Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

Monthly Archives: January 2012

Rothschilds desperate with China

The Economist just opened a new exclusive section for  China, taking China out of their Asian. So China is the new focus country of The Economist, besides the US. Here they explain why the interest: they will use the section to argue for political reform.

Read the whole thing, it’s the most disingenuous piece of journalism ever. I’ll take some representative quotes:

 But our interest in China lies also in its politics: it is governed by a system that is out of step with global norms.

So dissidents such as Yu Jie, who alleges he was tortured by security agents and has just left China for America, are harassed. Yet that reflex will make the party’s job harder. It needs instead to master the art of letting go.

for China’s rise to continue, the model cannot remain the same. That’s because China, and the world, are changing.

Freeing up the financial system would give consumers more spending power and improve the allocation of capital.

freedom to organise can help, not hinder, the country’s economic rise. Labour unions help industrial peace by discouraging wildcat strikes. Pressure groups can keep a check on corruption. Temples, monasteries, churches and mosques can give prosperous Chinese a motive to help provide welfare. Religious and cultural organisations can offer people meaning to life beyond the insatiable hunger for rapid economic growth.

Now what a huge bunch of non-sequiturs. Some points are reasonable, most of them are not. What reading between the lines gets you is the real wish of all The Economist bankstas: the need for a Parliament. Oh, Parliament, the whorehouse, the house of bribes. They just need an elected Parliament so they can go funnel their bank money into the MP’s accounts. So they get influence and inside information to find good investments to put their money in.

Yet if the Jewish bankstas actually succeed (and they very likely will) in opening China, they will find themselves competing with the most money-driven people on earth. Last week was New Years in China. Here we used to go to Mass and pray for health and forgiveness. What do Chinese do? Go seek the God of Money. Even in Taiwan, who are wealthier and supposedly more sophisticated: moneygod.com.tw. They have never enough. Let’s see The Economist’s patrons deal with these guys. It’s gonna get interesting.

 

On Mystics

Zhainan asked me some time ago to follow up in my post about atheism, so here are my views. I apologize for the delay but I wasn’t in the right mood until today. Today it’s Sunday and it feels proper.

There’s a quote in Aldous Huxley’s best novel, that says:

If you’ve never had a religious experience, it’s folly to believe in God.  You might as well believe in the excellence of oysters, when you can’t eat them without being sick

Well I have never had one. I am not a faith person; in fact I find the concept quite abhorrent, personally. Still, as I said in my last post, the fact that I find no need for religion doesn’t mean that there is no God. In fact there can be no sound philosophy without an idea of the transcendent. Logic as a system requires a first cause, if it is to be true. And as we all want logic to be true, we might as well think there is some fancy creator out there. That doesn’t mean that we all should go back to sing in latin at Church every Sunday. Criticism of particular religions is on the whole very justified. But the fact that all religions are false doesn’t imply that there’s nothing out there.

This is the logical critique of atheism. Then there’s the psychological critique. Why would anyone deny there’s some kind of God, and an afterlife? What do you gain by that? The atheists logic is as faulty as the theists’. But the theists at least do some good by promoting hierarchy and a moral life. What’s the point of atheism though? Why spoil all the fun of life? Do people enjoy thinking that once you die you just disappear and there’s nothing else? Nihilism, taken seriously, can only create misery and sadness. And most people agree with it these days. Of course most people don’t take it seriously, and while asserting that there’s no God they go on with their animal instincts and enjoy life as it is. But there’s actually a few unlucky people who actually get to stare at the abyss. Yet they keep preaching a depressing cult of nothingness. I can’t fathom how can they wake up every morning thinking: Cool, there’s 40 years left until I vanish, everything I do is pointless and without consequence!

See that my point is that we can’t know anything about the transcendent. I’m with Kant on this. We can’t know anything beside this world’s experiences. And we shouldn’t try. Since we decided in the 18th century that we can’t know much about God, and stopped caring, well we got modern science, fact based scholarship. Fact based medicine. To use God in scientific theories is cheating. In the same way that using HNU or other liberal dogmas in social science is cheating; it’s unfalsifiable and doesn’t produce useful theories. We need more empiricism, not less.

Now some people don’t agree that we can’t know anything about God. The fact that I’ve never had a religious experience doesn’t mean that nobody ever has. Well there’s a point to that. For all the absurdities of mainstream religion, well Pascal or Chesterton were very smart people, also very pious. When you see that logic requires a transcendent reality, well it’s obvious that any inquisitive mind would want to know something about it, see Newton or Gödel’s mysticism. So there might be something to mysticism, that I am humble enough to admit. Still for every mystic Newton or Leonardo there are many Saint Theresas or Sufi charlatans who also claim to have ‘seen’ the mystical truth. As I said in the opening, I haven’t had the experience, so I can’t really tell. I am open to the idea, in a philosophical way. My teenage years were basically spent in binge reading of Aldous Huxley and Arthur Schopenhauer’s books. Both were mildly empiricist men who lashed against the sophistry of their day. Yet they also, later in their lives, became very open to mysticism; Huxley seeking the truth in psychedelic drugs, Schopenhauer reading on Indian philosophy.

But they didn’t make much of it. The problem with mysticism is, although I can’t deny its possibility as a matter of philosophical soundness;  it’s quite obvious that it has been rather useless. It might not be certain, but I stand on my point that we can’t know about the other world, and we shouldn’t try. Newton could have come up with relativity if he hadn’t lost so many of his years in theology. I don’t mind, in fact it might be very natural that good mathematicians and physicists come to the conclusion that there is a higher power. But science, and all scholarly work, should have atheism as its working framework. It’s not true, but its good for work. God won’t punish you for trying to understand its creation without mentioning him.

But he will punish all of us if you deny its existence. Society at large should be theist. It produces good morals and happy people. We just need a new religion that takes Bell Curves into account, encourages eugenics and makes space colonization the final mission of mankind. If someone has a mystical vision about it, please let me know. I’m all ears.

PS: Notwithstanding everything written above, everybody should read this link from Zhainan’s. Makes you think like few things can.

Growth alchemy

Ed West, the journalist with the biggest balls in Europe at this moment, left this piece of wisdom in a recent article of his: The life of a man can be broken up in three stages: Worrying about sex, worrying about money, and worrying about health. It’s really a brilliant way of putting it. Well it happens that I just got into the second stage, so I’ve been thinking.

I am no economist, although I have a fair knowledge of economic theory and the various schools. I don’t really know whether Uncle Bernanke will produce hyperinflation, (I think he doesn’t even know himself), nor do I know if NGDP targeting is sound or not; as I said I’m no economist. I don’t really understand all the graphs and concepts and mechanisms that people talk about in Bloomberg et al., but beyond that I can see a pattern. I’m good at that.

Now we’re in the middle of a global recession, with ungodly amounts of debt to be serviced. All economist agree that we need ‘growth’ to pay for the debt. The disagreements seem to be about how to achieve that ‘growth’, whether to make structural reforms that allow for more productivity, or to just inflate the currency and pay the debt with the resulting nominal ‘growth’. There are merits to both positions. There is also a huge problem to both.

Growth is dead. Everybody knows the Ehrlich-Simon wager, where the smug Ehrlich said that population growth was outstripping available resources, and Julian Simon the humanist hero said: No! You forgot the Ultimate Resource: human ingenuity. Simon was right, as we indeed did find better ways to dig and use resources. But Simon was wrong in one point: the Ultimate Resource is by no means infinite. In fact it’s not human ingenuity, in abstract, that drives progress. It’s particular smart humans. And those are decreasing in number.

See, people in the US get freaked out because in 20 years or so they will be less than 50% of the population. Well that’s happening all over.  The population of whites and NE Asians is decreasing all over the world. And those are the ones who develop new technologies and management techniques. Of course reforming government and reducing the ‘crud’ that Quod Libeta wrote about in a recent post would help to grow the economy, but the inherent dynamics of democratic government means that nobody will close down entire government departments, simplify the tax code, eliminate quotas, etc. It can’t happen.

So we’re left with getting by with the existing political framework, and for that we need more smart people to invent new and better stuff. See how all countries can’t shut up about attracting imaginary “skilled immigrants” to fill a very real skill shortage. We can suck up all the high IQ engineers of China and India, but that’s a zero-sum game. You can’t be expecting China to grow, yet at the same time bring all Chinese talent abroad. And anyway the supply of high IQ Chinese and Indians is also decreasing; the college educated are having less kids than their respective proles: we are in a world of dysgenics. Read this article on the Weekly Standard about how Singapore, THE efficient state, was utterly unable to raise the fertility rate of college graduates.

So somebody tell me where are we going to get that growth again? Well we might suddenly develop working Fusion energy, which would solve a lot of problems. But the demographic reality shows that growth is increasingly unlikely. I remember reading about how the stock market has no future, because the Boomers will retire soon, and once they retire they’ll take their money from the stock market and actually spend it. Well that makes sense. And once the Boomers die? Well then the economy will have to shrink. As it is shrinking in Japan. So there’s no growth to be expected. Which means the debt can’t be paid.

Now, the modern economy is addicted to growth because, besides having a Social Security Ponzi scheme working in every country, the ruling class happens to be the Financial Establishment. They are investors, and investors need yield, yield that comes mostly from GDP growth. And old style landed aristocracy didn’t care much for economic growth; they didn’t like having peasants starve, but it didn’t affect their lifestyles much.  But we have what we have, a gigantic pile of debt in every economy on the planet, and a ruling class that needs good investments. While they go desperate opening up the last medieval countries they find, the only way they can sustain the system is by inflation. Inflation has the advantage of being asymmetrical, and they’ll make sure to get the dough first. But we’ll have decades of high inflation and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

Making the world safe for corruption

After writing the last post on Burma’s opening, it just came to me why are Western governments always promoting democracy. I mean, democracy is a pretty crappy way of government, particularly in the Third World, where for tons of reasons, historical, cultural, biological even, it never works. Democracy also is generally bad for the economy, and Western governments are ostensibly obsessed by trade and economic growth.

Yet they do promote democracy with a fervor that is almost religious. It makes no sense. But wait. Roman judges used to say that about cui bono. Then I read this news: George Soros opens an office in Burma. Well, that’s it. Soros bono. Bankstas bono.

Business is goooood

There’s a recurrent theme at Steve Sailer’s about the paradox that, although the US is the world hegemon, many Third World plutocrats laugh at just how cheap it is to buy an American politician. It’s true, and it applies also to Western Europe. At first glance it makes no sense that lawmakers in a rich country would sell themselves cheap, while lawmakers in a poor country will ask for more money. But the correlation of bribe price is not with average GDP, but with the politician’s job security. A politician in Russia is pretty much safe in its place, as long as he makes good with Putin. He has a safe power base, quite a lot of money, and what is more important: status. Third World politicians have privilege, and you can’t pay that with money. It makes no sense to forfeit privileged status for a paltry bribe. So they ask more.

On the other hand, a politician in a democracy is just one more actor out of thousands, who is part of a political machine which is not known for its stability and kindness to its individual members. So in general an average MP in a democracy is there for the money. And he needs it fast, just in case he loses favor with the party machine because of some gaffe like fucking your secretary or saying that you don’t like fat black lesbians. The incentives are there for all but the top few in the party hierarchy to prostitute themselves for a couple of grand. The Americans have officialized this in the institution of lobbying; Congressmen are supposed to sell themselves, in the open, and to compete amongst themselves for bribes.

So you see that Parliamentary Democracy, by its own nature, tends to drive down the price of bribes. Now do you see why Soros & company are busy promoting democracy worldwide? The job of the bankstas is buying regulators to get financial privileges. But dictators have this pesky habit of demanding lots of money, and forgetting their promises even after receiving it. Dictators don’t need the money, they have power, and that’s much better. But bankstas only have money, and the only way they can harness the money is to destroy authoritarian governments and install Parliamentary democracies in their place. Then they can buy MPs by the hundreds, get investment privileges and get the yields going.

The pity is we can’t seem to get the Iraqis to sell themselves for cheap. Arabs are a commercial people and they all try to drive the prices high by killing each other and installing a dictator again. Can’t blame them.

The Last Frontiers

Larry Ellison, a man of taste and intelligence (see his awesome Japanese house), is alleged to have said: “I used to think, now I just read The Economist”. Well I’m sure he didn’t say it because of the quality of the writing there. Or because it’s always right. Or because their accurate predictions. The Economist is full of crap. But it is the voice of the Establishment. Damn, the Rothschilds own the paper. It doesn’t get more ruling class than that.

So what Ellison meant was: “I used to think a lot about how to make good with the Establishment, never knowing what they really wanted. Now I just read the official Establishment paper, The Economist, and follow their orders. See my billions?”

I also used to read The Economist and get outraged at the falsities and general BS I found there. Then I grew up and understood that the Economist isn’t descriptive but prescriptive, and also noticed that what they suppor has a tendency to happen. The ruling class that The Economist represents is basically the bankstas/investment types who are constantly searching for yield, manipulating anything on their way. So when The Economist suddenly starts to talk about some country, be alert as the odds are the country will be open for business very soon.

See this news on Mongolia mining boom. The fact that the huge desert of the Gobi has huge deposits of all kind of minerals has been known for some time, and China has been developing their side of the Gobi for years. It seems that the Mongolian side is also getting some traction, with huge mines getting on track with Western investment. The article puts it as if Mongolia will became a sort of Brunei where the tiny population lives a life of luxury because of some mineral deposits in some desert that happens to lie inside their borders. So Mongolia’s 3 million people will probably flock to the only city, Ulan Baatar and live off government handouts. Meanwhile some busybody enviromentalist will complain that the mines are bad because the desert ecology will be hurt. Funny how a barren landscape with no life or water can be harmed.

So it seems there’s some money to be made in Mongolia, but its only half year, as the Siberian-ish weather up north paralyzes most activity during the winter. We need something more year-round. Here comes Burma.

Now, the recent events at Burma have me utterly confused. Burma since the 60s had a military dictatorship which increasingly having trouble to control the pro-democracy student movement, AKA the W force. Well while the Reagan administration was busy dismantling all friendly Asian dictators, the Burmese had the nerve to disregard an election won by the left, crack down on all those pesky students, and close the country to all foreign meddling. Of course we showered them with sanctions. They didn’t care: they sold the country to the Chinese, who for 20 years had been colonizing the place, making good money out of funneling timber and jade back to China. Mandalay, the commercial capital, became overnight a Chinese colony. I thought that was it: China was securing its own area of influence.

But then The Economist started to talk about Burma more often than usual. And next thing you know, Hillary Clinton visits the country. The junta’s awesome council, State and Peace Development Council, dismantles itself. Aung San Suu Kyi, that annoying hag, is released, and thousands of political agitators prisoners are made free too.

What happened? How did Chinese lose its bitch? I don’t know. But now Burma is The Economist’s bitch. Even Jim Rogers is gloating at the prospects of a mostly medieval country suddenly open to foreign investment. And in the next 10 years the whole place will be overflowing with money.

Investors, by nature, want yield, yield requires growth, and there’s little growth to be found in this economy. In fact I believe that growth isn’t possible anymore. And that sucks when you have a lot of money in your hands and nowhere to put it to work. But the Establishment just found two pieces of land to grow. I guess you could do worse than go and take a look.

Links

Quod Libet: Why recessions happen. AKA The Austrian theory of the business cycles, made easy. It really should be obvious. All those math-geek economists should be flogged.

hbdchick: Why Europe? She quotes a wonderful book on how in Europe, the Church declared war on clannishness and won, in China the Buddhist monasteries declared war… and lost to Confucian clans.

Andor Jakab: Made famous by his Why I don’t give you a job, do yourself a favor and read his whole blog. Hungary is quickly devolving into Third World status it seems. I should be cheering for Hungary’s new dictator, but Moldbug is right: populism is as ugly as democracy. Its the same thing really.

Zhainan was very kind and posted a short post on how atheism is unsound. I’m not sold in that mysticism is onto something but I’m open to the idea.

Roosh on Scandinavian collectivism. Roosh is a fine man who is doing a lot of evil; but he knows it, and I always enjoy reading his conflicted writing. And I can’t help feeling a tiny bit of schadenfraude when seeing him fail, trying to do what some part of all of us really wants to do.

No-sword on Japanese pronouns. Japanese basically has no pronouns, but a set of words which are used to refer to oneself or others depending on the hierarchy of the moment. So much for language universals and HNU.

The Social patologist: Americans are overworked. Damn right they are.

On the same topic, I dug up a link at Zhainan’s to a pretty insightful blog, 6 Heretics way. This quote struck on this post struck me:

Already, the 40 hour workweek is a myth.
People in salaried jobs commonly put in 12-16 hours a day.
A monthly salary is a blank check for an employer: the employee ends up working as many hours as they possibly can. The employer then gets to hire less people.
Furthermore, no one creating a job wants to have their best worker work only 30 hours in order to share time with someone less competent. Equal distributions of jobs or hours can’t work in an unequal marketplace.

What really happens then is that only the most desirable people end up with real work to do while most of the rest of the population is underemployed or idle. The elite employers and employed won’t support an unskilled, unneeded, disruptive underclass forever.

Indeed, this statement rings very true to me. I think we could still fix our workforce by drilling them into proper behaviour, but computing is making large swathes of the Bell Curve useless, besides domestic service. But who wants servants with so many cool appliances around?

Platters of loose sand

Shanghai Airlines just announced that from New Years on, it will start to make its announcements in Shanghainese, then Mandarin and English, in its flights to Shanghai. Original news link here.

They are doing this allegedly to “give native Shanghai people the feeling of getting back home”. Shanghai’s topolect is utterly unintelligible to anyone not in the immediate vicinity; and China had been imposing the standard language, Mandarin, with quite a lot of force for some time. So this is big news.

I have a complicated relation with nation-states. I find it very funny when Americans talk about the ‘American nation’, and go on talking about foreign nations as if they were natural beings. In Europe too, the official line that the State is simply the nation organizing itself for the benefit of its members, remains mainstream.

But of course all that is a huge pile of bullshit. Even in America, Yankees and Southerners are hardly one people. Its no coincidence that the modern White nationalist blogs are disproportionately Californian; as in California, just recently colonized, the various ethnics sort of merged in a pan-white identity, strengthened by contrast with the increasing invasion of Mexicans. So today you have white nationalist preaching a white American Nation, while in the east coast Yanks and southerners and the various ethnics all go on hating each other.

In the same way European nations were always, without exception, artificial constructs. English are not Scots, Parisians are not Provençals, Milanese are not Napolitans, Catalans are not Andalucians, Bavarians are not Silesians. All over Europe there’s tons of regionalist movements who want autonomy and ‘recognition’ (i.e. tax money) to promote their particular dialect/folkways. And there are horribly bitter regional hatreds.You could almost say that the nation is dead. Economic scale promotes continent-sized blocks, yet political scale is busy decomposing itself into ever smaller units.

How did this happen? Not so long ago people swore allegiance to King, God and Country, went happily to war for the fatherland, disdained regional dialects as ‘provincial’, and endeavored to give their kids a good education in the national classics. The nation building of the 19th century, with mass schooling and mass media tagging to give their peoples a national conscience, was wildly successful. So much that is has been exported all over the world, with different degrees of success. Yet at the same time the nation is dying in the land of its invention.

Some people blame postmodernism, with its penchant for ‘deconstruction’. Now the nation has been deconstructed. Others blame the Anti Nazi cult, that nationalism is allegedly bad because it caused the World Wars. Well postmodernists never had much influence besides loose Sorbonne chicks. And the antinationalist camp is certainly a big part of the ideology behind the EU project. But those are few, if powerful. The real movement in the ground here in Europe is regionalism. Devolution they call it in Britain. And that is neither postmodern nor anti-nationalist. It’s nationalism in a smaller scale, as xenophobic and discriminatory as any nationalist ever was. Its big all around the Old Continent, and now it seems is getting big also in China.

Now I won’t go into analyzing the legitimacy of every regionalist claim. Them provincialists mostly claim, not unreasonably, that modern nations are just the product of acculturizing via state propaganda, that regional languages and cultures were humiliated and killed on the process. Well of course, what else could they do? The only way for an authority to assert itself is violence. Humans left to themselves default fast to clan based culture, sorta like hunter gatherer bands, so to achieve any modicum of scale you need force.

The proof is that modern regionalisms are doing the very same thing. The Scottish Parliament is pushing Scots as the ‘national’ language, which must sound strange to any Gaelic-speaking highlander. The Basque language used to be a patch of mutually unintelligible rural dialects that no educated townsman would ever speak; today is the soul of the last indigenous people of Europe. All the difference between Czechs and Slovaks is that the former were serfs of the Germans, the latter of the Hungarians. And so on. It’s all bollocks; it has to be, there is no “truth” in politics.

So why are they doing it? Well besides a certain natural provincialism of the left half of the Bell Curve, today the money is in politics. We’re in a bad economy and the real money and job security is in the civil service. Regional politicians want ever increasing authority (and budgets), and the populace want to have privileges in the job market. So if you make it necessary to speak Basque, or Breton, or Welsh to get a civil service job; well the locals get an advantage. People dislike competition, particularly when they are prone to lose. Watch how all regionalist movement in Europe don’t even think about leaving the EU: this is not about power. It’s about money and job security.

And this is no particular European problem: see the news on China. Now China was dragged into modernity without having ever done any nation building. Sun Yatsen, the father of the Republic, used to say that Chinese didn’t care about national freedom, that Chinese were not a nation, but a “platter of loose sand”. Well that’s what peasants are. China was a centralized agricultural empire, the closest thing to the Roman empire. The bureaucracy worked in Classical Chinese, a 3000 year old written language, and spoke in some sort of educated koiné based on the court speech. Yet the peasants were mostly left alone. The demographic expansion and cultural superiority of the Han made it so almost all settled people speak variants of the same language family; but nothing remotely resembling a modern standardized speech. Standardization was only started with the foundation of the Republic, and only effectively enforced by the Communist government, which ruthlessly stamped out all regional dialects, beating children if necessary. The French teachers in the Provence used to do it to, 60 years earlier. Me being a reactionary, and we’re all sort of stuck in the 1900s, seeing the PRC effectively imposing a national culture was a refreshing sight. It filled me with respect for a rising, great nation.

Alas not anymore, it seems. I had a first peep when in Guangzhou, 2 hours from the border with Hong Kong. People in the province speak Cantonese, the non standard dialect with more cultural exposure, thanks to the Hong Kong content industry and the Cantonese diaspora. Still the Communist government used to crack down on ‘provincialism’, and made the proud Cantonese speak the Beijing based standard by force if necessary. Dialects were forbidden in any public broadcast. Not anymore now: you have Cantonese TV, bus and subway announcements, whatever. It seems like Shanghai, another snobby, proud city, is next. The massive flow of migrant peasants from the hinterland is scaring the natives of China’s eastern coast, who are using their wealth to create political privileges for them. The nation state is not good business anymore.

Assimilation done right

The ancient way of warfare was kill the men, rape the women and enslave the children. Its an almost perfect strategy: you obliterate the enemy culture, have some fun with the broads, and you also get useful human spoils. Its easy to see how it evolved after millennia of human warfare. It just works.

Yet we moderns are much too sophisticated for that. As Steve Sailer famously said, sane societies used ‘divide and conquer’, yet the modern West uses ‘consolidate and surrender’. We try to avoid killing anyone and even expose ourselves to danger to respect the enemy’s culture, in war and peace, home and abroad.

But of course you can’t when different cultures live together, like in the modern West, conflict happens. Yet our priesthood, the liberals, are in a conundrum. Their mission is to dissolve all cultures into their ideological acid, breaking ties and promoting state-managed individualism; it has mostly worked with the natives, yet those vibrant brown foreigners tend to stick to their ways. Some liberals just surrendered and, with the usual post-facto rationalization, say we should respect their foreign ways.  So you get an individual who digs clan-collectivism;  multiculturalists understand this as the individual choice of lifestyle, which must be respected.

But some liberals are actually serious in their acid dissolving thing: the hardcore progressives in Norway. See this news: Norway takes children away from Indian couple for eating with the hands and sleeping in the same bed. Hah! Poor Indians were just doing what they were drilled to do since infancy, what they understand to be natural. But oh no the Norwegian progressives aren’t having none of that. You must obey. So they took the children, and they aren’t giving them back!

The parents have been told that they can only see their children twice a year, for an hour during each visit until the kids turn 18 when they will no longer be bound by the current restrictions under current Norwegian law. Despite the Indian government’s intervention, Norwegian officials are refusing to meet the request for any further explanation.

 Ouch! 2 hours a year?! That’s harsh. I mean if they are so disgusted by Indian cultures they could just, you know, deport the family. Yet the progressive child slavers won’t even negotiate with a foreign (and quite big) government. They won’t even explain!
Propert of the State
To complete the old adage they should kill the father and rape the mother, but the Norwegians are a modern commercial people, they just want the kids. Lots of kids.

Norway’s Child Protective Service has come under much scrutiny in the past for excessive behaviour in their handling of child cruelty.

Lawyer Svein Kjetil Lode Svendsen said: ‘There has been a report in UN in 2005 which criticized Norway for taking too many children in public care.

‘The amount was 12,500 children and Norway is a small country.’

Thats a lot of kids. I wonder what the ethnic breakup is.

There is something fascinating about naked power. There’s something awe-inspiring about pure unapologetic state agression.. It reminds me of the Kelo vs New London case. And people say that power is not absolute.

Well I can just hope that they go on seizing brown kids and parents around the globe get the message. If the USG went around seizing Mexican kids, you’ll solve the immigration problem in 2 weeks. Blacks would stay though.

Unintended consequences

Atheism is a funny doctrine. They tend to be first rate mathematicians, but what they do is basically denying the law of cause and effect. Using logic that honestly I can’t understand, they reach the conclusion that you need no first cause for the world to exist. So there is effect without cause. For the same token they must have thought there is cause without effect.

Atheism causes a very funny chain of philosophical changes. It denies the existence of a higher being. Meaning that human beings are the highest being. If human beings are the highest, we can’t really discriminate between them, because there’s no criteria above humanity you can use to judge them. So we are all equal. And we are highest. So we are subject of worship (Humans just dig worshipping).

Now if human are worthy of worship, we must care for them. For every single one. Can’t let them be poor (gotta Eradicate Poverty), can’t let them starve (gotta give food to the Somalis), and we can’t let them be sick (Doctors without Borders). Having Human DNA entitles one to godly status, and as such it can’t suffer. No if we can’t help it. Now, Somalis for example have the damn habit of breeding till there’s no food left for anyone, then refuse foreign help. They do it again and again. So we try to help them, we really try, but there’s logistics constraints there. So some poor fellas do die.

There is something we can do though, and that is fight disease. Doesn’t take much to settle a field hospital in some jungle village, hoard antibiotics there and give them to the villagers. They get a bit pesky with vaccines, but antibiotics they like. So its quite easy to reduce the mortality rate in 90%. Aren’t we great?

Well nature has other ideas. A totally drug-resistant strain of tuberculosis has arised in India. We do gooders thought nothing of giving to native doctors in some tropical land where there’s more germs than food. Early healthcare introduction in the Third World caused the present unsustainable population levels, but that’ s a minor nuisance. But now our DNA worship, our bias to ‘save lives’, no matter if they’re really worth saving, threaten to kill us all. Third World doctors, thanks a lot. Hope you are the first to get killed.

On Drilling

Aretae writes how he likes my insight but disagrees with my position. He hates drilling “with a white hot passion”. Actually I do too. Bores me to death. Actually, and I guess Aretae feels the same too, drilling offends me. Because I don’t need it. I understand all those dull kids around me probably needed to be drilled to get a handle on what was taught, but I didn’t. I was always ahead. And receiving equal treatment made me mad. I deserved better.

Still that doesn’t mean that drilling should simply be made away with. I argued against it here. The fact remains that 80% of people need drilling to learn any skill set. But not just skills, just about every concept our brains manage is imprinted. Language, identity, all is created by large scale drilling. The very fact that nation states exist says a lot about the power of drilling. Nations are defined as any group of people who have a shared history, culture and blood ties. But that’s patently false. Nations are a group of people who have been drilled into thinking that they share a history, culture and blood ties. An inhabitant of Nice has no more history, culture and blood in common with someone from Calais, than it has with someone from Torino. Garibaldi, the Italian nationalist was from Nice! But alas, in 1860, not than long ago, Napoleon III seized the area, and after mass schooling and national TV broadcast, so today Niceans speak French and behave like Frenchmen, not like Italians or Savoyards. Goebbels was right, its all about repetition, given enough time.

Of course we have mostly done away with all that, redefined our cultures as simple vessels for Reason and Human Rights.The Anglosphere (and Scandinavia) has been more thorough on this, and it shows, them being the most leftist, yet also the most friendly to the free market. How can that be? The fact that Capitalism and Leftism more often than not go together has been explained by Jim Kalb for several years, in better words than I could ever write, so I won’t go further.

School drilling has been mostly abolished, and most people blame Cultural Marxism for it. That is somewhat accurate, yet we would still have traditional rote learning if there was a market for it. But there isn’t; businesses have no use for kids drilled in the stories of the Bible, Roman rhetoric, or anything at all. Modern schools are basically low security prisons to gather kids while their parents are busy. Kids get out without having learned anything but waking up early, getting tested, and learning to worship the government. Which are skills the corporations can use. Everything else is superflous, Creative Destruction means that any productive skills the kids may learn at school are bound to be obsolete by graduation. So why teach anything?

Yet there is something to say for the concept of a common culture. We used to have this artificial things called nations, in which everyone was drilled into reading the same books, learning to paint the same things, build the same buildings. We were supposed to worship Beauty, Truth and the Good. We had pretty awesome art, beautiful architecture. Also a miserable economy and huge swathes of poverty. We then decided that the economy was more important than our traditions. Swell, I also cherish my air conditioning and fiber Internet more than the Bible.

But if we dismantle all traditional considerations in our pursuit for efficiency (profit), well then it shouldn’t surprise anyone that we start to burn old books. Or we demolish old buildings and build crap in their place.  There’s little incentive in conserving old culture. So it’s dying an increasingly fast death. Even science is dying. There’s no incentive in doing sound science; Global Warming scares are far more profitable short term. Leftist government incentives are perverse, but commercial incentives aren’t much different when you think about it. Capitalism is turning against truth itself, and the endgame may very well be Brave New World.

Not that there’s anything wrong with it.