Great Sayings by Women
Things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse.
Old age ain't no place for sissies.
A man's got to do what a man's got to do. A woman must do what he can't.
Every time I close the door on reality it comes in through the windows.
I try to take one day at a time, but sometimes several days attack me at once.
If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.
*.*
A father brought his son into the doctor because the boy had a matchbox car shoved up his nose. All the while the doctor was trying to remove the car, the father kept saying "I don't know how he did it!" Finally the doctor removed the car, and the father and son left.
A few hours later, the father came back with the matchbox shoved up HIS nose. He told the doctor, "I know how he did it!"
*.*
40 Xcellent X-Words
When the lexicographer Dr. Samuel Johnson put together his Dictionary of the English Language in 1755, he included a disclaimer at the bottom of page 2308 that read, “X is a letter which though found in Saxon words, begins no word in the English language.” Noah Webster went one better when he published his Compendious Dictionary in 1806 that included a single X-word, xebec, defined as “a small three-masted vessel in the Mediterranean Sea.” Although, by the time he compiled his landmark American Dictionary in 1828, that total had risen to 13.
X has never been a common initial letter in English, and even with today’s enormous vocabulary you can still only expect around 0.02% of the words in a dictionary to be listed under it. But why not try boosting your vocabulary with these forty excellent X-words?
1. X
On its own, the letter X is listed in the Oxford English Dictionary as a verb meaning “to cross out a single letter of type.” X. X. in Victorian slang meant “double-excellent,” while X. X. X.described anything that was “treble excellent.”
2. XANTHIPPE
Xanthippe was the name of Socrates’ wife, who, thanks to a number of Ancient Greek caricatures, had a reputation for henpecking, overbearing behavior. Consequently her name can be used as a byword for any ill-tempered or cantankerous woman or wife—as used in Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew.
3. XANTHOCOMIC
Xanthos was the Ancient Greek word for “yellow,” and as such is the root of a number ofmainly scientific words referring to yellow-colored things. So, if you’re xanthocomic, you have yellow hair; if you’re xanthocroic you have fair hair and pale skin; and if you’re xanthodontous, you have yellow teeth.
4. X-CATCHER
In old naval slang, an X-catcher or X-chaser was someone who was good at math—literally someone good at working out the value of x.
5. X-DIVISION
Victorian slang for criminals or pickpockets, or people who make a living by some underhand means.
6. X-DOUBLE-MINUS
1960s slang for something really, really terrible.
7. XENAGOGUE
Derived from the same root as xenophobia, a xenagogue is someone whose job it is to conduct strangers or to act as a guide while…
8. XENAGOGY
…a xenagogy is a guidebook.
9. XENIAL
The adjective xenial is used to describe a friendly relationship between two parties, in particular between a hospitable host and his or her guests, or diplomatically between two countries.
10. XENIATROPHOBIA
Don’t like going to see doctors you don’t know? Then you’re xeniatrophobic.
11. XENIUM
A xenium is a gift or offering given to a stranger, which in its native Ancient Greece would once have been a lavish feast or a refreshing spread of food and fruit. In the 19th century art world, however, xenium came to refer to a still-life painting depicting something like a extravagant display of food or a bowl of fruit.
12. XENIZATION
A 19th century word meaning “the act of traveling as a stranger.”
13. XENOCRACY
A government formed by foreigners or outsiders is a xenocracy. A member of one is axenocrat.
14. XENODOCHEIONOLOGY
Defined as “the lore of hotels and inns” by Merriam-Webster.
15. XENODOCHIUM
A guesthouse or hostel, or any similar stopping place for travelers or pilgrims.
16. XENODOCHY
A 17th century word for hospitality. If you’re xenodochial then you like to entertain strangers.
17. XENOGLOSSY
The ability to speak a language that you’ve apparently never learnt.
18. XENOLOGY
The scientific study of extraterrestrial phenomena is xenology. The study of extraterrestrial life forms is xenobiology.
19. XENOMANIA
The opposite of xenophobia is xenomania or xenophilia, namely an intense enthusiasm or fondness for anything or anyone foreign.
20. XENOMORPH
Something unusually or irregularly shaped is a xenomorph—which is why it’s become another name for the eponymous creature in the Alien film franchise.
21. XENOTRANSPLANTATION
Transplanting organic matter from a non-human into a human (like a pig’s heart valve into a human heart) is called xenotransplantation. Whatever it is that’s transplanted is called thexenograft.
22. XERIC
An ecological term used to describe anywhere extremely dry or arid. If it’s xerothermic, then it’s both dry and hot.
23. XERISCAPE
If you live in a xeric area, then you’ll have to xeriscape your garden. It’s the deliberate use of plants that need relatively little moisture or irrigation to landscape an arid location.
24. XEROCHILIA
The medical name for having dry lips. Having a dry mouth is xerostomia.
25. XEROCOPY
A xerographic copy of a document—or, to put it another way, a photocopy.
26. XEROPHAGY
The eating of dry food is xerophagy. It mightn’t sound like it, but it was originally a religious term.
27. XESTURGY
The proper name for the process of polishing.
28. XILINOUS
Something described as xilinous resembles or feels like cotton…
29. XIPHOID
…while something described as xiphoid resembles a sword.
30. XOANON
Derived from the Greek for “carve” or “scrape,” a xoanon is a carved idol of a deity.
31. XTAL
An abbreviation of “crystal,” according to the OED.
32. XYLOGRAPHER
A 19th century word for a wood engraver.
33. XYLOID
Why say that something is “woody” when you can say that it’s xyloid?
34. XYLOPOLIST
A 17th century formal name for a timber merchant.
35. XYLOTOMOUS
Describes anything or anyone particularly good at wood-cutting or wood-boring.
36. XYRESIC
Means “razor-sharp.”
37. XYROPHOBIA
The fear of being close to or touching sharp implements.
38. XYLANTHRAX
Nowhere near as nasty as it sounds, this is just an old name for what we now call charcoal.
39. XYSTUS
A type of covered walkway or portico.
40. X.Y.Z.
Late 19th century slang for a journalist who takes on any work going, or else 18th century slang for a dandyish or “exquisite” young man.
*.*
THE PENTAGON — Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley today announced the results of an exhaustive study conducted by the RAND Corporation aimed at understanding and lowering the divorce rates of soldiers.
“Going in, our assumption was that long and frequent deployments were the root cause of the higher than average divorce rates of our soldiers,” Milley said. “It turns out, instead, there’s a very high correlation between the frequency of a spouse removing their clothes in exchange for money and the divorce rate.”
Milley continued, “We also saw a spike in divorces when the spouse regularly uses methamphetamine and stays away from home for days at a time. We are still looking into this other phenomena.”
Dr. Philip Lynch, RAND Director of Research, noted, “The findings surprisingly didn’t support our initial assumptions.”
Lynch says that RAND has supplied Army Training Command with a new program to educate single soldiers during boot camp and then to be renewed annually.
“We really want the soldiers to be alert for five major warning signs,” Milley said. “If they can just remember these, they’ll be fine.”
Lynch said the warning signs are, “First, your fiancee or spouse frequently returns home from work with large stacks of one-dollar bills.”
“Second, you may want to be cautious if your spouse or fiancee was nude when you met her,” he continued. “Third, your fiancee insists she is saving money for medical school when in fact she dropped out of high school or middle school.”
Lynch says that the last two are “a strident insistence” that you purchase at least two drinks prior to speaking to her and then ordering champagne themselves, and then immediately jumping to her feet and taking off her shirt when Def Leppard’s “Pour Some Sugar On Me” comes on the radio.
Milley concluded the briefing by noting that while the five warning signs apply mainly to soldiers interested in women, those interested in men need to be cautious, too.
*.*
I saw a Muslim fall into the Niagara River this morning and being a responsible citizen, I informed the emergency services.
It's 6:00 PM and they still haven't responded!
I'm now starting to think I've wasted a stamp!
Issue of the Times;
Shooting The Unarmed Man - The Fallacy Of Modern Perception
“He shot an unarmed man!”
How often have we heard those screams from an angry community? Trayvon Martin may be the first to come mind but it happens more often than most people think. Kansas City firefighter Anthony Bruno, unarmed and drunk, was shot and killed by an off duty police officer. And, of course, the most recent case of Michael Brown in St. Louis, Missouri.
The problem with the public outcry and the rioting in pursuit of “JUSTICE” is that most people know exactly nothing about physical combat and life threatening situations. They assume that if a person is unarmed that deadly force cannot and should not be employed. And they are wrong.
Have you seen the viral videos of “the knockout game?” Many of those videos involve one solid blow to the head that results in an unconscious victim. There is laughing and yelling and everyone runs away. Well, what if they didn’t want to stop there? What if the attacker decided that he would just kill someone today? He now has an unconscious, helpless victim to beat to death.
Take the case of Michael Fobbs as an example. He walked up to a man sitting on a bench and simply started hitting him repeatedly until the man was dead at an Amtrak station in Texas. Would that victim have been authorized the use of deadly force? Fobbs was unarmed.
Bear in mind that more people were beaten to death with hands and feet than were killed by so-called assault rifles in 2012. Those victims were not allowed to use deadly force simply because their attacker did not have a weapon? I think not. Laws on self defense seldom mention the use of a weapon. They are based on a reasonable fear that your life is in jeopardy, not the presence of a weapon in the hands of your attacker.
You may have missed the television programs on the science of fighting. In that series, Randy Couture was studied. In his well-known “ground and pound” method of dispatching an opponent, Couture was able to generate over 2,000 pounds of force in his downward blows to an opponent’s head. That’s the equivalent of dropping a car on your face. Trained fighters seldom take the full force of those blows because they are moving and defending with their own arms and hands but what if the victim was not a trained fighter? Couture, and any other trained fighter, could kill you with just a couple of blows to the head.
The rise in popularity of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and MMA style sports has also added new weapons to the attacker’s hands only arsenal. Have you ever been choked out? In MMA sports, the defender can “tap out” or the referee can end the fight and pull the attacker off of you. In the real world, you will be choked until you die. That’s a real fight.
So, if your attacker is unarmed and gets you in a choke, is that it? You’re just going to let yourself die because you won’t use lethal force against an unarmed opponent? How about if you are on your back being hammered in the face and you are moments away from losing consciousness and eventual death? Just going to accept your fate? I seriously doubt that.
I’m not. If I’m armed, I’m going to kill you. Dead.
If a cop walks up to someone out of the blue, draws his pistol, and shoots them dead in the street, that’s one thing. But, shooting an unarmed assailant during a fight in the street is another. You do not know the intentions of the attacker and cannot allow yourself to be overpowered or knocked unconscious. You will only be another statistic.
You also have no idea if your attacker IS armed and they just haven’t used their weapon yet. You can’t wait until you are unable to defend yourself to find out. I suspect most of you reading this would not. So, why are we judging a police officer who makes the same decision you would make under the same circumstances?
Get a reality check, folks.
Quote of the Times;
“There never was a man of heroism and virtue who did not contemplate Death.”
Link of the Times;
http://www.returnofkings.com/88093/soviet-defector-yuri-bezmenov-accurately-predicted-how-america-would-decline
Unarmed?
Kids?
St Peter becomes aware of a man standing outside the Gates of Heaven, pacing up and down.
"Excuse me, can I help you?" he asks.
"No, it's alright. Won't be long." And he distractedly looks at his watch, shrugs and paces on.
St Peter gives it another 5 minutes and asks again.
The man stops and says, "I know I'm dead. Will someone please tell the cardiac arrest team?"
*.*
What’s the difference between men and condoms?
Condoms and not so thick and insensitive anymore.
*.*
Unparliamentary Behavior
An Australian politician has been ejected from a parliamentary debating chamber after nursing her 11-day-old baby there.
Former Olympic aerial skier Kirstie Marshall, a Labor politician in Victoria state, was not ordered to leave the parliamentary chamber for breast-feeding, but for bringing a non-elected person into the chamber.
*.*
What do you call someone who refuses to fart in public?
A private tutor.
*.*
1945: A commander would put his butt on the line to protect his people.
2016: A commander will put his people on the line to protect his butt.
Issue of the Times;
If You Don’t Have Kids, You Don’t Matter
Following the recent attacks in Paris, immigration and multiculturalism are again in the spotlight. This is a good thing, but the discourse is as shallow as ever. We now hear arguments over what the greatest national security threat is to the West. Is it terrorism? Is it climate change? Both of these are genuine issues, but I’d give a completely different answer – demographic decline.
Many others have covered this topic, but lets explore further.
The dilemma
Every developed western country – bar one – has a fertility rate well below the replacement rate of about 2.1 children per woman. This problem is often underrated, but it poses serious threats to our culture, our institutions, and our way of life. Questions of a shortage of labor or cultural decline are one thing, but there’s a huge political element as well.
It is an easily found but rarely mentioned fact that, the further left on the political spectrum you are, the less likely you are to have kids. In raw figures, conservative women will have on average 41% more children than their liberal counterparts.
It is also true that political preferences are strongly correlated with parental views, being the dominant factor around 70% of the time.
The short of it is that, assuming the number of conservatives and liberals is about even, within two or three generations the descendants of today’s conservatives would outnumber their liberal counterparts 2:1.
The only way the left can make up for this demographic shortfall, as they are acutely aware, is to support increasingly generous immigration policies. This allows them to replace the millions of liberal babies that are never born with immigrants imported straight from the third world.
This poses an obvious question. Nearly all of them come from more conservative countries compared to the west. Polls overwhelmingly show that few Muslims are tolerant of homosexuality, abortion or sex outside marriage for instance. So how does the left guarantee their loyalty?
Immigrants
The key factor here is that the vast majority of these immigrants are poor. 90% of blacks and 70% of Hispanics don’t vote for the Democrats because they’ve been brushing up on their Karl Marx (the 90% figure also predates Obama).
Left-leaning parties, from the Democrats in the US to the labor parties in the rest of the Anglosphere to the social democrats of Europe, are able to buy them out with generous handouts on the taxpayer dime. Along with the collapse of the family unit, this is one of the major contributing factors to the West’s deteriorating financial situation.
Eventually however, we know the welfare spigot that keeps these votes flowing to the left is going to run dry. Trilion dollar deficits aren’t sustainable forever. What happens then? Where will their loyalties lie?
The outcome
The breakdown of this uneasy alliance is going to be one of the defining political issues of our generation. Make no mistake, immigrant communities will turn on the left, as surely as the Allies turned on each other at the end of World War Two. Liberals will be typically bewildered by this—but weren’t we so nice to them?
As their voter base collapses between conservative whites on the one hand and conservative immigrants on the other, I would like to pose a serious question: how on earth will the left preserve their liberal agenda?
What happens to fifty years of no-fault divorce, welfare programs, domestic violence campaigns, free contraception, gay rights, legalized drugs, prostitution, nightclub culture, topfreedom and so on?
And not all of these things are fundamentally bad of course. The fact that women can walk around in miniskirts unmolested, that someone can legally flee their abusive spouse, that gays aren’t being publicly stoned—some of these things are rather nice, lets admit that.
Miniskirts
The problem here is they may not be sustainable. They’re the social equivalents of the welfare state.
The theory is really quite simple.
Society A takes the progressive route. Full of moral indignation, they let women out of the kitchen and dismantle the family unit. The birth rate promptly collapses.
Society B sticks to more traditional, if harsher, social policies, and manages to maintain a stable population.
At the end of the day, which one remains standing? Which one endures?
The average fertility rate in richer countries has been below two children per woman for decades now. The average American woman, not including ethnic minorities, has 1.8 kids. In Europe this figure is 1.5 and in Japan 1.4.
Japan
South Korea is one of the worst examples at 1.3 children per women. In 1980 it had 5.7 million elementary school students, today there are just three million. Korea is expected to go from 50 million people today to as low as 34 million by 2060 – and half of them will be over 60.
Perhaps most startling is how this contrasts with their northern neighbors. The North Koreans (famine and all) are bang on the replacement rate.
In other words, according to current trends – North Korea is going to win in the end.
This shows you the truly awesome destructive effects of cultural Marxism. It can take a country transformed so radically from a third world backwater into an economic powerhouse and run it back into the ground barely a generation later.
Deeper questions can be asked about the limits of tolerance. Can such wildly different ethnic groups really just get along? Fast forward to 2050, when today’s ethnic minorities in Europe, North America and Australia might make up closer to 50% of the population. Is this not a recipe for violence?
The threat of terrorism is often exaggerated. The Paris attacks killed 130 people, but even France already averages 600+ murders per year. Its still less than a month’s worth of traffic accidents.
But Muslims are currently less than 10% of the French population. What if it were 30% or 40%? That’s no longer a recipe for mere sporadic violence. Its a possible prelude to civil war.
ISIS
Previously this may have sounded far-fetched, but it sounds a lot less ridiculous in 2015 then even five years ago. We’re in the era of ISIS, an organisation whose ranks include as many as 30,000 foreign fighters, including some 5,000 westerners.
We’re also seeing something of a nationalist revival on the right, as the four million Britons who recently voted for UKIP shows. Donald Trump wouldn’t have been taken seriously in 2008 or 2012, but now hits a chord with millions of Americans.
Ethnic tensions perhaps haven’t been this high in the West since the days of the Second World War. I believe we’re now entering an era of growing clashes between nationalists on the right and immigrant communities and their sympathizers on the left. The outcome is unclear. Like the spread of Communism last century, some countries will fall like dominoes. In others the struggle will be more protracted.
A warning
Most people, even the most vocal critics of left-wing social policies, seem blissfully unaware of the demographic and political time bombs they are slowly nesting.
To them I say this: it is all very well and good to declare yourself a “strong independent woman” who doesn’t need a man, but if you fail to have children and instill those same values in them, then your politics will be as much an evolutionary dead end as you are.
Unless you happen to do something that breaks new scientific ground, like curing cancer or inventing a warp drive, your spawn and the values you raise them with are the only real legacy you leave. It simply doesn’t matter how right you were in your moral leanings.
It doesn’t matter which party you voted for when you were alive, or how many leaflets for an anti-racism rally you handed out at the local train station. It doesn’t matter how high you held up that “My body! My decision!” sign at the pro baby killing women’s choice rally.
What matters is that, if you fail to procreate, the DNA patterns that irrevocably make up you will cease to exist the moment your corpse decomposes.
Meanwhile that asshole neighbor of yours who voted for Romney is raising three or four more little Republicans as you sit there stroking your cats, and the Muslim family down the street is pumping out another Mohammad or Fatima every other year on the taxpayer dime.
The future belongs to those who worked hard to create a stable family situation in which they could raise their spawn, while you were busy trying to overthrow the patriarchy without any thought as to what followed. As far as the world is concerned, you sucked in oxygen for a few decades, then vanished without a trace.
Crazy cat lady
I’m trying to plead here, quite sincerely, about this fundamental threat to the society we’ve created. It is something that will affect its more progressive elements in particular.
But like a drug addict who just can’t quit, you refuse to acknowledge your self-destructive actions. You either ignore, or somehow celebrate, as the west’s liberal youth becomes increasingly sexually impoverished and retreats into internet pornography and spinsterhood.
As some have also pointed out, if the west is taken over by Islam, all I’d have to do is grow a beard and get up early for morning prayers. Women would be marched straight back to the kitchen. You have the most to lose, so please just listen for a moment.
Maybe all of us dream of creating a more “moral” society. Maybe someday it will be truly possible, but the current experiment appears to be failing, and the society it has created has become rotten to the core. If in another fifty or a hundred years, that society simply doesn’t exist anymore, then those cultures who have chosen a more traditional mold will expand to fill the gap.
This has serious consequences not only for liberalism, but for democracy as a concept. If industrialized democracies inevitably end up suffering a demographic decline, then who does the future below to? Basic maths would seem to make the outcome inevitable.
The side that wants to win must start having more kids. Or lose.
Quote of the Times;
Never regard as a benefit to yourself anything which will force you at some point to break your faith, to leave integrity behind, to hate, suspect, or curse another, to dissemble, to covet anything needing the secrecy of walls and drapes.
Link of the Times;
http://io9.gizmodo.com/its-dangerous-to-go-it-alone-in-hang-em-hyrule-1724301243
"Excuse me, can I help you?" he asks.
"No, it's alright. Won't be long." And he distractedly looks at his watch, shrugs and paces on.
St Peter gives it another 5 minutes and asks again.
The man stops and says, "I know I'm dead. Will someone please tell the cardiac arrest team?"
*.*
What’s the difference between men and condoms?
Condoms and not so thick and insensitive anymore.
*.*
Unparliamentary Behavior
An Australian politician has been ejected from a parliamentary debating chamber after nursing her 11-day-old baby there.
Former Olympic aerial skier Kirstie Marshall, a Labor politician in Victoria state, was not ordered to leave the parliamentary chamber for breast-feeding, but for bringing a non-elected person into the chamber.
*.*
What do you call someone who refuses to fart in public?
A private tutor.
*.*
1945: A commander would put his butt on the line to protect his people.
2016: A commander will put his people on the line to protect his butt.
Issue of the Times;
If You Don’t Have Kids, You Don’t Matter
Following the recent attacks in Paris, immigration and multiculturalism are again in the spotlight. This is a good thing, but the discourse is as shallow as ever. We now hear arguments over what the greatest national security threat is to the West. Is it terrorism? Is it climate change? Both of these are genuine issues, but I’d give a completely different answer – demographic decline.
Many others have covered this topic, but lets explore further.
The dilemma
Every developed western country – bar one – has a fertility rate well below the replacement rate of about 2.1 children per woman. This problem is often underrated, but it poses serious threats to our culture, our institutions, and our way of life. Questions of a shortage of labor or cultural decline are one thing, but there’s a huge political element as well.
It is an easily found but rarely mentioned fact that, the further left on the political spectrum you are, the less likely you are to have kids. In raw figures, conservative women will have on average 41% more children than their liberal counterparts.
It is also true that political preferences are strongly correlated with parental views, being the dominant factor around 70% of the time.
The short of it is that, assuming the number of conservatives and liberals is about even, within two or three generations the descendants of today’s conservatives would outnumber their liberal counterparts 2:1.
The only way the left can make up for this demographic shortfall, as they are acutely aware, is to support increasingly generous immigration policies. This allows them to replace the millions of liberal babies that are never born with immigrants imported straight from the third world.
This poses an obvious question. Nearly all of them come from more conservative countries compared to the west. Polls overwhelmingly show that few Muslims are tolerant of homosexuality, abortion or sex outside marriage for instance. So how does the left guarantee their loyalty?
Immigrants
The key factor here is that the vast majority of these immigrants are poor. 90% of blacks and 70% of Hispanics don’t vote for the Democrats because they’ve been brushing up on their Karl Marx (the 90% figure also predates Obama).
Left-leaning parties, from the Democrats in the US to the labor parties in the rest of the Anglosphere to the social democrats of Europe, are able to buy them out with generous handouts on the taxpayer dime. Along with the collapse of the family unit, this is one of the major contributing factors to the West’s deteriorating financial situation.
Eventually however, we know the welfare spigot that keeps these votes flowing to the left is going to run dry. Trilion dollar deficits aren’t sustainable forever. What happens then? Where will their loyalties lie?
The outcome
The breakdown of this uneasy alliance is going to be one of the defining political issues of our generation. Make no mistake, immigrant communities will turn on the left, as surely as the Allies turned on each other at the end of World War Two. Liberals will be typically bewildered by this—but weren’t we so nice to them?
As their voter base collapses between conservative whites on the one hand and conservative immigrants on the other, I would like to pose a serious question: how on earth will the left preserve their liberal agenda?
What happens to fifty years of no-fault divorce, welfare programs, domestic violence campaigns, free contraception, gay rights, legalized drugs, prostitution, nightclub culture, topfreedom and so on?
And not all of these things are fundamentally bad of course. The fact that women can walk around in miniskirts unmolested, that someone can legally flee their abusive spouse, that gays aren’t being publicly stoned—some of these things are rather nice, lets admit that.
Miniskirts
The problem here is they may not be sustainable. They’re the social equivalents of the welfare state.
The theory is really quite simple.
Society A takes the progressive route. Full of moral indignation, they let women out of the kitchen and dismantle the family unit. The birth rate promptly collapses.
Society B sticks to more traditional, if harsher, social policies, and manages to maintain a stable population.
At the end of the day, which one remains standing? Which one endures?
The average fertility rate in richer countries has been below two children per woman for decades now. The average American woman, not including ethnic minorities, has 1.8 kids. In Europe this figure is 1.5 and in Japan 1.4.
Japan
South Korea is one of the worst examples at 1.3 children per women. In 1980 it had 5.7 million elementary school students, today there are just three million. Korea is expected to go from 50 million people today to as low as 34 million by 2060 – and half of them will be over 60.
Perhaps most startling is how this contrasts with their northern neighbors. The North Koreans (famine and all) are bang on the replacement rate.
In other words, according to current trends – North Korea is going to win in the end.
This shows you the truly awesome destructive effects of cultural Marxism. It can take a country transformed so radically from a third world backwater into an economic powerhouse and run it back into the ground barely a generation later.
Deeper questions can be asked about the limits of tolerance. Can such wildly different ethnic groups really just get along? Fast forward to 2050, when today’s ethnic minorities in Europe, North America and Australia might make up closer to 50% of the population. Is this not a recipe for violence?
The threat of terrorism is often exaggerated. The Paris attacks killed 130 people, but even France already averages 600+ murders per year. Its still less than a month’s worth of traffic accidents.
But Muslims are currently less than 10% of the French population. What if it were 30% or 40%? That’s no longer a recipe for mere sporadic violence. Its a possible prelude to civil war.
ISIS
Previously this may have sounded far-fetched, but it sounds a lot less ridiculous in 2015 then even five years ago. We’re in the era of ISIS, an organisation whose ranks include as many as 30,000 foreign fighters, including some 5,000 westerners.
We’re also seeing something of a nationalist revival on the right, as the four million Britons who recently voted for UKIP shows. Donald Trump wouldn’t have been taken seriously in 2008 or 2012, but now hits a chord with millions of Americans.
Ethnic tensions perhaps haven’t been this high in the West since the days of the Second World War. I believe we’re now entering an era of growing clashes between nationalists on the right and immigrant communities and their sympathizers on the left. The outcome is unclear. Like the spread of Communism last century, some countries will fall like dominoes. In others the struggle will be more protracted.
A warning
Most people, even the most vocal critics of left-wing social policies, seem blissfully unaware of the demographic and political time bombs they are slowly nesting.
To them I say this: it is all very well and good to declare yourself a “strong independent woman” who doesn’t need a man, but if you fail to have children and instill those same values in them, then your politics will be as much an evolutionary dead end as you are.
Unless you happen to do something that breaks new scientific ground, like curing cancer or inventing a warp drive, your spawn and the values you raise them with are the only real legacy you leave. It simply doesn’t matter how right you were in your moral leanings.
It doesn’t matter which party you voted for when you were alive, or how many leaflets for an anti-racism rally you handed out at the local train station. It doesn’t matter how high you held up that “My body! My decision!” sign at the pro baby killing women’s choice rally.
What matters is that, if you fail to procreate, the DNA patterns that irrevocably make up you will cease to exist the moment your corpse decomposes.
Meanwhile that asshole neighbor of yours who voted for Romney is raising three or four more little Republicans as you sit there stroking your cats, and the Muslim family down the street is pumping out another Mohammad or Fatima every other year on the taxpayer dime.
The future belongs to those who worked hard to create a stable family situation in which they could raise their spawn, while you were busy trying to overthrow the patriarchy without any thought as to what followed. As far as the world is concerned, you sucked in oxygen for a few decades, then vanished without a trace.
Crazy cat lady
I’m trying to plead here, quite sincerely, about this fundamental threat to the society we’ve created. It is something that will affect its more progressive elements in particular.
But like a drug addict who just can’t quit, you refuse to acknowledge your self-destructive actions. You either ignore, or somehow celebrate, as the west’s liberal youth becomes increasingly sexually impoverished and retreats into internet pornography and spinsterhood.
As some have also pointed out, if the west is taken over by Islam, all I’d have to do is grow a beard and get up early for morning prayers. Women would be marched straight back to the kitchen. You have the most to lose, so please just listen for a moment.
Maybe all of us dream of creating a more “moral” society. Maybe someday it will be truly possible, but the current experiment appears to be failing, and the society it has created has become rotten to the core. If in another fifty or a hundred years, that society simply doesn’t exist anymore, then those cultures who have chosen a more traditional mold will expand to fill the gap.
This has serious consequences not only for liberalism, but for democracy as a concept. If industrialized democracies inevitably end up suffering a demographic decline, then who does the future below to? Basic maths would seem to make the outcome inevitable.
The side that wants to win must start having more kids. Or lose.
Quote of the Times;
Never regard as a benefit to yourself anything which will force you at some point to break your faith, to leave integrity behind, to hate, suspect, or curse another, to dissemble, to covet anything needing the secrecy of walls and drapes.
Link of the Times;
http://io9.gizmodo.com/its-dangerous-to-go-it-alone-in-hang-em-hyrule-1724301243
Clay?
An Ode to the English Plural
We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes,
But the plural of ox becomes oxen, not oxes.
One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,
Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice,
Yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.
If the plural of man is always called men,
Why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?
If I speak of my foot and show you my feet,
And I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,
Why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?
Then one may be that, and there would be those,
Yet hat in the plural would never be hose,
And the plural of cat is cats, not cose.
We speak of a brother and also of brethren,
But though we say mother, we never say methren.
Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine: she, shis and shim!
Let's face it - English is a crazy language.
There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger;
neither apple nor pine in pineapple.
English muffins weren't invented in England.
We take English for granted, but if we explore its paradoxes,
we find that quicksand can work slowly,
boxing rings are square,
and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.
It is a CUY!!! from Peru!!!!
And why is it that writers write, but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham?
Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend?
If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?
If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught?
If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?
Sometimes I think all the folks who grew up speaking English
should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane.
In what other language do people recite at a play and play at a recital?
We ship by truck but send cargo by ship...
We have noses that run and feet that smell.
We park in a driveway and drive in a parkway.
And how can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same,
while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?
You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language
in which your house can burn up as it burns down,
in which you fill in a form by filling it out, and
in which an alarm goes off by going on.
And in closing, if Father is Pop, how come Mother's not Mop?
It is now understandable:
English people are Coo-Coo!!
*.*
A husband and wife are travelling by car from Key West to Boston. After almost twenty-four hours on the road, they're too tired to continue and they decide to stop for a rest. They stop at a nice hotel and take a room, but they only plan to sleep for four hours and then get back on the road. When they check out four hours later, the desk clerk hands them a bill for $350. The man explodes and demands to know why the charge is so high. He tells the clerk that although it's a nice hotel, the rooms certainly aren't worth $350. When the clerk tells him that $350 is the standard rate, the man insists on speaking to the manager.
The manager listens to the man and then explains that the hotel has an Olympic-sized pool and a huge conference centre that were available for the husband and wife to use. He also explains that they could have taken in one of the shows for which the hotel is famous. "The best entertainers from New York, Hollywood and Las Vegas perform here," explains the manager. No matter what facility the manager mentions, the man replies, "But we didn't use it!"
The manager is unmoved and eventually the man gives up and agrees to pay.
He writes a check and gives it to the manager. The manager is surprised when he looks at the check. "But sir," he says, "this check is only made out for $100." "That's right," says the man. "I charged you $250 for sleeping with my wife."
"But I didn't!" exclaims the manager.
"Well," the man replies, " she was here, and you could have."
*.*
Golf has more rules than any other game, because golf has more cheaters than any other game.
*.*
It takes two things to be a consultant - gray hair and hemorrhoids.
The gray hair makes you look distinguished and the hemorrhoids make you look concerned.
*.*
Little Mary came home from school with a smile on her
face and told her mother,
"Frankie Brown showed me his willy today in the playground."
Before the mother could raise a concern, Mary went on to say, "It reminded me of a peanut."
Relaxing with a hidden smile, Mary's Mum asked, "Really small, was it?"
Mary replied, "No ..... Salty."
Issue of the Times;
The Greatest Anti-White Boxer of All Time by Jim Goad
Muhammad Ali, widely regarded as the world’s most famous man, died Friday at age 74. Born Cassius Marcellus Clay, he was a titan both as a boxer and a provocateur.
Because we live in an era much weaker and more sensitive than it was during Ali’s prime, his death is being eulogized with the sort of solemn, sanctimony-addled, weak-tea, low-T, hagiographic twaddle we’ve come to expect from neutered zombie bloggers on antidepressants. Just as mainstream history has Photoshopped all the warts off Nelson Mandela and MLK, Ali is now strictly framed as an inspirational figure who “spoke out against racism.” (Certainly they don’t mean the time he condemned interracial sex before a cheering crowd of Klansmen?)
The sad truth is that by shellacking history with a paintbrush soaked in modern pieties, they’re suppressing how hilariously insensitive Ali was. For example, after being forced into an impromptu photo session with The Beatles in 1964, he reportedly turned to an associate and asked, “So who were those little faggots?”
Mere weeks later, he announced that he was changing his “slave name” of Cassius Marcellus Clay to Muhammad Ali at the behest of Elijah Muhammad, leader of the Nation of Islam. For years, Ali would be used as a completely hoodwinked and manipulated and bamboozled puppet of the NOI and its ditzy theories about Yakub and the Mother Plane.
But sad to say, despite their well-deserved reputation as tremendous athletes and sparkling entertainers, many American blacks have an unfortunate tendency to do dopey things when attempting to “reclaim” their lost heritage. For example, when they renounce Christianity in favor of Islam, they are merely trading one group of their former slave masters for another. Likewise, the original Cassius Marcellus Clay—after whom the boxer was named—was a white anti-slavery crusader who fought with the Union in the Civil War, whereas Muhammad Ali of Egypt was a warlord whose army enslaved the Sudanese.
From 1964 to 1980, Clay/Ali gifted the world with a string of spectacularly insensitive comments that would get any modern white man socially exiled to Pluto for daring to utter their equivalent:
“Integration is wrong. The white people don’t want integration. I don’t believe in forcing it….”
—1964 interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal
“The white man want me hugging on a white women, or endorsing some whiskey, or some skin bleach, lightening the skin when I’m promoting black as best.”
—1966 interview with Sports Illustrated
“My enemies are white people, not Viet Congs or Chinese or Japanese.”
—1967 interview regarding the draft
“All Jews and gentiles are devils….Blacks are no devils….Everything black people doing wrong comes from (the white people—drinking, smoking, prostitution, homosexuality, stealing, gambling—it all comes from (the white people).”
—1969 interview with David Frost
“Every intelligent person wants his child to look like him. I’m sad because I [don’t] want to blot out my race and lose my beautiful identity? Chinese love Chinese—they love their little slanted-eyed, pretty brown-skinned babies. Pakistanis love their culture. Jewish people love their culture. Lotta Catholics don’t wanna marry nothing but Catholics, they want their religion to stay the same. Who wanna spot up yourself and kill your race? You a hater of your people if you don’t want to stay who you are.”
—1971 BBC interview with the portentously named Michael Parkinson
“A black man should be killed if he’s messing with a white woman. And white men have always done that….And not just white men—black men, too. We will kill you, and the brothers who don’t kill you will get their behinds whipped and probably get killed themselves if they let it happen and don’t do nothin’ about it.”
—1975 interview with Playboy
“You know the entire power structure is Zionist. They control America; they control the world.”
—1980 interview with India Today
Ali relentlessly taunted other black boxers, calling them “Uncle Toms” and “gorillas.” He once said that while clinching white boxers, he’d whisper in their ears that the Black Panthers knew where they lived and were going to burn their house down. He also reportedly lied in a 1975 autobiography when claiming that being refused service at a white restaurant caused him to toss his 1960 Olympics Gold Medal in the Ohio River. According to Ali’s friend Bundini Brown, “Honkies sure bought into that one!”
Although Ali’s indomitable ego fueled his ascendancy, it would later prove to be his undoing. He continued stubbornly fighting long after he’d lost his magic, and his 1980 battering at the hands of Larry Holmes was so lopsided, Holmes—a lifelong Ali fan—reportedly cried after the fight out of guilt. In 1984 Ali was diagnosed with what is now called Parkinson’s disease. It was a grim prolonged public spectacle to view the once indomitably brash heavyweight champion reduced to a jittering mess whose condition was so familiar that comedian Greg Giraldo once joked to Pamela Anderson, “You’ve caused me to spill more seed than Muhammad Ali at a bird feeder.”
Since the 1960s are still remembered as the time when everything changed for the better rather than started falling apart, the reigning modern historians have recast Ali as a man of peace and healing and love and one-worldsmanship rather than the fearless master of physical and psychological cruelty that he was.
Two of my favorite Ali quotes—besides “So who were those little faggots?,” which will never be topped—touch upon one of the most unspeakable topics in this modern “conversation” about race which we’re all supposed to be having but are simultaneously forbidden from even beginning to have. The topic is whether blacks, for all the oppression and brutality they allegedly endure in America, have it worse in Africa.
At the 1960 Rome Olympics, Ali told a reporter:
“To me, the U.S.A. is still the best country in the world, counting yours. It may be hard to eat sometimes, but anyhow I ain’t fighting alligators and living in a mud hut.”
After Ali spent months training in Zaire to fight George Foreman, a reporter asked him his impressions of Africa. Ali’s response proves that although his IQ was twice tested at 78, he was a genius at making pithy rejoinders:
“Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat.”
Quote of the Times;
San Jose’s police chief Eddie Garcia told his men not to intervene in the violence. He implausibly claimed that 250 cops were unable to handle an estimated 400 rioters. He is also, as luck would have it, a proud supporter of La Raza (The Race). In other words, a Latino cop who supports a pro-Mexican racial-identity group told his men to stand and watch while Mexicans beat up white people.
Link of the Times;
http://coolmaterial.com/tech/google-project-ara-phone/
We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes,
But the plural of ox becomes oxen, not oxes.
One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,
Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice,
Yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.
If the plural of man is always called men,
Why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?
If I speak of my foot and show you my feet,
And I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,
Why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?
Then one may be that, and there would be those,
Yet hat in the plural would never be hose,
And the plural of cat is cats, not cose.
We speak of a brother and also of brethren,
But though we say mother, we never say methren.
Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine: she, shis and shim!
Let's face it - English is a crazy language.
There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger;
neither apple nor pine in pineapple.
English muffins weren't invented in England.
We take English for granted, but if we explore its paradoxes,
we find that quicksand can work slowly,
boxing rings are square,
and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.
It is a CUY!!! from Peru!!!!
And why is it that writers write, but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham?
Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend?
If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?
If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught?
If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?
Sometimes I think all the folks who grew up speaking English
should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane.
In what other language do people recite at a play and play at a recital?
We ship by truck but send cargo by ship...
We have noses that run and feet that smell.
We park in a driveway and drive in a parkway.
And how can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same,
while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?
You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language
in which your house can burn up as it burns down,
in which you fill in a form by filling it out, and
in which an alarm goes off by going on.
And in closing, if Father is Pop, how come Mother's not Mop?
It is now understandable:
English people are Coo-Coo!!
*.*
A husband and wife are travelling by car from Key West to Boston. After almost twenty-four hours on the road, they're too tired to continue and they decide to stop for a rest. They stop at a nice hotel and take a room, but they only plan to sleep for four hours and then get back on the road. When they check out four hours later, the desk clerk hands them a bill for $350. The man explodes and demands to know why the charge is so high. He tells the clerk that although it's a nice hotel, the rooms certainly aren't worth $350. When the clerk tells him that $350 is the standard rate, the man insists on speaking to the manager.
The manager listens to the man and then explains that the hotel has an Olympic-sized pool and a huge conference centre that were available for the husband and wife to use. He also explains that they could have taken in one of the shows for which the hotel is famous. "The best entertainers from New York, Hollywood and Las Vegas perform here," explains the manager. No matter what facility the manager mentions, the man replies, "But we didn't use it!"
The manager is unmoved and eventually the man gives up and agrees to pay.
He writes a check and gives it to the manager. The manager is surprised when he looks at the check. "But sir," he says, "this check is only made out for $100." "That's right," says the man. "I charged you $250 for sleeping with my wife."
"But I didn't!" exclaims the manager.
"Well," the man replies, " she was here, and you could have."
*.*
Golf has more rules than any other game, because golf has more cheaters than any other game.
*.*
It takes two things to be a consultant - gray hair and hemorrhoids.
The gray hair makes you look distinguished and the hemorrhoids make you look concerned.
*.*
Little Mary came home from school with a smile on her
face and told her mother,
"Frankie Brown showed me his willy today in the playground."
Before the mother could raise a concern, Mary went on to say, "It reminded me of a peanut."
Relaxing with a hidden smile, Mary's Mum asked, "Really small, was it?"
Mary replied, "No ..... Salty."
Issue of the Times;
The Greatest Anti-White Boxer of All Time by Jim Goad
Muhammad Ali, widely regarded as the world’s most famous man, died Friday at age 74. Born Cassius Marcellus Clay, he was a titan both as a boxer and a provocateur.
Because we live in an era much weaker and more sensitive than it was during Ali’s prime, his death is being eulogized with the sort of solemn, sanctimony-addled, weak-tea, low-T, hagiographic twaddle we’ve come to expect from neutered zombie bloggers on antidepressants. Just as mainstream history has Photoshopped all the warts off Nelson Mandela and MLK, Ali is now strictly framed as an inspirational figure who “spoke out against racism.” (Certainly they don’t mean the time he condemned interracial sex before a cheering crowd of Klansmen?)
The sad truth is that by shellacking history with a paintbrush soaked in modern pieties, they’re suppressing how hilariously insensitive Ali was. For example, after being forced into an impromptu photo session with The Beatles in 1964, he reportedly turned to an associate and asked, “So who were those little faggots?”
Mere weeks later, he announced that he was changing his “slave name” of Cassius Marcellus Clay to Muhammad Ali at the behest of Elijah Muhammad, leader of the Nation of Islam. For years, Ali would be used as a completely hoodwinked and manipulated and bamboozled puppet of the NOI and its ditzy theories about Yakub and the Mother Plane.
But sad to say, despite their well-deserved reputation as tremendous athletes and sparkling entertainers, many American blacks have an unfortunate tendency to do dopey things when attempting to “reclaim” their lost heritage. For example, when they renounce Christianity in favor of Islam, they are merely trading one group of their former slave masters for another. Likewise, the original Cassius Marcellus Clay—after whom the boxer was named—was a white anti-slavery crusader who fought with the Union in the Civil War, whereas Muhammad Ali of Egypt was a warlord whose army enslaved the Sudanese.
From 1964 to 1980, Clay/Ali gifted the world with a string of spectacularly insensitive comments that would get any modern white man socially exiled to Pluto for daring to utter their equivalent:
“Integration is wrong. The white people don’t want integration. I don’t believe in forcing it….”
—1964 interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal
“The white man want me hugging on a white women, or endorsing some whiskey, or some skin bleach, lightening the skin when I’m promoting black as best.”
—1966 interview with Sports Illustrated
“My enemies are white people, not Viet Congs or Chinese or Japanese.”
—1967 interview regarding the draft
“All Jews and gentiles are devils….Blacks are no devils….Everything black people doing wrong comes from (the white people—drinking, smoking, prostitution, homosexuality, stealing, gambling—it all comes from (the white people).”
—1969 interview with David Frost
“Every intelligent person wants his child to look like him. I’m sad because I [don’t] want to blot out my race and lose my beautiful identity? Chinese love Chinese—they love their little slanted-eyed, pretty brown-skinned babies. Pakistanis love their culture. Jewish people love their culture. Lotta Catholics don’t wanna marry nothing but Catholics, they want their religion to stay the same. Who wanna spot up yourself and kill your race? You a hater of your people if you don’t want to stay who you are.”
—1971 BBC interview with the portentously named Michael Parkinson
“A black man should be killed if he’s messing with a white woman. And white men have always done that….And not just white men—black men, too. We will kill you, and the brothers who don’t kill you will get their behinds whipped and probably get killed themselves if they let it happen and don’t do nothin’ about it.”
—1975 interview with Playboy
“You know the entire power structure is Zionist. They control America; they control the world.”
—1980 interview with India Today
Ali relentlessly taunted other black boxers, calling them “Uncle Toms” and “gorillas.” He once said that while clinching white boxers, he’d whisper in their ears that the Black Panthers knew where they lived and were going to burn their house down. He also reportedly lied in a 1975 autobiography when claiming that being refused service at a white restaurant caused him to toss his 1960 Olympics Gold Medal in the Ohio River. According to Ali’s friend Bundini Brown, “Honkies sure bought into that one!”
Although Ali’s indomitable ego fueled his ascendancy, it would later prove to be his undoing. He continued stubbornly fighting long after he’d lost his magic, and his 1980 battering at the hands of Larry Holmes was so lopsided, Holmes—a lifelong Ali fan—reportedly cried after the fight out of guilt. In 1984 Ali was diagnosed with what is now called Parkinson’s disease. It was a grim prolonged public spectacle to view the once indomitably brash heavyweight champion reduced to a jittering mess whose condition was so familiar that comedian Greg Giraldo once joked to Pamela Anderson, “You’ve caused me to spill more seed than Muhammad Ali at a bird feeder.”
Since the 1960s are still remembered as the time when everything changed for the better rather than started falling apart, the reigning modern historians have recast Ali as a man of peace and healing and love and one-worldsmanship rather than the fearless master of physical and psychological cruelty that he was.
Two of my favorite Ali quotes—besides “So who were those little faggots?,” which will never be topped—touch upon one of the most unspeakable topics in this modern “conversation” about race which we’re all supposed to be having but are simultaneously forbidden from even beginning to have. The topic is whether blacks, for all the oppression and brutality they allegedly endure in America, have it worse in Africa.
At the 1960 Rome Olympics, Ali told a reporter:
“To me, the U.S.A. is still the best country in the world, counting yours. It may be hard to eat sometimes, but anyhow I ain’t fighting alligators and living in a mud hut.”
After Ali spent months training in Zaire to fight George Foreman, a reporter asked him his impressions of Africa. Ali’s response proves that although his IQ was twice tested at 78, he was a genius at making pithy rejoinders:
“Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat.”
Quote of the Times;
San Jose’s police chief Eddie Garcia told his men not to intervene in the violence. He implausibly claimed that 250 cops were unable to handle an estimated 400 rioters. He is also, as luck would have it, a proud supporter of La Raza (The Race). In other words, a Latino cop who supports a pro-Mexican racial-identity group told his men to stand and watch while Mexicans beat up white people.
Link of the Times;
http://coolmaterial.com/tech/google-project-ara-phone/
Popcorn?
Some years ago, the famous San Diego Zoo opened a second, larger branch called the San Diego Wild Animal Park. The Park is built around an enormous open-field enclosure where the animals roam free. To see the animals, visitors ride on a monorail called the Wgasa Bush Line which circles the enclosure. Here's the true story of how the Wgasa Bush Line got its name.
They wanted to give the monorail a jazzy, African sounding name. So they sent out a memo to a bunch of zoo staffers saying, "What shall we call the monorail at the Wild Animal Park?" One of the memos came back with "WGASA" written on the bottom. The planners loved it and the rest is history.
What the planners didn't know was that the zoo staffer had not intended to suggest a name. He was using an acronym which was popular at the time. It stood for "Who Gives A Shit Anyhow?"
*.*
Donald Trump was asked if he could quote any Bible verses.
He answered, "Trump 20:16"
"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Deport him and you do not have to feed him again."
*.*
Based on a true story:
xxx: OK, so, our build engineer has left for another company. The dude was literally living inside the terminal. You know, that type of a guy who loves Vim, creates diagrams in Dot and writes wiki-posts in Markdown... If something - anything - requires more than 90 seconds of his time, he writes a script to automate that.
xxx: So we're sitting here, looking through his, uhm, "legacy"
xxx: You're gonna love this
xxx: smack-my-bitch-up.sh - sends a text message "late at work" to his wife (apparently). Automatically picks reasons from an array of strings, randomly. Runs inside a cron-job. The job fires if there are active SSH-sessions on the server after 9pm with his login.
xxx: kumar-asshole.sh - scans the inbox for emails from "Kumar" (a DBA at our clients). Looks for keywords like "help", "trouble", "sorry" etc. If keywords are found - the script SSHes into the clients server and rolls back the staging database to the latest backup. Then sends a reply "no worries mate, be careful next time".
xxx: hangover.sh - another cron-job that is set to specific dates. Sends automated emails like "not feeling well/gonna work from home" etc. Adds a random "reason" from another predefined array of strings. Fires if there are no interactive sessions on the server at 8:45am.
xxx: (and the oscar goes to) fucking-coffee.sh - this one waits exactly 17 seconds (!), then opens an SSH session to our coffee-machine (we had no frikin idea the coffee machine is on the network, runs linux and has SSHD up and running) and sends some weird gibberish to it. Looks binary. Turns out this thing starts brewing a mid-sized half-caf latte and waits another 24 (!) seconds before pouring it into a cup. The timing is exactly how long it takes to walk to the machine from the dudes desk.
xxx: holy sh*t I'm keeping those
*.*
Why do women have orgasms?
Just another reason to moan, really.
*.*
Enraged Pope Vows To Enlist In The French Foreign Legion
VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis has vowed to enlist in the French Foreign Legion and deploy to Syria, an unprecedented move prompted by a series of terrorist attacks by ISIS.
Officials confirm that the Pope has declared himself a “conscientious objector to the existence of ISIS” and plans to take part in direct combat. Though his Eminence must first obtain an age-waiver and graduate from boot camp.
Issue of the Times;
Grab the Popcorn, the Left Is Imploding by Gavin McInnes
Last week I discussed our present state of “peak topsy-turvy.” It was a frustrating climb, but the reward at the top is we get to watch the “inmates who took over the journalistic asylum” destroy themselves.
After months of telling us we’re violent and violence isn’t the answer, we learn they think violence is okay as long as they’re the ones doling it out. Beta-faced Vox editor Emmett Resnin was just suspended for a week (with pay) after advocating violence against Trump supporters. HuffPo’s Jesse Benn agreed with Resnin, exclaiming, “Sorry Liberals, A Violent Response To Trump Is As Logical As Any.” I’d be stunned if either of them has ever been in a fight. The Killer Mike contingent of the Bernie Bros, however, is much more likely to “throw down,” and so they did when confronted with Trump supporters at a rally last week. Only they weren’t Trump supporters. They were fellow Bernie Bros. The bloodied but unbowed boobs then chanted, “Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!” while hoping nobody caught the incident on camera. We did.
You may be confused by this behavior because it’s conservatives who are the stupid rednecks getting everything wrong. Liberals are the calm, rational ones. Turns out they got it backwards. As the most “epic correction” of the century goes, “the manuscript was exactly reversed.” That’s right, the paramount study on what side is nuts, “Correlation not causation: the relationship between personality traits and political ideologies,” is completely topsy-turvy. “Thus,” the retraction states, “where we indicated that higher scores…reflect a more conservative response, they actually reflect a more liberal response.” This is exactly what I was screaming last week when I said we need to put all of modern society in a Word doc and go: edit, find, replace all.
The transocalypse is an even better confluence of cuckoldry to watch collapse. ACLU director Maya Dillard Smith helped push the cognitive dissonance that gender is a social construct and if a giant man with a deep voice says he’s a woman, he is. If said woman wants to use the ladies’, only a fool would stand in her way, right? It sounds reasonable on paper, until a couple of weeks ago when Dillard Smith’s daughters were stuck with two bosom buddies who were so clearly male, it left the ACLU director with a huge pile of “questions for which [she], like many parents, was ill-prepared to answer.” She quit and the bully from The Simpsons went, “Ha-ha.”
Bathrooms are fun, but you can’t eat popcorn in the loo. Sports is the ultimate entertainment and nowhere is the myth of equality more evident than when it’s slapped in the face by the meritocracy of athleticism. George Costanza would like to play in the NBA and it seems mean to say no, but Jewish actors playing neurotic Mexicans can’t jump, “Sorry, liberals.” Trans sports isn’t about a new kind of woman competing in women’s sports. It’s about men competing in women’s sports. Guess what happens when you do that. The women get obliterated. One of the more intense examples of this happened exactly a year ago when a dude with tits who calls himself Fallon Fox pounded Tamikka Brents so hard she was knocked unconscious. “I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life,” Brents complained afterward. Once again, the people insisting men are women and women are men are left with blood on their hands.
The charade has continued unabated since then. In April of this year, 60 Minutes reported on an incredibly gifted female athlete who got a swimming scholarship at Harvard. She then decided she was a dude and they dutifully moved her over to the men’s team where she went from ruling to sucking. This is where America is headed, by the way. Watching zirs fellow athletes high-five zir and try to ignore the scars where ze had zirs tits removed is a perfect example of how determined we are to ignore what is right in front of us. Feminism and gender equality are really about taking the miracle of childbirth away from women and turning them into shitty dudes.
Then, at the end of last month, we learned that Australia’s national women’s team lost 7–0 to a bunch of postpubescent boys. Wait, didn’t The Daily Show tell me the only reason female soccer players make less money than men is because of sexism? I guess our instincts were right after all. Look, we’ve all seen women’s soccer. We all know that it is vastly inferior to its male counterpart, but that sounds antiegalitarian so the left just waves its magic wand of equality and says, “Not so.” The rest of us try to tell them what’s happening outside but they put their fingers in their ears and go, “Na na na na na na na na I can’t hear you.” So we shrug and walk away like when Jason Statham walks away from a giant explosion in an action movie.
Such an explosion happened last week when Nattaphon Wangyot, an Alaskan man with makeup on, absolutely tore his high school’s girls’ track-and-field competition a new ass. As she(?)…ze(?)—fuck it—HE trampled past real girls and into the state finals, one of them carefully avoided pronouns and transphobia by saying, “I’m glad that this person is comfortable with who they are and they’re able to be happy in who they are, but I don’t think it’s competitively completely 100 percent fair.” If it is fair, Caitlyn Jenner needs to return her Olympic gold from the 1976 Games. That decathlon was for dudes.
We warned you, dummies. We tried to tell you that women aren’t men but you cited backwards studies that said we were backwards and plowed forward into the land of make-believe. Now that we have only five months left before Trump is president, we’re going to leave you to your own devices because it’s fun watching you fail. Bring on the third act
Quote of the Times;
“Naked power is quicksilver, lost in a flash. So power rushes to form, which endows power with legitimacy, defines the processes whereby it is acquired, exercised, delegated, transferred. Hiding behind form, power acquires stability. Form is a structure of power but claims legitimacy as a map of reality. Reality is flux, while power, always trying to preserve itself, insists on the permance of forms; so form falls ever more at variance with the changing reality it claims faithfully to reflect. Power clings to form even after forms claim to truth has become manifest travesty.” – Wheelis
Link of the Times;
http://coolmaterial.com/tech/google-project-ara-phone/
They wanted to give the monorail a jazzy, African sounding name. So they sent out a memo to a bunch of zoo staffers saying, "What shall we call the monorail at the Wild Animal Park?" One of the memos came back with "WGASA" written on the bottom. The planners loved it and the rest is history.
What the planners didn't know was that the zoo staffer had not intended to suggest a name. He was using an acronym which was popular at the time. It stood for "Who Gives A Shit Anyhow?"
*.*
Donald Trump was asked if he could quote any Bible verses.
He answered, "Trump 20:16"
"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Deport him and you do not have to feed him again."
*.*
Based on a true story:
xxx: OK, so, our build engineer has left for another company. The dude was literally living inside the terminal. You know, that type of a guy who loves Vim, creates diagrams in Dot and writes wiki-posts in Markdown... If something - anything - requires more than 90 seconds of his time, he writes a script to automate that.
xxx: So we're sitting here, looking through his, uhm, "legacy"
xxx: You're gonna love this
xxx: smack-my-bitch-up.sh - sends a text message "late at work" to his wife (apparently). Automatically picks reasons from an array of strings, randomly. Runs inside a cron-job. The job fires if there are active SSH-sessions on the server after 9pm with his login.
xxx: kumar-asshole.sh - scans the inbox for emails from "Kumar" (a DBA at our clients). Looks for keywords like "help", "trouble", "sorry" etc. If keywords are found - the script SSHes into the clients server and rolls back the staging database to the latest backup. Then sends a reply "no worries mate, be careful next time".
xxx: hangover.sh - another cron-job that is set to specific dates. Sends automated emails like "not feeling well/gonna work from home" etc. Adds a random "reason" from another predefined array of strings. Fires if there are no interactive sessions on the server at 8:45am.
xxx: (and the oscar goes to) fucking-coffee.sh - this one waits exactly 17 seconds (!), then opens an SSH session to our coffee-machine (we had no frikin idea the coffee machine is on the network, runs linux and has SSHD up and running) and sends some weird gibberish to it. Looks binary. Turns out this thing starts brewing a mid-sized half-caf latte and waits another 24 (!) seconds before pouring it into a cup. The timing is exactly how long it takes to walk to the machine from the dudes desk.
xxx: holy sh*t I'm keeping those
*.*
Why do women have orgasms?
Just another reason to moan, really.
*.*
Enraged Pope Vows To Enlist In The French Foreign Legion
VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis has vowed to enlist in the French Foreign Legion and deploy to Syria, an unprecedented move prompted by a series of terrorist attacks by ISIS.
Officials confirm that the Pope has declared himself a “conscientious objector to the existence of ISIS” and plans to take part in direct combat. Though his Eminence must first obtain an age-waiver and graduate from boot camp.
Issue of the Times;
Grab the Popcorn, the Left Is Imploding by Gavin McInnes
Last week I discussed our present state of “peak topsy-turvy.” It was a frustrating climb, but the reward at the top is we get to watch the “inmates who took over the journalistic asylum” destroy themselves.
After months of telling us we’re violent and violence isn’t the answer, we learn they think violence is okay as long as they’re the ones doling it out. Beta-faced Vox editor Emmett Resnin was just suspended for a week (with pay) after advocating violence against Trump supporters. HuffPo’s Jesse Benn agreed with Resnin, exclaiming, “Sorry Liberals, A Violent Response To Trump Is As Logical As Any.” I’d be stunned if either of them has ever been in a fight. The Killer Mike contingent of the Bernie Bros, however, is much more likely to “throw down,” and so they did when confronted with Trump supporters at a rally last week. Only they weren’t Trump supporters. They were fellow Bernie Bros. The bloodied but unbowed boobs then chanted, “Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!” while hoping nobody caught the incident on camera. We did.
You may be confused by this behavior because it’s conservatives who are the stupid rednecks getting everything wrong. Liberals are the calm, rational ones. Turns out they got it backwards. As the most “epic correction” of the century goes, “the manuscript was exactly reversed.” That’s right, the paramount study on what side is nuts, “Correlation not causation: the relationship between personality traits and political ideologies,” is completely topsy-turvy. “Thus,” the retraction states, “where we indicated that higher scores…reflect a more conservative response, they actually reflect a more liberal response.” This is exactly what I was screaming last week when I said we need to put all of modern society in a Word doc and go: edit, find, replace all.
The transocalypse is an even better confluence of cuckoldry to watch collapse. ACLU director Maya Dillard Smith helped push the cognitive dissonance that gender is a social construct and if a giant man with a deep voice says he’s a woman, he is. If said woman wants to use the ladies’, only a fool would stand in her way, right? It sounds reasonable on paper, until a couple of weeks ago when Dillard Smith’s daughters were stuck with two bosom buddies who were so clearly male, it left the ACLU director with a huge pile of “questions for which [she], like many parents, was ill-prepared to answer.” She quit and the bully from The Simpsons went, “Ha-ha.”
Bathrooms are fun, but you can’t eat popcorn in the loo. Sports is the ultimate entertainment and nowhere is the myth of equality more evident than when it’s slapped in the face by the meritocracy of athleticism. George Costanza would like to play in the NBA and it seems mean to say no, but Jewish actors playing neurotic Mexicans can’t jump, “Sorry, liberals.” Trans sports isn’t about a new kind of woman competing in women’s sports. It’s about men competing in women’s sports. Guess what happens when you do that. The women get obliterated. One of the more intense examples of this happened exactly a year ago when a dude with tits who calls himself Fallon Fox pounded Tamikka Brents so hard she was knocked unconscious. “I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life,” Brents complained afterward. Once again, the people insisting men are women and women are men are left with blood on their hands.
The charade has continued unabated since then. In April of this year, 60 Minutes reported on an incredibly gifted female athlete who got a swimming scholarship at Harvard. She then decided she was a dude and they dutifully moved her over to the men’s team where she went from ruling to sucking. This is where America is headed, by the way. Watching zirs fellow athletes high-five zir and try to ignore the scars where ze had zirs tits removed is a perfect example of how determined we are to ignore what is right in front of us. Feminism and gender equality are really about taking the miracle of childbirth away from women and turning them into shitty dudes.
Then, at the end of last month, we learned that Australia’s national women’s team lost 7–0 to a bunch of postpubescent boys. Wait, didn’t The Daily Show tell me the only reason female soccer players make less money than men is because of sexism? I guess our instincts were right after all. Look, we’ve all seen women’s soccer. We all know that it is vastly inferior to its male counterpart, but that sounds antiegalitarian so the left just waves its magic wand of equality and says, “Not so.” The rest of us try to tell them what’s happening outside but they put their fingers in their ears and go, “Na na na na na na na na I can’t hear you.” So we shrug and walk away like when Jason Statham walks away from a giant explosion in an action movie.
Such an explosion happened last week when Nattaphon Wangyot, an Alaskan man with makeup on, absolutely tore his high school’s girls’ track-and-field competition a new ass. As she(?)…ze(?)—fuck it—HE trampled past real girls and into the state finals, one of them carefully avoided pronouns and transphobia by saying, “I’m glad that this person is comfortable with who they are and they’re able to be happy in who they are, but I don’t think it’s competitively completely 100 percent fair.” If it is fair, Caitlyn Jenner needs to return her Olympic gold from the 1976 Games. That decathlon was for dudes.
We warned you, dummies. We tried to tell you that women aren’t men but you cited backwards studies that said we were backwards and plowed forward into the land of make-believe. Now that we have only five months left before Trump is president, we’re going to leave you to your own devices because it’s fun watching you fail. Bring on the third act
Quote of the Times;
“Naked power is quicksilver, lost in a flash. So power rushes to form, which endows power with legitimacy, defines the processes whereby it is acquired, exercised, delegated, transferred. Hiding behind form, power acquires stability. Form is a structure of power but claims legitimacy as a map of reality. Reality is flux, while power, always trying to preserve itself, insists on the permance of forms; so form falls ever more at variance with the changing reality it claims faithfully to reflect. Power clings to form even after forms claim to truth has become manifest travesty.” – Wheelis
Link of the Times;
http://coolmaterial.com/tech/google-project-ara-phone/
Haunted?
Ever notice how a 4-year-old's voice is louder than
200 adult voices?
Several years ago, I returned home from a trip
just as a storm struck with non-stop lightning and
crashing thunder. As I entered my bedroom at about
2 a.m., I found my two children in bed with my wife,
apparently scared by the loud storm. I resigned
myself to sleep in the guest bedroom that night. The
next day, I talked to the children, and explained that
it was O.K. to sleep with Mom when the storm was bad,
but when I was expected home, please don't sleep with
Mom that night.
They said OK.
After my next trip several weeks later, my wife and the
children picked me up in the terminal at the appointed
time. The plane was late, and there were hundreds of
other folks waiting for their arriving passengers, also.
As I entered the waiting area, my son saw me, and came
running, shouting, "Hi, Dad! I've got some good news!"
As I waved back, I said loudly, "What's the good news?"
"Nobody slept with Mommy while you were away this
time!" Alex shouted.
The airport became very quiet, as everyone in the waiting
area looked at Alex, then turned to me, and then searched
the rest of the area to see if they could figure out exactly
who his Mom was.
*.*
The Old Man's Job Application
This is an actual job application that a 75-year-old senior citizen submitted to Wal-Mart in Arkansas.
NAME: George Martin
DESIRED POSITION: Company President or Vice President. But seriously, whatever's available. If I was in a position to be picky, I wouldn't be applying here in the first place.
DESIRED SALARY: $185,000 a year plus stock options and a Michael Ovitz style severance package. If that's not possible, make an offer and we can haggle.
EDUCATION: Yes.
LAST POSITION HELD: Target for middle management hostility.
PREVIOUS SALARY: A lot less than I'm worth.
MOST NOTABLE ACHIEVEMENT: My incredible collection of stolen pens and post-it notes.
REASON FOR LEAVING: It sucked.
HOURS AVAILABLE TO WORK: Any.
PREFERRED HOURS: 1:30-3:30 p.m. Monday, Tuesday and Thursday.
DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIAL SKILLS?: Yes, but they're better suited to a more intimate environment.
MAY WE CONTACT YOUR CURRENT EMPLOYER?: If I had one, would I be here?
DO YOU HAVE ANY PHYSICAL CONDITIONS THAT WOULD PROHIBIT YOU FROM
LIFTING UP TO 50 lbs.?: Of what?
DO YOU HAVE A CAR?: I think the more appropriate question here would be "Do you have a car that runs?"
HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY SPECIAL AWARDS OR RECOGNITION?: I may already be a winner of the Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes, so they tell me.
DO YOU SMOKE?: On the job - no, on my breaks - yes.
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE DOING IN FIVE YEARS?: Living in the Bahamas with a fabulously wealthy dumb, sexy, blonde, supermodel who thinks I'm the greatest thing since sliced bread. Actually, I'd like to be doing that now.
DO YOU CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE IS TRUE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE?: Oh yes, absolutely.
SIGN HERE: Sagittarius
Wal-Mart ended up hiring the old man because he was so funny.
*.*
Can anyone tell me why…??
If all the nations in the world are in debt, where did all the money go?
Who copyrighted the copyright symbol?
Why are the numbers on a calculator and a phone reversed?
If a person suffered from amnesia and then was cured would they remember that they forgot?
If a person owns a piece of land do they own it all the way down to the core of the earth?
*.*
LIFE IN THE 1500'S
The next time you are washing your hands and complain because the water temperature isn't just how you like it, think about how things used to be. Here are some facts about the 1500's:
Most people got married in June, because they took their yearly bath in May and still smelled pretty good by June. However, they were starting to smell, so brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odor. Hence the custom today of carrying a bouquet when getting married.
Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children! Last of all the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it. Hence the saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water."
Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw-piled high, with no wood underneath.
It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the cats and other small animals (mice, bugs) lived in the roof. When it rained it became slippery and sometimes the animals would slip and off the roof. Hence the saying "It's raining cats and dogs."
There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. This posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings could mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and a sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. That's how canopy beds came into existence.
The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt. Hence the saying "dirt poor." The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh (straw) on floor to help keep their footing. As the winter wore on, they added more thresh until when you opened the door it would all start slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entranceway.
Hence the saying a "thresh hold."
(Getting quite an education, aren't you?)
In those old days, they cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that always hung over the fire. Every day they lit the fire and added things to the pot. They ate mostly vegetables and did not get much meat. They would eat the stew for dinner, leaving leftovers in the pot to get cold overnight and then start over the next day. Sometimes stew had food in it that had been there for quite a while. Hence the rhyme, "Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot nine days old."
Sometimes they could obtain pork, which made them feel quite special. When visitors came over, they would hang up their bacon to show off. It was a sign of wealth that a man could "bring home the bacon." They would cut off a little to share with guests and would all sit around and "chew the fat."
Those with money had plates made of pewter. Food with high acid content caused some of the lead to leach onto the food, causing lead poisoning death. This happened most often with tomatoes, so for the next 400 years or so, tomatoes were considered poisonous.
Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom of the loaf, the family got the middle, and guests got the top, or "upper crust."
*.*
Oneliners:
My brain will fixate on people I hate while allowing me to forget to drink enough water.
I read that a cat will start eating your dead body if left alone for a day or two, but a dog will usually defend the body for a week or more, and then only eat you out of starvation. I think this illustrates what has been on the cat's mind all along.
The fact that we have McDonald's in Wal-Mart and Starbucks in Target says a a lot about the demographics.
We should have a steroid Olympics to see the absolute potential of the human body.
We are all colorblind relative to a mantis shrimp.
Before photography, no one had ever seen themselves blink.
It's called firmware because firm is between hard and soft
Jurassic world has all the technology to create a dinosaur from scratch, but nobody thought to make a custom mobile app to track the dinosaurs they create?
Trying to fall asleep is just faking it until you make it.
Hurricanes are becoming so powerful and violent that they should be named after fictitious monsters and villains to encourage evacuation. Hurricane Patricia doesn't sound scary, but Hurricane Sauron does.
Batman sure is lucky he never got an identifiable scar on his lower face
If I ever see an amputee getting hanged, I'd probably just start calling out letters.
Issue of the Times;
We're Still Haunted by the Labor Theory of Value by Steven Horwitz
Why are so many students convinced that they should receive better grades for the papers they’ve spent so much time writing?
It’s not a belief about the quality of those papers; it’s a belief about the hours and hours spent working on them.
This fundamental misunderstanding about the value of labor is at the center of the Marxist critique of capitalism.
The Center of Everything
For thousands of years, humans were sure that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around it. With the advent of systematic inquiry, scientists had to develop more and more complex explanations for why their observations of the universe did not fit with that hypothesis. When Copernicus and others offered an alternative explanation that was able to explain the observed facts, and did so more clearly and concisely, the heliocentric model triumphed. The Copernican revolution changed science forever.
There is a similar story in economics. For hundreds of years, many economists believed that the value of a good depended on the cost of producing it. In particular, many subscribed to the labor theory of value, which argued that a good’s value derived from the amount of work that went into making it.
Much like the geocentric view of the universe, the labor theory of value had some superficial plausibility, as it does often seem that goods that involve more labor have more value. However, much like the story in astronomy, the theory got increasingly complicated as it tried to explain away some obvious objections. Starting in the 1870s, economics had its own version of the Copernican revolution as the subjective theory of value became the preferred explanation for the value of goods and services. Today, the labor theory of value has only a minuscule number of adherents among professional economists, but it remains all too common in other academic disciplines when they discuss economic issues, as well as among the general public. (The labor theory of grades is, as I noted above, particularly popular among college students.)
The Specter of Karl Marx (and Adam Smith)
One reason the theory is still the implicit explanation of value in many other disciplines is because they rely on the theory’s most famous adherent for their understanding of economics: Karl Marx. Marx was hardly the only economist to hold this view, nor is the labor theory of value unique to socialists. Adam Smith believed in a somewhat weaker version of the theory as well.
For Marx, the theory was at the center of his view of the problems of capitalism. The argument that capitalism exploited workers depended crucially on the view that labor was the source of all value and that the profits of capitalists were therefore “taken” from workers who deserved it. Marx’s concept of alienation focused on the centrality of labor to making us human and the ways in which capitalism destroyed our ability to take joy in our work and control the conditions under which we created value. Without the labor theory of value, it is not clear how much of Marx’s critique of capitalism remains valid. Part of the problem for Marx and others who accepted the theory was that there were so many seemingly obvious objections that they had to construct complex explanations to account for them. What about the value of land or other natural resources? What about great works of art that were produced with a small amount of labor but fetched extremely high prices? What about differences in individuals’ skill levels, which meant that there would be different amounts of time required to produce the same good?
The classical economists, including Marx, offered explanations for all of these apparent exceptions, but, like the increasingly complex explanations of the geocentricists, they began to feel ad hoc and left people searching for a better answer.
The Austrian Revolution
In economics, that answer came when, much like Copernicus, several economists realized that the old explanation was precisely backward. This point was clearest in the work of Carl Menger, whose Principles of Economics not only offered a new explanation for the nature of economic value but also founded the Austrian school of economics in the process.
What Menger and others argued was that value is subjective. That is, the value of a good is not determined by the physical inputs, including labor, that helped to create it. Instead, the value of a good emerges from human perceptions of its usefulness for the particular ends that people had at a particular point in time. Value is not something objective and transcendent. It is a function of the role that an object plays as a means toward the ends that are part of human purposes and
plans.
Thus, according to the subjectivists, land had value not because of the labor that went into tilling it, but because people believed that it could contribute to the satisfaction of some direct want of their own (such as growing crops to eat) or that it would contribute indirectly to other ends by being used to grow crops to sell at the market. Works of art had value because many people found them to be beautiful no matter how much or how little labor went into producing them. With value being determined by human judgments of usefulness, the variations in the quality of labor posed no trouble for explaining value. Indeed, economic value was a completely separate category from other forms of value, such as scientific value. That’s why people pay money to have someone give them a complete horoscope reading even though astrology has no scientific value whatsoever. What matters for understanding economic value is the perception of usefulness in pursuit of human purposes and plans, not some “objective” value of the good or service.
Turning Marx Upside Down
But the real Copernican revolution in economics was how the subjective theory of value related to the value of labor. Rather than seeing the value of outputs being determined by the value of the inputs like labor, the subjective theory of value showed that it’s the other way around: the value of inputs like labor were determined by the value of the outputs they helped to produce.
The high market value of well-prepared food is not the result of the value of the chef’s labor. Rather, the chef’s labor is valuable precisely because he is able to produce food that the public finds especially tasty, beautiful, or healthy. On this view, labor gets rewarded according to its ability to produce things that others value. When you then consider the ways in which labor combining with capital enables that labor to produce goods that humans value even more, which in turn increases labor’s remuneration, Marx’s whole worldview is suddenly turned on its head. Capital does not exploit labor. Instead, it enhances labor’s value by giving labor the tools it needs to make even more of the things that humans value.
Understood correctly through the subjective theory of value, capitalism is fundamentally a communication process through which humans try to sort out how best to make use of our limited resources to satisfy our most urgent wants. Exchange and market prices are how we make our subjective perceptions of value accessible to others so they can figure out how best to provide us with the things we value most.
We Have More Work to Do
For economists, the labor theory of value holds roughly the same validity as the geocentric view of the universe. For that reason, Marx’s whole theoretical apparatus, and therefore his criticisms of capitalism, are equally questionable.
Unfortunately, many people, academics outside economics and the public alike, are simply unaware of the Copernican revolution in economics. Knocking down the labor theory of value remains a labor-intensive and valuable task.
Quote of the Times;
“On the mountain of truth, you never climb in vain. You either reach a higher step today or you exercise your strength in order to climb higher tomorrow.” - Nietzsche.
Link of the Times;
http://www.returnofkings.com/73627/why-is-ronda-rousey-allowed-to-get-away-with-beating-her-boyfriend
200 adult voices?
Several years ago, I returned home from a trip
just as a storm struck with non-stop lightning and
crashing thunder. As I entered my bedroom at about
2 a.m., I found my two children in bed with my wife,
apparently scared by the loud storm. I resigned
myself to sleep in the guest bedroom that night. The
next day, I talked to the children, and explained that
it was O.K. to sleep with Mom when the storm was bad,
but when I was expected home, please don't sleep with
Mom that night.
They said OK.
After my next trip several weeks later, my wife and the
children picked me up in the terminal at the appointed
time. The plane was late, and there were hundreds of
other folks waiting for their arriving passengers, also.
As I entered the waiting area, my son saw me, and came
running, shouting, "Hi, Dad! I've got some good news!"
As I waved back, I said loudly, "What's the good news?"
"Nobody slept with Mommy while you were away this
time!" Alex shouted.
The airport became very quiet, as everyone in the waiting
area looked at Alex, then turned to me, and then searched
the rest of the area to see if they could figure out exactly
who his Mom was.
*.*
The Old Man's Job Application
This is an actual job application that a 75-year-old senior citizen submitted to Wal-Mart in Arkansas.
NAME: George Martin
DESIRED POSITION: Company President or Vice President. But seriously, whatever's available. If I was in a position to be picky, I wouldn't be applying here in the first place.
DESIRED SALARY: $185,000 a year plus stock options and a Michael Ovitz style severance package. If that's not possible, make an offer and we can haggle.
EDUCATION: Yes.
LAST POSITION HELD: Target for middle management hostility.
PREVIOUS SALARY: A lot less than I'm worth.
MOST NOTABLE ACHIEVEMENT: My incredible collection of stolen pens and post-it notes.
REASON FOR LEAVING: It sucked.
HOURS AVAILABLE TO WORK: Any.
PREFERRED HOURS: 1:30-3:30 p.m. Monday, Tuesday and Thursday.
DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIAL SKILLS?: Yes, but they're better suited to a more intimate environment.
MAY WE CONTACT YOUR CURRENT EMPLOYER?: If I had one, would I be here?
DO YOU HAVE ANY PHYSICAL CONDITIONS THAT WOULD PROHIBIT YOU FROM
LIFTING UP TO 50 lbs.?: Of what?
DO YOU HAVE A CAR?: I think the more appropriate question here would be "Do you have a car that runs?"
HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY SPECIAL AWARDS OR RECOGNITION?: I may already be a winner of the Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes, so they tell me.
DO YOU SMOKE?: On the job - no, on my breaks - yes.
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE DOING IN FIVE YEARS?: Living in the Bahamas with a fabulously wealthy dumb, sexy, blonde, supermodel who thinks I'm the greatest thing since sliced bread. Actually, I'd like to be doing that now.
DO YOU CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE IS TRUE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE?: Oh yes, absolutely.
SIGN HERE: Sagittarius
Wal-Mart ended up hiring the old man because he was so funny.
*.*
Can anyone tell me why…??
If all the nations in the world are in debt, where did all the money go?
Who copyrighted the copyright symbol?
Why are the numbers on a calculator and a phone reversed?
If a person suffered from amnesia and then was cured would they remember that they forgot?
If a person owns a piece of land do they own it all the way down to the core of the earth?
*.*
LIFE IN THE 1500'S
The next time you are washing your hands and complain because the water temperature isn't just how you like it, think about how things used to be. Here are some facts about the 1500's:
Most people got married in June, because they took their yearly bath in May and still smelled pretty good by June. However, they were starting to smell, so brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odor. Hence the custom today of carrying a bouquet when getting married.
Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children! Last of all the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it. Hence the saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water."
Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw-piled high, with no wood underneath.
It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the cats and other small animals (mice, bugs) lived in the roof. When it rained it became slippery and sometimes the animals would slip and off the roof. Hence the saying "It's raining cats and dogs."
There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. This posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings could mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and a sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. That's how canopy beds came into existence.
The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt. Hence the saying "dirt poor." The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh (straw) on floor to help keep their footing. As the winter wore on, they added more thresh until when you opened the door it would all start slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entranceway.
Hence the saying a "thresh hold."
(Getting quite an education, aren't you?)
In those old days, they cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that always hung over the fire. Every day they lit the fire and added things to the pot. They ate mostly vegetables and did not get much meat. They would eat the stew for dinner, leaving leftovers in the pot to get cold overnight and then start over the next day. Sometimes stew had food in it that had been there for quite a while. Hence the rhyme, "Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot nine days old."
Sometimes they could obtain pork, which made them feel quite special. When visitors came over, they would hang up their bacon to show off. It was a sign of wealth that a man could "bring home the bacon." They would cut off a little to share with guests and would all sit around and "chew the fat."
Those with money had plates made of pewter. Food with high acid content caused some of the lead to leach onto the food, causing lead poisoning death. This happened most often with tomatoes, so for the next 400 years or so, tomatoes were considered poisonous.
Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom of the loaf, the family got the middle, and guests got the top, or "upper crust."
*.*
Oneliners:
My brain will fixate on people I hate while allowing me to forget to drink enough water.
I read that a cat will start eating your dead body if left alone for a day or two, but a dog will usually defend the body for a week or more, and then only eat you out of starvation. I think this illustrates what has been on the cat's mind all along.
The fact that we have McDonald's in Wal-Mart and Starbucks in Target says a a lot about the demographics.
We should have a steroid Olympics to see the absolute potential of the human body.
We are all colorblind relative to a mantis shrimp.
Before photography, no one had ever seen themselves blink.
It's called firmware because firm is between hard and soft
Jurassic world has all the technology to create a dinosaur from scratch, but nobody thought to make a custom mobile app to track the dinosaurs they create?
Trying to fall asleep is just faking it until you make it.
Hurricanes are becoming so powerful and violent that they should be named after fictitious monsters and villains to encourage evacuation. Hurricane Patricia doesn't sound scary, but Hurricane Sauron does.
Batman sure is lucky he never got an identifiable scar on his lower face
If I ever see an amputee getting hanged, I'd probably just start calling out letters.
Issue of the Times;
We're Still Haunted by the Labor Theory of Value by Steven Horwitz
Why are so many students convinced that they should receive better grades for the papers they’ve spent so much time writing?
It’s not a belief about the quality of those papers; it’s a belief about the hours and hours spent working on them.
This fundamental misunderstanding about the value of labor is at the center of the Marxist critique of capitalism.
The Center of Everything
For thousands of years, humans were sure that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around it. With the advent of systematic inquiry, scientists had to develop more and more complex explanations for why their observations of the universe did not fit with that hypothesis. When Copernicus and others offered an alternative explanation that was able to explain the observed facts, and did so more clearly and concisely, the heliocentric model triumphed. The Copernican revolution changed science forever.
There is a similar story in economics. For hundreds of years, many economists believed that the value of a good depended on the cost of producing it. In particular, many subscribed to the labor theory of value, which argued that a good’s value derived from the amount of work that went into making it.
Much like the geocentric view of the universe, the labor theory of value had some superficial plausibility, as it does often seem that goods that involve more labor have more value. However, much like the story in astronomy, the theory got increasingly complicated as it tried to explain away some obvious objections. Starting in the 1870s, economics had its own version of the Copernican revolution as the subjective theory of value became the preferred explanation for the value of goods and services. Today, the labor theory of value has only a minuscule number of adherents among professional economists, but it remains all too common in other academic disciplines when they discuss economic issues, as well as among the general public. (The labor theory of grades is, as I noted above, particularly popular among college students.)
The Specter of Karl Marx (and Adam Smith)
One reason the theory is still the implicit explanation of value in many other disciplines is because they rely on the theory’s most famous adherent for their understanding of economics: Karl Marx. Marx was hardly the only economist to hold this view, nor is the labor theory of value unique to socialists. Adam Smith believed in a somewhat weaker version of the theory as well.
For Marx, the theory was at the center of his view of the problems of capitalism. The argument that capitalism exploited workers depended crucially on the view that labor was the source of all value and that the profits of capitalists were therefore “taken” from workers who deserved it. Marx’s concept of alienation focused on the centrality of labor to making us human and the ways in which capitalism destroyed our ability to take joy in our work and control the conditions under which we created value. Without the labor theory of value, it is not clear how much of Marx’s critique of capitalism remains valid. Part of the problem for Marx and others who accepted the theory was that there were so many seemingly obvious objections that they had to construct complex explanations to account for them. What about the value of land or other natural resources? What about great works of art that were produced with a small amount of labor but fetched extremely high prices? What about differences in individuals’ skill levels, which meant that there would be different amounts of time required to produce the same good?
The classical economists, including Marx, offered explanations for all of these apparent exceptions, but, like the increasingly complex explanations of the geocentricists, they began to feel ad hoc and left people searching for a better answer.
The Austrian Revolution
In economics, that answer came when, much like Copernicus, several economists realized that the old explanation was precisely backward. This point was clearest in the work of Carl Menger, whose Principles of Economics not only offered a new explanation for the nature of economic value but also founded the Austrian school of economics in the process.
What Menger and others argued was that value is subjective. That is, the value of a good is not determined by the physical inputs, including labor, that helped to create it. Instead, the value of a good emerges from human perceptions of its usefulness for the particular ends that people had at a particular point in time. Value is not something objective and transcendent. It is a function of the role that an object plays as a means toward the ends that are part of human purposes and
plans.
Thus, according to the subjectivists, land had value not because of the labor that went into tilling it, but because people believed that it could contribute to the satisfaction of some direct want of their own (such as growing crops to eat) or that it would contribute indirectly to other ends by being used to grow crops to sell at the market. Works of art had value because many people found them to be beautiful no matter how much or how little labor went into producing them. With value being determined by human judgments of usefulness, the variations in the quality of labor posed no trouble for explaining value. Indeed, economic value was a completely separate category from other forms of value, such as scientific value. That’s why people pay money to have someone give them a complete horoscope reading even though astrology has no scientific value whatsoever. What matters for understanding economic value is the perception of usefulness in pursuit of human purposes and plans, not some “objective” value of the good or service.
Turning Marx Upside Down
But the real Copernican revolution in economics was how the subjective theory of value related to the value of labor. Rather than seeing the value of outputs being determined by the value of the inputs like labor, the subjective theory of value showed that it’s the other way around: the value of inputs like labor were determined by the value of the outputs they helped to produce.
The high market value of well-prepared food is not the result of the value of the chef’s labor. Rather, the chef’s labor is valuable precisely because he is able to produce food that the public finds especially tasty, beautiful, or healthy. On this view, labor gets rewarded according to its ability to produce things that others value. When you then consider the ways in which labor combining with capital enables that labor to produce goods that humans value even more, which in turn increases labor’s remuneration, Marx’s whole worldview is suddenly turned on its head. Capital does not exploit labor. Instead, it enhances labor’s value by giving labor the tools it needs to make even more of the things that humans value.
Understood correctly through the subjective theory of value, capitalism is fundamentally a communication process through which humans try to sort out how best to make use of our limited resources to satisfy our most urgent wants. Exchange and market prices are how we make our subjective perceptions of value accessible to others so they can figure out how best to provide us with the things we value most.
We Have More Work to Do
For economists, the labor theory of value holds roughly the same validity as the geocentric view of the universe. For that reason, Marx’s whole theoretical apparatus, and therefore his criticisms of capitalism, are equally questionable.
Unfortunately, many people, academics outside economics and the public alike, are simply unaware of the Copernican revolution in economics. Knocking down the labor theory of value remains a labor-intensive and valuable task.
Quote of the Times;
“On the mountain of truth, you never climb in vain. You either reach a higher step today or you exercise your strength in order to climb higher tomorrow.” - Nietzsche.
Link of the Times;
http://www.returnofkings.com/73627/why-is-ronda-rousey-allowed-to-get-away-with-beating-her-boyfriend
Several animals were savagely beaten in the making of this page, including but not limited to; kittens, rabbits, zebu, skunks, puppies, and platypus. Also several monkeys where force fed crack to improve their typing skills.
And someone shot a duck.
An Images & Ideas, Inc. Service.
No Vegans were harmed in the making of this site. We're looking for a new provider.
And someone shot a duck.
An Images & Ideas, Inc. Service.
No Vegans were harmed in the making of this site. We're looking for a new provider.