FORWARD BASE B

"Pay my troops no mind; they're just on a fact-finding mission."

Tag Archives: blood

Market Demand Must Be Regulated

Society values pro basketball players who provide entertainment far more than trash collectors who perform a vital service. We may need garbage collectors more than professional athletes, but it’s easy to find people who can pick up trash, while elite athletes are scarce by definition.  In this case market supply and demand is a distortion of actual value.  We are ok with athletes being paid millions of dollars to play a game because we suppose demand is sacrosanct, almost a godly force we dare not question.  After all, we get paid what we’re worth, right?
Yet it’s illegal to buy cocaine or hire a hitman when there is undoubtedly demand for drugs and contract killing.   Alcohol and liquor sales are heavily taxed to try to curb demand.  Or what about medical treatments?  When a patient is in danger of death, the value of the next treatment is theoretically infinite.  So shouldn’t that next round of chemotherapy always cost everything the patient has left according to pure demand?  The state already can and does regulate demand—it’s not off limits.
So why then do we let a football player or a movie star walk away with millions of dollars when its obvious there’s no way their contribution however important can be that large?  When someone becomes a millionaire by throwing a ball around or playing make-believe on camera, the character and morale of the entire society is undermined.
What is the garbage man to think when society values a single movie star more than him dozens of times over?  His task is so important, society can’t do without him for even a week.  If movie studios were all shut down, it might be unpleasant news but people would get on with life.
So why not put a strict cap on the income of entertainers and their promoters?  They provide services that people want and seem to generally do more good than harm by helping to create a thriving culture, so it would make sense to allow them to earn a good living, but becoming multi-millionaires would be out of the question. Entertainment is wonderful to have but it is a luxury, not a mainstay.

Obviously, a big budget movie gets made and its star actors paid millions because hundreds of millions of people are willing to pay for movie tickets.  So I could see someone arguing that because demand exists, it should be allowed.  But this is not enough.  Otherwise we should also be willing to argue for the legalization of contract killing and robbery.  The pattern I see is that demand is allowed to express itself so long as it does more good than harm to society.  So now we have to decide if it is good for a society to pour billions of dollars of its wealth into a handful of entertainers.  Surely there’s a limit on the worth of entertainment when there’s other things that need to be done.
As individuals, we value recreational time playing video games, watching movies, or blogging.  Yet we have a time and money budget for our own entertainment.  Similarly, a society ought to have a wealth budget for its luxuries.  It may sound restrictive to limit what a pro athlete or day trader makes, yet we already accept sin taxes that curb and punish demand for cigarettes and booze.  Sin taxes already carry the implicit recognition that we are not rational economic agents.  We routinely make bad decisions.  So we’re given a push in the “right” direction by the state.  We can buy that bottle of vodka or pack of cigarettes, but we have to be willing to pay an extra fee that serves as both a disincentive and an indemnity to society.  By the same principle we could cap the price for event and movie tickets or the acceptable budget cities can spend on stadiums to prevent or at least limit the misappropriation of society’s very finite wealth.
It would also be interesting to examine financial “products” and examine which of them return equivalent or greater value to society and which are a net drain or even cause damage.

Limiting the size of luxury industries brings up a big issue though—what about all the people that would lose their jobs in movie studios, stadiums, and concert halls?  We ask this because we lose perspective of the big picture.  We go to work to provide value to others and then get compensated in proportion to our contributions.  Is it a net good to work at a stadium that cost the city’s tax payers billions of dollars to spend billions more on a luxury activity?  If there’s nothing more productive to do with someone, why shouldn’t society just give them a guaranteed minimum income until there’s something more useful to do?  Society comes out way ahead by just skipping the multi-billion dollar excuse to write a paycheck.  No activity at all is far more valuable than useless activity.  Just staying at home with some basic income, there is a small chance they may have the initiative to use their leisure time wisely and genuinely contribute to the good of the group.

We’ve been taught to think in a way that’s a distortion of Keynesian views.  Keynes suggested hiring people to do useless tasks as one way to stimulate a depressed economy.  Naturally, his prescription for emergency situations became the new normal, where making money is a good thing even if we’re building “useless pyramids” or paying people to dig a hole just to fill it in again.  The trouble is this becomes a philosophy of economic nihilism in which human activity is divorced from purpose and meaning.   People just want money and as long as no one is murdered outright, the means don’t matter much.  Strangely, it sounds almost heretical now to suggest that markets and the accumulation of wealth ought to serve a purpose—to benefit the group in which we participate—that money awarded for unproductive or under-productive activity damages the integrity of society.

The survival of human societies in this world is a serious business; against other societies, against the pitiless forces of nature, and never-ending internal pressures.  The elevation of frivolous things to the heights of accomplishment makes a mockery of the social order.  A society where people worship “celebrities” over inventors, leaders, and entrepreneurs has lost its way.  Such is a disaster of mob rule where the masses are allowed to determine who is great and who is low.  When the undeserving get the best rewards, cynicism spreads and loyalty erodes until one day a nimble challenger full of confidence arises and proves more than a match for a mighty opponent crippled by rot.
The market is a form of economic democracy—every purchase is a vote.  We have an electoral college and representatives in political democracy rather than a pure popular vote.  So popular demand on the market must also be subject to controls, to curb and prevent tragedies of the commons.  There already are rules such as monopoly prevention that implicitly acknowledge the market has a mission to fulfill.  It is not there for its own sake.   These principles just have to be extended until the market is re-animated with purpose as a healthy circulatory system.

A Genetic Counter-Offensive?

There are those on the internet who are concerned about the low fertility rates and loss of territory of peoples of European descent, often called “white” people.
What mystifies me though is how they see their precious whites as some Elven race of Middle Earth, doomed to die out. They see themselves as delicate and weak and their rivals as strong and resilient.
We are taught to love nature by valuing endangered species but nature cares little for such creatures. Nature loves best mosquitoes, cockroaches, and mice that thrive in spite of the best efforts to eradicate them.  Cold reality has no sympathy for a people that still gets outcompeted despite having the most resources, with the best weapons, with every possible advantage. In the course of nature is it not right and just that temperamental hothouse plants be weeded out and cast aside onto the trash pile? Why are a people who see themselves as flightless dodo birds deserving of preservation?

Very telling is if a brown person mixes with a white they see it as a tragedy. The white blood in their mind is drowned out by the brown and genetic territory is lost.
But in reality a mixed person is 50/50 and if raised in a “brown” community, they end up spreading their European genes into another gene pool. Surely that could be seen as a success of sorts, the infiltration of spies, if we will.
For example, look at New World mulattoes and mestizos who no doubt carry the equivalent of millions of white people in their veins.
Latin Americans have never seen full blooded Indians and mestizos as the same thing, or thought a mulatto to be the same as an African.  Inexplicably, New World Anglo-founded nations embrace a bizarre notion of all one thing or the other sometimes known colloquially as “the one drop rule.”
I suppose it’s possible that Anglo views on Mestizos are distorted by the fact that the immigrant “Hispanics” they encounter are disproportionately not Hispanic, but Indian.

Because of defensive, defeatist thinking pro-whites do not consider ways to expand rather than shrink.
If Mexico is sending over lots of illegal immigrants that take over territory. Why not simply retaliate by genetically bombarding Mexico by buying up surrogate wombs by the hundreds of thousands? Or bombard the immigrant communities in America by simply buying off their women to accept anonymous white sperm.
Black Americans are already on average 20% white, nearly griffes and one can’t help but notice that the biggest trouble makers, the poorest are usually the darkest ones with the most African features.  I live in a town with a huge black population and have seen with my own eyes how blacks unapologetically discriminate by skin color amongst themselves.  It is rare to see a truly black black person in any position of power or prestige and their standard of beauty idolizes a decidedly mixed look.  Beyonce, Rihanna, Halle Berry, all their models are obviously half black at best. If pro-white groups feel that limiting African influence in North America is an important objective, why not simply begin genetic bombardment until American blacks are barely half African anymore?
It could be one part of a complete strategy that includes discouraging a rival group from breeding while subsidizing one’s own.

Most groups of people have low capabilities of abstraction. The same man who would fight you over a tangible 20 dollar bill will let you take thousands of dollars in fees and interest laid out in the fine print, especially if insidiously drawn out over a long period of time.
Mass reproduction following a grand strategy is a few levels of abstraction beyond what most people are capable of understanding. A genetic counter-offensive might well go mostly unopposed.

How much though does the white ideal really mean to these pro-whites, does it even exist? For the most part their complaining lets off some steam and then they go back to their day jobs. Considering I can’t think of once in my life anyone helped me just because I had white genes while I watch pretty much every other ethnic group help each other out, such an initiative seems too abstract-minded for them as well.
It is unlikely to see on a large scale what does not already exist on a smaller scale.
Yet I wonder as we become better able to understand nature, nurture, and epigenetics if we might one day see one group launch a coordinated sanguinary invasion on another.
Nukes and a worldwide economy make it so we can’t easily have profitable major wars—perhaps the conquerors of the future rely on demographics as their main weapon.  Perhaps the success of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo is a powerful example of how modern conflict is to be decisively won.
To date the spread of genes seems mostly an unintentional result.
As far as Irish genes are concerned, the potato famine was the best thing to ever happen.  The Armenian genocide and diaspora has probably been a net benefit to Armenian genes.
What if group spread of genes became applied as a deliberate strategy rather than mistakes of brutal happenstance?

%d bloggers like this: