Friday, March 31, 2017
Sad little echo chamber, II
Dalrock: An eyewitness account of WACF (note: WACF stands for the Victorian/Edwardian romanticized-and-sentimental "women and children first" ideal)
Dalrock *can* make sense ... but, ultimately, he is as bad as the majority of his commentors. And, after all, they behave *just like leftists do* because he encourages such unthinking hive-mind behavior.
Someone calling himself 'SkylerWurden' had tried to inject a bit of sanity into the thread, with a predictable result. I leave it to your own level of interest and patience to read further in the thread to see how the attempt was received.
Here is a comment I attempted to post, and which I doubt will be allowed to see the light of day there --
Dalrock *can* make sense ... but, ultimately, he is as bad as the majority of his commentors. And, after all, they behave *just like leftists do* because he encourages such unthinking hive-mind behavior.
Someone calling himself 'SkylerWurden' had tried to inject a bit of sanity into the thread, with a predictable result. I leave it to your own level of interest and patience to read further in the thread to see how the attempt was received.
Here is a comment I attempted to post, and which I doubt will be allowed to see the light of day there --
The majority of you people are no less inimical to the continuation of civilization than the open leftists are. This is because, under examination, we see that (so many of) you are operating on leftist false premises. That is, you *are* leftists, whether or not you yet admit it to yourselves.
If men are not willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their society, then that society dies.
If the *young* men are not willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their society because the older men have ordered them to do so, then that society dies.
If the women are not willing to sacrifice their narrow immediate interests/desires for the sake of their society because the men have ordered them to do so, then that society dies.
It is mutual trust between its members that makes a society; all three of the above refusals follow from a lack of or spurning of such a trust.
Like 'SkylerWurden', I am neither defending nor condemning WACF; I am rubbing your noses in your own hypocrisy ... and stupidity.
Whether or not WACF was a good idea and policy, that is what the men of that time and society had decided upon. The biggest reason its implimentation during the Titanic sinking upped the death count is because the women refused to obey the men.
One would think that you set, of all people, would have seen that right off.
Continue reading ...
Thursday, March 30, 2017
No man can serve two masters [modified]
For as long as I've known him, Victor Reppert has been a "soft" leftist (*). Recently, he has decided to climb down off the fence he had been stradling (working backward in time --
1) see here
2) and here
3) and here
4) and here
5) and here
6) and here
7) and here ).
In the comment I have numbered #6, VR said:
(*) That is, as we in America misuse the term "liberal" since the "progressives" hijacked it some decades ago after calling themselves "progressive" had become a political liability, for as long as I've know him he has been a "liberal". As such, he could always be counted on to eventually toe the leftist party line, no matter the demand.
========
So, that brings up up-to-date for the subject of this post.
Recently, Mr Reppert quoted Chesterton:
To which, in that intellectually dishonest way we all cherish about leftists, he replied (in a new OP)
Non-exhaustively --
1) Defense of the people it rules against outside aggression is one of the (few) legitimate actions of *any* government; and, in fact, governments lose legitimacy when they refuse to do so (and, eventually, such governments cease to exist);
2) No one -- except leftists -- denies that it is a legitimate, and indeed necessary function of the US federal government to defend the people it rules against outside aggressors, such as ISIS;
3) And, in fact, Mr Reppert and his fellow leftists are working overtime to make it impossible for the US federal government to perform its few and explicitly enumnerated functions, such as defending the people it rules against outside aggressors, while piling on unsustainable demands that it perform functions what are wholly outside it perview;
4) Ayn Rand? Seriously?
=================
Edit:
Now let's look at this in a bit more depth. First, look again at the Chesterton quote --
Next, let's pretend that we can't see the blatant intellectual dishonesty in Mr Reppert's pseudo-response to my question concerning how far he's willing to stand by the principle he seemed to approve when he first quoted Chesterton. That is, let's look at what he's *really* saying, which is, by the classic "reasoning" of leftist pseudo-Christianity, to accuse me and all conservatives of being "selfish" and "greedy".
AND, let's pretend that the accusation really is true (*).
SO, the question is: Part #1 Is "greed" or "selfishness" really a sin? Part #2: And if it is a sin, is it one that can with-safety to men's freedom be made a crime; or, is it one of the things best left to God?
Now, the answer to Part #1 is: "No". To be more precise, actual greed is sinful; but leftists aren't referring to actual greed when they accuse others of being "greedy".
And the answer to Part #2 is: again, "No". If we were talking about actual greed, it is a sin that cannot safely be made criminal, and so it must be left to God. MOREOVER, as we are talking about the letftist's false use of the word, that danger to others' freedom is precisely their object.
(*) At the same time, do keep in mind that Mr Reppert had publically bitched about the "unfairness" of *his* taxes increasing after he supported the policies and voted for the politicians that were supposedly going to "make the 'rich' pay their 'fair' share".
=================
Apparently, the price of Mr Reppert's soul was the (unsustainable) promise of "free", or at least subsidized, health insurance (not even "care", just "insurance") ... to be paid for by others under threat of death at the hands of agents of The State.
This is where those promises will lead (I said 'lead', not 'end'; the end will be even worse) (*). Let us pray, and I mean this in all Christian concern for his immortal soul, that when his "free" "health care" comes to put him down, he doesn't waste his breath protesting, "But I don't want to die", but rather that he repents of the sinful horror that he has willingly and wilfully helped to set up.
(*) Oddly enough, Mr Reppert seems to object to that totally predictable stage on the Road to Hell; at any rate, so long as it is "greedy" corporations making the calls.
1) see here
2) and here
3) and here
4) and here
5) and here
6) and here
7) and here ).
In the comment I have numbered #6, VR said:
The following two positions are consistent with one another.I blew that "reasoning" out of the water --
1) Abortion is murder.
2) The Constitution, properly interpreted, makes it unconstitutional to outlaw abortion.
The arguments for 1 are never identical to the arguments against 2. Arguments supporting 1 do not prove that 2 is false. So 1 and 2 are compatible.
VR, doubling down now that he's off the fence: "The following two positions are consistent with one another."And, of course (since he's off the fence), he totally ignored that I had shown his "reasoning" to be false, and instead made a new OP based on it.
No, they aren't.
The Constitution says: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Murder can never be "constitutional"
(*) That is, as we in America misuse the term "liberal" since the "progressives" hijacked it some decades ago after calling themselves "progressive" had become a political liability, for as long as I've know him he has been a "liberal". As such, he could always be counted on to eventually toe the leftist party line, no matter the demand.
========
So, that brings up up-to-date for the subject of this post.
Recently, Mr Reppert quoted Chesterton:
“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.” Chesterton (1935).To which I replied:
Is a free man free to keep the wealth he produces and to use it as he sees fit, rather than to have it confiscated by vote-buying politicians?
To which, in that intellectually dishonest way we all cherish about leftists, he replied (in a new OP)
Ilion: Is a free man free to keep the wealth he produces and to use it as he sees fit, rather than to have it confiscated by vote-buying politicians?Now that he's off the fence, look for continued (and amped-up) leftist irrationality from Mr Reppert, and also more intellectual dishonesty as displayed in the above "response".
VR: Sure! So, let us say that you can afford to defend yourself against ISIS terrorists and dangerous foreign governments. You earned the money to do so, after all. But the bleeding-heart vote-buying politicians who run the government want to confiscate your money so that they can defend not only you, but all those welfare queens in the middle and lower classes, who, after all, only want to be defended against terrorism using other people's money. And why, in the name of Ayn Rand, should they be allowed to do such a thing?
Non-exhaustively --
1) Defense of the people it rules against outside aggression is one of the (few) legitimate actions of *any* government; and, in fact, governments lose legitimacy when they refuse to do so (and, eventually, such governments cease to exist);
2) No one -- except leftists -- denies that it is a legitimate, and indeed necessary function of the US federal government to defend the people it rules against outside aggressors, such as ISIS;
3) And, in fact, Mr Reppert and his fellow leftists are working overtime to make it impossible for the US federal government to perform its few and explicitly enumnerated functions, such as defending the people it rules against outside aggressors, while piling on unsustainable demands that it perform functions what are wholly outside it perview;
4) Ayn Rand? Seriously?
=================
Edit:
Now let's look at this in a bit more depth. First, look again at the Chesterton quote --
“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.” Chesterton (1935).What Chesterton is doing is illuminating the very Christian (and "conservative") principle that not all sins can safely be made crimes.
Next, let's pretend that we can't see the blatant intellectual dishonesty in Mr Reppert's pseudo-response to my question concerning how far he's willing to stand by the principle he seemed to approve when he first quoted Chesterton. That is, let's look at what he's *really* saying, which is, by the classic "reasoning" of leftist pseudo-Christianity, to accuse me and all conservatives of being "selfish" and "greedy".
AND, let's pretend that the accusation really is true (*).
SO, the question is: Part #1 Is "greed" or "selfishness" really a sin? Part #2: And if it is a sin, is it one that can with-safety to men's freedom be made a crime; or, is it one of the things best left to God?
Now, the answer to Part #1 is: "No". To be more precise, actual greed is sinful; but leftists aren't referring to actual greed when they accuse others of being "greedy".
And the answer to Part #2 is: again, "No". If we were talking about actual greed, it is a sin that cannot safely be made criminal, and so it must be left to God. MOREOVER, as we are talking about the letftist's false use of the word, that danger to others' freedom is precisely their object.
(*) At the same time, do keep in mind that Mr Reppert had publically bitched about the "unfairness" of *his* taxes increasing after he supported the policies and voted for the politicians that were supposedly going to "make the 'rich' pay their 'fair' share".
=================
Apparently, the price of Mr Reppert's soul was the (unsustainable) promise of "free", or at least subsidized, health insurance (not even "care", just "insurance") ... to be paid for by others under threat of death at the hands of agents of The State.
This is where those promises will lead (I said 'lead', not 'end'; the end will be even worse) (*). Let us pray, and I mean this in all Christian concern for his immortal soul, that when his "free" "health care" comes to put him down, he doesn't waste his breath protesting, "But I don't want to die", but rather that he repents of the sinful horror that he has willingly and wilfully helped to set up.
(*) Oddly enough, Mr Reppert seems to object to that totally predictable stage on the Road to Hell; at any rate, so long as it is "greedy" corporations making the calls.
Continue reading ...
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
It!
Have you ever notice that the leftist "social justice warriors" (*) with their made-up "non-gender-binary" pronouns (**) -- which they insist that *you* must use (***) upon pain of condemnation -- never opt to simply apply the perfectly standard English neuter third person singlar pronoun to themselves? Why is that, I wonder?
(*) aka, "special juicebox wankers"
(**) People don't come in "genders", they come in sexes; and there are precisely two sexes.
On the other hand, depending on the language in question words may have gender, for 'gender' is a linguistic term, not a biological term. In many major world languages, *every* noun (and/or pronoun) has a gender.
On the other hand, and unlike many, or even most, languages in the world, English is essentially non-gendered -- in English, *only* the third person singlar pronouns, of which there are three, are gendered. With case declensions, these three pronouns are: masculine (he, him, his), feminine (she, her, hers), and neuter (it, it, its).
There may be a language in the world in which one uses a different first person pronoun, referring to oneself, depending upon one's sex. Not in English.
There may be a language in the world in which one uses a different second person pronoun, referring to the person to whom one is speaking, depending upon his (****) sex. Not in English.
There may be a language in the world in which one uses the same third person pronoun, referring to some person of whom one is speaking, irrespective of his (****) sex. Not in English.
The point here is that one uses the third person singlar pronouns to refer to a third person, not to address that person. To address an individual person, one uses the second person singlar pronoun: 'you', which is not gendered.
(***) Reportedly, some leftist jurisdictions, such as NYC, are working on legislation to make it illegal to use the correct English pronouns when referring to a third person.
(****) *GASP* I used the correct English pronoun 'his' to refer to a person of undetermined or irrelevant sex. How "sexist" of me!
(*) aka, "special juicebox wankers"
(**) People don't come in "genders", they come in sexes; and there are precisely two sexes.
On the other hand, depending on the language in question words may have gender, for 'gender' is a linguistic term, not a biological term. In many major world languages, *every* noun (and/or pronoun) has a gender.
On the other hand, and unlike many, or even most, languages in the world, English is essentially non-gendered -- in English, *only* the third person singlar pronouns, of which there are three, are gendered. With case declensions, these three pronouns are: masculine (he, him, his), feminine (she, her, hers), and neuter (it, it, its).
There may be a language in the world in which one uses a different first person pronoun, referring to oneself, depending upon one's sex. Not in English.
There may be a language in the world in which one uses a different second person pronoun, referring to the person to whom one is speaking, depending upon his (****) sex. Not in English.
There may be a language in the world in which one uses the same third person pronoun, referring to some person of whom one is speaking, irrespective of his (****) sex. Not in English.
The point here is that one uses the third person singlar pronouns to refer to a third person, not to address that person. To address an individual person, one uses the second person singlar pronoun: 'you', which is not gendered.
(***) Reportedly, some leftist jurisdictions, such as NYC, are working on legislation to make it illegal to use the correct English pronouns when referring to a third person.
(****) *GASP* I used the correct English pronoun 'his' to refer to a person of undetermined or irrelevant sex. How "sexist" of me!
Continue reading ...
Thursday, March 23, 2017
Iconic!
Sean L, commenting at the Gay Patriot blog -- "The picture of the Europeans standing over the victim and the African Muslim walking past had better become as iconic as the girl kneeling over the body of her fellow student at Kent State. No image better incapsulates the antipathy that the Muslim world feels towards the West."
Edit 2017/03/28:
See also
Edit 2017/03/26:
As 'Throbert McGee' said later in the comments, "... There’s no such thing as telepathy, and this photo — indeed, ANY photo — captures only a fraction of a second of information. (The photographer himself has attested that the woman in hijab seemed very shaken, despite seeming calm and aloof in that one particular image.)"
And of course it is true that a photo can be (and frequently is) misleading, sometimes intentionally. We have no idea what the woman captured in the photo was actually thinking -- but it's also utterly irrelevant what she was thinking, because this is not about *her*, it's about "the religion of pieces", of which she signals herself to be a member.
At the same time, does the photographer's impression that she, the individual, was "shaken" have any more to do with the truth of her mental state than my impression that while she may be annoyed at the momentary inconvenience of the result, she isn't morally outraged by the immorality of what her co-religionist(s) did? Especially now that the photo has been seen by millions -- the photographer is going to be under a lot of pressure from leftist virtue-signallers and "social justice warriors" ... and from agents of the British government ... to insist that the photo doesn't show what it appears to show. The answer is "No," because --
1) "There’s no such thing as telepathy";
2) and, once again, this is not about *her*, it's about "the religion of pieces", of which she signals herself to be a member.
Edit 2017/03/28:
See also
Edit 2017/03/26:
As 'Throbert McGee' said later in the comments, "... There’s no such thing as telepathy, and this photo — indeed, ANY photo — captures only a fraction of a second of information. (The photographer himself has attested that the woman in hijab seemed very shaken, despite seeming calm and aloof in that one particular image.)"
And of course it is true that a photo can be (and frequently is) misleading, sometimes intentionally. We have no idea what the woman captured in the photo was actually thinking -- but it's also utterly irrelevant what she was thinking, because this is not about *her*, it's about "the religion of pieces", of which she signals herself to be a member.
At the same time, does the photographer's impression that she, the individual, was "shaken" have any more to do with the truth of her mental state than my impression that while she may be annoyed at the momentary inconvenience of the result, she isn't morally outraged by the immorality of what her co-religionist(s) did? Especially now that the photo has been seen by millions -- the photographer is going to be under a lot of pressure from leftist virtue-signallers and "social justice warriors" ... and from agents of the British government ... to insist that the photo doesn't show what it appears to show. The answer is "No," because --
1) "There’s no such thing as telepathy";
2) and, once again, this is not about *her*, it's about "the religion of pieces", of which she signals herself to be a member.
Continue reading ...
'Comparative Advantage' Explained
David Friedman explains Comparative Advantage
Gentle Reader may recall that the notoriously dishonest 'Vox Day' likes to assert that 'comparative advantage' is a false theory (*), and that ergo 'free trade' is disadvantageous to one partner in the trade, namely the wealthier one (i.e. *us*), and that ergo, 'free trade' makes us less wealthy as a nation and as individuals, and that ergo protectionism -- that is, using the threat of government force and violence to compel most of us to subsidize a few of us (**) -- will make us wealthier as a nation and as individuals.
One of the things I wish Gentle Reader to notice about the above "logic" is the conflation, in tried-and-true leftist fashion, between the individual and the collective. This deliberate conflation is why I say that 'Vox Day' is a leftist, for all his claiming that his so-called "alt-right" is the *real* right. Given the direction of appeal to your passions, he is more a fascist than a communist; but fascism is just as much socialism and just as much "of the left" as communism is.
As I have explained before --
* If I buy a bottle of wine from my neighbor across the street, the conducted trade is between two actual individual human beings; surely even those who have never given such matters any thought can see that;
* If, however, I buy a bottle of wine from a producer in California, does the true situation change? Is the trade still between two actual individual human beings (albeit with some number of middle-men in between us for marketing and transport and so forth)? Or, has the trade somehow been elevated to some collective level, such that the trade is now actually between the State of Ohio and the State of California? Surely even those who have never given such matters any thought can see that nothing fundamental has changed about the trade itself, it is *still* one individual trading his money for another individual's goods; the difference is that now two (or more) government entities have become aware of the trade between the two individuals and consequently desire to tax it;
* But, suppose I decide instead to buy a bottle of wine from a producer in France. Has the true situation changed? Is the trade still between two actual individual human beings (albeit with some number of middle-men in between us for marketing and transport and so forth)? Or, has the trade somehow been elevated to some collective level, such that the trade is now actually between the United States of America and the Republic of France? Surely even those who have never given such matters any thought can see that nothing fundamental has changed about the trade itself, it is *still* one individual trading his money for another individual's goods; the difference is that now two (or more) government entities have become aware of the trade between the two individuals and consequently desire to tax it;
* ERGO: 'free trade' between nation-states is no more disadvantageous to anyone with a legitimate interest in the matter than 'free trade' between you and the guy across the street is. Whom 'free trade' is disadvantageous to are those individuals who are unwilling to offer to you some good or service you desire to buy at a price that you would freely choose to pay had you less expensive alternatives available. Thus, *those* individuals tend to demand 'protectionism'; that is, they demand that the state use the thread of force and violence-unto-death to prevent you from freely trading with the fellow who *is* unwilling to offer to you the good or service you desire to buy at a price that you would freely choose to pay given the available alternatives.
'Protectionism' is not about protecting *you*, and it will never "Make America Great Again". 'Protectionism' is about protecting the income-stream of the organized and politically connected few at the expense of the unorganized many. And *you* are in "the many", always.
(*) He asserts that 'comparative advantage' has been logically and empirically shown to be contrary-to-reality ... apparently, some guy somewhere waved his arms, and Presto! So, Gentle Reader, if you are unsure of what the concept 'comparative advantage' signifies, please do read Mr Friedman's discussion and illustrations of it.
(**) How did that very same reasoning work out for "green energy" and "ObamaCare"?
=========
On a related side note --
Given (as shown above) that governments do not engage in trade, but rather that individuals do, the "trade deficit" is a boogeyman.
If Americans collectively buy more goods and services from Frenchmen than Frenchmen buy from Americans, that fact itself does not harm the United States of America. If this state of affairs persists for a hundred years, it still does not harm the United States of America. If, after the one hundred years, certain Americans are so indebted to certain Frenchmen that they can no longer find lenders willing to lend them even more money to continue in the lifestyle to which they have grown accustomed, that still does not harm the United States of America.
What *will* harm the United States of America is if the living-beyond-their-means of some individual Americans -- no matter if those persons *never* buy foreign goods -- is subsidized by the government of the United States of America taking on debt so as to give them the money to continue to live beyond their means.
And that is the situation in which we find ourselves.
=========
On a second and very related side note --
Another conflation that the notoriously dishonest 'Vox Day' likes to assert in his quest to convince you to agree to economically hobble yourself ... and to do it to me via threat of government violence-unto death ... is between an actual human being and the labor of that human being. This is what he is doing when he joins (some) libertarians and "liberals" (i.e. the "progressive" dupes of the leftists) in asserting that the logic of 'free trade' entails a commitment to 'open borders' ... and thus to the destruction of one's very nation via demographic and cultural replacement.
Let us consider this:
If I buy a bottle of wine, I am not buying *only* fermented grape juice. Hell! I could ferment some grape juice, but it would not be wine (*), and I would not risk my health to consume it. No, if I buy a bottle of wine, I am also (and I would say *primarily*) buying the knowledge and labor of the producer.
So, whether I buy that bottle of wine from a Californian or from a Frenchman, I am also buying the knowledge and labor of that person; but I am not buying the person himself.
What the notoriously dishonest 'Vox Day' is asserting with his dishonest conflation of the labor for the laborer is that IF you allow me to import the labor of a Frenchman, THEN you must also allow me to import the Frenchman himself.
That, as the saying goes, does not follow. ERGO, the conflation if 'free trade' with 'open borders' is a lie.
(*) My parents used to buy and can produce, including grapes. Now and again, a jar didn't seal properly, and we'd end up with a jar of fermented grapes.
Gentle Reader may recall that the notoriously dishonest 'Vox Day' likes to assert that 'comparative advantage' is a false theory (*), and that ergo 'free trade' is disadvantageous to one partner in the trade, namely the wealthier one (i.e. *us*), and that ergo, 'free trade' makes us less wealthy as a nation and as individuals, and that ergo protectionism -- that is, using the threat of government force and violence to compel most of us to subsidize a few of us (**) -- will make us wealthier as a nation and as individuals.
One of the things I wish Gentle Reader to notice about the above "logic" is the conflation, in tried-and-true leftist fashion, between the individual and the collective. This deliberate conflation is why I say that 'Vox Day' is a leftist, for all his claiming that his so-called "alt-right" is the *real* right. Given the direction of appeal to your passions, he is more a fascist than a communist; but fascism is just as much socialism and just as much "of the left" as communism is.
As I have explained before --
* If I buy a bottle of wine from my neighbor across the street, the conducted trade is between two actual individual human beings; surely even those who have never given such matters any thought can see that;
* If, however, I buy a bottle of wine from a producer in California, does the true situation change? Is the trade still between two actual individual human beings (albeit with some number of middle-men in between us for marketing and transport and so forth)? Or, has the trade somehow been elevated to some collective level, such that the trade is now actually between the State of Ohio and the State of California? Surely even those who have never given such matters any thought can see that nothing fundamental has changed about the trade itself, it is *still* one individual trading his money for another individual's goods; the difference is that now two (or more) government entities have become aware of the trade between the two individuals and consequently desire to tax it;
* But, suppose I decide instead to buy a bottle of wine from a producer in France. Has the true situation changed? Is the trade still between two actual individual human beings (albeit with some number of middle-men in between us for marketing and transport and so forth)? Or, has the trade somehow been elevated to some collective level, such that the trade is now actually between the United States of America and the Republic of France? Surely even those who have never given such matters any thought can see that nothing fundamental has changed about the trade itself, it is *still* one individual trading his money for another individual's goods; the difference is that now two (or more) government entities have become aware of the trade between the two individuals and consequently desire to tax it;
* ERGO: 'free trade' between nation-states is no more disadvantageous to anyone with a legitimate interest in the matter than 'free trade' between you and the guy across the street is. Whom 'free trade' is disadvantageous to are those individuals who are unwilling to offer to you some good or service you desire to buy at a price that you would freely choose to pay had you less expensive alternatives available. Thus, *those* individuals tend to demand 'protectionism'; that is, they demand that the state use the thread of force and violence-unto-death to prevent you from freely trading with the fellow who *is* unwilling to offer to you the good or service you desire to buy at a price that you would freely choose to pay given the available alternatives.
'Protectionism' is not about protecting *you*, and it will never "Make America Great Again". 'Protectionism' is about protecting the income-stream of the organized and politically connected few at the expense of the unorganized many. And *you* are in "the many", always.
(*) He asserts that 'comparative advantage' has been logically and empirically shown to be contrary-to-reality ... apparently, some guy somewhere waved his arms, and Presto! So, Gentle Reader, if you are unsure of what the concept 'comparative advantage' signifies, please do read Mr Friedman's discussion and illustrations of it.
(**) How did that very same reasoning work out for "green energy" and "ObamaCare"?
=========
On a related side note --
Given (as shown above) that governments do not engage in trade, but rather that individuals do, the "trade deficit" is a boogeyman.
If Americans collectively buy more goods and services from Frenchmen than Frenchmen buy from Americans, that fact itself does not harm the United States of America. If this state of affairs persists for a hundred years, it still does not harm the United States of America. If, after the one hundred years, certain Americans are so indebted to certain Frenchmen that they can no longer find lenders willing to lend them even more money to continue in the lifestyle to which they have grown accustomed, that still does not harm the United States of America.
What *will* harm the United States of America is if the living-beyond-their-means of some individual Americans -- no matter if those persons *never* buy foreign goods -- is subsidized by the government of the United States of America taking on debt so as to give them the money to continue to live beyond their means.
And that is the situation in which we find ourselves.
=========
On a second and very related side note --
Another conflation that the notoriously dishonest 'Vox Day' likes to assert in his quest to convince you to agree to economically hobble yourself ... and to do it to me via threat of government violence-unto death ... is between an actual human being and the labor of that human being. This is what he is doing when he joins (some) libertarians and "liberals" (i.e. the "progressive" dupes of the leftists) in asserting that the logic of 'free trade' entails a commitment to 'open borders' ... and thus to the destruction of one's very nation via demographic and cultural replacement.
Let us consider this:
If I buy a bottle of wine, I am not buying *only* fermented grape juice. Hell! I could ferment some grape juice, but it would not be wine (*), and I would not risk my health to consume it. No, if I buy a bottle of wine, I am also (and I would say *primarily*) buying the knowledge and labor of the producer.
So, whether I buy that bottle of wine from a Californian or from a Frenchman, I am also buying the knowledge and labor of that person; but I am not buying the person himself.
What the notoriously dishonest 'Vox Day' is asserting with his dishonest conflation of the labor for the laborer is that IF you allow me to import the labor of a Frenchman, THEN you must also allow me to import the Frenchman himself.
That, as the saying goes, does not follow. ERGO, the conflation if 'free trade' with 'open borders' is a lie.
(*) My parents used to buy and can produce, including grapes. Now and again, a jar didn't seal properly, and we'd end up with a jar of fermented grapes.
Continue reading ...
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Sad little echo chamber
... populated by sad, pathetic PW'd "brave" "men"
I read Dalrock's blog from time to time, but have rarely commented there. Yesterday,
I commented in this thread ... and because it's a sad little echo chamber, populated by sad, pathetic PW'd un-men, some of them started shrieking like harpies about this comment --
Someone calling himself 'feministhater' replied
And, since doubled-down BS really torqes me, I replied
I see that one of the fools accused me of being someone who goes by the handle 'InsanityBytes', and the particular fool replied to that assertion with --
my response to the above --
the fool's response --
... and apparently Dalrock is afraid that I'll frighten the herd with some actual facts to counter their "game" cant.
So, here is what is I *would* say in response to the previous fool's foolish post --
me: "‘Hypergamy’ does not refer to [any of the various things for which you "gamer" fools use the word] ... What ‘hypergamy’ *does* refer to [is what is colloquially called "marrying up"] ... ‘Hypergamy’ is a *good* thing."
some pathetic PW'd fool: "It is female nature. It is not good."
The fool is insisting on misusing the term 'hypergamy' to refer to the tendency of modern "strong, independent" women -- to which they were trained up from birth in this sexually perverse society, perverted by the leftist variant called 'feminism' -- to never *commit* to one-and-only-one man.
One: even when the term 'hypergamy' is used correctly, it is not part of the nature of women to "marry up"; it's advantageous to do so, which is quite a different thing from being innate nature.
Two: if it were indeed a woman’s nature to never *commit* to one-and-only-one man, then why doesn't that really make women happy? How can it be that living/behaving according to what is asserted to be the nature of women does not make women happy in the long run, but in fact, generally makes them miserable?
some pathetic PW'd fool: "As a man’s nature is to spread his seed."
One: by "spread his seed", the fool does not mean fathering and rearing children; he means using women as sterile cum dumps.
Two: if it were indeed "a man’s nature is to spread his seed", then why doesn't that really make men happy? How can it be that living/behaving according to what is asserted to be the nature of men does not make men happy in the long run, but in fact, generally makes them miserable?
I read Dalrock's blog from time to time, but have rarely commented there. Yesterday,
I commented in this thread ... and because it's a sad little echo chamber, populated by sad, pathetic PW'd un-men, some of them started shrieking like harpies about this comment --
hooked on cant (*): “I’d also be curious to see a successful marriage where the husband doesn’t somehow acknowledge and cope with his wife’s hypergamous nature.”(*) 'hooked on cant' is part of my comment on the post to which I was responding; the guy called himself 'God Is Laughing'
You poor, poor, “gamers” and your invented cant.
‘Hypergamy’ does not refer to slutishness (of which you “gamers” approve … until it bites you in the ass).
‘Hypergamy’ does not refer to the state of living your life as though life itself, and marriage, were a meat-market singles bar.
‘Hypergamy’ does not refer to the mindset of treating your “commitments” as disposable.
——-
What ‘hypergamy’ *does* refer to is the near-universal desire-and-need of women who wish to rear children to marry men with more resources than they themselves have.
‘Hypergamy’ is a *good* thing.
Someone calling himself 'feministhater' replied
‘Hypergamy’ is a *good* thing.
It is female nature. It is not good. As a man’s nature is to spread his seed. The contention is that once you make a vow, you are to control your base nature and keep those vows. It’s about control. The practice of hypergamy, that is monkey branching, is not good, it is not right to leave a husband because the wife thinks she found a better deal.
This is nonsense, part of it is made up words for what is usually called ‘greed and selfishness’. You made a vow, stick to it, through thick and thin. That is what makes something good. The time for a woman trying to pick the best possible husband is when she is young, fertile and not married. Once the choice is made, bar very strict criteria, the vow is to be kept.
Destroying a marriage and thus a family because of the hypergamous nature of women is not a good thing. It is bad and evil. Get it through your heads, call them out on their shit or don’t complain. Stop making evil things good, this is a curse handed out by God for the disobedience of Eve. They are evil traits that are to be controlled through marriage.
And, since doubled-down BS really torqes me, I replied
me: “‘Hypergamy’ is a *good* thing.”
feminismlover: “It is female nature. It is not good.”
So, it’s “female nature” to seek to secure the best available father for her future children *before* she has them …*and* somehow that’s not a good thing. Gotcha!
feminismlover: “As a man’s nature is to spread his seed.”
That isn’t actually true; that is a lie promulgated by the sexually perverse men who invented feminism in the forst place as a means to use other men’s daughters as consequence-free sexual play-things.
feminismlover: “The practice of hypergamy, that is monkey branching, is not good, it is not right to leave a husband because the wife thinks she found a better deal.”
That is not what the term actually means. That’s the twisted cant you “gammer” fools have invented.
You people don’t *hate* feminism nor the so-called sexual revolution; what you hate is that *you* (you, personally, yourself) turned out to be the “useful idiot”.
I see that one of the fools accused me of being someone who goes by the handle 'InsanityBytes', and the particular fool replied to that assertion with --
It is actually Insanity bytes. As soon as the words ‘That isn’t actually true; that is a lie promulgated by the sexually perverse men who invented feminism in the forst place as a means to use other men’s daughters as consequence-free sexual play-things.’ all was revealed.It has always seemed to me that those who are so quick to accuse others of using sock-puppets do so because that's something they themselves would do.
Nice straw man, but you’re arguing against demons in your mind. Always have been. Sort out your own shit, don’t stay here. Go away.
my response to the above --
feminismlover: “… Go away.”
Translation: ‘Cause Heaven knows, the last thing this little echo chamber needs is someone able to speak truth.
the fool's response --
Oh yes, you are always here to speak the truth. You misrepresent, make up straw men and then pretend that you are telling the truth.
Fuck off, go away, no one wants or needs your bile here.
... and apparently Dalrock is afraid that I'll frighten the herd with some actual facts to counter their "game" cant.
So, here is what is I *would* say in response to the previous fool's foolish post --
me: "‘Hypergamy’ does not refer to [any of the various things for which you "gamer" fools use the word] ... What ‘hypergamy’ *does* refer to [is what is colloquially called "marrying up"] ... ‘Hypergamy’ is a *good* thing."
some pathetic PW'd fool: "It is female nature. It is not good."
The fool is insisting on misusing the term 'hypergamy' to refer to the tendency of modern "strong, independent" women -- to which they were trained up from birth in this sexually perverse society, perverted by the leftist variant called 'feminism' -- to never *commit* to one-and-only-one man.
One: even when the term 'hypergamy' is used correctly, it is not part of the nature of women to "marry up"; it's advantageous to do so, which is quite a different thing from being innate nature.
Two: if it were indeed a woman’s nature to never *commit* to one-and-only-one man, then why doesn't that really make women happy? How can it be that living/behaving according to what is asserted to be the nature of women does not make women happy in the long run, but in fact, generally makes them miserable?
some pathetic PW'd fool: "As a man’s nature is to spread his seed."
One: by "spread his seed", the fool does not mean fathering and rearing children; he means using women as sterile cum dumps.
Two: if it were indeed "a man’s nature is to spread his seed", then why doesn't that really make men happy? How can it be that living/behaving according to what is asserted to be the nature of men does not make men happy in the long run, but in fact, generally makes them miserable?
Continue reading ...
Monday, March 20, 2017
Courting vs Dating
What is the difference between courting a woman and 'dating' a woman (or, rather, a girl who may be chronologically adult)?
Courting is *explicitly* aimed at marriage. When a man is courting a woman, he is *explicitly* announcing that he thinks she is a suitable marriage partner; the fact of the courtship is to get to know one another well enough to decide whether to make the mutual commitment.
On the other hand, 'dating' isn't aimed at anything. Well, at its (limited) best it isn't aimed at anything (*); usually it is aimed at getting her (**) in the sack for no-committment sex.
(*) "Let's see where this goes" is not a plan, and it rarely leads to success. Men and women being men and women, "where this goes" generally turns out to be the back seat of a car, or some similarly ridiculous place to "make love". And that generally leads to getting married to an unsuitable person, which then generally leads to divorce.
(**) Edit: I don't mean to imply that women don't also try to use men for less than noble ends, including using them as walking dildos.
Courting is *explicitly* aimed at marriage. When a man is courting a woman, he is *explicitly* announcing that he thinks she is a suitable marriage partner; the fact of the courtship is to get to know one another well enough to decide whether to make the mutual commitment.
On the other hand, 'dating' isn't aimed at anything. Well, at its (limited) best it isn't aimed at anything (*); usually it is aimed at getting her (**) in the sack for no-committment sex.
(*) "Let's see where this goes" is not a plan, and it rarely leads to success. Men and women being men and women, "where this goes" generally turns out to be the back seat of a car, or some similarly ridiculous place to "make love". And that generally leads to getting married to an unsuitable person, which then generally leads to divorce.
(**) Edit: I don't mean to imply that women don't also try to use men for less than noble ends, including using them as walking dildos.
Continue reading ...
Thursday, March 9, 2017
Security!
I went down to the county court house this past Monday to pay my property taxes (*). Before I could get into the building, I had to go through one of those security kabuki check-points -- empty my pockets into a plastic tray for one of the (supposedly) armed (overweight) middle-aged employees of the county sherrif to send through a scanner while I walked through another.
It's the same thing at the city building, and it has more public entrances.
Multiply this by all (or most) of the public buildings in the USA.
This is leftist "reasoning": rather than just prohibiting Moslems -- who are the hands-down overwhelming perpetrators of terrorism worldwide -- from entering the USA, we must pretend -- at great expense and waste of resources -- that all Americans are potential terrorists.
It's like after the 2000 elections didn't go in the Democrats' favor. The Democrats (i.e. the "Evil Party", controled by leftist haters of America) pretended that the simple paper punch ballots we had been using for decades were "too confusing" (for Democrat voters) ... and so, at great expense and waste of resources, we now have those damned electronic voting stations all over the country, which constantly malfuncion (seemingly always in favor of the Democrats) ... and of which after the 2016 elections didn't go in the Democrats' favor they claimed were "hacked" by the Russians.
It's like the motto of the leftists is, "There is no "problem" that a little (disingenuous) ingenuity can't make worse!"
(*) I have no income, but the tax man will still confiscate my property if I don't pay up. It's like a Mafia thing.
It's the same thing at the city building, and it has more public entrances.
Multiply this by all (or most) of the public buildings in the USA.
This is leftist "reasoning": rather than just prohibiting Moslems -- who are the hands-down overwhelming perpetrators of terrorism worldwide -- from entering the USA, we must pretend -- at great expense and waste of resources -- that all Americans are potential terrorists.
It's like after the 2000 elections didn't go in the Democrats' favor. The Democrats (i.e. the "Evil Party", controled by leftist haters of America) pretended that the simple paper punch ballots we had been using for decades were "too confusing" (for Democrat voters) ... and so, at great expense and waste of resources, we now have those damned electronic voting stations all over the country, which constantly malfuncion (seemingly always in favor of the Democrats) ... and of which after the 2016 elections didn't go in the Democrats' favor they claimed were "hacked" by the Russians.
It's like the motto of the leftists is, "There is no "problem" that a little (disingenuous) ingenuity can't make worse!"
(*) I have no income, but the tax man will still confiscate my property if I don't pay up. It's like a Mafia thing.
Continue reading ...
Secularism!
Shadow to Light: "Does Secularism Make You More Vulnerable to Mental Illness?
I haven’t given this topic a lot of consideration, but the correlation between secularism and mental illness does seem worthy of further examination."
Of course being a secularist makes one more "vulnerable" to mental illness. This is because the foundational rationale of promulgating and ultimately imposing secularism upon society is a deliberate lie -- "You can't/shouldn't legislate morality!"
That above two-pronged claim is both incoherent and self-refuting; consider --
"You shouldn't legislate morality" -- This assertion is not only false, but is itself a moral claim. Thus, as a legislative prescription, it is self-refuting.
"You can't legislate morality" -- This assertion is false; and it is a deliberate lie: the people (i.e. generally leftists and 'atheists') who promote this have no intention of "not legislating morality" once they gain power ... for that is impossible in any event. Rather, they what to bamboozle people with a (relatively) normal moral compass into believing the lie, as a step on the way to imposing their own twisted morality upon those same people.
=======
There is *always* a "god of the system"; and if that god isn't the Creator of men, it will be a creation of men; if that god isn't the God who feeds men, it will be a god who feeds off men.
To legislate *just is* it impose someone's moral conceptions upon the society ruled by that legislature; there is no such thing as moral neutrality ... and the people (i.e. generally leftists and 'atheists') pretending to advocate for moral neutrality know this, and have no intention of abiding by their claims of moral neutrality once they have power over your lives. Just look at what they have been doing (in merely the USA) in the past few years, before they even have the full control over State violence that they seek.
So: "Does Secularism Make You More Vulnerable to Mental Illness?"
Answer: Does trying to live contrary to reality "make you more vulnerable to mental illness"? Or: Is trying to live contrary to reality evidence that one is *already* mentally ill?
I haven’t given this topic a lot of consideration, but the correlation between secularism and mental illness does seem worthy of further examination."
Of course being a secularist makes one more "vulnerable" to mental illness. This is because the foundational rationale of promulgating and ultimately imposing secularism upon society is a deliberate lie -- "You can't/shouldn't legislate morality!"
That above two-pronged claim is both incoherent and self-refuting; consider --
"You shouldn't legislate morality" -- This assertion is not only false, but is itself a moral claim. Thus, as a legislative prescription, it is self-refuting.
"You can't legislate morality" -- This assertion is false; and it is a deliberate lie: the people (i.e. generally leftists and 'atheists') who promote this have no intention of "not legislating morality" once they gain power ... for that is impossible in any event. Rather, they what to bamboozle people with a (relatively) normal moral compass into believing the lie, as a step on the way to imposing their own twisted morality upon those same people.
=======
There is *always* a "god of the system"; and if that god isn't the Creator of men, it will be a creation of men; if that god isn't the God who feeds men, it will be a god who feeds off men.
To legislate *just is* it impose someone's moral conceptions upon the society ruled by that legislature; there is no such thing as moral neutrality ... and the people (i.e. generally leftists and 'atheists') pretending to advocate for moral neutrality know this, and have no intention of abiding by their claims of moral neutrality once they have power over your lives. Just look at what they have been doing (in merely the USA) in the past few years, before they even have the full control over State violence that they seek.
So: "Does Secularism Make You More Vulnerable to Mental Illness?"
Answer: Does trying to live contrary to reality "make you more vulnerable to mental illness"? Or: Is trying to live contrary to reality evidence that one is *already* mentally ill?
Continue reading ...
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Activism!
Shadow To Light: The Cult of Activism "Over the last few years, I have noticed a common thread among the influential, prolific, and/or very public activists – they are unemployed. And because they are unemployed, they seek money through their activism in the form of speeches, books, donations, etc. That’s how they support themselves."
The essential prerequisite of being an "activist" is the desire to "change the world." Or, to put that more bluntly (and more honestly) -- the essential prerequisite of being an "activist" is the desire to change other people ... coupled with the sure knowledge of how those other people need to live their lives.
So, given that, it's rather ludicrous, don't you think, to expect an "activist" to seek out and hold down an actual job to support herself (*)? Why, if an "activist" attended to her own business, however would she find the time to attend to yours?
(*) do you see what I did there?
The essential prerequisite of being an "activist" is the desire to "change the world." Or, to put that more bluntly (and more honestly) -- the essential prerequisite of being an "activist" is the desire to change other people ... coupled with the sure knowledge of how those other people need to live their lives.
So, given that, it's rather ludicrous, don't you think, to expect an "activist" to seek out and hold down an actual job to support herself (*)? Why, if an "activist" attended to her own business, however would she find the time to attend to yours?
(*) do you see what I did there?
Continue reading ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
