Non-US Citizen Invites Illegal Immigrants into the US

Justin Wolfers, Australian citizen teaching at the University of Michigan:

“My message to #Dreamers at @umich is simple: Welcome to class.”

says the Australian living in the US. According to Wikipedia, his nationality is simply Australian; he didn’t even bother to get dual US-Australian citizenship before he started inviting people to illegally enter our country.

My message to Justin Wolfers: Go fuck yourself.

Then go back to your office, scratch your head, and wonder why Trump won.

Advertisements

One Ex-Feminist’s Experience with Feminism

Via the Dark Herald:

Ultra-feminist founder of Femen Brazil declares herself pro life, apologizes

In her new book “Bitch, no! Seven times I was betrayed by Feminism” (Vadia não! Sete vezes que fui traída pelo feminismo), Giromini writes that she was repeatedly pushed to do drugs, to engage in sex with strangers, and was even molested by a lesbian, all at the hands of feminists who claimed to be fighting for women’s equality.

The Left isn’t really a political movement; it’s evil and insane people using the language of politics to advance their evil and insanity in the world and inflict it on everyone else.

“We like nice guys! We don’t like jerks!”

“We like nice guys! We don’t like jerks!”
“What about that time you slept with Chad?”
“That was just because I was drunk! Doesn’t count!”
“What about that time you slept with Jason?”
“That was just because he was sooooo hot! Doesn’t count!”
“What about that time you slept with Eric?”
“He’s not really a jerk, he just seems that way sometimes because he had a really difficult childhood and (blah blah)… Doesn’t count!”
“What about that time you slept with Martin?”
“That was just because I was on the rebound from my breakup with Fred! Doesn’t count!”
“Speaking of Fred…”
“That was years ago! I was young and confused! Doesn’t count!”
“What about that time you slept with John?”
“That was just because he was really good at putting up a front. He really seemed nice at first! Doesn’t count!”
“What about that time you slept with Adam?”
“That was just because I was on a huge dry spell and super-horny. I had no judgment and just grabbed the first guy who came along. Doesn’t count!”
“What about that time you slept with Rob?”
“I knew he was a jerk, but thought I could change him to a nice guy. Doesn’t count!”
“What about that time you slept with Neurotoxin?”
“That was just because all my girlfriends told me what an enormous cock he has! Doesn’t count!”
“Nathan?”
“Doesn’t count!”
“Mike?”
“Doesn’t count!”
“What about–”
“Doesn’t count!”
“Are you noticing a pattern in this–”
“Doesn’t count!”
“But–”
“Doesn’t count!”

Notice the one consistent pattern in all this, ladies: It was a never a nice guy that you hopped into bed with in all those “exceptional circumstances.” It wasn’t a nice guy you fucked because he was “sooooo hot.” It wasn’t a nice guy you fucked because you were young and confused. It wasn’t a nice guy you fucked because you were on the rebound from your breakup with Fred. It wasn’t a nice guy you fucked because you were on a huge dry spell and super-horny. No, somehow the men you hopped into bed with under those “exceptional circumstances” always just happened to be jerks.

The stupidest excuse of them all is “I knew he was a jerk, but thought I could change him to a nice guy.” There are tons of guys out there who are already nice. If you really wanted a nice guy you’d simply have grabbed one of them. These nice guys are all available, too. Which also makes my point; think about it.

On that note: Last year my woman and I were catching up on some DVR’d episodes of the first or second season of Agents of Shield. [MAMMOTH SPOILER WARNING.] Ward has been revealed as a merciless remorseless utterly inhuman sadistic psychopathic serial murderer who tried to kill all his former comrades and who did kill many Shield agents, not to mention his own brother and his brother’s family. So my woman starts analyzing him as if he’s a normal human being. “Oh, it’s like his older brother forced him to threaten his other, younger brother, so he had to turn off his emotions and (blah blah blah).”

I sat there staring at her, agape, almost unable to believe what I was hearing. My chick is actually an intelligent person. But because she was born with two X chromosomes, observing an utterly remorseless multiple murderer shuts off her brain’s ability to think and auto-kick-starts an excuse-making algorithm. Colloquially, we call that the Hamster, but the name will make the Hamster surprise you. It’s not a friendly, furry little guy who makes women do cute, silly things. It makes them find excuses for multiple murderers. Filtered through female neural mechanisms that evolved in the African savanna half a million years ago, “multiple murderer” parses out as “dominant male.” He has the physical ability, and the ruthlessness, to kill and get away with it.

People who think the Manosphere is excessively negative about women need to actually observe women in the real world.

(Well OK, parts of the Manosphere can, in fact, be excessively negative about women. But still, anyone who thinks they don’t have a point really does need to observe actual women.)

In fact, we need an expression to replace “the Hamster.” “The Hamster” is far too harmless-sounding. A now-defunct blog (In Mala Fide, IIRC) once referred to “the world-shaking amorality of the gina tingle.” While “gina tingle” is too comedic, “world-shaking amorality” captures the reality we need a tag for.

Females Initiate by Display

From the Dark Herald:
http://reactionarytimes.blogspot.com/2017/08/con-game.html

The thing about a major convention is that the cosplay girls are there to put themselves on display. This is perfectly right and proper. The thing to remember about girls is this, the need for male attention is instinctive in the female of our species. They have no choice about this, it is a genuine biologically driven priority because a female that doesn’t gain male attention, will not reproduce. Simple but there it is. Sex is receptive for a human female, they initiate by display.

If you’ve been to college you know that’s not the only way they initiate, but it is a main way, arguably the main way.

The real question is why they deny it. “I know it’s 2 degrees out, but the reason I’m wearing this low-cut blouse that shows everything but nipple is to keep cool!” Who do they think they’re fooling?

Political Correctness Ruins Everything: Satanism Edition

The Washington Post recently ran a piece titled I’m a founder of the Satanic temple. Don’t blame Satan for white supremacy.

(Subheading: “Calling hatred Satanic just lets people off the hook.”)

The doofus who wrote this says,

I identify nontheistically with a Miltonic Satan that defies all subjugation, exalts scientific inquiry and promotes Humanistic, pluralistic values. The Satan of Modern Satanism is a metaphorical icon for Enlightenment values.

Enlightenment… you can’t… Miltonic… it… (sputter).

Look, doofus, some of us have actually read Milton’s Paradise Lost. At no point in that work are we shown a Satan who “defies all subjugation,” “exalts scientific inquiry” (what the fuck?), or “promotes Humanistic, pluralistic values.” He wants everyone in hell, subjugated to him, the “scientific” thing is just weird, as is the bizarre thing about pluralism, and the assertion of Humanistic values is particularly brazen. Satan, in Paradise Lost, wants Adam and Eve and all their descendants roasting in hell because he knows that this will make God sad, and he can’t strike at God directly. This is stated explicitly in the text. Someone’s goal is to have humans burning in hell for all eternity and you call him a “Humanist.” Well, at least you’ve got the Father of Lies thing down.

But anyway, that wasn’t my main point. My main point is…

“Anti-racism” now has had such success as a narrative/ movement that even Satanists are afraid to be associated with racism.

Wow. That is some astounding narrative success. That could serve as a definition of what it means for a meme to propagate itself successfully and become predominant in a society.

(BTW, I’m using the original definition of “meme,” for those of you whose memory doesn’t go back further than the last three years.)

Also, I expect more from Satanists. If you’re just going to pretend to be evil because chicks like the bad boy thing, you should probably not write articles saying, “I’m really a nice guy, when it comes down to it!”

Get a grip, Satanists, and show some attitude. Either embrace the “I’m eeeeeeevil!” thing, or have the goat head tattoos removed, rip the anarchy patch off that fey little leather jacket, and start going to an Episcopalian church.

For fuck’s sake, we can’t even get quality diabolists anymore. Political correctness ruins everything.

Socialism: Why you can’t do that

When socialism was a rampaging idea in the twentieth century, part of the intellectual war was the socialist calculation debate. This debate made the point that a socialist central planner could never have enough information to plan the economy. The basic reason is that you need to know people’s desires to do that, and the only way to know their desires is to set them free and see what choices they make.

Additionally, the engineering tradeoffs in the economy are immensely complicated. E.g., how much steel should we devote to building apartment buildings, how much to car production, how much to computer production, etc.? Only a decentralized mechanism – markets – has a prayer of dealing with those tradeoffs in a sane manner. A market economy is a practical solution to the information problem because each small unit – each firm or individual person – only has to wrestle with their own small piece of the economy. They don’t have to plan the whole thing.

Furthermore, markets have a crucial feature: Feedback. Business are punished for bad decisions by making losses. A central planner, in a world without profit and loss, wouldn’t even know about his mistakes, let alone have any incentive to correct them.

Socialists being socialists, they got their asses thoroughly kicked in this debate, then declared victory. (Plus ca change…)

A while ago Slate Star Codex had a post reviewing a book, Red Plenty, in which these issues arose. In the comments the socialist calculation debate flared to life.

One commenter says of the planners’ problem compared to the market problem, “This fails a simple sanity check. I refuse to believe that [individual] humans are able to calculate those equations…”

This fails to get a large number of relevant points. To mention just two:

(1) The individuals aren’t solving the same problem the planner does. They have prices to do a large amount of the computational work for them. Market prices convey information; more on this below.

(2) Another problem, of course, is that the information the planner would need about people’s preferences is in the people’s heads, so the planner would have to read people’s minds. The people, in contrast, are not faced with the problem of reading their own minds.

Returning to (1), prices sum up the scarcity of something relative to the demand for it. Here’s economist Friedrich Hayek, in a famous passage (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html, paragraphing added for ease of reading):

Assume that somewhere in the world a new opportunity for the use of some raw material, say, tin, has arisen, or that one of the sources of supply of tin has been eliminated. It does not matter for our purpose-and it is very significant that it does not matter-which of these two causes has made tin more scarce [relative to the demand for it].

All that the users of tin need to know is that some of the tin they used to consume is now more profitably employed elsewhere and that, in consequence, they must economize tin. There is no need for the great majority of them even to know where the more urgent need has arisen, or in favor of what other needs they ought to husband the supply.

Hayek notes that if information is decentralized, and everyone just deals with their own small piece, the problem is manageable. He continues:

If only some of them know directly of the new demand, and switch resources over to it, and if the people who are aware of the new gap thus created in turn fill it from still other sources, the effect will rapidly spread throughout the whole economic system and influence not only all the uses of tin but also those of its substitutes and the substitutes of these substitutes… and so on; and all this without the great majority of those instrumental in bringing about these substitutions knowing anything at all about the original cause of these changes.

Tin’s price could have gone up due to a decrease in the supply… and a very large number of things could cause such a decrease. It also could have gone up due to an increase in demand… and a very large number of things could cause such an increase. The people making choices affected by that price don’t need to know why it went up— it is a summary statistic that only conveys what they need to know— but the planner does have to know. To plan efficiently, the planner has to know whether tin’s price rose due to an increase in demand for it, and what and where that specific demand was… or due to a decrease in supply, and what the particular decrease was. Otherwise the planning problem can’t be solved. E.g., maybe someone has discovered a new industrial use for tin, a new technological development. The planner, in contrast to market participants, must know this to come up with a new optimal plan – the planner can’t optimize without even knowing the engineering tradeoffs in the economy!

Now the “sanity check” radar of the commenter mentioned above may be pinging. “Why,” he might ask, “does the planner need to know something the market participants don’t need to know? Why can’t the planner just replicate whatever info-processing mechanism makes this work in a market economy?”

Answer: Because the mechanism that makes it work is decentralization.

Memo to socialists: You can’t have a goal of central planning, then whine because your goal involves centralization.

(Socialists in the 20th century often said the planners could use prices. This assumes an answer to the question that is being debated. Where do the prices come from? Who sets them? What gives them any connection to real-world supply and demand?)

Alternatively, you could embrace decentralization – and I hope you do – but then you’re basically just replicating the market. (In the context of a basically market economy, conventional deviations from pure market, like taxes and welfare programs, are of second-order importance compared to the complete informational chaos that would attend an attempt at central planning.)

This is what the commenter meant, though he didn’t know it, when he wrote,

“What really happens is that those humans don’t really calculate all those equations, but use some simplified version. But then, why does the computer need to use the 1,001,000 equations instead of using similar simplifications, or approximations, or better algorithms…”

The simplifying trick those humans use is decentralization.

This is, indeed, the dilemma upon which all socialist notions must founder: Either you depart radically from the market, in which case you can’t solve the information problem and all is chaos, or you simply replicate the market outcome, in which case why bother?

One more point: If you’re trying to enlist me in your violent revolution that’s going to kill tens of millions of people to replace the market, you’ll have to provide an argument a lot more concrete than, “There must be some way to do it.”