Taxes and diversity

Newsflash: people don’t like them:

St. Louis is losing residents, according to U.S. Census figures released Thursday, and the population decline goes deeper than being another blow to the proud city’s image.
The drop will mean a financial loss that could cost the already cash-strapped Gateway City millions of dollars. Figures from the 2010 census were a bitter disappointment, as the city’s population dipped to 319,294. That’s down more than 29,000 – a staggering 8 percent – from 2000.

The social planners can show multiracial socializing on every commercial, television show, and music video they like, but that’s never going to overcome basic biological preferences. As times get harder, the need for tight-knit communities will spring to the fore and that’s when the forced vibrancy will start to turn increasingly ugly. Remember, it wasn’t that long ago that the French were drowning Algerians in the Seine. And the people most responsible for the bloodshed won’t be those fighting it out, but those who consciously encouraged the creation of the multi-ethnic societies in full knowledge of the historical record.

Modern chivalry is dead

And a good riddance to it. Guy Ritchie is an early nominee for Man of the Year.

When a man sees a woman in trouble it is usually polite to help her out but for one English gent his manners seemed to have failed him last night. As Guy Ritchie was leaving Claridges hotel a woman stumbled on a plant pot and tumbled to the ground, but the director did little but smile at her plight. In fact, although the woman fell directly in front of him, he failed to help her out and merely pointed towards her with a grin before walking around her and carrying on his way home.

Chivalry in the modern sense presumes that women are of intrinsically more value to men. This was true when most Western women were serious about fulfilling their primary role as propagators of mankind. But since women have by and large abandoned that role and given priority to their self-esteem, education, and occupation instead, there is no longer any justification for chivalric behavior applied broadly to the female sex in general. Each woman must be judged worthy or unworthy of such treatment on her own merits, and in the absence of any information, the assumption must be that she is unworthy.

My habit is to treat women as they wish to be treated. If a woman insists that she is equal to me, then I will show her no more favor or mercy than I would show a man. Pay for yourself, defend yourself, and get your own damn door. If, on the other hand, a woman indicates that she subscribes to traditional and unequal standards, I am pleased to show her with all the conventional courtesy that was previously provided to all the members of the erstwhile “fair sex”. Barring any indications to the contrary, I assume that a woman I don’t know is an equalitarian and treat her accordingly.

In the days of yore, the correct response to a woman in minor distress was to go to her assistance. These days, the proper response is to simply proceed with the mission. With a snort of amused contempt, of course, if you feel so moved.

Where is the depression?

Occasionally economically ignorant critics attempt to nip at my ankles by making reference to the apparent absence of the global economic contraction that I believe is happening and predicted would start to become widely recognized by the end of 2010. But the failure of the Great Depression 2.0 to be recognized in the conventional macroeconomic statistics yet doesn’t bother me in the slightest, because the map is not the territory. And, as I demonstrate in the chapter entitled “No One Knows Anything”, those statistics cannot be trusted in the least. Keep in mind that the National Association of Realtors is having to revise its numbers to account for the 3.1 million home sales that were reported by its statistical model in 2009 and 2010 but cannot be found in any real-world recording process; a similar correction to GDP would indicate a 30 percent decline from $14,870 billion to $10,306 billion. It’s interesting to see how this is roughly in line with the confidential Goldman Sachs report cited by the Market Ticker.

What have I been saying? That the only thing keeping us from recognizing a full-on economic depression was government deficit spending? Spending that, at present levels, cannot possibly continue.

Worse, there’s no way out of the box. Raise taxes and you subtract directly from private spending. Refuse to raise taxes and you are forced to continue to borrow. Extrapolate out the $1.7 trillion from calendar 2010 and removing that would result in a decrease of twenty-eight times Goldman’s estimate, or some fifty percent of GDP.

Were you sitting down when you read that? Did you have an incontinent moment? If you didn’t then you don’t believe Goldman’s confidential report. If you do believe it you now know what’s going to happen. Not might, will.

One way or another, the artificial support to GDP that is embedded in our insane deficit spending will stop. It mathematically must stop. And when it does stop, if you believe Goldman’s analysis, even if we only cut deficit spending in half GDP will fall by 25%. If we eliminate it? GDP is halved.

And there, my dear critics, is precisely where your missing depression is. I don’t mind admitting that the Fed has been able to keep the situation strung together with string and chewing gum longer than I thought they could, but it doesn’t matter if they manage to keep it up for another five years. The end result will still be the same. Although it’s not quite correct to say that it doesn’t matter, as the longer they manage to postpone the inevitable, the more painful it is going to be.

Socionomics told us 10 years ago that there we were going to be seeing a huge increase in violent political upheaval around the world. That’s exactly what we’re seeing now across the Middle East, but don’t think that it is going to end there. Once the desperation spending stops, it’s going to spread across the East and West as well. We’re not talking cannibalism in the streets, but we’re also not talking about a stroll in the park either. But just so we’re clear, I expect at least one more round of stimulus, and probably two, before the Keynesians throw in the towel. This indicates that Republicans will eventually cave on the debt ceiling; given their strong rhetoric there will have to be some sort of crisis that will excuse the abandonment of their position.

Progressive projection and the Dynamic Law

One of the things I have continued to find interesting about discussing the topic of morality with those who believe that Man is capable of collective moral progression is their frequent reference to the supposed self-righteousness of those who subscribe to more conventional and traditional moral standards. Consider Ludovici’s notes on Friedrich Nietzche’s Thus Spake Zarathustra, which are at the end of the book in the Common translation available at Project Gutenberg.

“‘[T]he good and just,’ throughout the book, is the expression used in referring to the self-righteous of modern times, those who are quite sure that they know all that is to be known concerning good and evil, and are satisfied that the values their little world of tradition has handed down to them, are destined to rule mankind as long as it lasts.”

But what is intriguing about this nineteenth century attitude, (which is shared by many of today’s moral progressives under the false impression that it is something new), is that it is not only morally blind and philosophically ignorant, it is also logically backward. Setting aside the obvious ignorance of the basic concept of Natural Law it entails, the idea of the “self-righteous moral traditionalist” doesn’t even begin to make sense.

Think about it. If a moral tradition has been handed down from previous generations, then it quite clearly is not a subjective standard. If a man is deemed, by himself or others, to be righteous when measured against that traditional standard, he cannot reasonably be described as “self-righteous” because the standard is wholly external to the man. It is particularly absurd to attempt to claim that a Christian is “self-righteous” given that one of the primary tenets of the Christian faith is that righteousness comes only through the grace of God and the person of Jesus Christ.

A “self-righteous Christian” is an intrinsic contradiction in terms. One can reasonably call the self-righteous individual’s Christianity into account, but one cannot reasonably describe the Christian’s adherence to Christian standards as being self-righteous in any way.

Moreover, logic dictates that the accusation of self-righteousness not only can be directed, but must be directed at those who a) subscribe to a subjective moral standard of their own device by selecting bits and pieces from existing moral standards, or b) subscribe to what Bakker described as “naive moral relativism”. Their righteousness, to the extent it can even be said to exist, is entirely based on their own self-references. Therefore, we can safely conclude that the accusation of “self-righteousness” so often directed at those who subscribe to traditional moral standards by those who do not is little more than an obvious case of psychological projection. Just as liars believe everyone else is lying, those who deem themselves to be good by virtue of their own subjective moral standards believe everyone else must be self-righteous too.

As for the question of what standard of morality will rule mankind as long as it lasts, one’s opinion will depend upon whether one believes in the concept of an underlying Natural Law that can be discovered through reason, an arbitrary Divine Law that may or may not be amenable to being discovered through reason and observation, or a Dynamic Law that is created by Man, is enforced by Man’s might, and is therefore intrinsically mutable.

The logical incoherence of the moral progressives can be seen in their adherence to the Dynamic Law concept, forgetting that while its dynamic nature means it will be always changing, the direction of the change is innately indeterminate. In the end, what we see is that what the moral progressive actually means by “self-righteous” is daring to hold another individual accountable to a moral standard. But even if we resort to this practical definition, we can see that the moral progressive is always guilty of self-righteousness.