The Global Warming Gods are angry. There is snow this morning here in the People’s Republic of Fort Collins located deep in the Soviet Sector of Colorado. It is as I write these words at 0712 hours snowing. Pretty sure I’ll be seeing tweets from NPCs pretty soon about how this has been the warmest year ever and we’re all going to die.
Now for something completely different. “If it’s on the internet it must be true.”
Some time ago I read on the interwebz that alimony payments would no longer be taxable for the person receiving them but would be taxable for the person paying them. I believed it. Why? It was on the fucking interwebz. It must be true.
Chan Elkins, the world’s only ball cleaning CPA, says differently.
3) Those Who Are About To Be Divorce Raped. Some of you on this forum will undoubtedly already know what I’m talking about here. Taxpayers who get divorced after 12/31/18 will no longer be able to deduct alimony payments. That’s why there was an uptick of finalized divorces towards the end of last year – not only are alimony payments not deductible starting in 2019, but those who receive alimony still have to claim it as ordinary taxable income so that side of the equation didn’t change at all.
I believe Chad. Not simply because he’s on the interwebz but because he’s Chad Elkins, the resident CPA of the Man-o-sphere.
You gotta love all the levels of fuckary the State has propagandised into existence for the purpose of feeding the beast by taxing the sheep.
Get women into the labour market instead of staying at home and having children. Tax it.
Get women who do have children to outsource the child care. Tax it.
Get women to put off having children until they hit the wall and need medical assistance to get pregnant. Tax it.
Drive a wedge between men and women keeping them apart and thus each needing to have their own income. Tax it.
Destroy marriages and make (usually) men pay alimony to women. Tax it. Twice. Tax it both ways. Tax it when the man earns it. Tax it when the woman gets it. Sales tax when the woman spends it on shoes.
Tax it. Tax this. Tax that. Tax it all. Tax everything.
But how easily I forget. Were it not for all these taxes . . .
. . . who would build the fucking roads?
Ya know what’s worse than taxes? Beta males.
If I could live in a society where I had to pay taxes but any man who claimed he wasn’t interested in girls for their appearance would be hung by the neck in the public square I’d take that deal.
Here is a prime example of someone who needs to stop pretending.
I recently purchased the DC Gallery Diorama figuring of Supergirl and added it to my collection.
I am usually a bit more reticent to buy merchandise of the Michael Turner, bare midriff costume as I often feel that that particular costume lends itself to cheesecake. That’s not why I am a Supergirl fan. And on first blush, this statue with it’s very low-riding skirt seems to veer into that territory.
He’s not a Supergirl fan for the cheesecake.
Oh yes. Gods and Goddesses forbid that a comic book character lend herself to cheesecake. While I can appreciate a good Supergirl story & great artwork and while I can rip on a shitty Supergirl story & shitty art (you’ve heard me do it plenty of times on the podcast) the main reason I have a Supergirl shrine is because I would bang the shit out of her.
I’m a Supergirl fan for the cheesecake.
Alas Supergirl is an imaginary character and thus beyond banging. She is literally (Hitler!) unbangable. But that doesn’t stop me from indulging in a bit of fun fantasizing and it provides me with the occasional joke for the podcast.
As beta as this guy is he should stick to Captain Marvel comics. I’m thinking that would be much more his style.
This particular beta is as far as I know from casually reading his site married (probably sexless) with children (two daughters I think) and therefore doesn’t really matter to anyone in the sexual marketplace.
Why does he feel a need to virtue signal to his readers that he is anti-cheesecake? I can answer my own question. The point of virtue signalling is to let other people know you are on their side, that you are not dangerous to them. He is virtue signalling his anti-cheesecake approach to let women know he isn’t going to objectify them. He is on their side.
And I’m sure women appreciate this. Especially the ones who objectify themselves by posting photos of their asses and tits on Instagram in between taking spins on the cock carousel.
The package is worth exactly how it is presented. Red pilled men declare that they want unblemished virgins, not because they are on some sort of power trip but because they have seen the damage that riding the cock carousel wreaks on young women. These poor girls have been brainwashed by feminists and their peers that they must be experienced in bed before men will even consider them. So they dutifully go out and sleep with as many men as possible and then boast to a young man on a first date at how good they are at giving head.
Trust me, girls; this is not the turn-on that you think it is for any man with even an iota of self respect.
Girls, you don’t need to practice sex to be good at sex. Do waves have to practice before they break on the shore? Will you be perfect at sex when you do it the first time? Will you be the best?
You’re asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is whether or not you will value yourself as much after a sexual encounter.
It’s not just a question of will you value yourself.
Will the man who fucked you value you. Oh wait, you don’t need no man and you don’t care about no man’s opinion.
And beyond that does society as a whole value you. Oh wait, society doesn’t need to value you. You are entitled to money because vagina.
Are you a parasite? Do you teach? Work for a non-profit? Are you a social worker? HR broad? SJW? If you answered “yes” to any of these society values you not. Most likely the man who fucked you last night doesn’t value you either.
Speaking of value, something that does have value is being quoted at and linked to from Amerika.org. I finally had time to sit down and digest a recentish post in which Brett Stevens references my great (some might say limitless, some might say non-exitant) wisdom.
Let’s have a look at this post and I’ll point out where I think Brett is right and wrong about some things.
As part of this great quest for the non-real, people cooked up something called “the horseshoe theory” which states that instead of being different ideas, Left and Right converge at the extremes because far Right and far Left regimes tend to use the same methods of enforcement.
Obviously this fails because they use different methods of economics and social order, but that does not deter people who are looking for a reason to avoid seeing the damage Leftism has done to our civilization. The horseshoe theory is just another form of pacifism.
Damn Brett. “Obviously this fails…” I have higher expectations for you than this. It’s not obvious.
I happen to be an expert on Stating The Obvious and this is exactly where I disagree with the right. The right has this notion that their government which will put me in a cage or kill me if I don’t obey it is somehow different than a leftist government which will put me in a cage or kill me if I don’t obey it.
It doesn’t matter if the method for putting me in a cage or killing me is a different form of economics or social order. The result is the same. And I’m interested in results not feelings.
Dick (over on The Dick Show) recently talked about the horseshoe theory and he called it the horseshit theory. I think that is a better way to look at it. Statists are all full of shit.
The focus on what shape the political chart takes is another interesting approach. The right and the left are always seeking to create some political chart which puts them as far away from each other as possible. I understand why they are doing this. Everyone, including me, wants to distance themselves from their political, social, economic, and philosophical enemies. Only the left seems to have the balls to destroy the lives of their enemies. Only the left is willing to put their enemies at a distance in real life by ostracising them, getting them fired from jobs, purging them from the internet, and intimidating them into submission. Once again the compassion of the right is their undoing.
Let’s be honest. Right wingers make really bad Nazis. The left? They got mad Nazi skills.
This individualism, expressed in groups as “equality” or the idea that all individuals can be me-first and ignore social mores without suffering social consequences, took over the West and became enshrined in the philosophy of Leftism or egalitarianism.
There is a whole lot going on with the word “individualism”. This is a classic example of why words must be defined in order to have conversations. Normally I’m going to be using individualism in such a way that I support it. In such cases I’m going to be defining individualism differently.
Yet looking at how Brett is using individualism here, “expressed in groups as “equality” or the idea that all individuals can be me-first and ignore social mores without suffering social consequences”
Defining individualism this way requires me to agree with the right. Equality is the destroyer of civilizations.
In Ancapadise you get to be an individual. You get to be a distinct being able to defend yourself against aggression. If someone attempts to force you to pay taxes to provide schools for the children of single mothers you can shoot them. By “them” I mean the people who want to force you to pay taxes, the single mothers, and their children.
What you don’t get to do in Ancapadise is be equal. There is no equal.
Nor do you get to be me-first. I know this is confusing to many people out there. It’s easy to think anarcho-capitalism is nothing but me-first. Wrong. Anarcho-capitalism is the exact opposite. In a voluntary society without welfare if you want to survive you have two options.
1. Do everything for yourself. Build your house, grown your food, make your clothing, blah blah blah on and on and on. And you can take that route if you chose. It will work for some people.
2. Create value for other people and exchange value for some of the things you need and want. This requires you to get along with others and to often put the concerns of others ahead of your concerns. It requires you sometimes tone yourself the fuck down so your society can be great, powerful, secure and sound so that you can live in comfort and safety.
In the Army (the Army before it had homosexuals and trannies and women in combat) we had a saying. “Don’t shit where you sleep.”
Right now there are a bunch of libtards shitting where they sleep. Libtards want iPhones. But they also want affirmative action hires. If Apple hires people based on affirmative action instead of ability pretty soon you get iPhones that don’t work.
That right there will work it’s way into every aspect of business and government. That is equality and that is how equality destroys everything it touches.
In Ancapadise your survival depends on the survival of the polis.
If you fuck that up by letting your feelings stomp all over logic you end up dead.
How do you kill a civilization? Sexualize children because it makes you feel good. Worship single mothers and give them free money because it makes you feel good. Force people to bake cakes for homosexuals because it feels good. Sit around watching porn and playing video games all day because it feels good. Slut posting on IG to get attention because it feels good. Opening your boarders to invaders because it feels good. Destroy people’s lives because they said something you don’t like because it feels good. Tax the producers to support the parasites because it feels good. Medicate children into compliance because it feels good. Celebrate mental illness as being normal because it feels good.
Thus as contradictory as it sounds (and I fully understand why this sounds like a contradiction) Ancapadise is not about “every man an island with no consequences” rather Ancapadise is about everyone seeking the common good while not using aggression against each other to get there.
That’s the theoretical. Will it be difficult to achieve in real world meat space? You bet your ass it will be difficult. More on this later.
Will there be people in Ancapadise who are evil, rapists, child molesters, murderers, politicians (but I repeat myself) and SJWs? Yes. Such people will make an appearance. But in Ancapadise you can kill them. In a statist society these people get elected to public office, receive police protection, and have power over normal people.
Strong power means that the rest of society is not involved in leadership, which means in turn that we are spared the constant power struggles and political intrigue that dominates the news in our busily chaotic modern societies.
Where the horseshoe converges is that when society loses its focus, and becomes large enough to be semi-anonymous, leadership turns from looking toward the future to trying to control and manage its people.
I think Brett is saying here that strong leaders are good. Because strong leaders mean the normal people can go about their lives, and because there is not on-going political posturing and popularity contests (elections), and because strong leaders are forward looking instead of oriented towards controlling the population.
In theory, on paper, I think I agree with this.
In reality there are no strong leaders in the current year. Competent people do not go into politics. Strong forward looking leadership in government is just as impossible as Ancapadise in the current year with the current population.
Not until the dumbest 80% of the population has been exterminated or relocated, the welfare has been turned off, and women are no longer allowed to vote can we have either a government of the nature Brett envisions or Ancapadise.
The leftist who seek to create a society neither Brett nor I desire to live in (ok, I’m making an assumption about Brett’s desires here – I could be wrong) are on board with exterminating their enemies. Guess who’s gonna win.
The problem with externally managed systems, including anarchy, is that they create a power vacuum which then creates constant internal conflict. Anarchy works until your neighbor steals your plow; a society without rules leads to third world style poverty and chaos.
Our anarcho-capitalist is correct however in observing that the modern state has brought us to the same point as Communism did. Somehow, our capitalist/socialist hybrid has become about the same type of administrative-managerial state as Communism produced.
Our world economy is slowing down as a result. We have too many people employed in things that do not generate value, too many internal expenses, and too much infighting over power. This takes energy from productivity and creation of technologies and ideas for the future.
Once again there is confusion about what anarchy is. My neighbour isn’t going to steal my plow. Reason one, I will shoot him. Reason two, it’s easier for him to trade me something of value for the food I grow in the process of using the plow.
Yes. Right now there are many people in our society who would rather steal the plow than exchange value. This isn’t because anarchy doesn’t work. It’s because we live in a society which has deliberately bread inferior people. This is why I’ve said over and over and over that Ancapadise can only happen if 80% or more of the population dies. You can’t have a voluntary society if the people are welfare parasites.
In this regard I’m far more forward looking than the right is. The right wants a magic society in which only their ideas and morals are legislated but they don’t want to kill anyone to get there. Yet again, the left will kill you. The left will kill those who disagree with them. The left will destroy the lives on anyone who dares to oppose them.
“We have too many people employed in things that do not generate value, too many internal expenses, and too much infighting over power. This takes energy from productivity and creation of technologies and ideas for the future.” Truer words have seldom been spoken.
And what is the solution to “too many people” I wonder?
Gosh. I can’t figure it out…
Where the anarcho-capitalists prove correct, they share in common with regular Republicans, which is the recognition that socialism does not work. In any form. Even in our hybrid states, we have made ourselves bankrupt paying for entitlements.
However, people regulate capitalism with culture, and this proves important because it ensures that only the good are rewarded. That makes capitalism serve society instead of the other way around.
The do-gooders see this and howl about how unjust and unequal it is, forgetting that most people impoverish themselves through low ability and poor decisions. “Poor people have poor ways,” as they say in Texas; there is a reason that they are poor.
Socialism does not work and all statism devolves into socialism. It does. There are no exceptions. Give it time and all governments turn to socialism. All of them. Yes all of them. This is why I don’t see any form of government presented by anyone on the right as being long term viable. The left will always capture control of the government. Always. Yes, always.
Otherwise Brett is yet again correct.
Entitlements have destroyed us.
Culture does regulate capitalism. That’s an aspect of why there is so much effort to destroy white/European culture. The globalist see you only as a consumer, not as a person. Destroying your culture sinks you further into corporatism.
Poor people are poor for a reason. I’m poor. I’m poor because I was stupid, I got no guidance when young, and I made bad decisions. If you are poor your circumstances are pretty damn similar. Pretending otherwise only makes you stupid.
If you want to destroy a great society, implement human “fairness.” Soon everyone will be a slave to the state, attempting to make everyone equal, and the future will slip from your grasp. This is what has happened to the West.
Equity is the enemy of progress and freedom. Always has been. Always will be. Equality must die.
That’s why there is no equality in Ancapadise.