I found one of the best definitions of reaction at the beginning of Adam's list of links from last weekend. The left lies. Hard. Continually. The current demonstrations are driven by this.
Some people might find this week’s title of the hawt chicks & links to be somewhat … problematic. That is as intended. Black lives don’t matter in the sense that the left always lies. They invert the truth. All of their words are simple inversions of reality. They call themselves progressives but they are at best regressive. They think they are woke but they are the most brain dead NPCs on the planet. They call heroic men cowards and cowardly men heroes. They call men women, and women men. The healthy family unit is derided as being the most craven diabolical injustice, while polyamorous deviants are stunning and brave. Criminals are called good men, and good men are criminals. Their wretched examples of creativity, whether it be art, music, literature or film, are the epitome of ugliness, while real beauty in art is held to be patriarchal dreck. They tear down statues of great men and cover monuments in perverted graffiti. Soon they will erect their own statues to drug addicted hoodlums and feminist harpies.
The Sanctification of George Flyod
Flyod had a criminal record. Many working class men do. It's bloody hard to get out of the damaging parts of that kind of culture, as my family can testify: being middle class and missionial in a sink suburb during my teenage years engendered a sense of social justice and cynicism simultaneously. The rich liberals talking about helping the poor... were talking about where I grew up.
Apparently some people have had visions of him with the Virgin. I think the Virgin, who is called blessed by Gabriel himself, would have words to say. Something about how Christ will jduge fairly. I hope that his last acts were those of repentence, for we are all sinners, fallen.
Anyway, Brother Mundabor has a correction.
On the day of his arrest and (let us repeat this: absolutely unjustified and brutal) death, George Floyd, the “gentle giant”, was high on drugs, and passing fake bills. He might, or might not, have tried to resist arrest (which, let us repeat it once again, would not for a moment justify the brutal, sadistic treatment his tormentor inflicted on him). All this does put a different light on his character in general, and on the “gentle” in “gentle giant” in particular.
What does this mean? It means that, at the moment of his arrest, the guy was in mortal sin for (as far as we know) at least two reasons: being high, an obvious mortal sin, and defrauding shopkeepers; which, though technically a different crime, must surely go under “thou shalt not steal” as the Commandments are not meant to be a Criminal Code and account for all cases of thieving behaviour like fraud, embezzlement, etc.
Now, let us start from these known facts to state three things:
- If George Floyd sincerely repented, with a perfect contrition, for his sins whilst under the knee of his tormentor, his sins were forgiven to him, he died at peace with the Lord and he avoided hell. I don’t know if he was a Catholic or a Protestant; but, considering his age, it is an easy bet to assume he was at least baptized.
- We all sincerely wish the guy’s eternal soul all the best, because we do not wish hell to anyone, no matter what his faults.
- In consideration of his horrible death and general Christian piety, I invite you to say an “eternal rest” for the poor b.. guy.
So, what has all this to do with the rosary-praying woman and the painting? The fact that, as so often in our effeminate society, the victim proceeds to be canonised by the public opinion, because it makes us feel so, so good…
It would be, actually, better for the man if Catholics would invite other Catholics to pray for his eternal soul (which, obviously, presupposes that you don’t know about his eternal destiny),
There is more to this than it seems. Including Fentanyl at high doses.
The ongoing endgame
The UK ruling party, the descendants of Winston Churchill and the Tory Royalists, is run by a Turk whose love life is chaotic. Well, he did get the UK out of the EU, so he's got some good in him. But he wants to get divorces quicker. Much quicker. This is not going to end well, as the resident cynic notes.
The easier it is to get a divorce, the sooner men extricate themselves from the clutches of marriage, the more men dodge the bullet in the first place, the sooner women can fulfil their destiny as fat, hairy, miserable, bitching, scheming, curtain twitching catladies.
“Where are all the good men?” they will cry, as their ovaries dessicate and their miniature poodle drops another dog egg in their Louboutin shoes. “Hashtag KillAllMen” they will tweet. From their iPhones, invented, designed, built, transported and delivered by men. Using machines, technology, science, techniques and processes invented by men.
All the good men are over there, dear. Working hard, inventing things, building things, maintaining things. Meeting with their friends at the pub, playing football, going motor-racing, taking the piss out of each other, going on tour, banging pneumatic 25-year-olds.
They see your game, wimmin, and they aren’t going to play it anymore.
I'm married. Yes, all women have those temptations, and I'd appreciate Al and Adam not sharing their excellent taste in thots. They all need to go to the land of CHAD. Marriage is a vocation, which even the Captain (who has sworn he will never wed) knows.
Though no man sets out to get divorced, it is his lack of awareness and an underestimating of his obligations to his wife and children that lands him in divorce court. It is also his inability to distinguish between political propaganda and biological reality. So while the Boomer social scientists and Millennial political propagandists are all telling you women want “new gender roles,” this does not change the 2 million years of human evolution that women want…once again…a man who is
makes enough money to support a family
does not live at home
is mentally strong
and is tall.
To meet the bogus new gender roles merely requires lip service. But to meet the real traditional ones requires sacrifice, work, and dedication to both your wife and children. And if you’re not willing to put in the work to achieve those things, you are not willing to put in the work that is necessary to become a father. Expect to be divorced with visitation rights every 4th Tuesday of every 3rd month. And say hi to Kevin in sales for me.
Which is why I read the text, and don't follow rule 4. Which is why I work on being physically fit, support the family, don't live at home, am tall and will never vote soyboy or be one. One divorce is enough for any lifetime.
And raised my children solo, which is why they like this kind of meme.
There is a post up at the Didact about a nasty habit of testing the righteousness of a person by deliberately tempting them. Apparently there are groups that do this on Facebook. Another reason to not be on the Borg. The basic analysis goes like this.
The Bible tells us: "You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the LORD." (Leviticus 19:14). The principle behind this is profound and goes far beyond the literal meaning of the words. It means that you are prohibited from the facilitation of a sinful act by another individual, where the person in question would otherwise have lacked the opportunity or means to have committed the sin.
To facilitate this sinful act makes you an accessory after the fact - in other words, you share in the sin of the sinner.
Enough here. Let us encourage women to marry young, within the church, and have babies. That keeps them grounded, busy and exhausted. Let us encourage young men to support them. Let us encourage home schooling.
So we keep our young men and women and our children and grandchildren from temptation, which appears to be about half the current state school curriculum.
Why no Ladysphere
Most of the women I follow are not Kiwi. They live in North America, and that is currently in strife. They are worried for their husbands, their parents, their children, their neighbourhood their family and their church. Linking to them may make things worse for them.
You only had one job
New Zealand had eliminated COVID 19 within its borders and then they let in overseas people on compassionate grounds who seem to have thought that the laws were for others. Result: three new cases. It appears that the minister of health has not been keeping track of the testing statistics, and there have been other botch ups.
It appears that the senior military officers ordered to keep the quarantine did not do so. They only had one job. Of course, the blame is being shoved elsewhere.
Newshub has learned Air Commodore Darryn 'Digby' Webb, who was recently appointed to manage the border, isn't so new after all.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced Webb would take charge of protecting New Zealand's borders on Tuesday.
However, he has actually been "responsible" for a while. A spokesman confirming, he "started four weeks ago".
Therefore Webb was already in charge when the two women with COVID-19 were allowed to leave quarantine under a compassionate exemption.
Make that five cases, but the last two should be put on a plane back home forthwith.
There have been two new cases of COVID-19 detected in the past 24 hours, Director-General of Health Ashley Bloomfield said on Saturday afternoon.
They are a couple who returned from India and arrived on June 5. Both are in their 20s. Both were asymptomatic, but the infection was picked up on the day 12 test while in managed isolation.
They have a baby who has not yet been tested. All three were on an Air India repatriation flight organised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to get Kiwis home.
There have now been 1509 confirmed and suspected cases of COVID-19 in New Zealand.
Dr Bloomfield said it's likely we'll see more cases at the border, with the pandemic's spread accelerating overseas.
This is going to backfire. Hard. NZ's GDP was -1.6% in the first quarter of this year (yes, it takes a long time for Wellington to release this kind of data: we will be starting the third quarter of the year on 1 July). That had a few days in lockdown in it. The second quarter was continuous lockdown, and it is expected that the GDP will fall between 16 and 20 percent further. We are facing a depression, the only question is how bad it will be.
OK, what's next
Firstly, Wilder has got his 500th post up. Since he posts less frequently than I do, that's an achievement, and his reflection on this is worth a read. I get half my memes from his place, so linkage back is good.
But he has also published something on deflation and depression. This is as simple an explanation as I can find for what is happening now.
I’ve written about deflation before, but it’s probably a good time to mention some of the clues coming from the financial system. But first, I have to explain that when a loan is paid back to the bank, money is actually destroyed. I know that doesn’t make sense, but I’m a trained professional, and we’ll get there. And by trained, I mean trained as a cook at a Chinese restaurant. Okay, not trained – it was more of a wok-through.
Let’s start with a bank. In this case, my bank.
If I were to deposit $100 in my account, I have $100 in my account, right?
The bank now thinks it’s their money. It turns out that when you open a checking or savings account with a bank, you’re actually lending them money. The banks in the United States are actually what’s known as “fractional reserve banks” in that they only have to keep a portion (or fraction) of the money that I deposited on hand for people who come in and want cash.
Traditionally, that fraction has been around 10%. So, if I open an account with that $100 in it, the bank can lend $90 of that money out. The theory is that not everyone wants to come in and get their money back all at once, so you only have to keep that 10% on hand for people who want their money back on any given day for whatever purpose. It’s like stealing, but totally legal.
If too many people come in, the idea of the Federal Reserve™ (the Fed®) is that they’ll send the bank some cash if needed because tons of people borrow money all at once from the bank. That way if Lady Gaga is coming to Modern Mayberry and everyone decides to fork over $1000 a seat for VIP tickets to listen to her sing about her her her Poker Face, the Fed will give us extra cash. That’s why it’s called the Federal Reserve® – it’s a reserve for banks if they need cash because Lady Gaga is coming to town.
I didn’t want to go see Lady Gaga, so I still have my $100 in the bank. Therefore, my bank has loaned out $90 to Johnny Depp who was a little short for the show after buying some killer weed.
But I still think I have $100.
But the bank lent out $90.
And Johnny Depp puts his money in his account in another bank until it’s time to pay for the ticket. So, that bank now has Johnny Depp’s $90, and can immediately lend out $81 to someone else, who deposits it back in my bank.
Thus, my original $100 deposit now accounts for $171 in the economy.
As soon as the loans are paid back, the transaction unwinds and the actual amount of “money” in the system disappears. There’s a theoretical limit to the amount of money that can be created with a certain reserve rate.
But I said the Fed was scared. And I said it was scared of deflation.
My bank used to have to keep $10 in the vault in case I come back looking for my $100. Used to. As of March 15, 2020, that reserve that banks are required to keep is – drumroll please – zero. Yes. I’m not making that up. It’s right here on the Fed’s own website (LINK). The press release is here (LINK).
What this means is that banks have to keep enough cash around so if yokels like me want to withdraw $23.73 for a trip to buy some really nice earplugs the night of the Lady Gaga concert, the bank had to have that much actual cash. But now, the banks are free to loan all of it out. They could loan not $90 to Johnny Depp, but the full $100. And when he put it in his bank, they could loan out $100 as well.
In the 10% reserve, there was at least some limit to the money that the banks could create by lending the same $100. But at zero reserve? The number of times that $100 could be lent is only constrained by the number of people who want to borrow it. My original $100 could (in theory) create infinite dollars. That’s Congress level math!
What happens with this is that... the 100K range rover is no deposit, 3% repayment, and the 800 k starter home in Auckland which was at 20% deposit, 3.5% interest on a 30 year mortgage is now at a lower deposit rate and a lower interest rate. The Kiwi government has created 60 billion kiwibucks and spent them in the last quarter.
But this will end very badly. For the USA (If you have not read Aaron Clarey's book about the last crisis you should, and follow that with Vox Day's book on the long depression) but worse for NZ.
Modern Money Theory -- that the only use for money is that is what you pay taxes for and thus it can be created by will -- does not work if your loans are in other dollars. NZ is not a reserve currency. It floats.
So, if you make 60 billion new dollars, and you are making much less stuff, there will be inflation and devaluation of the currency. This is bad: it's better to deflate (which is painful, really painful, than to go full Weimar and hyperinflate.
But, given the intellectual quality of our rulers, plan for a stagnant, inflating economy: stagflation.
That's if for this week
One more link: Bison Prepper is dropping off the grid.
Less discursive. Less freedom to speak (because it is mandatory to be kind, which is defined according to the Prime Minister's whim). More disharmony.
We are in crisis. This is the end of the progressive experiment. But we have to get through the storm.
Keep silent, Keep away from crowds. Dispose of unnecessary electronic accounts and distractions. Grow a garden. Care for your family. This will take some time.
Do not be part of this elite, or like them.