Skip to content
April 11, 2019 | 5 Comments

Why Government & Corporations Grow Stronger

Government mandates, forces by pain of stinging legal penalties, corporations of a certain size to provide money for health care, of most kinds, to its employees.

Health care is ridiculously expensive, since its costs are occult, because they are occcult, but also because of mundane reasons like lawyers and the insane expectation of perfection. Anyway, once a company reaches a certain size, government tells the company it must part with the bucks.

Now there is never any justification given for this. None. The company is expected to act in loco parentis because it is a company—of a certain size. This is not a reason, but it is given as a reason. There is no real justification for this, a truth which now seems lost, a truth which nobody really wants restored.

The effects are these. One, to make the employee see the company as a master. How else can I get my health taken care of if not for my Employer? Costs of health become hidden at this point. Which causes them to rise.

Two, some companies cannot afford the tax and so fold, downsize, or merge with larger entities. Mergers are more common, though a better term might be absorptions. For consider it is not only health care, but companies are increasingly mandated to pay for vacations for employees (“family leave”), and for myriad other things. Such as “minimum wage”, which pressures and forces the closer of smaller businesses.

The consequence must be that the more requirements faced by companies, the greater the consolidation into fewer, more powerful corporations.

Three, as corporations and government are seen as the founts of all that is necessary, families and communities must weaken. Smaller companies, those smaller than the size required to become an open wallet, lose the ability to compete with larger monoliths. They thus whither or disappear. It’s a wonder companies have not yet been asked to pay for all meals for all family members. I predict this will come in the form of food subsidies or the like, after which the euphemism Employer for Master will be complete.

There is no reason to go to to your family when you can petition government or your employer to take care of a need. As long as you are putting in your endless labor, you see it as your right to receive these “necessities.” Slaves are never without rights. They must be clothed, housed, and cared for lest the work go undone. The amount of caring is in inverse proportion to amount of labor available.

Is there any proof of this theory? Yes. We “A country of monopolies“, says Axios.

The big picture: While his is a dramatic rendering of the state of American agriculture, Petersen has a point: across industries, the U.S. has become a country of monopolies.

* Three companies control about 80% of mobile telecoms. Three have 95% of credit cards. Four have 70% of airline flights within the U.S. Google handles 60% of search. The list goes on. (h/t The Economist)

* In agriculture, four companies control 66% of U.S. hogs slaughtered in 2015, 85% of the steer, and half the chickens, according to the Department of Agriculture. (h/t Open Markets Institute)

* Simlarly [sic], just four companies control 85% of U.S. corn seed sales, up from 60% in 2000, and 75% of soy bean seed, a jump from about half, the Agriculture Department says. Far larger than anyone — the American companies DowDuPont and Monsanto.

As we have reported, some economists say this concentration of market power is gumming up the economy, and is largely to blame for decades of flat wages and weak productivity growth.

Given that it is lobbyists working for corporations that draft most laws for Congress to sign, and that the larger corporations become, the more they can afford top lobbyists, thus the more laws and regulations they will bend their way. Corporations are naturally more dictatorial the more they are like a monopoly, at least is profit is their main motivation.

Thus the government requiring corporations treat their employees like (not chattel) slaves, the larger and fewer the corporations, the weaker the family, and the more staid the economy.

There is no way to break free from this. Not unless we are willing everywhere to acknowledge an employer’s responsibility ends with providing fair wages for a job well done.

Few or no employees are willing to give up their perquisites at this point. That an employer should pay for health “insurance” now seems as obvious as the sun rising in the east.

Not for the last time we conclude that it is our softness which will be our doom.

Bonus prediction! Well, not so much a prediction as a kind of warning. Will the government eventually become so beneficent that it requires most adults to belong to a corporation? (Of which the government is a large example.) After all, we can’t have people going without necessities only corporations can, and must, provide.

Incidentally, think of what would Yang’s $1K per month do to the people?

April 10, 2019 | 10 Comments

Student Teacher Evaluations Now With Diversity & Inclusion Questions

Student evaluations have always been of little intrinsic worth. A student who did not learn his material is not the best judge about why he didn’t, though odds are he won’t be thrilled with the class or teacher. A student who did well is the opposite. Evaluations are predictable.

It’s not as if student feedback is of no worth, of course; it’s the systematic way of gathering opinions complete with pseudo-quantifications, and the basing of official actions for and against teachers, that stinks.

Evaluations arrived with the increasing power of HR, which is to say, administrators in universities, who introduced the harmful and false idea that students are “customers.” A much better metaphor would be recruits. Can you imagine asking men at the end of boot camp, “How well do you think the DI respected your personal lived experience?”

Maybe that joke does not resonate as well as it should, given our military is becoming increasingly woke.

Enter the WSJ piece (the paper hasn’t gone full SJW yet) “A Mole Hunt for Diversity ‘Bias’ at Villanova” by Colleen A Sheehan and James Matthew Wilson. The university is, in name anyway, Catholic.

Last fall we were notified by the Villanova administration that new “diversity and inclusion” questions would be added to the course and teaching evaluations that students fill out each semester. In addition to the standard questions about the intellectual worth of the course and the quality of instruction, students are now being asked heavily politicized questions such as whether the instructor has demonstrated “cultural awareness” or created an “environment free of bias based on individual differences or social identities.”

In short, students are being asked to rate professors according to their perceived agreement with progressive political opinion on bias and identity. Students are also invited to “comment on the instructor’s sensitivity to the diversity of the students in the class.” Professors are rated on their “sensitivity” to a student’s “biological sex, disability, gender identity, national origin, political viewpoint, race/ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, etc.” The “etc.” in particular seems like an ominous catchall, as if the sole principle of sound teaching has become “that no student shall be offended.”

A math teacher has just awarded an F to a young lady with blue hair. She took the Math Appreciation course because she was forced by the university, a requirement. Her major is Studies (it doesn’t matter which Studies). The professor, being fair, called on her in class once. She couldn’t answer.

How will she rate the professor on the professor’s ideological conformity?

Before you answer, remember that always, absolutely always, under Diversity & Equality standards are lowered. The steps are as inevitable as aging. First a need for Diversity & Equality is mandated. It is promised standards will never be lowered to meet these goals. Second, standards are lowered to meet the goals. Third, it is argued the standards were never necessary.

The student is in the Math Appreciation course because she can’t do math, but the university needed to save face and claim all students receive a “rounded” education, hence the simplest possible requirement. Consider the professor herself, perhaps a person of color, or even a person of no color at all, secured her position because she answered correctly on her own Diversity & Equality statement, which was required as a condition of employment.

So it’s difficult to guess how the student will rate the professor. Few students “feel” they “deserve” an F, or really anything much below an A-, especially those students most deserving of low grades.

Two things are clear. All classes will be dumbed down to some extent, as skittish professors know the deal about handing out bad grades. As Sheehan and Wilson note, no professor can afford the stain of being labeled a dissenter.

You can’t fire a professor for being conservative, but you certainly can fire him for creating a “hostile work environment.” At a minimum, all charges of insensitivity, injustice and bigotry will become part of the faculty’s permanent record. How long will it be before professors cease to challenge their students for fear of losing their careers and livelihoods?

Second it must be that the student ratings of ideological conformity will further solidify the ideology. Of course, if the ideology were based on Truth and Reality, this would be desirable. But Diversity & Equality is based on desire and fantasy, which leads all to readily to insanity.

Maybe that idea of Independent Rating Of University Degrees doesn’t sound so bad now.

April 9, 2019 | 30 Comments

Buttigieg Says God Made Necrophiliacs, Pedophiles

Mayor Pete is throwing God in the face of VP Mike Pence. The impossibly named Buttigieg (pr. butty-gay?) says Pence should “raise his objections” about the non-reproductive sexual community “with God.”

“My [gmarriage] to Chasten has made me a better man and yes, Mr. Vice President, it has moved me closer to God,” said Buttigieg, a devout Episcopalian.

Buttigieg is so devout that he explains scriptural passages like Leviticus 18:22, where God-Jesus-Holy Ghost said “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination”, and what Paul said on many occasions, as “This is 2019.”

I’m kidding. He doesn’t say anything about scripture. Let’s look at his argument about being created “that way” by God.

“I can tell you, that if me being gay was a choice, it was a choice that was made far, far above my pay grade,” he added, to a room full of loud cheers. “And that’s the thing I wish the Mike Pence’s of the world could understand, that if you have a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me. Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.”

Gays, therefore, were made by God. They therefore have no choice in their desires or their acts in accord with their nature. Homosexuality is, of course, non-procreative. Hence gays are part of the non-procreative community.

They are not the only ones. There are also lesbians, also made that way by God, says Buttigieg. Also transexuals, which are people of one biological sex who believe they are the other biological sex. They have no choice: God made them that way, too. Thus, because God made them that way, they are the opposite biological sex, even though they are their own biological sex.

There are also “bi” people, who lust after everybody. God made them too.

So much is uncontroversial. It was Buttigieg’s next argument that shocked some. His implied argument, that is.

God made gays, so God also made necrophiliacs. Necrophiliacs, at least some of them, don’t want their attraction. They do not choose them. They have them anyway. Well, of course they do. God made them that way.

Therefore, it is only right and proper that necrophiliacs act on their lusts.

If you disagree, you are not only a bigot, you are opposing God.

God made gays and necrophiliacs, so God also made pedophiles. Pedophiles, at least some of them, don’t want their attraction. They don’t choose to be they way they are. God made them that way.

Therefore, it is only right and proper that pedophiles act on their lusts.

If you disagree, and you pull back your child on the side of a pedophile, you are not only a bigot, you are opposing God.

God made gays, necrophiliacs, and pedophiles, so God also made zoophiles. Zoophiles, at least some of them, don’t want their attraction. These people avoid zoos. They have these attractions anyway: they didn’t choose them. God made them that way.

Therefore, it is only right and proper that zoophiles act on their lusts.

If you disagree, and you avoid pet stores, you are not only a bigot, you are opposing God.

God made gays, necrophiliacs, pedophiles, zoophiles, and ecosexuals (those who lust after dirt or trees), objectum sexuals (those who lust after furniture and playground rides; this is a real term), pedarests, and every other kind of lust you can think of.

God made all of these people. None of them chose to be the way they are. Therefore, it is only right and proper everybody acts on whatever lusts they have. To oppose this is to oppose God.

Make that is it only right and proper everybody acts on whatever desires they have. For, of course, lust is a desire, and God is responsible for the implantation of the desire. Who chooses a desire?

Therefore, God not only made gays, God made psychopaths, too. Psychopaths have desires, just like anybody else, desires often tied to lusts. Therefore, like gays, psychopaths have a right to act on those desires and lusts. God made them: they did not choose. Only bigots disagree.

Once you think about it, how dare we say God did not make anybody? Why should gays get special privilege in the God-made-them awards? The answer is: there is no reason. God made everybody the way they are. Everybody.

Therefore, everybody gets to act on their desires whatever those desires are. To oppose this is to oppose God.

You bigot.

April 8, 2019 | 22 Comments

The Intellectual Dark Web’s Progressive Beliefs. Bonus: Rogan & Shapiro

Daniel Miessler did us all a service by tracking down the beliefs of the members of the “intellect dark web”. The term was, I believe, coined by the far-left New York Times to describe a group of folks who are not racing ahead as quickly as the NYT wants them to.

The graphic above was created by Miessler, and was originally made into an open-source Google spreadsheet. As an comedic aside, Miessler, God bless him, allowed people to contribute new names and subjects. I was on-line Sunday morning watching the live edits. People were showing off their senses of humor. Miessler was forced to eliminate the editable pages.

You can still see his now read-only graphic and notes. But Miessler, as of this writing (Sunday night), has not yet noticed comedians got to this page, too, and have changed many of the labels. Use the graphic on his site for reference.

The graphic’s key: “Light green means mostly a liberal position. Green means definitely a liberal position. Red means definitely a conservative position. Light red means mostly a conservative position. Purple means libertarian position, i.e., government shouldn’t have a say.”

The names are: Same Harris, Eric Weinstein, Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro. The only one who comes closest to the “conservative” party line is Shapiro. About him, more below.

During the research I started noticing some weird stuff about this supposedly hateful IDW group of Harris, Weinstein, Rubin, and Shapiro. Namely, they’re all Jewish, and yet a number of them are often labeled as white supremacists and even neo-Nazis. That completely breaks the supidmeter [emphasis original]…

Then I watched Dave Rubin, who a bunch of my liberal friends told me was this crazy right-wing guy, have Shapiro on to debate the top liberal vs. conservative issues. And Rubin (a gay Jew, by the way), was the one defending the liberal side.

Additionally, Rubin, I think, believes he is “married” to another man. This is dark, all right; but it is, as we have to admit, now a conservative position.

Miessler goes on to praise an interview Rogan conducted with Shapiro, admiring both for their civility. Why shouldn’t they be civil? They disagree about little. Again, more about Shapiro and this interview below.

First, let’s look at the reactionary positions on the matters Miessler identified.

  • Man-made Climate Change
  • It’s real, but unimportant in size and effect. Also, reactionaries are old-school environmentalists who loathe “consumer” culture. If you are calling people “consumers”, you have lost.

  • Abortion/Choice
  • Allowing women to kill their children, and to even instigate divorce, would be forbidden in any reactionary government.

  • Need For Stronger Gun Laws
  • True, we need stronger laws to keep government and activists from restricting gun, ammunition, and paraphernalia use.

  • Believe in Gun Ownership
  • At least two per every person over eight in each house.

  • Vaccination
  • For for some, against for others. Against Gardasil, for example, which encourages misbehavior.

  • Religion & State Separation
  • Such a thing is impossible, even now.

  • Illegal Immigration
  • Wholly against.

  • Drug Legalization
  • For for some, against for others. Drug use depends on the drug, people taking it, circumstances. Even “doctors” are wildly misusing drugs (puberty blockers, opioids, ask-your-doctor-abouts). How can we trust most people not to?

  • Gay Marriage
  • It is impossible two (or more, you numerical bigot) can be married to one other. Even stronger, sodomy should (again) be a crime.

  • Single Payer Healthcare
  • I take this as meaning Federal control of all healthcare, which is absurd. Subsidiarity in this and in like things.

  • Wealth Inequality is a Problem
  • If this is in the sense of rule by oligarchy, which is more or less what our situation is becoming, then we agree such a thing is never to be desired. Some reactionaries, (the new ones) it must be admitted, would find the prospect of rule by corporate oligarchy desirable, but this is perhaps because they haven’t noticed how woke capital has become. I believe these fine fellows thought that corporate rule would be constrained to small parcels of land, which leaves out the possibility of globalization and the impossibility of Exit.

Now Rogan and Shapiro (clip link). Do watch the clip: it is instructive (this is the first time I’ve listened to Shapiro for more than thirty seconds; his voice is worse than you have seen reported; the full video is two-and-a-half hours, and I haven’t the strength).

The graphic is correct. Rogan is a progressive, full stop, albeit a slow-paced one. He believes gay people exist—they do not—and because they exist, they should be allowed to act on their desires. This is asinine because thus necrophiliacs (or murderers or whatever) exist and should be allowed to act on their desires.

Shapiro, though he agrees gays exist, sees the stupidity of Rogan’s conclusion, but is keen not to “impose” his religious belief on others. “I’m not trying to convert you”, which is exactly what most want to hear. But this is the Imposing Your Beliefs Fallacy, for if you do not impose your beliefs, the other fellow is going to impose his.

Rogan is, I gather, an atheist, but not unfriendly to (some) religion. Shapiro to his credit admits Jews do not believe in the divinity of Christ, which is rare to hear spoken. “We don’t even believe [Jesus] was a prophet…He was a Jew who was trying to lead a revolt against the Romans and got killed for his troubles.”

Rogan: “He was resurrected?”

Shapiro: “No, that’s not a Jewish belief…we’re not into miracle stories.” He then cites Maimonides (d. 1204) crediting a “strong east wind” for the parting of the Red Sea. Later, he quotes from the Talmud (which, he doesn’t say), not the Torah.

In his favor, Shapiro recognizes masturbation and homosexual activity are sins, and that having a desire for a sin is not exculpatory. But he is “not in favor of having any of this encoded into American law because freedom is freedom and people should be free to sin however they choose, so long as they aren’t harming anybody else.” Yet masturbation and homosexual activity do harms others.

The comments about religion are interesting, because Right Wing Watch yesterday was incensed to discover a clip from Rick Wiles (who I had never heard of) wondering why Christians were supporting Shapiro. Wiles was responding to the Rogan-Shapiro interview.

Wiles: “Ben Shapiro denies the divinity of Jesus Christ…That makes him an anti-Christ. Saint John said that anybody who denies that Jesus Christ came to earth as God in human flesh is anti-Christ. There is no one anti-Christ. There is a spirit of anti-Christ and Ben Shapiro has the spirit of anti-Christ…Why are any of you out there following Ben Shapiro? Why? You’re schizophrenic.”

As I said, many found this insulting and opprobrious and, yes, “anti-Semitic”. John said this: “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is the antichrist who denies the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).

Why be insulted? If you don’t believe in the divinity of Christ, the definition is technically true (in the way “anti-Semitic” is not). It’s more than just Shapiro, of course; it’s most of the world (it was true of me for many years). That opinion is about as reactionary as you can get.

The point of the quotation, in the context of Rogan’s interview, was to wonder whether Evangelicals are pulling back on their support of Jews (and Israel) by finally recognizing Jews in fact don’t believe as they do. So far, this seems to be only on the fringe. If this attitude spreads, it will make for interesting times.