The Case for Minimum Wage Laws

Since this blog has recently gotten into the habit of defending liberals - you are practically an SJW just for reading here - it may be the right time to address another domain where they occasionally (and inadvertently) get it right.

Minimum wage advocacy is a partisan issue. Liberals normally support it, and conservatives normally do not. The best argument in favor of minimum wage laws is the destructive influence of extreme wealth inequality on a nation. Most rich people actually support a degree of welfare because it stabilizes a social system from which they greatly benefit. Many in the white community - currently plagued by opioid addictions, suicide, and rabid liberalism - are probably noticing this as well. In a materialistic society with lots of visible wealth, many workers can only eek out a few bucks an hour doing unpleasant work. They are humiliated by their position, engage in self loathing, and ultimately seek out dangerous habits or radical ideologies as escape mechanisms. Extreme wealth inequality is actually a problem which conservatives must address, as it is the primary fuel for socialist movements.

The best argument against minimum wage laws is basic economics. They amount to price controls, and history shows that price controls normally cause side effects worse than the problem they were meant to solve. We understand that the major flaw of communism (besides its inevitable authoritarianism) is the destruction of pricing mechanisms. Central governments, no matter how powerful and capable they may be, cannot manage the national economy without real-world pricing feedback. The direct outcomes of minimum-wage laws are that (1) those with low-value marketable skills are forbidden from the labor pool, or (2) employers are forced to pay higher than the market rate for labor. The indirect outcomes of the laws are that (1) it drives inflation which cancels out the desired benefits in the long-run, and (2) it rewards increasing automation which tends to raise the minimum IQ at which an worker is viable to contribute to the economy. Rewarding automation means the higher IQ engineers and technicians become even more economically value, and the menial labor less so.

It seems that the minimum wage laws probably cause more harm than good, overall. Besides the lack of evidence that they are beneficial, they are illegal at the federal level. It should be quite clear that there is nothing in the US Constitution to permit the central government to dictate how much workers should be paid. But, the lower governments are free to do so, as long as their relevant state constitutions and city charters permit it. There is a case to be made in favor of minimum wage laws, at a local level.

One idea repeated here from time to time is that you get the community you pay for. Thus, you should prefer local businesses that hire high-quality, high-wage employees because those are the kinds of people you want to be living in your community. You pay more, but you get more. A negative example of this from my area is Branson, Missouri. There's a line from Breaking Bad where the latino gang leader ridicules Walt by saying, "This isn't Branson Missouri!" He means to juxtapose the brutal, cutthroat world of Hispanic drug trafficking with a hokey tourist trap oriented towards white retirees. The funny thing is, all the major Latin gangs have a presence in Branson, because the third-rate tourist town hire lots of low-wage service workers, so there is lots of demand for drugs and other shady business.

You don't actually want to live in a town dominated by low-wage workers. Half the reason we have such problems with illegal immigration is that well-to-do types want cheap labor. They're giving away their grandchildren's country so they can get the lawn mowed cheap today. It's what you get from hyper materialism. When I have to hire help, I seek out the kinds of people who are honest, dedicated to their craft, and won't tip off their buddies that there are things in the house worth stealing (a fairly common problem). You probably wish everyone in your community thought the same way. Local minimum wage laws can be a way to force the issue. If your area mandates a high minimum wage, then there is no point in hiring low-lifes for low-wage. If people are forced to pay high-wages, then they will demand high-quality labor. Keep in mind that this works only if minimum wage laws are local, at the city and perhaps state levels. If your area has high minimum wage laws, then low skill workers will move to other areas where they can find work.

This is a similar mechanism to people intentionally seeking out high-rent neighborhoods. The want to live around people of means, who are less likely to engage in petty crimes and the like. Statistics indicate that liberals are actually more likely to engage in this behavior. The most segregated cities are also the most Democratic. But, what they do is to live in their exclusive, often gated neighborhoods, while ensuring that other neighborhoods are poor by providing low-paying jobs. City and state minimum wage laws could actually reduce economically segregated cities, while improving overall quality by discouraging undesirable types from moving in. My first home was in a low-rent neighborhood in my town. I observed that the trashiest of my neighbors were often recent out-of-state transplants looking for work. Setting a high minimum wage for the city might be an indirect way of saying, "We don't take kindly to your type around here."

Minimum wages are a thorny subject, because it is easy to see both sides of the debate. However, there are other ways to go about solving the wealth inequality problem. For one, it is astounding that liberals are so adamant about raising the federal minimum wage at the same time that the federal government taxes labor at about twice the rate of capital. It just goes to show you how subservient they are to their corporate masters. Our duty is always to implement working solutions to problems that we face, otherwise the left will have cover to implement their solutions that only make things worse.

Laying off the Left

A reader asks me why I've not been laying into the lefties much lately. They've been particularly unhinged, and it seems like a target-rich environment.

To start, I've not come up with much commentary that would be helpful to the reader, or interesting to the writer. I try to focus on providing something novel, or at least in sharing other ideas that receive too little attention. Left-wing lunacy is practically mainstream these days. Turn on any Fox News or talk radio show and you'll hear all the ways the Green New Deal is utter lunacy. What could I add? Even mainstream "safe" conservatives like Ben Shapiro are calling liberalism a secular religion. Many moderate liberal commentators - at least the few not perpetually obsessed with Trump - spend more time attacking leftist radicals than Republicans. Everyone knows they're nuts. Similarly, I don't spend much time on FISAgate any more - the greatest political scandal of my lifetime - because Sundance, Dan Bongino, and Sara Carter already do such a great job covering it.

Another factor is that Republican treachery is of greater concern than whatever the radicals are up to. We already know the left won't be reasoned with. They hate us and pursue only the policies intended to punish us. Unreasonableness is their virtue. It's when the right falls short that we're really in trouble. I don't currently see how any of the declared candidates beat Trump in 2020. I think he gets re-elected. Thus, I'm less concerned with what the Democrats are saying than with the Trump administration's recent flirtations with the Cult's values.

A final aspect, which is something the reader might not like to hear, is that I don't disagree with everything the left is doing. As already stated on this blog, Fauxahontas did nothing wrong. Abusing affirmative racism for personal gain is exactly what white people should be doing. The only reason the policy survives is that whites dutifully comply with the rules intended to harm them. I applaud her, and I hope she gains the Democrat nomination. Think of the last election, where the media went on for weeks because David Duke expressed preference for Trump over Clinton, forcing him to constantly disavow. If Warren wins, Duke is likely to prefer her over the very Zionist-friendly Trump administration. It will be hysterical, so long as conservative pundits properly force the issue.

I'm not actually opposed to the Green New Deal. I think it's great! Here's my favorite take from the FAQ.

How will you pay for it?
The same way we paid for the New Deal, the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs. The same way we paid for World War II and all our current wars. The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit. There is also space for the government to take an equity stake in projects to get a return on investment. At the end of the day, this is an investment in our economy that should grow our wealth as a nation, so the question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared prosperity.

She wants to saddle the federal government with an additional $90 trillion in debt! That's far greater accelerationism than even the most hardcore reactionary would ever propose. We're looking at a leviathon that collapses in years rather than decades. And I might see some benefit. I've been wanting to update my windows and home insulation. If she wants the federal government to provide those before it collapses under the weight of its own insanity, all the better.

Finally, there has been a big backlash against Democrats for voting against a late-term abortion ban, with Trump piling on as well. The whole thing amounts to a political stunt. They knew they didn't have the votes. The Republicans are very good at taking a firm stand when they know they can't win. They can send multiple Obamacare-killing bills to Obama, but none to Trump. No, they'd rather lose so that they aren't held accountable for the state of the country, but can go home and sell their righteous indignation to their electorates. In this case I still have to disagree with what they were pretending to try to do. For one, I don't care too much if liberals and their clientele abort their babies. I'm much more interested in securing a future for my own babies, and those of my own nation, in a country where expressing support of white genocide is widely tolerated. What non-Americans and liberal traitors do to "their bodies" is not my biggest concern. And further, it's not Constitutional. Maybe a quaint notion these days, but the law would be a violation of the 10th Amendment. Washington shouldn't dictate common law to the states. The only thing I'd say in favor of the bill is that its passing would provide good entertainment. I'd like to see it get legally contested all the way to the Supreme Court. Liberals would have to argue that abortion bans are un-Constitutional, even though federally banning abortion bans is okay.

If there is one thing we like to do here, it's to expose lies, and there is little benefit when the lie has gone mainstream. Every regular reader here knows that liberals these days are radical neo-Puritans who sit well to the left of Karl Marx. And you know that the corporate journalists are ideologically possessed pundits who lie constantly. You may not realize the extent to which respected scientific disciplines are lying to you, which is why there has been so much focus on them lately. And you probably aren't hearing any mainstream voices telling you to ignore what degenerates are doing to their fetuses when our own children face dark and turbulent times to come. So that's the value you'll get here. The kind of truth-telling that you can only find in dimly lit bars and obscure hobby blogs, far from the tentacles of political and economic dictatorship. I intend to maintain some distance from national politics and the "liberals are dumb" critiques, so long as the heavy hitters, the guys getting millions of views per month, are doing their jobs. 

Draft Our Daughters

During the 2016 election, a "Draft Our Daughters" meme campaign encouraged families to vote Democrat so that they could send their daughters off to fight in Hillary's wars. That concept has now been memed into reality, as a federal court has ruled that, since women are now permitted into combat roles, military conscription can no longer be restricted to males only. The ruling is technically correct, given that gender equality is supposed to be the national ethos. It's actually not a very feminist ruling. The feminist position would be that women can serve with the boys if they want to, but they don't have to, and they must be paid the same despite lower physical standards, and they must have advantage in promotions to "improve" gender ratios at higher levels. We'll see how feminists respond, but I'd predict a lot won't like the female draft.

If feminists don't like the ruling then it must be good, right? Perhaps it's a silver lining that it forces them to side with either gender equality - which they pretend to be about - or female preference, but we know what they're about already, so that's of little benefit. The ruling is the latest progression towards a military that is doomed to disintegrate when it is inevitably challenged by a competent adversary. Anyone who's served knows the drill. Women find ways to avoid the deployments and the dirty work. Giving a female troop orders downrange is a powerful fertility tool. When I was in, I worked as a mechanic on a busy fighter flightline. It was a guy's job. Grueling hours, dirty work, purely mechanical, with little in the way of perks or social graces. The normal path of female airmen (thankfully they didn't call them airwomen) was to get pregnant, spend most of the remainder of their single enlistment on light office duty, marry, and become an Air Force wife. I knew of only two exceptions. One was a weapons staff sergeant who had a family with kids and was good at her job. The other one was a lesbian who got out after one enlistment and went on to do contractor work in the field. But mostly, when confronted with the reality of flightline life, the women make a beeline for the kitchen.

If that is the reality of day-to-day training operations, what will happen when it's war for real? We already have plenty of evidence. The Marines studied women in combat and came not only to the expected result that male teams consistently outperformed female teams, but that mixed-gender teams were abysmal. The Navy has been running it's people hard for many years now as funding has been diverted to empire building. The navigatresses keep running into merchant ships. These are the women who self-selected for service. The notion that randomly selected women will be of any benefit at all is fantasy. To be fair, the boys aren't much better these days, given that they're soft and weak, and the military is professional and high-tech. Conscription at this point would amount to rounding up cannon fodder. Is that what advanced civilization has come to, dragging women from the home and sending them off to die while some men stay home and castrate themselves? It's such an absurdity that it ensures conscription will never happen, even in this climate. Fathers - white, brown, and black alike - will not stand by and watch as their daughters get sent to the meat grinder. They'd sooner start shooting politicians themselves. There would be immediate and severe insurrection.

So the ruling kills the draft. Do you care? It depends largely on whether you view the US military as a national defense force or as the District's imperial army. Killing the draft means that our children will never be forced into fighting Washington's wars. That's a good thing. But it also means we'll be left to fend for ourselves. We can't rely on the professional military to protect us from an actual invasion.

More Tax Dollars for Gravitational Sinkhole

Wired is very excited about new funding for gravitational wave detectors, according to their article Get Ready For Gravitational Waves All Day, Every Day. This follows up on results from 2015 that allegedly proved the existence of gravitational waves, which are predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity. The National Science Foundation and its UK equivalent have granted $35 million to expand the project.

The detectors are designed to find tiny movements induced by gravitational waves as they pass by the earth. Searching for nearly imperceptible movement in a dynamic place like earth - with its shifting tectonics, weather, and the like - means their measurements are very noisy. How do they remove the noise? That is a good question. And once noise is removed, how do they determine that what's left is actually a gravitational wave? They compare it to a catalog they've made of some twenty thousand hypothetical gravitational wave signatures from various proposed astronomical events. So the first signal from 2015 was said to match the theoretical scenario where two theoretical binary black holes collapsed into one. Which brings us back to the question of noise cancelation. How do you know you've canceled the noise good? Well, if what you're left with looks like one of the twenty thousand signatures, then you've canceled the noise good. The problem with the study is it was constructed to have a high chance of success whether or not gravitational waves really exist. It's just like how the global warming advocates operate: all observations can be construed to support the theory.

So, if gravitational waves have already been "proven," then what is left to fund?

Researchers are hoping this gravitational wave data will help them map the universe in richer detail than ever before. That’s because the signals provide information about the universe that is inaccessible via telescopes. In fact, physicists often liken gravitational waves to sound: If telescopes are the eyes on the universe, gravitational wave detectors are the ears. With more sensory information about black holes, neutron stars, and supernovae, researchers have a new data stream with which to study the expansion of the universe and the nature of dark matter, for example.

They'll use it to inspect black holes, neutron stars, supernovae, expansion of the universe, and dark matter. All fictional! [Well, supernovae are real, but the supernovae theory is not. By their explanation - a feeder binary star secretes material into its companion until it reaches critical mass and undergoes a tremendous nuclear explosion - supernovae should not recur in the same star, but it has been observed a number of times.] Will study of gravitational waves guide scientists to abandon flawed models and formulate better ones? No. They'll continue to discover whatever the grants pay them to discover.

Missing Mass Found! (or close enough for government work)

In many scientific disciplines, theories are axiomatic. Thus, all studies are contorted to fit the theory, whatever the results may be. Whenever I see some bold scientific headline, I like to dig in to see if the results aren't actually the complete opposite of the claims. We saw that a while back with the fox study, where a single gene - with no known influence on behavior - was found to be correlated with the domesticated population, thus they proclaimed evidence of a genetic basis for fox domestication. The correct headline should have read Fox Genome Reveals no Genetic Basis for Traits of Domestication. When liberals say we don't believe in science, they are right. Scientific belief hinders scientific progress. How many billions are wasted each year, how many thousands of hours by our smartest braniacs, by pretending the results are what people believe they should be.

A recent article from Nasa, Where is the Universe Hiding its Missing Mass?, leads off with a bold claim.

New results from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory may have helped solve the Universe's "missing mass" problem, as reported in our latest press release. Astronomers cannot account for about a third of the normal matter — that is, hydrogen, helium, and other elements — that were created in the first billion years or so after the Big Bang.

To be clear, they aren't talking about dark matter which, in conjunction with dark energy, is estimated to make up 96% of the universe. No, they're talking about good old-fashioned non-exotic matter like what we touch and breathe each day. Stuff that really exists. This missing mass is due to Big Bang models which predict that there should be 50% more visible mass in the universe than we observe. What do astronomers do when theories don't match observations? They find new observations.

Scientists have proposed that the missing mass could be hidden in gigantic strands or filaments of warm (temperature less than 100,000 Kelvin) and hot (temperature greater than 100,000 K) gas in intergalactic space. ... If these filaments exist, they could absorb certain types of light such as X-rays that pass through them.

The theory is that these giant strands of gas are somehow obscuring radiation from the visible universe. Like black holes, dark matter, dark energy, and neutronium, the missing matter cannot be observed, only inferred. Interestingly, the article doesn't mention why astronomers assume that free-floating neutrally charged gases would naturally organize themselves into gigantic strands and filaments.

The latest result uses a new technique that both hones the search for the WHIM carefully and boosts the relatively weak absorption signature by combining different parts of the spectrum to find a valid signal. With this technique, researchers identified 17 possible filaments lying between the quasar and Earth, and obtained their distances.

For each filament the spectrum was shifted in wavelength to remove the effects of cosmic expansion, and then the spectra of all the filaments were added together so that the resulting spectrum has a much stronger signal from absorption by the WHIM than in the individual spectra.

Indeed, the team did not find absorption in the individual spectra. But by adding them together, they turned a 5.5-day-long observation into the equivalent of almost 100 days' worth (about 8 million seconds) of data. This revealed an absorption line from oxygen expected to be present in a gas with a temperature of about one million Kelvin.

By extrapolating from these observations of oxygen to the full set of elements, and from the observed region to the local Universe, the researchers report they can account for the complete amount of missing matter.

Well how about that. Sure, they didn't find the absorption spectra for the elements they were looking for at the temperatures they were looking for, but they did find an absorption signal for oxygen (the 3rd most common element) at a very high temperature, so they extrapolated that to all the other elements (which they didn't see) and called it a success. The results depend on the existence of supermassive million-degree filaments that comprise a full third of the universe, but can't be seen. In addition, the theory depends on all the following unproven theories.

1. The Big Bang, without which there is no (visible) mass discrepancy.
2. The expanding universe / dark energy theory, which they used to shift the observed frequencies.
3. Red shift theory, which implies that quasars - highly redshifted - are impossibly luminous objects in the far reaches of space.

In an honest assessment, they would have concluded that direct observations fail to convincingly support the theory. However, that conclusion is assumed to be wrong (since theories are assumed to be true), so scientists scrape for any hint of supporting evidence and call it a great victory for science. Scientists can always find what they're paid to find, and avoid results that would incur institutional scorn. These scientists have taken us another step back, but they will still get their grants, academic citations, and adulations from an adoring press. Why wouldn't they strive to publish the desired - rather than actual - result? Sure, they've added super-massive, super-hot, super-invisible strands of matter across the entire universe, but when we already have black holes, dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars, and big bangs from a state of pure energy, the hypothetical hidden-but-non-dark matter is no great stretch of imagination.

Roll Call of the Absurd

Let the games begin! A number of Democrats have recently thrown in the ol' proverbial hat, joining the greatest reality television show on earth. The entertainment value from the roll call of the absurd has been instantaneous. Before we review them, it's worth repeating an idea that can't be repeated too often.

When it comes to social religions, absurdity is a feature, not a bug. It is used to demonstrate submission to power. When the Aztecs came to take children to be publicly murdered to gain favor from the gods, the parents would have done themselves no service to point out irrationality of the a demand. Such an appeal to logic would only be taken as treasonous disloyalty by the ruling elites. Orwell captured the concept quite while in 1984, where Winston was tortured until he declared that two plus two equals five. Answering five indicated submission. Using logic to insist on four amounted to insurrection, punishable by more torture.

With that in mind, let's consider the candidate pool. Elizabeth Warren announced her candidacy last Saturday, despite a recent run of awful press. Trump responded quickly, asking whether or not she'd be running as America's first American Indian president. Many had wondered if Warren, who had established an "exploratory committee," would run following the humiliating response to her genetic results. One can only imagine how it went.

Exploratory committee: Well, Liz, it seems that you routinely embarrass yourself in front of a national audience, everyone basically agrees you're full of it, you've been rebuked by the very same Cherokee tribes with whom you grandiosely claim heritage, you were caught lying to claim affirmative action benefits, and every time you open your pie hole the entire media stampedes over to Twitter to hear the incumbent's hot take on the matter.

Warren: You've made it very clear. My country needs me now.

During her announcement, she referred to "people of color" so many times that even some liberals expressed annoyance. Of course, the Democrats are now the anti-white party, so any white people vying for power must recite the right prayers early and often. The absurdity of it, of course, is that Warren was proven - by the Washington Post of all places! - to have actually used her claimed minority status to further her career. She basically stole from POCs to get to her position to virtue signal to them in the hopes of accruing the highest seat of the land. Such a display signals to the leftist elites, "I have no principles whatsoever, and I'll do or say whatever you want."

[Let's be very clear: Fauxahontas did nothing wrong. All whites who oppose affirmative racism should be identifying as the minority and gender of their choosing in their professional documents. The only reason it exists at all is because whites allow actual institutional racism, but only so long as it's directed at themselves. Warren had the gall not only to hijack the looney program, but then to leverage that as herself supporting the plight of POCs! Guys, she just paved the way. The Democrats are still letting her run for president. Why wouldn't any white person now follow in her footsteps?]

Amy Klobuchar announced her candidacy as well. No one has heard of her, nor would have if Trump hadn't tweeted on the event, pointing out the hilarity of another global warming liar announcing her announcement during a blizzard, in a city that had just been blasted by a record-breaking cold snap. Again, that is just the kind of irrationality that needs to be displayed. Complaining about global warming on a muggy day is natural. Doing so in the dead of an unusually cold Minnesota winter demonstrates loyalty to the cause, and a reluctance to question conventional dogma. Also, some of her former staffers have reported that she is an alcoholic rage addict, which should help make Hillary voters feel more comfortable.

Kamala Harris, the Democrats' most viable woman of color (i.e. the presumptive frontrunner) has recently gotten some press for her own gaffes. She claimed that she used to smoke pot in college while listening to Snoop Dog and Tupac. That's the proper platform to win the nomination from modern Democrats: rap culture. (She should have found a way to rope in a gay or trans friend into the tale.) Her story has been revealed for what it is - a story - because the numbers don't work out. Neither of those artists had yet produced albums when Harris was in college. So she's a liar, but no matter. Press coverage of the mistake only makes her stronger. What's better than pandering to degeneracy? Lying while pandering to degeneracy. And it only gets sweeter with each annoyed conservative. The incident helps Harris toward clinching a Democrat nomination, although won't help her much with swing state voters.

Alexandria Occasio-Cortez released her Green New Deal last week. It's not worth reviewing much, as it is the most juvenile political proposal ever made. Even many liberals are openly mocking it or keeping their distance. Conventional wisdom is that AOC torpedoed her career right out the gate. I say she'll come out ahead in the long run. She just made herself high priestess of The Cult. What's more interesting is their claim that all the Democratic presidential candidates support the Green New Deal. While AOC has contested the widely ridiculed FAQ and blamed in on GOP pranksters, I downloaded a copy of the pdf before they took it down.

This is political dynamite, no wonder they ran to the hoax narrative so quickly. Hopefully Trump's team is gathering evidence for all of the candidates who expressed public support. (It looks like the MSM already did most of the leg work for him.) Even Tulsi Gabbard, who has some redeeming qualities, leaped onboard. She opposes American imperialism, which puts her into the small minority of all parties. And, she broke ranks in 2016 and did not cast her superdelegate vote for Hillary Clinton, the presumed future president and vindictive alcoholic with a body count. Let's not forget that Gabbard was actually brave enough to stand up to establishment tyranny when it mattered, so good for her. But, at the end of the day, she's still an open-borders socialist, and jumping onto this farce policy shows just how qualified she is. Twenty seconds of skimming should have been enough for anyone to see red flags littered throughout the amateur hack job of a proposal. This is unfortunate for Gabbard, as it really waters down her image as a free-thinking, non-establishment liberal. She jumped right on the cuckoo express with all the rest of them.

Another freshman Congressperson in the news was Ilhan Omar, a Somali Muslim woman hailing from the great northern lands of Minnesota. She had the absolute gall to state what everyone know to be true: that the Israeli lobby holds excessive control over the US Congress. Even cherished POCs are not allowed to cross that line of stating the obvious, and Omar was pressured into issuing an apology. Isn't that something...doesn't it just prove her point? Here's another absurdity of the whole event: Jews control the media which advocates the importation of people who want to kill the Jews. Here's another: Donald Trump called on Omar to resign. That's a very establishment-like thing of him to say. I've been operating on the assumption that Trump's second term will consist of him cozying up to the establishment to foster a positive mainstream review of his legacy. He wants that redemptive arc. Early Trump is best Trump. He's fighting for us to get a wall, which demands our support, yet he also stated in his SOTU speech that he wants to bring in more immigrants than ever before, legally through the big hole in his beautiful wall. So far the leading Democrat candidate appears to be Trump himself, albeit one running on their platform of ten or maybe fifteen years ago.

Protecting Children from Monsters

While our highly civilized country has been busy legalizing full-term abortions and normalizing pedophilia & child transgenderism, the war-torn Arabian backwaters of Yemen has opted to maintain a more traditional approach to childrearing. Last week they publicly executed two men convicted of raping and murdering a pre-teen boy. I am an advocate for resuming public executions of child predators in the US. It's nice to see that some places in the world are still dedicated to the task of fiercely protecting children from monsters. Interestingly, a third culprit was to be executed for her role in the incident (she helped dismember the body) but her execution has been stayed because she is pregnant. In America, the execution would still be allowed, since legally the fetus is a mere extension of the woman's body; a clump of cells.

While the event drew a crowd (depicted as "bloodthirsty" by the UK outlet doing the reporting), it is clear that the Yemenis took care to maintain order and provide some level of humanity to the condemned, who were provided clean clothes, water, and medical attention all the way until death. The crowds were kept at a distance, and the men were laid down on blankets rather than merely thrown into the dirt like animals. They were then shot. In more barbarous settings, child rapists would certainly not be granted such a clean death.

I think the Yemenis got it just right. I might question why it took nine months from crime to execution, but I assume they are ensuring sufficient time for due process. It is swift justice, at least, in comparison to our system, where convictions can take years, executions decades, and heinous offenders are more likely to die behind bars - or even be freed - than to face the rope. Our society pretends that it is more humane to toss the criminal into a cage for the rest of his natural life at great public expense. Actually, we just lack the grit to do what is necessary to maintain civilized society.

Of course, being a British paper, they had to do their job and find a properly credentialed prog globalist to condemn the traditional culture.

Human Rights Watch director Sarah Leah Whitson condemned the sentencing in Yemen.
She said: “Public execution is an even more grotesque violation of human rights, particularly in a country where the ability of the accused to obtain adequate legal representation and the coverage of the process is highly limited.”

When it comes to child rape and murder, progressives are very concerned about the gentle treatment of the rapists. She thinks the execution was a "grotesque violation of human rights." She must believe, then, that it would be perfectly fine to lock the accused up for life. (I suspect she's not spent much time in a 3rd world prison.) She must also find nothing wrong with forcing the portion of Yemenis who are not child rapists and murderers to provide perpetual room & board for the antisocial monsters. We know the real answer, though. Human rights advocates will never be satisfied with the treatment of violent offenders, because inherently they will be deprived of at least some of their human rights of life, liberty, and property. While no doubt there are often people under the thumb of brutal oppression who need all the outside advocacy they can get, murderous gay pedophiles given a clean and orderly execution are not them. These social justice warriors shame all those tasked with the leg work of keeping basic societal order. To this measure, the Arabians are actually our cultural superiors, as the enlightened western countries increasingly fail to protect children from monsters.

The Republican Senate Finally Takes Action

While our government is recovering from a recent shutdown resulting from a squabble over a few billion dollars for a border wall - and bracing for another one - our Republican Senate managed to get one bill passed, which officially rebukes Trump's decision to withdraw troops from Syria, allows for the government to punish businesses that boycott Israel, and pledges $38 billion in military aid to Israel over the next decade. If that doesn't make your blood boil, what would? The Senate can't find the funds to defend our country from the greatest demographic invasion of all history, but has no problem spending much more than that on Israel's defense. Our government gives away our money, insists on perpetual warfare in far away places, and dictates who we do business with. And can't even build a damn wall for us.

It's beyond corruption. The central government does not exist to serve the American people. It doesn't even believe there's such thing as an American people. It now exists merely to steal from us. To steal our money and give it away. To steal our country and give it away. We might as well be ruled by a foreign power. Think of it, everyone fears a future where China rules over us. Why? What would be worse? At least under Chinese oppression we'd be protected from demographic invasion. Why would the Chinese take on the effort to establish dominion over our productive nation just to watch it be destroyed? There's much to dislike about the ChiComms, but at least they aren't infected with a mind virus that treats irrationality as a moral virtue. The Chinese would, no doubt, demand tribute. Fine, we can just re-direct the tribute we're paying Israel towards them. We'd come out even! You might say, oh, it would be humiliating to be ruled over by the Chinese, what with their smug cultural superiority and all. But we're already humiliated by smug cultural overlords in the country our fathers built. Again, we come out even.

I've wondered, what would be different if Barrack Obama was made dictator for life? He'd use state police to maintain his party's political dominance. But that happened anyway. He'd impose a "radical transformation" of American society. That happened anyway. The District imposed gay marriage on all 50 states and managed to maintain the illusion of national self-determination. What would be the difference between an outright dictatorship by the limp-wristed Obama versus his democratic rule? The only significant difference would be he'd go after gun ownership. Everything else would largely be the same.

While we like to engage in some Western chauvinism around here, the sad truth is that modern white societies are full of the stupidest people to ever walk the planet. They give their our money away while begging to be invaded, because half of them are convinced that it is racist to want to have your own country. They demand to be enslaved! I don't know of any historical precedent. Consider how stupid the Dutch are. Some of the families of "Dutch" jihadis who moved to join ISIS are now stuck in Syrian refugee camps, so the Dutch are looking to repatriate them at government expense. They are begging to be held in bondage, and will pay good money for the service.

Z on MMT

The Zman took on Modern Monetary Theory, a subject this blog investigated some time ago with a series of thought exercises as to how it all works. Economic analyses from the right are typically gloomy and partially realistic at best. Z did not break the mold.

Modern Monetary Theory is the economic argument that government spending is only constrained by inflation, as long as the government has control of the money supply.

That's his opinion on what MMT is, because he heard of MMT, scanned some literature until he found something he didn't like, and then did a write-up about it. It's not that he's necessarily wrong, it's that he's picking through to find the yucky cherries, and ignoring the rest. Except he is wrong, because his description makes no sense. Government spending is only constrained by inflation? It seems that government spending is limited by whatever the increasingly low-IQ congresspersons can get away with, and inflation can be a natural response. Ah, but that's one reason we have an independent central bank, an entity Z ignores entirely.

The core economic argument of MMT is that currency is a political product and is given value by government enforcement of legal contracts. That is a clean break from commodity-based currencies, like the gold-back dollar of yore. While Z equates the concept with inflation, he fails to notice that commodity-backed currencies are inherently deflationary, since economic growth tends to outpace increases in the gold supply. Perhaps that's okay if inflation is bad and deflation is good, but the case needs to be made.

The basic argument of the MMT people is that as long as there are resources not being utilized by the private sector, the state has a duty to step in and put those resources to use through government spending. That’s a moral argument, not an economic argument or a factual observation. The economic argument is that spending and debt is meaningless, as long as the state is not crowding out the private sector and the spending is not driving up retail inflation. Otherwise, the government can spend as much as necessary.

That may well be something that many MMT enthusiasts say, but it is hardly the "basic argument of the MMT people." No, it's the thing that Z dislikes the most, so he frames it as the core principle of the thing he decided ahead of time that he doesn't like. "The economic argument is that ... debt is meaningless." No, the economic argument is that debt offsets currency, and is hardly meaningless. MMT does lead some to say things like "deficits don't matter", but that is a faulty conclusion. Debts still constitute a transfer of wealth from borrower to creditor, just like they always have. MMT implies that debts are necessary to maintain a money supply, not that they are inherently good or should not be restrained.

What MMT seeks to do is make the sovereign state, by which is meant the issuer of currency, the commissary of the American economy. By controlling the supply of goods and services, via currency manipulation, spending and debt, the state can keep an increasingly useless population busy. It can always reward activities that enhance control of the system and punish activity that creates disorder. Inevitably, the communications companies, banks and technology firms become the prison guards of the system.

No doubt we are being made into economic prisoners of the system, but that doesn't mean "MMT seeks to do" anything. It's just an economic theory; another way of looking at things. If the communists think it justifies their expansive programs, let them. They'll not be swayed in any case. MMT is a useful analysis tool for us to use. It was MMT that drove me to realize that a country pays for its money supply. The government borrows money - which it pays interest on - and much of that money is in general circulation. Thus, we pay for money. Countries that adopt foreign currencies, like Zimbabwe, are buying their money supply outright, whereas we rent ours. You don't really need MMT to understand that, but it puts things into a perspective where you can make those kinds of inductive insights. Is anyone else talking about how the fiat-issuing nations rent their own money supplies? I've not seen it anywhere but here.

Another revelation is that borrowing does not permanently increase the money supply. If I take out a mortgage, the bank might "create" a hundred thousand dollars into existence. Many people get hung up on this. However, it is offset by debt. The mortgage is a legal contract. When the mortgage is repaid, the currency and debt cancel, and the contract is completed. The only net transfer was from me to the seller (the principal), and from me to the bank (the interest). Its just how we normally understand how a loan works. Under MMT, we can understand why issuing a loan does not permanently expand the money supply. Try to find anyone on the right who talks about economics and isn't adamant that fractional reserve banking dooms us to the coming hyperinflation. There aren't many.

The major contention seems to be that it justifies government spending and taxation. Spending puts currency into circulation, while taxation gives it value. If that's the problem, then what is the better option? It seems to be the way things work. Why did the denarius have value? Because it was shiny? Or maybe because Romans were subjected to torture for tax delinquency. Getting your hands on enough of the coins was practically a matter of life and death. It was sure to have value. Why did the gold-backed dollar have value...because of gold's intrinsic value, or because of its status as the official currency? Others have computed that, if we were still on the gold standard, the price of gold would be over $5000 per ounce today, given the size of our money supply and how much gold is reportedly held in government vaults. It's the same reason that Moldbug argued we can never return the dollar to a gold standard. Whether or not it's a good idea, it's not practical. The sudden valuation shifts would be too dramatic. Ironically, pegging the dollar to gold has a greater effect on the value of gold than the other way around. Whether or not you reject MMT, it remains true just the same.

Z doesn't like that the dollar is a political entity, nor that it is regulated to maximize economic outcomes and stability. What he prefers, then, must be a radical departure from the norm. All currencies are issued by some government. Perhaps he has a better suggestion? Even this blog's Energy-Backed Currency proposed that the central government monopolize the energy sector - and I'm hardly one for government tyranny or socialism. (Perhaps it's worth re-considering the approach to make it decentralized, although I believe I gave that a try once before and failed.) Cryptocurrency, inherently valueless, is not a practical substitute, as it cannot be easily adjusted to the size of the economy. I've not been able to devise a currency that is decentralized, free from government interference, and scales naturally with size of the economy. Perhaps Zman, who dismisses MMT outright, can come up with something better for us.

Canines in the News

A number of news items seemed relevant to the last post, although I'm only now getting around to writing it up.

First off, France: Man Killed Sister’s Boyfriend ‘Because He Was French and Non-Muslim’. Muslims are wolves. Muslims protect their own and kill the outsiders. There is no such thing as Islamophobia, because the term indicates an irrational fear. There is nothing irrational about fearing an invading pack that your own kind refuse to fight. Owen Benjamin talks about it (starts at around 21:00 or so, goes for about 10 minutes)...order will be restored. The natural order finds a way. The strongest pack will rule, and guess what, it ain't us. Right now we're living on borrowed time, and losing ground day by day.

Of course, there are still signs of life. Consider this article from the same day. Dozens of cops gathered around a Houston prison to rev their motors so they'd be the last thing a cop killer heard before being put to death. He committed his crime twenty years ago. That is wolf pack mentality. If things weren't so civilized, they'd have strung the guy up a long time ago.

From South Africa, yet another story of black Bantu invaders attacking white farmers.

Suspects also “test” your security by triggering systems to see if anyone pitch or if you go to investigate yourself! They do not hit any target. These are not opportunistic incidents but organised incidents. They do their homework!! Smallholdings are particularly difficult as houses are far from each other. Suspects know this and they scout. They watch your movements. They know when to strike. They plan their escape routes well in advance.

They sound a lot like foxes. Clever, roaming the edges of society to get what they want. The burglars aren't necessarily racist against whites, like the politicians are. They're trying to gain money and weapons to battle their own internecine turf wars. The whites happen to make convenient targets, since they're well off, and indoctrinated to be perpetual victims.

Another headline, Ethiopian Jews flood streets of Tel Aviv in protest against police brutality and racism. Thousands gathered to protest in Tel Aviv after a mentally ill Ethiopian Jew was killed at the hands of police. These are coyotes, bottom dwellers of society, who occasionally group up to take on larger prey. Ethiopian Jews, with an average IQ of 66, are not the same pack as the high-IQ Ashkenazi tribe. They take what they can get, and howl for more when they can. But they aren't wolves because they can't impose order. And they aren't foxes because they aren't clever. And they aren't domesticated dogs because they aren't domesticated (not necessarily a bad thing).

The Jews, the quintessential tribe, are looking weak. By 2035, Jewish population in Israel/Palestine is projected at 46 percent. While there are many right-wing Jews, as a whole they are in worse shape than we are, because Judaism is flooded with soft cosmopolitans. More than 75 percent of American Jews voted Democrat in the last election. That should be beyond alarming to all Zionists. They need to take control and scrap the liberal democracy tomorrow, if not sooner. They're on their way to losing the Jewish state, not because of the belief that Ethiopian Jews are the same as Ashkenazi Jews, but because of the belief that everyone is the same tribe as Jews. If you think that Europeans suffer a Western Disease, realize that the Jews have it that much worse. Many on the right malign the Jews and Zionists for their undue influence on American culture & politics, and their tendency towards cosmopolitanism & decadence. Fair enough, but realize they hoist their own petard. We see the normal flaw of imperialism in play: they exert control over other countries but lose their own homeland to demographic conquest. The Jews are not a wolf pack, but a far-flung diaspora of domesticated dogs. There are some Jews on the dissident right, but not many. They're not often welcomed, but that is no excuse. Their survival as a nation is at risk. Right-thinking Jews should be joining ranks with the rest of us.

Rounding out the news, France may be accepting over a hundred ISIS soldiers detained in Syria. This is out of over 1900 French citizens estimated to have joined ISIS. Once the heart of the civilized world, France is now a breeding ground for the most barbarous terrorists to walk the earth in recent times. The wolves run rampant in the country, and the domestic dogs are too docile to do much about it. They say the soldiers will be subjected to the French judicial system, meaning they'll have to spend a couple years in Muslim-dominated prisons. They should be lined up and shot. Any less action will viewed as weakness by real wolves the world over.