Friday, July 21, 2017

Think Tank Libertarians Sing The 'We're Not Racist Song!'

John Lott was the first to bring this to my attention, but others soon followed.

What Nancy MacLean's Democracy in Chains Gets Wrong in Her Zeal to Condemn James Buchanan: New at Reason

Another Misleading Quotation in Nancy MacLean’s “Democracy in Chains” -this one's from Cato, and as you can tell by the use of the word 'another' in the title, Cato, like most of these outfits have spilled pixels more than once on this stuff.

MacLean on James Buchanan: Fake History for an Age of Fake News. You can almost tell this is Mises.org just from the title, because it's using the 'fake news' meme, and is, obviously, the most friendly to the disenfranchised classes.

Public Choice Analysis a Scheme for Imposing Racist Oligarchy on the USA? Preposterous!. The Independent Institute- good old Robert Higgs.

I wonder if this will help them realize they've got to get this anti-racist crowd out of power and away from sharp implements. I live in a highly diverse neighborhood. I also don't watch T.V., but I can see who has the gigantic TV sets bleeding light out of their windows 24/7. I know these major networks are attempt to incite violence. It is a very simple issue, they thrive on chaos and war. The more crazy stuff going down, the more we are likely to tune into a 24hr news source in the hopes of finding out what's up.

The think tank libertarians tend to be in ivory towers, sharing space with the leftists. They also have spent way too much time signaling to their roommates that they ain't like the Trump supporters. But guess what guys, you don't get to choose. The left has branded thee racist.

They also brand IQ tests racist, and by bringing this up I hope to illuminate how hopeless this is. Libertarian policies would be fair, which means minorities would no longer enjoy the systematic favor they've had since the civil rights era. So, it's going to look bad.

We have to end anti-racism. We have to go back and repeal bad civil rights legislation, and 'fair' housing acts, and all sorts of garbage.

And it would be nice to have these libertarians, for once, to stop playing the disinterested academic, and help carry the fight.

Stop protesting about the stupid label, and point out it has nothing to do with the validity of the policy. Start noticing these leftists aren't playing by the same morality as most of the rest of us are playing with.

In many cases, the people who insult us with the word racist deserve derision. They certain do not deserve positions of power and this should be pointed out, should she be a professor of some kind. It simply would not do to have this idiot teach anyone anything.

This is, at the root, the same attempt to incite violence. Fight back guys. Nobody needs a point by point about how wrong she is.

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Make Babies A Requirement

It seems so much of the problem is anything requiring higher IQ encourages us to put off having babies. I can't really imagine have children without some sort of serious life change, because I would need enough money to keep them out of public school. In some ways, this is the folly of screwing with family formation; when I was younger I would have done it, and then spent a lot of youthful energy making it work.

In that way inertia works for you, rather than against. Right now, inertia and my general preference is to be alone. I get lonely sometimes, but ten minutes in a grocery store serves to squelch the desire to socialize.

But anyway, some have made hay about most European leaders being childless. Children should be required.

And once the education bubble blows up, maybe we get back to properly educating the educable, and there again- require children.

Especially with regard to women. With men, as was obvious in the past, we could generally expect they'd go get married. But you give a woman a phd, and suddenly she can't find a man. Hypergamy. Myopic Hypergamy, given the value of the phd these days.

Check for high IQ baby. Make sure the girls know licorice is bad during pregnancy.

Then there's church. I do wonder if even bishops ought to have been married and have had children at some point in their lives. I see too much stupidity. People get normalized to deviancy when normalcy isn't allowed. Because normalcy results in children, so it becomes obvious. But deviancy, and poor thinking leads to some retarded philosophies which then get passed on to the people.

Thursday, July 6, 2017

Incentives: CNN versus Moms

The corporate media needs to keep its advertisers happy.

Moms are moms. They are usually trying to keep their family happy.

So, some moms notice their kids react badly to vaccines. They feel bad about it, and sometimes one of them has an existing platform, or takes to blogging in order to let people know that vaccines might not be good for their children.

Now, this doesn't have to be about vaccines. There are mommy bloggers out there who do a grain-free diet and swear up and down their child's autism, eczema, or tendency to walk like a duck cleared right up after they took cereals out of their diet.

But it is about incentives. Moms may be wrong, but their incentives align with the damn point of freedom of speech, and freedom of the press- i.e. freedom to publish, which is precisely what CNN and the rest don't want. They don't want the competition.

Meanwhile, CNN's incentives are to make fun of the moms, and protect the interests of their advertisers. They'll talk about herd immunity without bothering to check if has ever been found in a population of vaccinated people. They'll talk about laws, they'll trash people who call for research, and won't do any reading into the research that does exist.

My understanding is that vaccines provide a transient immunity. Statistically it works out to about two years (at least for measles). So, since kids usually get vaccines, kids often are immune at the time they are most likely to get the disease. But if the immunity is transient, then it means mothers are not likely to be able to pass on immunity to babies too young to be immunized themselves.

Doctors do test for antibodies for a particular disease- I believe it is rubella, but I could be wrong- if the antibodies aren't there, they will vaccinate the mother to protect the baby. So, in some cases at least, transient immunity has been acknowledged. Often the response is booster shots for everyone. But, what about the original idea? With an immmune, breastfeeding mom, you can make sure the infants get to share in that immunity until they've grown enough of an immune system to handle things on their own. This beats having to get a shot ever two years for the rest of your life, doesn't it?

Oddly enough, when faced with the picture that vaccinations may have created in this country- one with low rates of these diseases, but a potentially large increase in danger for infants, the appropriate response might be for potential mothers and/or pregnant mothers to get vaccinated- except for the dangers to fertility and immune responses to modern vaccines that may cause harm. The adjuvants, the tendency to have multiple vaccinations at once- these are all bad news. Safer vaccines might bridge the gap.

But we can't get an accurate picture of what's going on. When an outbreak occurs, it appears we can't even get an honest picture. The media will just blame it one moms who don't vaccinate, rather than note the illnesses are coming from immigrants, and that the outbreaks often occur among vaccinated people.

It is simply in the media's interest to stonewall on this and any other subject that would cause problems for advertisers.

Wednesday, July 5, 2017

CNN Encourages Us All To Think About Legal Restrictions On Media Companies.

Within two years President Trump ought to be able to move so hard on the media that he'll make Lee Kuan Yew's (the former Singaporean leader) legal moves look trivial.

Whoever made that gif has freedom of speech, and ought not be browbeaten by some 'news' organization that can't be bothered to do actual news.

The media corporations make a lot of money from danger or the illusion of danger. This is why, despite plenty of evidence that Assad does not use chemical weapons on his own people, our media kept repeating the mantra that even Trump believed- at least enough to bomb some military airbase badly. Many of these journalists are supposedly anti-war and much more pro-international than red state/ alt-right sort of people, but rumors of war increase their profits, so they propagandize.

Poor Tulsi Gabbard can't get any air time, being pro-peace and the most obvious stumbling block to Hilary's desire to be the first woman (democrat) president.

Russia, Russia, Russia...

And now, in their arrogance, they go after some dude who made a gif.

They don't respect our rights, but they seem to spend way to much time whining about theirs. But the average American's incentive in trying to get whatever he believes the truth is out there just isn't the same as a corporation trying to make money. President Trump is making some of these outlets so much money he ought to send them a bill, but they are making that money taking advantage of fear.

So, going forward, I don't think we'll see much opposition to Singaporean style laws restricting news agencies and what they can do. Indeed, the more foolishness like this that we see, the more likely there will be grassroots enthusiasm for it.

And there will very likely be more foolishness, since CNN has irked the meme lords.

Monday, June 26, 2017

The Inglorious Return of PolyLogism

Ludwig Von Mises supposedly coined the term, but he was describing Marxism, and something he saw as essentially an error.

There is but one logic, yet the Marxists held that various peoples and classes had their own logic.

Well, although Mises was right in spirit, he may be wrong in fact.

Case in point- Robert Higgs, who I do believe has actually read Mises, thinks A Kind Word On Behalf Of The Mexicans is needed.

This sort of post actually bolsters Marx's argument because here we have a person who should theoretically know the gospel according to Mises. He should be able to tell that the constant discrimination against whites since the 60's, the violations of our freedom of association and private property, etc... has contributed to a growing sense of injustice.

He might even know that people ought not to be forced to bake cakes for people they don't want to bake cakes for, and shouldn't have to hire people they don't want to hire. Now, I have no doubt he could also hold forth for days on the supposed foolishness of making racist or genderist decisions when hiring people, but he still should be able to say people ought to have the ability do to so, and let the market decide whether or not that was a stupid idea.

But he doesn't. He wants us to give Mexicans a chance. Despite knowing the perniciousness of the state, he's allowing the framing of the state to influence his thinking.

Why?

He, and most libertarians are part of an academic class, and they are demonstrating the logic of that class. To the extent that they have any power at all, they derive it from maintaining the status quo that provides academia power. They do not derive any power from admitting in the face of a blooming white identity movement, that hey, yes, we should get rid of these equal housing laws so you guys can have your private property right and freedom of association rights back.


But the logic of the class says keep heaping up insults on that other class. The 'whites'. Keep pretending the people who are being discriminated against are being mean.

It just doesn't make any sense. Is logic, logic? Or are there many logics? If there is one logic, defend it. Why should the libertarian candidate be Gary Johnson, who couldn't even answer the cake baking question correctly? He ran around, probably high for the whole campaign, talking about racism too damn much. Does he not realize most libertarian people are white males?

But if there are many logics, then it's nothing but a fight amongst many identities. And we are going to see this more and more, unless some of these identities- and in this case especially I'll call out think-tank libertarian types- start defending the logic. I know they should, because I learned about freedom of association and private property from many of them.

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Weaponizing Libertarian Political Positions

Social Matter popped up recently with Destroy the Cartels, which reminded me of my own How To End The Drug War (And Win).

It also made me realise that I've been thinking of what are basically weaponized versions of libertarian thought.

In the link above, I talk about out competing the violent Mexicans- America already caused the violent Mexican problem by destroying the Columbians and the Carribean supply lines. You can take the air out of the Mexicans by taking over the trade and it's much easily to end such a trade if you own the supply- because then you know who is demanding it, and you can start making demand drop over the generations (or quickly if you just have to be all jackboot-ish about it).

Then there's going beyond the second amendment:
It is, however, within these governors' power to train and arm most of their citizens. Think about it. A lot of these guys are allegedly pro-gun too, and they can shift that debate, if every citizen who is able bodied and competent has a civic duty to keep and bear arms. Don't forget to supersede the gun-free zones, and, of course, everyone will need to be able to carry concealed.

That won't just knock the anti-gun crap off the table, it would develop a new class of people. Because not everybody is going to pass the test. And those who do form the new core of civil society.

Then there's one I know I've mentioned before but can't find: productivity is supposed to have something do with wages, but libertarians make the mistake of saying just stay out of the way. So we end up with the minimum wage- because the left never passes up a chance to legislate- and we end up with various departments in our businesses and organizations that are fundamentally political and have nothing to do with productivity. So, somehow managing to enforce the correlation between production and wages means being able to lower the wages of many contributors to leftist parties.

Most Economy of Scale Arguments Are Bogus In This Country, so you can feel pretty reasonable about ignoring them, although preferably not in the leftist way where you use the excuse of large companies to create the conditions for even larger companies. This is why Amazon exists- their 'economy of scale' and therefore size, is due entirely to government. Spreading government costs over the maximum number of transactions possible on the one hand, and using the debt backed dollar in low interest rate environment to destroy competition on the other. Not 'free market' at all, just the sort of wildfire bad governance spreads. We can not only let 'too big to fail' fail, we can also be reasonably sure the big are using government to take advantage and act accordingly.

Either we have private property and freedom of association or we don't. If we do have private property and freedom of association, then white nationalists can create their ethnostate. I don't know whether or not that is weaponizing libertarianism, but I do wish the damn libertarian party would have focused more on that rather than have a pot head call everyone racist for the entire campaign. But anyway, if the white nationalist can do it, so can anyone. And the goal can be anything, like a more Christian state, or a more environmentally appropriate one, etc... Or try to recreate Hong Kong or Singapore, but remember you need to solve the IQ conundrum or your precious 'free market' will fail at some point.

But anyway, I think a lot of the alt-right/neoreactionary stuff showed up as we worked through the implications of logic. If private property is this big deal, and distribution of labor is this other big deal, and evolution yet another big deal, then democracy is unacceptable. Owners decide what happens to their property, and property accrues to those with the skill to administrate it. The libertarian case for the ancient regimes in two fucking sentences. No, we can't just give it back- we may have old blood lines around, but they've all been tainted by the current environment, which favors the bureaucratic mind. But we've got to get back on track and hold to the track. Trump wants to get rid of the death tax; he wants families to be able to pass down their estates through the generations, and this may well be the most important policy of them all. Reduce the scope of 'public' government. Estates, and private property in general, are private governance. And from them we also derive competitive governance...

We can't really stop at nationalism. We've got to get off the modern state train entirely.

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Mueller's Incentives

There's always an incentive to run with this thing- taking down a president brings with it a huge reputation. So guys are tempted to stick with such an investigation, long past the obvious time to put this away.

Then, there's is also D.C. Mueller is in D.C. He likes to deal with D.C. people. He probably knows he'll get many kudos from other D.C. people who don't want the swamp drained.

But Mueller also ought to want to do the right thing, which is stop this fucking circus. Of the ten thousand investigations that need to be going on in D.C., this is not one of them.

By doing the right thing Mueller can also become that one guy Trump, Sessions and others will trust. Is that a good idea in D.C.? I suppose it depends on who you think will win. If Trump loses, it will because he was timid. He keeps trying to behave himself. He consults with lawyers. He hasn't thrown large numbers of bureaucrats in jail- which is practically necessary. You can't stop a criminal conspiracy while the conspirators are in charge of things, and you can't know who specifically is criminal until they are all vetted.

Kind of sucks, but, we are seeing this crap now. The Russia thing is dead, warmed over twice. And yet, supposedly, the investigation is widening, even unto obstruction of justice. Just how stupid do these people think we are?

Which brings me back to Mueller. Perhaps these idiotic journalists are doing him a disservice. He has a choice, and it should be to end this damn nonsense.

Perhaps he will, assuming he realizes his own reputation is at stake here.