Friday, July 21, 2017

But What About His Tax Returns?

The recent post There Will Be No Obituary for the Left stated
This is all they have left. You don't throw those kinds of hail mary's unless you're completely desperate and the clock is running out. Today my google news feed said nothing about what was the biggest and virtually only story in the news just two days ago. Instead, I saw something about Sessions Russia connections (lol) and a story about how the CBO says Trump's budget won't balance. They're either going back to old news that already went no where (seriously waiting to start hearing about tax returns again soon) or giving, gasp, valid and deserved criticism of Trump's policies.
This was done somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but recall, the left can no longer be satirized. From my Google news feed today.


Satire and prediction have become one and the same. They've circled back around. It's back to Taxes Taxes Taxes. Will Rachel Maddow be vindicated after all? I wonder how far they'll regress. Do you think they'll go all the way back to Trump has no mathematical chance to win the Republican primary? Actually, that's probably a fair prediction. At some point, we'll hear up and down about Trump's stiff primary competition from some National Review favored neocon. Expect that soon after the 2018 Congressional elections are wrapped up.

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Welfare Warfare

Border battles are heating up in the EU. The major entry point into Europe for "refugees" has been the Italian Coast Guard, who "rescue" the migrants from the Mediterranean, as Zerohedge reported on the process late last year.
NGOs, smugglers, the mafia in cahoots with the European Union have shipped thousands of illegals into Europe under the pretext of rescuing people, assisted by the Italian coast guard which coordinated their activities.

Human traffickers  contact the Italian coast guard in advance to receive support and to pick up their dubious cargo. NGO ships are directed to the “rescue spot” even as those to be rescued are still in Libya. The 15 ships that we observed are owned or leased by NGOs have regularly been seen to leave their Italian ports, head south, stop short of reaching the Libyan coast, pick up their human cargo, and take course back 260 miles to Italy even though the  port of Zarzis in Tunis is just 60 mile away from the rescue spot.
Here is a map of the rescue zone.


The migrant boats are usually unpowered with no chance to make it to Europe. Smugglers call the Italian coast guard and then drag the life boats out to the nearest waters that can be considered international. The Italians, afraid of being called racists, dutifully perform the daring rescue operation and haul them up to Sicily. By the thousands per day.

This was all prophesied by Gadaffi before Obama/Clinton saw to his brutal murder.
There are millions of blacks who could come to the Mediterranean to cross to France and Italy, and Libya plays a role in security in the Mediterranean.
Italy is not the preferred destination of most migrants. They try to get to the most lucrative welfare states, particularly Germany and Britain. However, many of the migrants remain in limbo in Italy, unable to legally cross into the other countries. The migrants are responding to the incentives provided by northern European countries, but are backlogging in southern Europe. Italy, under great strain by the migrants, is now threatening to unleash up to 200,000 migrants into the Schengen zone by issuing them temporary humanitarian visas. They surely feel they'd be justified, as they are bearing the brunt of the migrant invasion, yet on the other hand they're the ones steaming down to Africa every day to provide free ferry rides to Europe.

Austria has responded, and here's where it gets good, by threatening to militarily shut their border with Italy.
Austria has warned it will send soldiers to close the border with Italy in 24 hours if Rome decides to take the "nuclear option" and grant visas to almost 100,000 migrants stranded in the Mediterranean country.
What a difference a year or two makes. In 2015 Europe threw open their borders in the most egregious display of virtue signaling the world had ever experienced. Anyone who even hesitated to show support was labeled a racist. Most on the right predicted what would happen. The cultural enrichment would soon wear out its welcome, European society would begin to fracture at the seams, the Schengen agreement (and likely the entire EU) would be destroyed, and eventually we'd see the return of civil war to Europe.

And now, just two years later, we have European countries bailing out of the EU and threatening to use their armies for their intended purpose: defending national borders. Talk about a continental schism. In many European countries it is actually illegal to criticize the migrants or migration policies on social media, yet other countries are mobilizing troops to stop the invasion. The good news is that Europeans seem to be transitioning from the heart-warming sentiment of all immigration is good to the realization that there is some limit to how much immigration may be permitted. Now they're just haggling over numbers.

In the meantime, European countries are stuck playing hot potato with the transcontinental guests seeking to leech off welfare. They're playing blackmail with blacks. The gravest threat that can be made to a European country is to flood them with migrants, whom they will be compelled to house and feed. Austria is taking the threat so serious they are willing to militarize their border. It's only been two years. One wonders where we'll be in another two.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Parasitic Degeneracy

When we talk about degeneracy in modern society, we are using the proper term. The first definition I could find for the term degenerate is,
Having declined, as in function or nature, from a former or original state.
That seems about right. Broadly speaking, there seem to be two types of societal degeneracy. Technical degeneracy would be the decline of a society's technology, organizational structures, and infrastructure. Technical degeneracy is typically caused by entropy when a society's energy allocation can no longer fuel societal complexity, as described by Joseph Tainter, which he terms as collapse.

The second type is cultural degeneracy and that is what we tend to mean when we talk about degeneracy. The driver of cultural degeneracy, at least as far as we're seeing in our own society, is the mindset of moral relativism; that no moral code can be considered superior to any other. Under moral relativism, the highest sin is to judge another. Fat shaming, slut shaming, and "homophobia" are phrases used like accusations of crime. Looking down on another's lack of virtue, a vital function in a healthy society, is now castigated as oppression. Social order can no longer exist because the imposition of even basic norms of behavior requires infringing on the sacred individual's right to unlimited moral license. This is easy to see in America. In the most tolerant locations, the bums just defecate on the sidewalks and no one dares stop them.

Cultural degeneracy destroys the society. We've not only reached the point at which degeneracy is normalized, but have actually gone past that mark. In normal degeneracy, we are forced to tolerate bad behavior. The next step is parasitic degeneracy, in which we are forced to subsidize bad behavior. Before, it was oppression to not permit low behavior. Now it's oppression to not fund it. We must provide sex-change operations to help people destroy their reproductive organs. We must buy syringes for druggies so they don't get sick. We must pay for those who resort to abortions in lieu of birth control (which we also must pay for). And so on.

The mantra of parasitic degenerates is if you don't pay for me to engage in behavior you disagree with you are guilty of the high sin of oppression. It sounds stupid, of course, but half of your fellow countrymen have been brow-beaten, shamed, and guilt-tripped into adopting this mindset. The Communist Manifesto states that the bourgeoisie will supply the rope with which they will be hanged. Well, isn't that what's happening?

It may seem that parasitic degeneracy implies funding anti-societal behavior among the low-lifes and basket cases, but it is not limited to that sector. One of the more visible symbols of this behavior in action can be found these days in the White House Press Corps. First, it's an outrage that the Press Corps exists at all. It's open bribery for the White House to curry favor from those charged with providing some level of public oversight to the government. That's corruption, but now things are much worse. What's the one thing worse than the government paying bribes to get what it wants? The government paying bribes to get the opposite of what it wants. The Press Corps members, paid a government salary, are in open revolt against the current government. Their behavior is reprehensible. It's all theater so these ideologically possessed maniacs can repetitiously fire off barbed questions at the president's spokesmen for the sole purpose of demonstrating how hostile they were. It's despicable, and yet if Trump were to dismantle the Press Corps (which he should) we would hear for weeks nonstop that he had subjugated the free press like a 3rd world dictator. By refusing to pay them for their vicious behavior. Clearly, parasitic degeneracy permeates our society, from the very bottom to the very top.

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Imagine

I heard a nice folk version of John Lennon's song Imagine as I was driving my daughter to daycare. The song could easily have been called Anthem of the Left. It has always struck me, even when I was young, as an ode to communism, but perhaps more accurately it is an example of pure r-selected yearnings. Imagine no competition.

It seems fitting to have heard the song on the way to daycare. Another phrase for imagine is play pretend, which is exactly what kids do all day at daycare. My daughter's new thing is she sees fairies at daycare, and sometimes at home too. It's adorable, because she's 3. If she was 33 it would be a manifestation of some madness.

Yet what we have today is a lot of adults who like to play pretend. Imagine no countries or possessions. So imagine global communism. Communism is theoretically intractable and has failed every time it has been tried. But you can't explain these things to liberals. Liberals are like children. They mostly engage in throwing tantrums, name-calling, violence & lack of self-control, demanding allowances, rebelling against authority figures, creating scary bogeymen, making impossible demands, and, most of all, playing pretend.

Imagine. It's the perfect song for the children of the left. Our major goal as a society should be to provide them a sandbox to play in.

Monday, July 17, 2017

Maximum Hyperbole

This came up on my facebook feed the other day, posted by a liberal friend. It wasn't a viral meme or anything, just something he wrote. But it struck me as being the most hyperbolic thing I've ever read. I used to comment on these things. In this case, I was able to quickly create a 3-point rebuttal to dismantle the notion. But what's the point? At some point it feels like lecturing the neighbor's dog not to bark on a Sunday afternoon. The dog's going to bark regardless, and from a certain perspective it makes sense for the dog to bark.


I realize that there is no real need to go into this for most readers here. But one of the major benefits of writing a blog is it's therapeutic value, like a journal. One can put the rebuttal out for people who might appreciate it, while not annoying those who can't be bothered to think. Lincoln used to write letters to people who were annoying him and then not mail them. I can guarantee you that if he was alive today he would be a prolific blogger writing under a pseudonym. At any rate, my 3-point rebuttal.
  1. The Republicans opposing the bill come from the conservative wing, not the liberal. That in itself is all you need to know. (And, in fact, the defection today of two more conservative senators doomed it to the waste bin, where it properly belongs.) They might respond that no liberal Democrats support the bill, but that only means that they are all, every one of them, partisan hacks who don't know what's good for them. They won't support any legislation proposed by Republicans. They would probably reject single-payer healthcare if it came from the wrong side of the aisle. The Republican plan is not repeal; it is rename. The major tenets of Obamacare remain. The government has still declared lordship over one sixth of the American economy. The Senate bill keeps all that in place, but renames it and makes it a Republican program. So the left keeps, conservatively, 90% of their favored policy, while all the downside is pushed over into their opponent's court. No savvy businessman would ever turn down such a sweet deal. The Republican say "we'll give you liberal healthcare and take all the blame when it fails." And the Democrats despise it! Their lack of leadership is laughable. On the other hand, we can reasonably blame the failure of the bill on Trump. No, he didn't invent the healthcare fiasco, but at some point he changed his campaign promise from Repeal to Repeal & Replace. He clearly did so to try not to scare off the blue-collar Rust Belt Democrats who ended up giving him the election, but at the cost of not being able to actually carry out the promise of substantial reform. Still, no change in policy is our second-best option, so we'll take it. The Democrats think they've won a victory here. Let them play pretend, I guess.
  2. The principle underlying the notion that not providing state-run healthcare is equivalent to murder is generally that not providing people with anything is equivalent to stealing that thing. We've heard this kind of stuff before from that camp. For instance, feminists shriek into the night about the evil Republicans denying their right to healthcare by not paying for their birth control. Not giving them birth control is the same as forcing them to be pregnant against their will. And forcing someone to be pregnant against their will is rape! So not giving them money is rape. It's just a shakedown. The problem with the principle that not giving is the same as taking is that there is no limitation to it. Not giving someone a home is the same as kicking them out on the street. Society should provide food or it is inflicting starvation on the destitute. There's no end to the things society should provide. Status, entertainment, companionship, sexual satisfaction, even indulgence of addictions and fetishes must be provided by the state, or it is causing people to live in agony. We're already living in a world where the taxpayer is obligated to provide sex-change operations and hormone "treatment" for the mentally ill.
  3. The final rebuttal to this is that it is profoundly hyperbolic. Passing the Senate bill, which would have cemented Obamacare into the legislative record, was seen as equivalent to killing millions of people per year. This is so easy to disprove that it's pointless. Can liberals show that after the law went into effect around 2011 that millions of people were saved per year? Of course they can't. And that assumes the Senate bill repeals Obamacare, of which it does nearly the opposite.
This shit is so stupid we shouldn't even be talking about it. But tens of millions of your fellow Americans believe it to be true. This is the fundamental flaw of democracy. Anyone who could believe such utter nonsense should not be allowed within 200 yards of a ballot box. In democracy everyone has equal say in who the president is. Where is there an analog to this approach to managing large organizations? Look at businesses. They face constant competition, and poorly organized businesses are ravaged by market forces. And there are no businesses of consequence where all workers have equal say in who the CEO is. Do companies set policy based on the opinion of the majority? No. If they tried they would fail, yet we have no problem running a country that way. There's this expectation that the country is just fated to perpetual success. It's a sucker's bet. Short the system.

Democrats Terrified of Losing Illegal Votes

Despite the left's snarky and endless "52%" comments, Trump was probably right that he won the popular legal vote. There is a fair amount of evidence to support the claim, including data from past elections, polling results of illegal immigrants, and the fact that the limited investigation into the 2016 election (from which Jill Stein profited handsomely) only revealed rampant voter fraud in Democrat strongholds like Detroit. In fact, the recounts were quickly closed down when they began to increase Trump's victory margin.

Trump's response has been exactly what he should be doing: working to purge illegal voting from the rolls. If illegal voting is significantly reduced, combined with the fact that he'll surely do even better in 2020 than 2016 among legal voters, means he stands to win a massive re-election victory. What's makes this all the better is that the left has been crying for months that the election was rigged. So Trump has not just the legal justification to purge fake votes, but the moral imperative to do so as well. All he has to do is mumble something about stopping Russian interference and he's made a more coherent statement than anything the election-denying left has uttered since November 8. (And probably well before that.)

What is the left's response? Concern for the sanctity of the election process? A realization that, by broadcasting nonstop hysteria about a rigged election for the last eight months, they can't possibly object to efforts to secure the voting process? Of course not! They're doing what they always do. Lies and deceit. Here's a video from the left that showed up on my facebook feed. It's a message from Jason Kander, who ran for governor of Missouri and was strongly defeated by his Republican opponent. I remember I actually preferred him as a candidate but refused to vote for anyone who endorsed Clinton. Well good thing, because I didn't realize he's a social justice retard. Really we should make that assumption at this point: anyone who's willing to publicly identify as a Democrat these days is probably left-wing nut until proven otherwise. Here's his piece. It's only 30 seconds. It opens,
The Trump administration is actively working to undermine faith in American democracy.
What a blatant falsehood. The whole point is to purge illegal votes that undermine faith in American democracy. For someone to go in front of the world and parrot blatant falsehoods means that person is either (a) a sociopath or (b) what Jordan Peterson would term as ideologically possessed. The third possibility is that the person has been otherwise corrupted (bribed, blackmailed, etc) but even then those people still probably fall into either (a) or (b). For the side that has called the election rigged for months and paid millions of dollars to legally contest the election through recounts to then accuse anyone of undermining faith in democracy is just juvenile and insane. The despicable man continues,
[The program] is all about making it harder to vote. So if one of your friends tells you that they're going to pull their voter registration in response to this, you tell them that's exactly what the other side wants them to do.
If your friend is going to pull their registration because the federal government is reviewing rosters it's because they're are illegally registered. Duh. Super duh. They're trying to spin this narrative that the reason hundreds of people in Colorado are revoking their voter registrations is that they are normal hard-working Americans being intimidated by evil Drumpf. Bullshit. They are revoking their voter registrations because they are either illegally registered in multiple districts or because they have no right to vote in America to begin with. Duh.

Kander is advocating that, to resist Trump, American citizens risk charges of felony voter fraud and illegal aliens risk deportation. Democrat voters are just cannon fodder for the power-hungry neurotic leftist elites. These people aren't just wrong, they're evil, but if they want to chew up their own over petty obstructionism, that's fine by me.

Sunday, July 16, 2017

The Bubble is Still Inflating, for Now

Here's an excellent discussion between two Wall Street traders of our current economic situation, particularly the role of the Fed in directing the markets.



The major takeaway of this is that, while market irrationality is at an order of magnitude higher than we've ever seen before, expect the stock market and real estate bubbles to continue inflating in the short run thanks to signals from Janet Yellen that the Fed will continue its unprecedented era of loose monetary policy, rather than continuing with the policy of increasing interest rates announced shortly after the presidential election. The guest, Greg Mannarino, describes the conundrum the Fed is in. They still hold a ton of toxic assets from the great bank bailout of 8 years ago. Many of those are in the real estate sector. If the real estate market gets hot, those sub-prime assets get, well, less sub-prime. If the real estate bubble pops again, those assets become even more sub-prime, more worthless. The Fed is in a position where it's distorting market reality by keeping the rates low, yet it wants to be able to unload those toxic assets before the bubbles pop. That is the world we live in now. The Federal Reserve can determine not only who the economic winners and losers are but holds so many assets in the market that it can determine the direction of the market at its discretion. Buying into the stock market is no longer a chance to invest in business ventures based on performance metrics as much as it is a bet as what the fiscal & monetary policy will be. It's a big casino.

The advice given by Mannarino is as follows. This is my take on it, I'd recommend just spending the half hour to listen to the video yourself if you can.
  • Invest in hard assets, like gold and especially silver, whose prices are being suppressed by the monetary policy. Mannarino also sees cryptocurrency as being suppressed. (I don't know how this is done.)
  • Stocks are going up in the short-term, but it's hard to know how long that will last. I would not recommend investing in stocks long-term at this point, nor keeping most of your investments in stocks. 
  • The bond markets are being suppressed. These might be good to buy now while they're cheap. If you're a 401(k) holder, (and especially if you're near retirement), consider moving most of your assets into bond instruments.
Mannarino clearly takes an antifragile approach to investing. He will come out ahead in either situation by being smart about it. Follow his advice. This economy is going to tank in the short-to-middle term. Maybe we have a decade, but that's not that long. And maybe we only have days or weeks. We can't know the exact timing, but we do know the market is strongly insulated from reality, and the number one rule of economics in the universe is that the market will eventually correct itself, one way or another.

What Mannarino is doing is really an antifragile approach to investment. Yes, he has a ton of insight into market works, but ultimately his strength is that his position improves no matter when the correction occurs. Be antifragile yourself. The question you should ask yourself is, "how will my position improve when the economy inevitably disintegrates?"  You're much safer to keep 10% of your retirement investment in high-risk/high-yield stocks and the rest in bonds than you are to keep most of your investment in low-risk "safe" stocks. The stock market is not safe. In the first case you make money whether the market goes up or down. In the second you make a lot of money in an up market, but you lose your shirt in the crash. That is a fragile position.