Author: VD

Macchiavelli on immigration

One of the great benefits of reading history is that one often learns that one’s thoughts are neither new nor original. Consider how the implications of Machiavelli’s observations concerning how Fabius Maximus earned his agnomen relate to present US demographics:

From the readiness wherewith the Romans conferred the right of citizenship on foreigners, there came to be so many new citizens in Rome, and possessed of so large a share of the suffrage, that the government itself began to alter, forsaking those courses which it was accustomed to follow, and growing estranged from the men to whom it had before looked for guidance. Which being observed by Quintius Fabius when censor, he caused all those new citizens to be classed in four Tribes, that being reduced within this narrow limit they might not have it in their power to corrupt the entire State. And this was a wisely contrived measure, for, without introducing any violent change, it supplied a convenient remedy, and one so acceptable to the republic as to gain for Fabius the well-deserved name of Maximus.
– CHAPTER XLIX, Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius

The Romans segregated four tribes out of thirty-five in order to prevent the corruption and collapse of their republic. The Hispanic influx into the USA is roughly equivalent to the percentage of the Roman population that belonged to the four urban tribes, but because their vote has not been limited in a similar fashion, the political corruption they brought with them has not been limited. It is not an accident that the worst abuses of the housing bubble took place in the Hispanic-heavy states of the Southwest. Since the USA did not follow the Roman lead, we can reasonably conclude that the US political system will collapse in considerably less time than the 233 years it took for the Roman system to be rendered moot by Julius Caesar.

As I have repeatedly said, I expect it to take place within 21 years, by 2033.

Mailvox: an uneven match

George: In the end, adherence to divine command theory is the province of lazy minds.

So, in the one corner, we have the irrepressible George as well as the snowflake moralist, INTJ. In the other, we have William of Ockham, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, John Calvin, Immanuel Kant (arguably), and bringing up the rear, Vox Day.

I certainly don’t mind finding myself in the company of such “lazy minds”.

WND column

Obama’s 2nd Term

There has been a good deal of speculation, some of it bordering on the apocalyptic, concerning what Barack Obama will do if the American people are foolish enough to give him another four years to preside over them. Obama says that he would grade his performance as “Incomplete,” thereby indicating that he has plans he has not yet been able to fulfill. But what are those plans? And has he truly given us any indication of them in his recent speech to the Democratic National Convention?

NFL 12 Week One

And after an offseason nearly as tumultuous as last year’s, we’re back again. I don’t know about you, but I’m curious to see how all the rookie quarterbacks do. We can be certain that one or more will be stars and others will be busts, but no one knows who will fall into which category.

As for me, I really just want to see some improvement from Christian Ponder and a fully recovered AD. A win over Jax would be nice, of course, but that’s almost of secondary interest at this point. We already know the Vikes are rebuilding after missing their one-year window of opportunity in 2009, but do they have anything from which to build? That is the question.

A chimpanzee on Mozart

INTJ keeps digging herself deeper in her attempt to argue that Western culture is not superior by the high standards of her snowflake morality:

Hahaha. You attempted to strawman me by bringing up Hitchens. I pointed out that my type precludes me from caring what happened to Hitchens’ argument, so instead you cry “appeal to authority” where there is none.

Untrue. You didn’t point out that your type precludes you from caring what happened to Hitchen’s argument, you pointed out that your type allows you to make sure your conclusions are internally sound. You claimed that your conclusions are internally sound because you are an INTJ, but you have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they are, in fact, internally sound. That was the logical fallacy identified. Furthermore, you cannot reasonably claim I attempted to strawman you until you show your argument about the horrific nature of Christianity and Islam is any different than Hitchens’s argument. He makes very similar claims to yours, although he is honest enough to include Judaism. It would certainly be interesting to hear your argument that Christianity requires genocide when the only examples are Judaic.

Actually, I can appeal to the highest authority there is (and the only valid authority at that): human reason. I can convince the average person that slavery, rape, and genocide are wrong under any circumstances. All you’ve got is a book written by a bunch of uncivilized tribal barbarians.

You are a very ignorant person. So, you consider reason more authoritative than science? How very medieval of you. More authoritative than history? How very stupid of you. And to claim that science and history are totally invalid authorities only shows that you are in well over your thick little head. Reason is not an authority at all, it is simply another tool. I can use it to convince the average person that slavery, rape, and genocide are moral imperatives… nor would I be the first to do so.

If the rules condone such things, fuck the rules.

Profound, very profound. As I said, your whole snowflake morality boils down to “me no likee”.

Whatever helps you sleep better at night. Personally, I bow to no one that is morally reprehensible. Not Rob Pardo, not you, and certainly not your genocidal friend.

Non serviam. That’s hardly new. To whom do you bow?

Could there possibly have been more straw in this man?

Whoosh! No wonder you don’t appreciate Western culture. It would be like asking a chimpanzee for his view on Mozart.

Snowflake morality

Some of you may find this exchange at Susan Walsh’s place to be as familiar as it is amusing. INTJ attempts to call JutR and me to account on the basis of our bigoted belief in the superiority of Western culture:

The level of arrogance and superiority you seem to have for Western culture is frankly shocking to me. I have better things to do then to have a lengthy argument about your bigoted views, but I’ll throw in a couple of points:

First, if the Bible and the Quran are interpreted literally, both Islam and Christianity are absolutely horrific religions. Christianity has no right to hold the moral high ground here. The only difference between the two religions is that radical Islam is far more prevalent and powerful than radical Christianity. But this has nothing to do with religion. The only reason for this is Cold War politics. It was the American government that propped up reactionary governments like the Saudis, and it’s the America and Israel that funded jihadist groups in the Middle East to destabilize pro-Soviet governments.

Second, it is clear cut that the West as a whole is far more promiscuous than the East, reflecting a cultural legacy of individualism. This culture had its pros (such as work ethic, meritocracy) and cons (promiscuity, narcissism). But there’s no question that the West is more individualist, and in America in particular, more materialist due to the consumer society.

I’ve spent time in enough third-world shitholes to vastly prefer Western culture to all of the alternatives, yes. I’m not excusing the USA’s insane meddling in empire and the West is now indubitably in decline, but if you’re going to defend cannibal cultures and pagan ones that couldn’t figure out the wheel, running water, or the rule of law, well, I’m simply going to laugh at you. Perhaps when the West collapses economically and you end up in a part of it dominated by non-Western cultures, you’ll learn to appreciate what was once Christendom.

Oh, this should be amusing. By what universal moral standard are Islam and Christianity “absolutely horrific”? Your personal and subjective one? Some pagan Indian one? If you are clueless enough to try to claim they are self-condemning by their own standards, this is going to get very embarrassing for you very fast. You would appear to be unaware that Doug Wilson absolutely handed Christopher Hitchens his head on a platter when Hitchens tried to make this very argument.

Cannibal cultures? Seriously? You should at least reread what you type before you post such shit.

You conveniently overlooked the conditionality of my statement: “if the Bible and the Quran are interpreted literally”. Yes, slavery, rape, and genocide are horrific according to my own moral standard. Do you disagree with this aspect of my own moral standard? If so, feel free to fuck off.

What, you didn’t hear about the German who got eaten earlier this year in Papua New Guinea? It’s not “shit”, it’s historical fact and it is still happening today. Do you really not know that albinos are being slaughtered across Africa and even in Europe now for “muti”? Or that the UN confirmed that pygmies were being eaten in the Congo in 2003?

I didn’t overlook it at all. In fact, the literal interpretation of both the Bible and the Koran is obviously assumed if one is going to judge their respective moralities by the standards imposed by the respective scriptures. And you call yourself an INTJ….

Who cares about your stupid little personal moral standard? It is no more valid to the other seven billion people on the planet than Hitler’s, Stalin’s, or anyone else’s who doesn’t subscribe to an objective one with a universal warrant. “Fuck off if you don’t agree with me” is a borderline retarded argument, but by all means, feel free to run away crying like a little girl who can’t make a rational case for her own position if you like. And you should care what that fool Hitchens did, because he was trying to defend exactly the same position you appear to be holding.

As an INTJ, I come to my own conclusions and make sure they’re internally sound. Hitchens may or may not share my conclusions, and may or may not have sound reasons for those conclusions. Either way, I don’t care, as I do not attribute much value to Hitchens’ political/philosophical activity.

And I’m not arguing with you when I tell you to fuck off. I’m simply following my own “not very valid” moral standard, which requires me to take react aggressively to those who aren’t against slavery, rape, or genocide.

You may subscribe to the moral standard as literally expounded in the scripture of the Bible, which includes Exodus 21, Numbers 31, and Deuteronomy 20 & 21. If so, I repeat what I said earlier: feel free to fuck off.

An appeal to the authority of your personality type. That’s certainly a creative logical fallacy. Since you are the author of those conclusions, no doubt you are the ideal person to be certain your conclusions are internally sound.

How very admirable [. I suppose I must be doing the same thing, although my unique and subjective moral standard requires me to point and laugh at philosophically ignorant individuals who genuinely believe they have constructed a sound and logically consistent moral standard when they are doing little more than attempting to rationalize their feelings. Seriously, speaking as a fellow INTJ, you’re really letting the side down here. In fact, we appear to have a real conundrum here, as I can appeal to the same authority to which you are appealing in defense of a very different conclusion.

I most certainly do. God’s Games, God’s Rules. Even Socrates couldn’t quibble philosophically with that; it solves the second horn of his false dilemma. To paraphrase the voice in the whirlwind, who do you think you are, creature, to judge your Maker? You are like an NPC on a World of Warcraft server shaking its fist at Rob Pardo, demanding to know why it has to watch orc after orc after orc die at the hands of invading parties, seeing them rise again from the dead only to die in agony once more. Slaver! Murderer! Genocidal Maniac! And then Pardo flicks a switch and that entire universe vanishes in an instant.

Stupefying Stories September 12

The Original Cyberpunk is on a serious roll of late. He is releasing new anthologies faster than I can write short stories to celebrate them. Here is a description of the new September 2012 edition, now available on Amazon.

The STUPEFYING STORIES “Pirates and Dragons” edition is chock-full of all-new tales of dastardly pirates, lonely dragons, quarrelsome petty gods, meddlesome slimy aliens, and profoundly philosophical chickens. Featuring “Riddle Me” by Richard Zwicker, “Corsairs of the Concrete Sea” by Thoraiya Dyer, “The Thundering Dragon of Heaven” by Michael Matheson, “God Mic” by B. Sanford, “The Thirty-Ninth President and the Fourteenth Tentacle” by Theodore Carter, “Thief of Hearts” by Auston Habershaw, “In the Castle of the Assassins” by Melissa Embry, “The Lord of Flocks” by Alison Pentecost, and “The Little Thief” by Phil Temples. From a road in the middle of nowhere to the day after tomorrow, from a shattering tale of First Contact to the long-suppressed story that finally makes it possible to make sense of the events of the past thirty-five years, you’ll find it this time out in STUPEFYING STORIES!

If you like good old school SF/F, check it out. Stupefying Stories is rapidly becoming what Asimov and Analog were back when I was a kid.

Unemployment is down!

The BLS reports unemployment has dropped .2 percent, to 8.1 percent. That’s good, right? The recovery is on the way! Well, not so much:

The reason the unemployment rate “edged down” is that 1.483 million people gave up and exited the workforce! The Department of Labor Lies doesn’t count anyone who gives up any longer, so the “unemployment rate” is claimed to have decreased. But what’s worse is that there were a net 868,000 fewer people with jobs in August over July, despite there being 212,000 more people of working age in the population. That’s right — net-on-net over one million fewer people (adjusted for population change) were working last month.

This is precisely why I said that it is more informative to look at the Employment-Population Ratio in the Greenberg interview last night. The U3 figure is very easily gamed by simply not counting people who are not employed as unemployed.

Choking on the red pill

At Alpha Game, I consider one of the more problematic Churchian lies, namely, the idea that women of the Church are particularly attracted to men of strong Christian faith:

This may be among the most bitter of the various aspects of the red pill for some men, particularly Christian men, to swallow. It’s a message we hear from Christians and Churchians alike, that women will be attracted to men who are godly pillars of the community, that being “sold out for Jesus” is not merely an attractive feature, but the most definitively attractive aspect of a man for a Christian woman.

There is one serious problem with this. It is not true.

I have no doubt there will be many Christian women who disagree with this. I would simply ask them to honestly ask themselves if their strong Christian husband would be as sexually attractive to them if he was every bit as faithful and godly he is now, but lacked his other attractive attributes.

Nor do I intend to pick on women here – let’s face it, it’s pretty clear when I’m doing that – it is merely that the Church does not teach women it is their faith that is their primary appeal to men. It does, however, teach men precisely that.