict environment like catholic church the threat comes from authority, in a libertine environment the treat can come from anyone because of low moral standards.

For example: in the book "La grande familia", Evelyn ask her daughter Camille: "what is the big deal ? He (her husband) didn't sodomize him (her son). They had only fellatio"

A woman with higher moral standards would have avoided Olivier a womanizer all together. A normal woman would have sided with her children.

If a mother believes her children, she has 2 options: goes to the police or uses violence. But she can't use violence because she will go to prison, and children to orphanage.

These abuse cases where you have only the testimony of a child against of an adult are hard to win.

It is interesting to see in 'Allen vs Farrow' how much influence can have a famous film director in NY:

• Data from Dylan interviews with social workers and psychologist was destroyed after they declared that was no evidence of abuse, despite being required to conserve the data. 
• A social worker from NY was sacked because he didn't played ball, and he declared that Dylan was abused.

What I noticed in both cases was a neglect from the parents:

•  In both cases fathers were away.
• Mia was busy with all the children and didn't noticed anything. (I think she has some problems, she had 2 children she adopted 3 and made another one)
• Evelyn she was depressed and drunk, and ignored her children, who entered under the influence of Olivier Duhamel, the pedo.

If the bond between parents would have been stronger, the children would have said something earlier and both monsters would have been caught.

If the fathers would have kept a stronger connection with their children they would have found out and take some measures, or they would have intimidated the child molester.

But they were disunited families, groups of individuals, easy prey for a lurking predator. 

Ladies, even you have grudge against your ex, let him more close to your children, if he is not a felon,a drug addict or a child molester, of course.

He might lower the chance that other men abuse your children.

We live in a simulation

 Our world is real as can be and we don't live in a computer simulation, yet our society is simulated.

Adam Smith said that the butcher and baker, act in self interest, and provide you with food, and their behaviour is similar with altruism.

Machiavelli recommended to the rulers to act as they are good people.

Sales people act that they care and that they are glad to see you.

Chat bots act as their are human.

But does it really matter if the simulation is convincing ?

Do we care of the feeling of salesman if he is polite wit us and send us what we need?

Do we care about the sincerity of the politician if he behaves as he should ?

Do we care if our spouse doesn't love us anymore if the behaviour doesn't change ?

If we need a low resolution reality, simulation is enough.

Thinking is negative, acting is positive

 Our mind is 3 times more sensitive to bad things.

Look at the news. Read all the philosophers and all are doom and gloom

On the other hand, making something is positive, a sculpture, a painting, cleaning repairing have intrinsic positive value for our mind.

Business people who are first and foremost doers, are optimistic. Four out of five business fail, yet, they jump ahead and risk all.

To compensate negative thinking of the mind you must do something.

To avoid doing wrong things you must think first and be negative

Book review: Slavoj Zizek "First as a tragedy then as a farce"

 I just listened Zizek https://www.blinkist.com/first-as-tragedy-then-as-farce-en 

In the book he says

 1.the current communist regimes were not implemented correctly.

2. We must make a revolution and start from from the ground with a new society

3. All the benefits obtained from working class were obtained by revolution

4. Taking care of the proletariat, mean destroying it. He give the example of a refugee without papers, who once he got papers is no longer a refugee.

I will dismantle all the points.

1. During and after civil war, russian communists tried to implement the most radical ideas.

In the army they abolished the ranks, and all the attacks were decided by vote. After some defeats, Soviets fall back the old military hierarchical organization.

Reading books of Ilf and Petrov, you realize that people tried to make communism work. They implemented a car sharing club, they were thinking of getting rid of money.

Ilf and Petrov criticize very open the communist bureaucrats.

Till Stalin came they tried and failed to apply the most radical communist ideas.

2. In Soviet Union they wanted to erase religion, nationality to create a new world.

This will never work, because what we have now worked in the past. For example nationalism. In the past a group of people with similar cultural background, joined together and fought for a piece of land. They succeeded and their national identity survived till today.

Zizek is like the doctors in the '50 that considered food fiber useless because us not digested, and recommended to avoid it.

Now all doctors recommend fiber for improving gut biome and gut transit.

If a thing exists it exists for a reason. Instead of bulldozing the past, let's see how we can use it for the future.

3. He has some true here. Without unions and struggle, 8h work day, payed vacation, interdiction of child labor would come too late, if ever.

But employees of google didn't stormed the head quarters to get better pay and free food. This was triggered by demand for their labour.

State, unions and revolutionaries can improve things who have little bargaining power. 

4. Why he wants a strict class separation? 

If they could many proletarians would take the place of their bourgeoise bosses. 

Many people work because they have to.

Very few janitors come to work because they like it.

Class has meaning only from statistical point if view. If someone has an income greater than proletariat average, but lower than bourgeoisy where you put them?

Theory must follow practice. Not the way around. But tell this to communists

I don't understand the concept of capitalism.

Communists didn't explain it well.

In feudal period the property was inherited, get through marriage or got with sword in hand.

The property was usually indivisible land.

In modern capitalist period, propriety became gold, which could be divided and transfered.

Capitalism is based on existence of private property and its peacefull exchange for other proprities. 

The early merchants abhorred the medieval war lord, and they tried to placate them with laws enforced by a centralized state.

If the hero of the middle ages was the knight, the hero of modern capitalist period is the lawyer .

All the peaceful civil disobedience used now in a capitalist society wouldn't make sense in a lawless middle ages, where a lord can out your head on a spike.

So where the communists see power as the basis for capitalism?

If in a country the private property doesn't exist but it exists market economy ? We considered capitalist ?

First communists tried to abolish private property with the rifle (Lenin,Stalin,Mao,Pol Pot) now they want to use ideology to make us hand it over property voluntarily.

2021: the end of US republic ?

Rise of Caesar marked the end of roman republic.

Fear hat he would declare himself king determined the senators and patricians who wanted to maintain the status quo and roman republic to kill him in 44 BC.

They were the 'optimales' the elite, on the other side Caesar pretended to be a 'populares' a man of the people, to have the support of poor masses, despite being one of the elite and being related with all his enemies.

At the times the 'plebs' didn't believed anymore in the republic:

While citizens fought foreign wars patricians grab lands.

The only way for a roman man to go ahead is to be hired in the military.

The loyalty shifted from abstract republic to real pay given by general.

Is Donald Trump a Julius Caesar ?

No, but Trump could play the role of Caesar in actual crisis.

He is from the patrician elite of US, even he was acquittance with Clinton's  but is voted by poor. 

He handed out checks as the roman politicians handed out food and games.

He is respected and obeyed by his supporters as Caesar was respected by his troops.

Caesar had Alesia battle in which he was sieged from 2 sides by the gauls and won the battle. Trump survived attacks from BLM in the streets and Democrats in Congress but he survived.

Caesar crossed the Rubicon and arrived with armies in the City.

Trump made a meeting and a speech and his mob stormed the capitol.

Roman senators killed Caesar.

American senators could kill political career of Trump.

After death of Caesar a civil war broke out an Republic disappeared de facto.

What will happen after Trump is out of the picture ?

Well I am not optimistic.

Joe Biden repeats as a parrot what the BLM is saying.

BLM said they if they were black protestors, the police would have been tougher.

What they want ? If whites trashed Capitol. The black should be allowed also?

It is envy? They want also to destroy democracy as the Trump's supporters did it ?

Also Nancy Pelosi said something racist, that those who stormed Capitol didn't want to lose their whiteness.

Lack of real political competition, leaded to 2 parties ruled by very old people.

I mean what is presidency of US ? An Oscar for all carrier for politicians ?

Biden has 78 years of age and he is visible mentally impaired, Pelosi has 80 years, Mitch McConnel has 78. 

If you want to see strong animals go in the wild, if you want to see old animals go to the zoo.

American politics is more a zoo than a jungle ? I don't know.

In Africa where is lack of competition you see dictators like Robert Mugabe dying of old age in office.

In Europe where is more competition most of politicians are in their fifties and sixties.

Also in Europe you have at least 3 parties in competition and extremist are isolated de facto in small parties, kept away from power others.

Trump could be a Front National leader in France, or leader of Afd in Germany  but it would be harder for him to win the absolute power in a state.

But as Georg Carlin said "in US you 100 versions of bagels and 2 parties"

. 

2020: uncontrollable

 The year 2020 started with a pandemic caused by the desire of Chine Communist Party to control a virus.

They thought that controlling information and shutting town could tame the virus.

Later leaders of UK and US, Trump and Johnson gave us assurances that they controll the situation.

Now both countries have the higher cases in the western world.

In Minneapolis a cop pressed the knee on a afro-american to control him. He killed him and triggered the biggest riots since '60.

Now in January Trump didn't want to lose control of US and gathered a crowd and invited it to attack Washington DC Capitol. I don't know what he really wanted to do. He is insane. Maybe a coup ?

In US you can't. States have a lot of power.

The 2020 was ruined by the our leaders illusion that they can control life and by the trust we bestowed on them. 

We can't control nature, we can't control people.

The best is to prepare for the worse, and expect that things will go haywire.

The book: "The 6 Secrets of Intelligence", whining westerners and masks

 I just listened the Mikhaila Peterson podcast featuring Yeonmi Park, in which they talk about North Korea.

In the first part they said that people don't understand how lucky people in the West are, they are fighting for animal rights, and against racism but in North Korea people don't have minimum rights.

Yeonmi said that people infected with corona virus are left to die in concentration camps.

At the end they "revolted" against the US government who fines people who don't wear masks and against South Korean government that can send you in prison for not wearing masks.

I  don't understand why they are complaining, in North Korea you got shot for not respecting prevention measures against corona infection. 

Stop whining, join the herd, obey your leaders and wear masks. :)

But I am biased for being in favour of wearing masks. I was in an hospital for respiratory diseases before pandemic and everybody used masks. 

Maybe they were in something. 

Maybe they knew it before and didn't say anything. 

Where are the conspiracy theoreticians when you need them ? 

Why nobody speaks about this ?

Why media doesn't report that before pandemic medics,nurses and other care taker wear mask in infection diseases sections?

Who wants to hide the truth ?

Sorry I got carried away.

Now I am reading The Six Secrets of Intelligence by Craig Adams, which is an manual of Aristotelian logic applied to our world.

I just finished the chapter of analogy or comparation on plain english. The analogy analysis can be applied to this episode.

The secret is to compare the right characteristics.

An example of bad analogy is this:

Nord Korea and US armies have uniforms and ranks, hence the US army is the same as NK.

South Korea has US troops on its soil and because US army and NK army are the same. South Korea has NK troops on its soil.

The same is with masks, Chinese and US governments demand wearing the masks, so US government is like the Chinese government and wants to restrict your rights. 

Why we don't use this to number plates ?

Both government require cars to have number plates, so both want to track you and limits your civil rights.

How we differentiate between measures applied for general good and measures made to limit your rights ?

Car number plates, masks are measures that applied to all. Xi Jinping and Joe Biden have number plates and wear masks, and their rights are restricted as everybody else.

Xi Jinping can criticize anyone in China but not everybody can criticize him.

Joe Biden can criticize anyone and everyone can criticize him.

This a characteristic that separates neatly China from US.

In an authoritarian regime rules are not applied to all, they are applied discretionary. Some are more equal than others to quote my favourite author George Orwell.

The real threat for your rights comes from discretionary measures applied to some. Because people advantaged by the discretionary measures might have a leverage on you.

Discriminatory racist measures in US are the best example of authoritarian measures in an democratic law system. White administration, and business people had a leverage over the black people.

Another good example is when a company is in bed with government and wins all kind of contract for infrastructure, water and energy supply. The company has a leverage over you if you are in competition with it, or if you are its customer.

In some countries leverage cause by discretionary measured increased, see Sicilian mafia, and Russian mafia.

In other leverage decreased see US who gave up racist policies in '60 and France who gave women rights after war. Switzerland gave women rights to vote in '74. 

In conclusion:

1. Not every measure taken by an authoritarian government is authoritarian and against your rights
2. Not every measure taken by an democratic government is for common good or for your own good
3. The way to determine if a measure is for common good or not is to check if it applies to all ranks of society. If it doesn't then it is not for your common good. Of course some politicians ignored the laws that they requested from plebs, they didn't wear masks, they shook hands with covid patients, but they paid with their health. Corona is egalitarian.
4. I am disappointed by Mikhaila Peterson, I thought that some of her father critical thinking have percolated to her, but it percolated only resistance to authority. I hope that her wrong opinions are sincere and not only a political stance. Political cynicism would destroy her father work. I think both Jordan and Mikaila Peterson should read and analyse Aristotel logic.