Matisyahu's Blog

There are two YouTubers that watch on a regular basis, ParkrosePermaculture and KnittingCultLady, because they provide a grounded commentary in a world where influencers and commentators are peddling the latest clickbait. I find that these two commentators provide a sober analysis on what is actually going on the real world. There is a tendency by some commentators to peddle clickbait videos either because they’re either charismatic presenter but light on details but decide to ‘fake it till you make it’ (so then they can make some money) or decide that hating the Trump administration is more important than facts so the net result is the decision not look into something further and go with assumptions built on assumptions.

At one end of the spectrum there are those who keep peddling copium/hopium because it tells the audience what they want to hear – audience capture if you will. The net result of this peddling of copium/hopium has been this peddling of nonsense by both commentators/influencers as well as established media outlets. Does anyone remember the constant drum beat of “the walls are closing in on Trump” and “Trump is going to end up in prison” in the mainstream media? I remember seeing that on MSNBC (now known as MS NOW) and the copium/hopium put out into the world with people being convinced that they didn’t need to do anything because something magical would happen and then everything would turn out for the best.

At the other of the spectrum there are those who pedal doomerism that thrive on doomerism because for some it is a business model where it is easier to spread doom than it is give a sober assessment on what is happening in the world. Then there are those who pedal doomerism because, to quote Mark Fisher “It is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism.” It is the defeatist mindset that doesn’t require effort on the part of the listener or a creator to accept that pushing back against the right is a Sisyphean task – it is a never ending up hill struggle and it is up to those of us on the left to find meaning in that never ending struggle rather than just giving up because we believe the world ought to work a certain way then get angry when it doesn’t.

Getting back to being grounded in reality, KnittingCultLady did a great video pushing back at the idea of ‘Pete Hegesth fired all the top military lawyers’:

Once you listen to the video then you quickly realise that what was being spread around the internet does not match up with reality but unfortunately the correction made by KnittingCultLady has limited reach because it isn’t powered by sensationalism but by facts. Again, it is easier for doomerism to spread faster than a sober assessment and to be honest the power structure actually like the doomerism narrative because it attributes more power to them than they actually have in reality.

Another good video to watch is by ParkrosePermaculture where she talks about the idea of ‘future faking’:

Much like how the doomerism narrative benefits the power structure the idea of ‘future faking’ is about spreading the narrative that future is predetermined and there is nothing you can do about it so you may as well give up. The problem is that if you start believing that the future is predetermined then what happens? people give up, the momentum for change dissipates as people feel as though any effort to make meaningful change is doomed to failure. This is the same sort of narrative being put out by the AI industry (not too sure whether you can call it an industry given it is losing money hand over fist) that the future is AI, that future is set in stone, either get on the bandwagon or get left behind – once you realise how LLMs actually work you quickly realise this is the biggest ‘fake it til you make it’ gamble in modern history that puts the dot-com bubble to shame.

Just to round off the post, there is a good video by Ryan McBeth regarding the WSJ article which had drummed up the hysteria by claimed the the US Army would phase out the drone unit – small problem there, that wasn’t the case.

One thing to keep in mind is that he is a consultant for the government so he has to be fairly careful about wading into politically sensitive topics hence the reason why he avoids talking about such topics. Long story short, the video goes through the claim that was being made and by the end of the video you’ll quickly realise that at best the WSJ did a bad job understanding where drones fit in the larger Army structure or that the narrative was more important than consulting an expert to ensure that they understand what was happening.

I was reading an article today with the title ‘Why is NZ spending far more on responding to climate disasters than on reducing future risk?’ (link) and it reminds me of a blog post I made a while ago talking about how voters will claim they want honest politicians but when they’re confronted with one they don’t vote for them. The premise of why people don’t vote for honest politicians is because for far too many voters when they say they want an honest politician what they really want is someone who says the things they agree with rather than what they need to hear which can be uncomfortable sometimes.

Regarding the aticle itself, to answer the question ‘Why is NZ spending far more on responding to climate disasters than on reducing future risk?’, the reason why there is more spent on responding rather than reducing future risk is because the steps to reduce future risk aren’t popular with the public and they won’t get politicians name up in lights – much the same way that politicians would sooner spend money on something new and shiny than fixing up what already exists.

This is the reason why Wellington water infrastructure is in the sorry state that it is in – counsellors were more interested in keeping rates low and what rates were collected were spent on economically unviable things like a convention centre which cost more money to the council than it brings in. The net result? water pipes bursting, water infrastructure falling to pieces and the rate payer wondering where on earth did all the money go to over the years. Was their an alternative? Labour proposed three waters but New Zealanders convinced themselves that co-governance is the worst thing that had befallen humanity resulting in Labour losing the election and the alterntive is the half baked solution from National aka ‘Local Water Done Well’ has resulted in the mess that exist today.

The reality is that some parts of the country are going to become uneconomically viable to keep rebuilding every time there is a climate related disaster resulting in many if not most insurance companies just saying that they’re not going to offer insurance coverage in particular areas. I also don’t believe that setting up some sort of government owned backstop insurance is going to help either because even if you were to nationalise the housing insurance market with a single insurer you’ll still have the same issue of far too many uninsurable properties driving up everyone else’s premiums.

What is the solution? it may require some towns being completely mothballed and the inhabitants relocated to places where the risk of climate related disasters are a lot lower. There is also the matter of curbing green house gas emissions which will require lifestyle changes such as greater housing density, walkable neighbourhoods, mass transit and less dependence on private vehicles etc. major lifestyle changes that I don’t think people are willing to make (not to mention big investments in rail infrastructure for freight and passenger transportation). Whenever there are attempts to do just that there is push back by NIMBYs resulting in the necessary progress forward consistently undermined and we all end up paying the price when it comes to dealing with the long term consequences of climate change.

It is very much the same problem faced in the United States – towns that have been dying for at least 70 years with congressmen who keep selling false hope that anytime soon there will be a rejuvenation of the area. If congressmen and senators were honest with the area they would tell them that the only reason why their town or area existed is because of an industry that no longer exists and that the future should be able moving forward rather than living in the past. The problem is that the pull of nostalgia blinds people to what what needs to be done – to move on to greener pastures and leave the past behind.