Erik Hoel suggests that the most depressing fact about humanity is that during the 2000s most of the world was handed essentially free access to the entirety of knowledge and that didn’t trigger a golden age:
Think about the advent of the internet long enough and it seems impossible to not start throwing away preconceptions about how genius is produced. If genius were just a matter of genetic ability, then in the past century, as the world’s population increased dramatically, and as mass education skyrocketed, and as racial and gender barriers came thundering down across the globe, and particularly in the last few decades as free information saturated our society, we should have seen a genius boom — an efflorescence of the best mathematicians, the greatest scientists, the most awe-inspiring artists.
If a renaissance be too grand for you, will you at least admit we should have expected some sort of a bump?
And yet, this great real-world experiment has seen, not just no effect, but perhaps the exact opposite effect of a decline of genius.
[…]
So, where are all the Einsteins?
The answer must lie in education somewhere. And if we look into research on different education strategies and their effectiveness, we do indeed see all sorts of debates about best practices, learning styles, class size, monetary policy, and equality. But mostly we see, actually, that none of it matters much.
[…]
For paradoxically there exists an agreed-upon and specific answer to the single best way to educate children, a way that has clear, obvious, and strong effects. The problem is that this answer is unacceptable. The superior method of education is deeply unfair and privileges those at the very top of the socioeconomic ladder. It’s an answer that was well-known historically, and is also observed by education researchers today: tutoring.
Tutoring, one-on-one instruction, dramatically improves student’s abilities and scores.
[….]
However, despite its well-known effectiveness, tutoring’s modern incarnation almost universally concerns specific tests: in America the Advanced Placements (AP) tests, the SATs, and the GREs form the holy trinity of private tutoring. Meaning that contemporary tutoring, the most effective method of education, is overwhelmingly targeted at a small set of measurables that look good on a college resume.
This is only a narrow version of the tutoring that was done historically. If we go back in time tutoring had a much broader scope, acting as the main method of early education, at least for the elite.
Let us call this past form aristocratic tutoring, to distinguish it from a tutor you meet in a coffeeshop to go over SAT math problems while the clock ticks down. It’s also different than “tiger parenting,” which is specifically focused around the resume padding that’s needed for kids to meet the impossible requirements for high-tier colleges. Aristocratic tutoring was not focused on measurables. Historically, it usually involved a paid adult tutor, who was an expert in the field, spending significant time with a young child or teenager, instructing them but also engaging them in discussions, often in a live-in capacity, fostering both knowledge but also engagement with intellectual subjects and fields. As the name suggests it was something reserved mostly for aristocrats, which means, no way around it, it was deeply inequitable.
[…]
Spanning kingdoms and continents aristocratic tutoring had a several-millennia long run. If we fast forward almost 2,000 years we can find Bertrand Russell, one of the undeniable geniuses of the 20th century, who was a classic case of aristocratic tutoring — raised by his rich grandparents, he didn’t even attend school until he was 16, and had a revolving door of tutors to equal Marcus’s. Many of whom were impressive scientists and intellectuals in their own right, e.g., J. Stuart, one of Russell’s tutors, had himself been a student of Lord Kelvin (that “Kelvin”).
[…]
The same sort of idyllic learning situation was true for Russell’s famous compatriot, Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was privately tutored at home until he was 14. Name a genius and find a tutor: the governesses of John von Neumann taught him languages, and he had other later tutors as well. Even in the cases where the children weren’t entirely homeschooled, up until the latter half of the 20th century aristocratic tutors were a casual and constant supplement to traditional education.
[…]
When you go back further, into the 1600s and 1700s, aristocratic tutors are the norm, often members of the aristocracy themselves. Voltaire’s tutor when he was young was the educated and worldly abbe de Chateauneuf, who was also his godfather. In turn, Voltaire was tutor to Émilie du Châtelet, an early female scientist and mathematician (notorious for her harsh demands of her tutors). Ada Lovelace, inventor of the first algorithm, was tutored as a youth by Mary Somerville, another early female scientist (indeed, the term “scientist” was coined specifically to refer to Somerville in a gender-neutral way, rather than the previously-used “man of science”).
[…]
Perhaps the clearest example in history of a genius constructed by tutoring comes from the case of John Stuart Mill: philosopher, economist, politician, early feminist, and all-around Renaissance man. His father, already a famous intellectual, raised John explicitly to be a genius capable of carrying on the cause of philosophical utilitarianism, purposefully keeping the young John away from children his own age.
[…]
Karl Marx’s father (who was rich enough to own vineyards) privately tutored him up to the age of 12, his official schooling starting only after. Or consider the later case of Hannah Arendt, a titan of 20th century philosophy; raised upper-middle class and Jewish in Germany during the rise of Hitler, she was no aristocrat, but she received independent tutoring from rabbis and professors at various points in her young life, and, perhaps far more relevantly, her own mother acted in the role of a classic aristocratic tutor.
[…]
Well, it turns out most of the school stuff is exaggerated or apocryphal, and Einstein had multiple tutors growing up in subjects like mathematics and philosophy, such as his uncle, Jakob Einstein, who taught him algebra. In fact, there was a family tutor of the Einsteins who went by the name Max Talmud (possibly the best name of a tutor ever), and it was indeed Max Talmud who introduced the young 12-year-old Albert to geometry, prefacing young Albert’s eventual transformation of our understanding of space and time into something geometric. Maybe we don’t make Einsteins anymore because we don’t make Max Talmuds anymore.
[…]
Today, tutoring is seen mostly as a corrective to failures within the bureaucratic structures of eduction, like an intervention to help out a course, grade, or test. In general, those doing well in school don’t get tutoring — it’s like we’re applying the secret genius sauce solely to the kids who aren’t going to be geniuses.
There is some evidence, based on the correlation between IQ and reaction time, that Britain’s White population has suffered an IQ reduction of about 15 points over the last 150 years or so. That’s one full standard deviation, and if true it is a massive decline. So maybe our modern population is simply too stupid the exploit the explosion in available information.
Dunno. Lots of counter examples. Maxwell’s outside tutor was a negative influence.
The children who always got the best tutors in earlier times were the offspring of royalty. And we all know how poor the performance of those royal families tended to be. Case closed.
Also, note the Woke influence in Hoel’s piece — Gyrlls Rule! That tends to undermine his case even more.
On the other hand, no argument that today’s educational practices have extremely disappointing results. No argument that tutoring can be advantageous in certain circumstances — for those children who were born with unusual talents. As someone once said at a damp campsite — we can blow on the fire as hard as we want, but unless the spark is already there we are wasting our efforts.
In aviation, one-on-one tutoring is still the primary method of teaching and learning. Although classroom education can be applied to learning things like the regulations and the principles of weather, when it comes to learning actual flying, it comes down to the student and the instructor.
to jump to the aberrations is very modern: sound bites only, please.
A good education starts with parents that value an education; enough to commit personal time and money to it for their offspring.
late 20th, early 21st century child-rearing is left to “public education” from 3 mo’s to EOL. these facilities set standards for broadest acceptance, not highest performance.
the point being made is that access to information does not educate, and i think it is a good one.
I used to tutor underprivileged kids. It was great all around until they started giving me mentally deficient kids. I couldn’t take it. It was too depressing, so I quit.
I have a soft spot for those born into unfortunate circumstances, but only the ones with potential.
All of society is built around the needs of the center section of the Bell curve, plus some charity for those on the low end. If you’re born poor but smart, society can’t give two shits about you.
“The answer must lie in education somewhere.”
Yes. More specifically, it lies in the fact that the presently regnant priesthood has largely dissolved all means by which information may be transmitted between generation, one of the chief means being by kidnapping children from their hated subjects and interring them in their penitentiaries.
When the young Duke of Wellington and his peers were in boarding school, the most valuable time they spent there was playing sports together on the pitch. And when the time came for the Hundred Days, it was simply a matter of transplanting the Männerbund from one context to the next.
Of course one should have men with character adaptive towards the task(s) they should accomplish; should have men whose character is of an alike kind to each other, that they may achieve higher levels of harmonic work with less ‘interpolation’ necessary to fashion accord; but when you have a problem, and your first step is ‘lets put together a team’, you are several steps behind to begin with.
The modern condition is typified by atomization. No one man can grow roots with any other men. His life, from cradle to grave, is a consistent slide show of being shuffled from space to space. He is shuffled from parents and neighbors to child prisons. He is shuffled within child prisons from figure to figure, isolated from any cross generational contact. He is shuffled from one child prison to other child prisons. He is shuffled from child prisons to temples of demon worship, to receive a mark of the beast, necessary for recognition in the society it dominates. In turn, that mark is used to shuffle him yet elsewhere in the world, for some abstract ‘career’, with some abstract organization.
More meaningful levels of communication, relevant to the edification of a man in particular, the conduction of civilization in general, are rendered impossible, because those who might need to so communicate are preempted from learning each other. Each and all collectively stuck on step one, using english, but speaking different languages. A society full of strangers.
The Human Resources paradigm says, ‘let us digest the whole population through the Central Clearing Institution, so we can find The Best Qualified Persons for building a Team’.
The Civilized paradigm says, ‘the Team already exists, seed crystals from which the sapphires may be grown’.
I have trouble thinking of tutoring without thinking of CS Lewis. The “Great Knock” had affects on Lewis that may have allowed Jack to exist as a professor/tutor. The Great Knock also had big effects in Christian hymnody, especially at Christmas.
I knew Lewis wrote Christian polemic as a return of serve to Reade’s The Martyrdom of Man, an 1880s atheist classic The Great Knock loved, but not that The Great Knock affected Christian hymnody.
The “Great Knock” Method of Teaching Reading:
William Winwood Reade‘s The Martyrdom of Man (1872) is a secular, “universal” history of the Western world:
Very Asimov.
The issue is simply everything has been done. Eveything that needs to be known or discovered has been. Geniuses will not be public figures any longer but the based people who reject the public narrative and avoid public scrutiny. What drive can there be to discover when all is finished already? All that is left to discover is more paths to sin, and that is the work of morons not geniuses.
Pseudo-Chrysostom: “More specifically, it lies in the fact that the presently regnant priesthood has largely dissolved all means by which information may be transmitted between generation, one of the chief means being by kidnapping children from their hated subjects and interring them in their penitentiaries.”
Yes, I agree, we should really do something about the capitalists.
“Yes, I agree, we should really do something about the capitalists.”
These people are not merchants; they’re priests.
The greatest trick Judeo-Bolsheviks ever pulled was making people think that their targets in the first place — people who produce value with big apple carts full of value they’d like to knock over; in a phrase, merchant caste — are ‘in charge’, while at the same time writing out their own existence as a caste all together, a squid ink to allow for exercising power with impunity, acting collectively, while denying ignorant targets the ability to strike back collectively.
‘Marxist class theory’ is an act of a priesthood posing themselves as peasantry, and pinning up a picture of their victims over the resulting theoretical void in the power structure, and betting on there being enough people with a sufficient combination of either stupidity or malevolent interest in joining the con too, to go along with it. (Empirically, an unfortunately safe bet for much of recent history.)
“Judeo-Bolsheviks”
But I repeat myself.
When you’re a deranged NPC whose entire process of reasoning consists of airy-fairy prefab syllogisms held together by force of repetition, it’s just as easy to overlook such august capitalist institutions (that actually existed) as the General Education Board as it is the respectable capitalist network of influence that has been funding, arming, and industrializing so-called “Judeo-Bolshevism” for the past century, to say nothing of the FRB or OSS.
Imagine, if you will, a Wojak meme: on the left, titled “NRx fantasy”, a crying Judeo-Bolshevik face behind a smug capitalist mask, and on the right, titled “reality situation”, a smug capitalist face behind a crying Judeo-Bolshevik mask.
>General Education Board
My point exactly. ‘General Education Board’. Priestlyness par excellence. Priests poking their noses in the business of business. You’re looking at a spade and refusing to call it anything except a ballerina.
What a coincidence it is that every time one finds a sin ascribed to ‘capitalists’, it originates with priestly apparatchiks whose memes their minds are owned by, and whose managerialism their affairs are subordinated by.
There she blows!—there she blows! A hump like a snow-hill! The NRx NPC has taken the bait.
Let’s have a look at the General Education Board, shall we?
Uh, oh. What’s going on here? Arch-capitalist John D. Rockefeller, the richest man in world history?
Oh, no, no-no-no-no-no… I don’t believe it… It simply cannot be true…
Why did they convene at the house of a capitalist…? Does not compute…
Ahhhhhhh! Ahhhhhhh! Ahhhhhhh…!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfQWz4gVcP8
As the saying goes, ‘where are they now?’
Where are all the arch-capitalist overlords? Bezos is a cuck. Bill Gates is happy just to get invited to the same parties as people with real power. All that money is just worthless filthy lucre in the eyes of the truly holy. The highest station he can hope for in life is to be their paypig. This is what in means to be an ‘arch capitalist overlord’ in the year of our lord, 2022.
Just like Bloomberg, Buffet, and all the rest, they try to use their money to buy holiness, prostrating themselves for the sin of being rich.
Do you know who spoke those words that you are quoting? It wasn’t Mr. Rockefeller. It was Frederick Taylor Gates, a New York Baptist minister, ‘educator’, and ‘principal business and philanthropic advisor’ to Mr. Rockefeller, the chairman and co-founder of the General Education Board. In other words, the ‘brains’ behind the outfit; and a perfect expression of the ‘mainline superprotestant’ stream of socio-politi-cultural power in America, which reached it’s apotheosis under FDR (and summarily cast off it’s vestigial christian window dressing).
It is ever thus. Mr. John D. wants to spend his money to buy holiness. But how does he know what is holy? Luckly, Mr. Frederick T. is there to tell him. Why would a man who created so much value for his country spend his autumn harvest on gay shit like ‘GEB’ instead of something cool and valuable and impressive like rocket ships? Because his religion told him too. Literally. If you are making a public display of works in the contemporary occident, then the works you display are shitlibery, because shitlibery is the official religion. If you want people to do something different with their time and money, then you need a different state church.
Observing merchants operating on the autopilot of ideology then saying they are ‘in charge’ is ‘wet streets cause rain’ tier pilpul.
NRx NPC: “Why would a man who created so much value for his country spend his autumn harvest on gay shit like ‘GEB’ instead of something cool and valuable and impressive like rocket ships? Because his religion told him too. Literally. If you are making a public display of works in the contemporary occident, then the works you display are shitlibery, because shitlibery is the official religion. If you want people to do something different with their time and money, then you need a different state church.”
It is very difficult to form a cogent reply to your Markov-chain-tier jibberish, but I am a genius, and so I would gently suggest that Mr. Rockefeller invested his money in education not only because rocket ships did not exist in 1902, not only because rockets did not exist in 1902, not only because powered flight did not exist in 1902, but also because he who rocks the cradle rules the world.
That you, given the choice between rocket ships and education, would choose the shiny bauble fire plume big boom so cool wow over the, quote, “gay shit” of shaping the public mind for generations to come, with the not-inconsiderable side effect of securing first dibs on the cream of the crop, says everything that need be said about everything in which you so fervently believe.
That you would proceed to justify your choice with a word salad composed entirely of other men’s thoughts is an irony not to be missed.
Since you think like a communist, and communist thinking is incoherent with reality, of course you will have difficulty trying to square it with expressions of reality. We are here for you though. We can help you get through this difficult stage in your life, you just have to be willing to let yourself be helped.
‘Rocket ship’ is a synecdoche for substantial civilizational achievements. Your interpretation that i do not place pertinence on ‘shaping minds’ does not square with the explicitly stated primacy of state church, official religion, organs of informational transmission in general, in the first place. But one might expect an unrecovered communist to be disingenuous.
Substantial achievements like cathedrals, rocket ships, chip foundries, and so on, are explicit watermarks of progress or decline. Which that which possesses the ideological apparatii of a society may help or hinder, validate or devalidate. The leftist, of course, does not care about objective advances in potency, but relative advance of his status vis-a-vis other dire apes. His animating preoccupation is *control* over his neighbors, before and above all any other concerns. Any form of substantial achievement can be sacrificed if it would serve this aim; and in practice so often is sacrificed, as objective substance so often is incompatible with a substance-less creature like himself.
He would emphatically prefer to be king of a rubble pile, than a midshipman on the Britannic; and so in effect of course, he makes rubble piles everywhere he goes.
This also is an animus that lies at the heart of our modern little C communists’ antipathy to high technology in general, and men like Musk in particular; they can dimly sense in some way that europoid man gaining the ability to sail the sea of stars, will also mean he could escape the earthly internment the communist has planned for him…
“grandpa is it true we used to fly to the moon”
“uh huh”
“why can’t we fly there now”
“better things to do”
“like what”
“diversity seminars”
You yet hold your nose and continue declining to take a sniff test. It is quite difficult indeed to square the theory that if a man like Rockefeller funded bodies like GEB, that it was in his ‘class interest’ to do so, with the reality that the efforts produced by such bodies served in the end to undermine the status and prominence of men like him at ever turn.
The modern regressive, like all sundry forms of leftism throughout history, is a *parasite* of value. The parasite possessing masses of capital one day to throw around does not also mean they are capable of creating such capital in the first place; and likewise, subjects relinquishing possession of capital in tribute to the parasite, does not also in turn mean that the parasite is acting in their interest. It’s like asking why did someone buy a counterfeit if they did not want a counterfeit.
Because the officially unofficial state religion of the atlantic empire is a form of regressive leftism, it is in any one man’s *particular* interest to profess regressivism, in order to avoid being hamstrung or destroyed by power, and possibly also benefit from the favor of power; but the *collective* effect, of course, is pushing the bus ever further down the slope of dysfunction and off the cliff of collapse. Such is the tragedy of coordination problems, eh? Everyone in a race to throw their fellows to the crocodiles first, that they may be last to be eaten.
Dear NRx NPC:
You emit so much confusing and irrelevant Trotskyite nonsense as to bedazzle the most long-suffering of goyim. Since it is impossible to rebut your ludicrous notions point by point in reasonable time, and because your silliest accusation is that of incoherent thinking, I will simply direct your attention to what amuses me most.
Riddle me this, O Coherently Thinking One:
Which entity in which year in which location successfully demonstrated the first propulsive landing?
Thank you for conceding the foregoing yim. You can sleep easy with the assurance that im always happy to slap some sense back into you any time your female-brained sentiments lead you astray again. (If im around to notice of course.)
Per the later note, perhaps you refer to the rocket belt produced by the Bell corporation? Ah, but that is just being tendentious. Perhaps the lunar lander module? Ah, but this was just a payload with disposable stages, not a truly efficient reusable spacecraft. Perhaps the DX-C made by McDonnell-Douglas? Ah, but this was just a prototype that never went to space, let alone wide scale deployment.
Im sure you think you have a point somewhere in this. Something something secret USG technology? Something something ‘we *could* do whatever SpaceX has done, we are just deciding not too’? Ideas are easy, it’s organization and implementation that’s hard.
St. John: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcZzlPGnKdU&ab_channel=CrackerJack06
O Coherently Thinking One: “Perhaps the lunar lander module?”
So in response to the question “Which entity in which year in which location successfully demonstrated the first [rocket] propulsive landing?” you answer:
* Which entity: NASA
* Which year: 1969
* Which location: the Moon
That is correct.
Now for the follow-up question.
Which entity in which year successfully demonstrated the first [rocket] propulsive landing on Earth?
Here’s a better question; why can NASA spends hundreds of millions of procurement and fail to provide lift to orbit capacity, while Musk can spend a fraction as much and succeed at providing lift to orbit capacity?
Squid ink.
That isn’t a better question, it’s a worse question, and we both know you’re deflecting because we both know what you saw when you searched “propulsive landing” and landed on the VTVL Wikipedia page.
Answer the question or I’ll simply declare victory by default.
‘Hide the decline’, communist uncomfortable with confronting the fact that communism fails to provide the fruits of civilization, tries to deflect the coversation into getting lost in the weeds instead, in hopes that the other parties forget about what the whole point was in the first place.
You seem like you spend a lot of time imagining ‘gotcha’ scenarios in your mind, where your interlocutors spontaneously combust, everyone claps, and Obama himself shows up to hand a medal of freedom on your neck. Only to repeatedly find yourself confused and frustrated when events don’t play out the same way your narrative fantasies did. Perhaps you were ‘that kid’? You know, ‘that kid’, who always sat by himself in the cafeteria, who walked the halls with his head down staring at his shoes, who probably should have gotten a few more toilet bowl swirlies than he already did.
O Coherently Thinking One:
Thank you for so gallantly answering the first question, “Which entity in which year in which location successfully demonstrated the first [rocket] propulsive landing?”
The purpose of this comment is to give you notice that this is your third and final opportunity to answer the first question’s logical successor question, “Which entity in which year successfully demonstrated the first [rocket] propulsive landing on Earth?”
Should you fail to answer I’ll declare victory by default and proceed to use my evidently superior intellect and coherence of thought to ridicule you in public for your ridiculousness and so on.
After all, if you can’t trivially defend the Moon Landings, what’s the chance of there being any validity whatsoever to anything else you have to say? (Spoiler: none, lol.)
For your convenience I provide a template for your answer below.
* Which entity: [?]
* Which year: [?]
* Which location: [?]
The whole world awaits.
Here’s a better question: why is it that every time you open your mouth, marxist homosexual noises are what comes out? ‘Trivially defend the Moon Landings’? Do you even know what you are ever trying to say anymore? You are totally incoherent. Do you mean to argue that the moon landings were faked? Do you mean to argue that the moon landings in fact never stopped, and are just kept secret, which is to say NASA in particular, and USG/globohomo in general, definitely still has the capability to go to space, and definitely did not lose the capability to go to space, and so stop drawing attention to the fact that USG can’t go to space but Musk can because thinking about that sort of thing makes me uncomfortable and can we please change the subject, you shitlord? The world really does wonder.
At this point it’s clear to everyone that Pseudo-Chrysostom is somewhere between a retarded lunatic and a lunatical retard. Others, perhaps more familiar with the type, are welcome to guess at where exactly he falls “on the spectrum” (as it were); as for myself, I don’t make a habit of engaging with either retarded lunatics or lunatical retards, but sometimes their stupidity and occasionally their insolence is so profound that I find it amusing to toy with them. And it can be a productive thing, as sometimes deranged people can have very interesting ideas. It’s one of those situations where because they’re so self-evidently crazy, normal people won’t pay attention, so crazies’ ideas (which may have some important kernel of truth) will be undervalued relative to the true merits.
That isn’t the case here, unfortunately. Pseudo-Chrysostom hasn’t said a single original, creative, or interesting thing for as long as I’ve been aware of his sorry existence. As far as I can tell, he copied his entire belief system wholesale from a small handful of ideologues on the Internet at some point in the last few years, which he now wears about like an ill-fitting suit. This isn’t unusual. Most people are NPC’s who think in thoughts thought for them by others, but the self-righteousnessness and blithe unsubtlety with which Pseudo-Chrysostom inflicts his imitation-thought upon others is nothing if not remarkable. Even so, when necessary I am capable of being very tolerant of lunacy and could overlook his total lack of creativity and originality or the honorlessness and profanity of his character had he other redeeming qualities, such as well-written prose or witty banter. Regrettably he has neither: his writing is stilted and rough, and his substanceless belligerence is unimpressive at best. On the whole, reading his words is like being yapped at by a small dog.
Concretely, Pseudo-Chrysostom appears to sincerely believe that Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which is funded entirely by NASA, DOD, and the U.S. military-industrial complex broadly, is not, ackshually, an appendage of USG. The idea is absurd on its face; anyone willing to advance it is a retard.
Concretely, Pseudo-Chrysostom appears to sincerely believe also that NASA sent men to the Moon, with 1960′s rocket technology, materials science, and computer technology, six times in three years, without a single failed or aborted mission or casualty, past the Van Allen belt without any shielding, to a distance from Earth hundreds or thousands of times farther than any distance traveled by human beings before or since, landing them without incident on the Moon’s surface in a small vehicle with an absurdly low moment of inertia bolted atop a miniature never-test-fired rocket engine executing a propulsive landing capability not successfully demonstrated on Earth until the 1990′s[1], a vehicle which to modern eyes looks, quite frankly, like the fakest and gayest movie prop ever made, by all appearances haphazardly constructed from roughly painted cardboard panels and flimsy PVC pipe, and loosely and sloppily draped with tin foil.
Presumably Pseudo-Chrysostom also sincerely believes that hijacker passports were found on 9/11.
I declare victory by default. Case closed.
“Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which is funded entirely by NASA, DOD, and the U.S. military-industrial complex broadly, is not, ackshually, an appendage of USG.”
You play hopscotch with positions whenever is convenient for your rhetoric; supposedly, ‘government’ is just an epiphenomena of ‘the capitalists’, when one wants to talk about bad things; yet at the same time, ‘capitalists’ are just an epiphenomena of ‘government’, when it is good things one is talking about. There is no coherent thinking in you.
Musk’s customers are people who want to go to space; that can include a lot of different entities, be they companies, agencies, sovereignties, or more besides. When NASA wants to send something to space, they fly it on a SpaceX rocket, and pay Musk for the privilege. Which begs the question of why.
A question you visibly recoil from like a vampire from holy water.
They used to make their own rockets, to fly their own missions, and perhaps even more significantly, fly other people’s missions, too. Why can’t they make their own rockets anymore? What good bureaucratic fungal cap would send any money to anyone when they could be sending it to themselves instead, the whole existential purpose of a bureaucracy?
Empirically, a great upsurge in lift-to-orbit capacity was created under the auspices of Elon Musk, where theretofore it had been dwindling to nothing in the west in general, and America in particular, and likewise no other entity in the occident can provide similar capability. After the 90s, people in the united states went to space in russian rockets, and after the 10s, SpaceX rockets. The leftist shill is driven to schizophrenic delirium by trying to wrap his brain around such a fact. How does he contend with it? Well by saying ‘capitalists’ are just controlled by the priesthood of course… but this is incoherent with his whole founding mythology of priestly managerial castes either not existing or simply being subordinate extensions of ‘the capitalists’ ruling over everyone in the first place.
The ‘private vs public’ distinction is itself a modern invention that cuts across the grain rather than along it; its general purpose is to confuse discussion, not assist it; and its more particular purposes are to meme more Right inclined folk into staying away from power (by equivocating dysfunction with ‘government’, and function with ‘not-government’,), and also at the same time to meme people who are seeking power and or service into engaging in leftisms (by equivocating ideas of organization that lead to dysfunction with ‘government’).
What, exactly, is different about how one organization and another here works? Why are, so named, ‘private’ entities, demonstrably capable of making cool stuff today, but certain other kinds of entities – whether, so called, ‘academic’, ‘governmental’, ‘public’, whatever – aren’t? What is the difference between them?
One might sense a big part of the key right there in the names. We say ‘NASA’, for one, but ‘Elon Musk’, for the other.
That is, one of the biggest difference is Elon Musk has sovereignty, or ‘freehold’, over SpaceX, while noone has real freehold over an entity like NASA. We can speak of something like ‘Elon’ as having a ‘SpaceX’; on the other hand, there is no such figure for NASA that can come to mind. You’d need to use a search engine to even come close to finding someone with executive authority – and whoever they may be doesn’t have a final and sufficient say over anything anyways. Just one more functionary in an infinite tangle of functionaries. Which is not a coincidence. There once was a time where there was a man who one could think of as ‘having’ NASA, who went by the name of von Braun; rockets made by that NASA used to go to space back then. Well, then he retired, and legions of effusively credentialed and academy educated apparatchiks since then seem strangely incapable of recreating his successes. As it happens, SpaceX puts rockets into space today; meanwhile, NASA sucks up millions to not put any rockets into space today. (And well, Blue Origin is kinda there too. Sorta. Technically.)
Of course, Hidden Figgers proved that, ahckschually, it was black women who flew America to space; nowadays, there are even more women, and or blacks, and or black women, inserted by USG into organizations in general, and NASA in particular; which means that the only reason they aren’t in space now, let alone conquering the whole galaxy as kangs, is because bigoted whites (is there any other kind?) are sabotaging them for no good reason, yes?
Or no? Why do you think USG was once able to fly rockets to space but now is no longer able to fly any rockets to space? How you would answer that question – which is certainly a relevant question for any true lover of of true progress of civilization – would certainly be illuminating, and should prove very illuminating to everyone in the audience too.
Ah, but you did answer, didn’t you?
“Concretely, Pseudo-Chrysostom appears to sincerely believe also that NASA sent men to the Moon.”
Ladies and Gentlemen, we got him.
Turns out ‘Jim’ was just a ‘moon landings were FAKED’ tier shill after all.
I wonder if you realise that making this pivot also just undermines the argument you were trying to make not a moment before? To say that not only is USG not capable of into space, but in fact, they were never capable in the first place! And to think you were trying to make such a big deal of the Lunar Landing Module, eh? Well, obviously you aren’t getting paid to make good arguments, but to shit up discourses with static. Assuming you are getting paid that is. We will not necessarily rule out the possibility of a creature so pathetic as to do it for free.
Of course this whole segue to begin with came about since you were completely unresponsive to any of the points in the broader discussion before then which was exposing you, so you desperately trying to divert things down a tangential rabbit hole. Well in the end you couldn’t help that either, anyways.
No good Jew-hater would be a communist, since as we all know communists were all Jews, and communism as an ideological praxis is just Talmudic modes of thought with a different coat of paint. It’s a long observation, if you see someone saying boo about Khazars in one breath, then mouth Marxist talking points the next, you can bet it’s a glownigger plant ready to stand up to defend the honor of globohomo; what a world to find another data point in confirmation in this little old place! Honestly pretty funny of you to talk about ‘original thought’ while parroting shill scripts programmed decades before you were even born.
And you called yourself ‘American’. Well either you’re not a real American, or ‘America’ is a communist country. Really, you got so mad and offended when I described roundhead rejects as the main stream of leftism on the American continent. Methinks the lady doth protest too much!
Erik Hoel joins Ash Milton to discuss aristocratic tutoring on the Palladium Podcast.