Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

Smart Flight

A friend of mine accuses me of being a “hedonistic sob” (his words). That’s because I eat buckwheat crepes for breakfast, eat out in the weekends, and drink Masala Chai at home. I also watch international movies in a Macbook and own two smartphones.

My salary sucks, but I don’t have children, and my woman is low maintenance, which helps. But the biggest factor is that I live in a pleasant neighbourhood, and I don’t pay the rent myself. I couldn’t afford the rent of where I live right now. But once you take that away, life can be really good with little money. If you can cook (or your woman can) then eating reasonably well at home is cheap. Torrents and ebook readers mean entertainment is cheap, or essentially free. Socializing can be expensive; just cut the booze and meet your friends in their houses.

The root of all misery is rent. And for families, schools. Housing is hideously expensive anywhere in the world, there’s no safe haven. It’s expensive in North and South Europe, in America, in Asia, wherever you go. It’s getting worse in most places, bubbles aside. And schools also are increasingly expensive. That’s what makes life hard, what impels people to work long hours in pointless jobs, what forces women to work outside the home and make their families miserable.

Why housing and schools? They have something in common: the value of sharing them with good people. Besides the actual quality of the housing, the aesthetic value it may have, the real value of housing is being surrounded by pleasant people. Being low crime. Having nice neighbours. Or said plainly: avoiding proles. The value of avoiding proles is the most expensive thing on the planet. Not NAMs, just low IQ types in general. What we used to call scum, no matter the race. Of course each race has different distributions of scum, some are mostly scum, some have less of it.  But that’s not the point.

The point is that people out there are working their asses off, getting stressed out, having diseases and even dying because of the stress. And all for the only purpose of avoiding proles. Which means you need a house in a nice neighbourhood. And if you have kids, you will want to take them to a school without proles. And oh God that’s worth a fucking fortune. So the cycle of stress, and women in the workforce, and broken marriages, and just general shit goes on. All to avoid proles.

I don’t have the problem so my girlfriend stays at home cooking, I work the hours I wanna and we are honestly having a great time every day. I may not be an aristocrat in 18th century France, but I think I know the douceur de vivre. Life’s good in the 21th century. If you can avoid proles. Something like 80% of the money in any given economy is probably spent just on the desperate avoidance of proles.

And its getting worse, because the economy is getting worse, because dysgenics is causing an increase of the number proles. And immigration. Oh immigration. Immigrants being the purest form of prole, have raised the cost of living in the First World by an order of magnitude. I can’t even think the sheer amount of money that have been spent in changing homes and private schools by people desperate to get away from them. Someone should make a graph about it.

Or the children that weren’t given birth because the parents preferred not to having them, rather than having them live around proles. That’s by far the biggest reason behind the low fertility rate. As people’s income grow, their standards rise. The definition of scum also rises, and people prefer not having a family rather than give up upward mobility. It’s accepting the proles, or death. Most people choose death.

Eugenics is not only an idea from Darwinian biology. It’s an economics concept. The holy grail. Dysgenics depresses the economy. Eugenics would make it boom, if only by lowering prices. Prosperity by deflation.  Now if somebody could grab Krugman and the Chalupas guy and convince them of it.


17 responses to “Smart Flight

  1. Jehu February 25, 2012 at 01:46

    Proles have been stripped of the ability to control their own neighborhoods by the Civil rights acts and the death of free association. I’d say about 80% of proles are perfectly good neighbors (one way of putting this, if you could go through and eject the worst 20% of a typical mostly white lower middle class/upper lower class neighborhood, what remained would be a very nice place to live). In our current regime, only the relatively rich are allowed to exclude bad actors, and only via indirect financial means.

  2. rightsaidfred February 25, 2012 at 03:53

    What is astounding is that hard earned tax money pays for the increase in proles and the destruction of good neighborhoods.

    I’ve read that one failure of WWI was that the generals believed their own propaganda. I suspect our “equal outcome for all” rulers have the same problem.

  3. anon February 25, 2012 at 23:40

    You couldn’t be more right about rent. For a lot of people, it dwarfs all other expenses combined. It’s twenty-first century serfdom.

  4. B February 26, 2012 at 02:20

    People don’t have children because they have an ideology which teaches them to value immediate and selfish gratification over the things that are of real value.

    • spandrell February 26, 2012 at 12:21

      That’s part of it. People aren’t ready to sacrifice a lot of goodies for having children.
      But people being sheep, you can’t just forgo having an iphone or nice clothes just to have more kids. Your friends will sneer at you. So people in general are stuck with having kids with the extra income they have after doing all the society-mandated consumption. And if you sustract rent from that; well it’s a miracle people can have any kids at all.

      • B February 26, 2012 at 15:06

        Of course, after 20-40 years of playing this game, people are left with a bunch of old iPhones. If they did have one or two kids, they dumped them in day care and various other foster institutions in order to focus on career, and are repaid in turn by being dumped in a retirement home. The whole thing is like a big satanic mechanism designed to trick people into forging their own misery.

      • spandrell February 26, 2012 at 15:20

        Upward mobility is the fuel of society. It’s the basis of happiness. It’s what people do. Shallow and pointless, maybe. Female hypergamy is also supremely stupid in a modern setting. Yet people are wired like that. We killed God, humans are the highest being. It necessarily follows that human desires are sacred. Can’t criticise anything, even gluttony or lust.

        It’s a funny thing that religion, which is based on the idea that humans are chosen, special creatures, works only inasmuch as it negates natural human behaviour. Maybe Calvin was right after all. Most people are just born to be damned.

      • B February 27, 2012 at 00:39

        I draw diametrically opposite conclusions from the same premises. We (the West) didn’t kill G-d, we lapsed into idolatry (which always reduces to self-worship) and are paying the inevitable price as laid out explicitly in the Bible-degradation and extinction.

        As far as human nature-pants are unnatural, literacy is unnatural, law is unnatural. Our function is not to be natural, it is to transcend nature in the service of something much higher, while remaining part of it. Deviating from this path causes extinction, as you can observe.

      • spandrell February 27, 2012 at 10:58

        Well be my guest on transcending nature. But not all people are cut for that. All the humans who as a group tend to behave in an unnatural, civilized way, do so because of massive bullying from the hierarchy of their group.
        Not to say that is a bad thing. But people in general don’t behave out of sincere faith. They behave out of fear and conditioning. Let’s stop pretending its not so.

  5. Hail February 26, 2012 at 10:15

    Reading this entry, I have to ask: Are you British? A lot of the message of this post seems to reflect a British perspective. (Plus you do use certain British spellings).

    I have wondered why the British lower classes seem to be have been hit so hard by the ‘dysgenic’ phenomenon to which you allude (e.g. the rise of the ‘Chav’), much moreso than the USA, or at least so is my impression.

    • spandrell February 26, 2012 at 12:32

      I’m European =)

      You tax something, you get less of it. You subsidize something, you get more of it. Well Britain’s welfare system has been subsidizing Chavs very generously for a long time. A US prole behaving like his Brit cousin would have starved pretty fast.

      • Hail February 26, 2012 at 14:00

        That sort of ‘Newtonian politics’ makes sense to me.

        Yet the British and other Europeans, despite being rational beings, seem to fail to see this. It is puzzling.

        It seems to me that, on the whole, the European Union is project in large part dedicated to the welfare-state, to a degree that would get one laughed off the stage in the USA. AM I wrong?

      • spandrell February 26, 2012 at 15:12

        Welfare is the jurisdiction of the national governments.

        The EU authorities are doing the not less harmful task of anti-discrimination legislation. But that’s American inspired, if anything.

        The Chavism problem is very specifically British. Other countries in Europe are more rational. They don’t assign free housing to single mothers of mulatto babies and upgrade the place if they have more kids.
        It just seems to me that Britain’s bureaucracy have a set of guidelines, and they strive to meet them. As their guidelines seem to be the annihilation of suffering, an impossible goal which has the lovely by-product of needing the infinite expansion of the bureaucracy.
        Its a self-feeding mechanism of doom. Quite rational though.

  6. Hail February 26, 2012 at 14:06

    On the subject of Chavs:
    Here you can find an excerpt from the essay “The Tragedy of the Chav“, and other comments and thoughts on the Chav phenomenon.

    Also see here, in which an Englishman (GW of MajorityRights) reflecting on how the Chav differs from his spiritual-antecedents. There were always Proles, but not always Chavs.

    Perhaps the question regarding chavs is this: What is the difference between this individual today and his manifestation in past generations? Three likely possibilities: the de-moralisation of almost fifty years of liberal social policy, the economic redundancy that has flowed from thirty years of neoliberal policy, and classic culture shock that flows from colonisation.

  7. Pingback: Randoms of the past week « Foseti

Please comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s