François-René Rideau @fare

“There are only two ways of telling the complete truth: anonymously and posthumously.” — Thomas Sowell

@Devon_Eriksen_ @japan_nobunaga Japan is already not 99% Japanese anymore, and that's why temples are burning and metal installed at great cost is being stolen for scraps.

@burnthalies "I have more flags for sale for you to burn, bro!"

@elonmusk Prison? No, just jail, and only for the time it takes to setup the gallows.

The vote is neither a right nor a reward nor a privilege. It is an office. This is Heinlein's point. One who wields force on behalf of the state is an "officer". He is not someone who has been rewarded with the power to wield violence. Nor is he someone who wields violence as a right or privilege, because he has no right whatsoever to do so beyond the exact scope of his duties. Wielding this violence is his job. His office. And he is appointed to that office by reason of being qualified and verified according to a set of criteria. And if wielding discretionary violence on behalf of the state is an office, so is deciding the policies and guidelines which define the scope of that officer's duties. Thus, representative is also an office. And if representatives are elected by vote, and are ultimately to be accountable to voters, then to be a voter, to be a member of the "demos" from which the word democracy derives... that, too, is an office. There can be no question that the cutesy phrases modern leftists use to describe the vote, such as "exercise your rights", and "make your voice heard" are illegitimate and unjust. To vote is to exercise control over the actions of others, and no one has a right to a "voice" in what others do. The only legitimate reason for that control is to restrain others from anti-social action, which is a practical necessity, not an individual right. Thus, the vote is an office, which must be held by those who are qualified — proven capable and willing to set aside their own interests and exercise power solely on behalf of the group. This is Heinlein's point, elegantly and irrefutably argued. This is why Heinlein is the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, and it is also why leftists hate him. Because what is leftism? It is a rebellion against civilization itself, motivated by the desire to tear open and loot the storehouse, to gut the accumulation of stored effort, wisdom, and self-control, the inheritance of all future generations, in an orgy of hedonistic consumption. Leftism is the rats convincing the farmers that cats are fascists. But just as cats were necessary for creating civilization, the officers of the demos, the citizens who can put aside their own desires and act in the interest of the republic, are necessary for preserving it. The majority of the human race cannot or will not see beyond their own desires for more wealth, more pleasure, more status, and less work. They must be restrained even by the most libertarian of civilizations, because without that restraint, there is no civilization, and without civilization, no liberty. America would be better off with only 10,000 voters, vetted for intelligence, prosocial attitudes, loyalty or America, and skin in the game. Perhaps even 1,000 would suffice. Failing that, pretty much any test of competence, loyalty, or worth applied as a filter on the vote would improve America immensely. Net worth, ability to pass an algebra or reading comprehension test, anything. The Constitution has no language forbidding any prerequisite for voting, other than sex, race, or the payment of a poll tax. But first we must tear down the delusion that the vote belongs to everyone. Heinlein got us started.

Marshal Bohemond ⚔️⛨ | Space Crusader Vtuber @HMBohemond

7 months ago

Verhoeven himself put down the book due to the speech by Dubois (Raszack in the movie) in Johnny's class and much like the guy in the QRT, missed the point of it. The speech is not about how violence is a good thing. It's about the civilian franchise, the right to vote, is a form

22 110 1K 89K 129

@a_klofat @ItIsHoeMath False. Jesus doesn't say your enemy is actually your friend and you have to give him a blowjob while you let him kill you. He says love your enemy, even as you kill him. The best act of love towards a criminal, is to kill him.

YOU DO NOT HAVE VALUE BECAUSE YOU EXIST. You have value because you DO things that OTHERS find valuable. The liberal idea that "all human lives have value" is not only logically and functionally false, it's also the cornerstone of their destructive, anti-social behavior, and it's why our world is rotting. It's just a simple equation - ((VALUE IN) - (VALUE OUT)) = VALUE A human life takes value to create. Food, attention, shelter -- you're human; you know the drill. This value comes from somewhere. It's not a magic present brought by Santa. Food has to be planted, grown, raised, harvested, prepared, packaged, shipped. Fibers have to be gathered, synthesized, woven, dyed, cut, and sewn to be clothes. People DO those things, and those people have NEEDS. They trade their work for what they need - what they VALUE. If someone does not GET enough value for the value that they GAVE, then they do not VALUE the transaction. And that is entirely subjective. THIS IS WHAT LIBERALS HATE: You are allowed to value anything you want, any amount you want, including negative amounts. You'd vomit if you knew how much money I spent to get AWAY from my old neighborhood after crime went up overnight during guess when. Liberals want to TELL you what to value. They say things like "if you would shoot a burglar for stealing your stuff, it means you value your stuff more than a person's life. Well, at least the liberals are finally right about something! That person was stealing my stuff! I value that negatively, whereas I value my stuff positively, which is why I WORKED FOR IT. I traded my own value for my stuff. If someone tries to take my value away - my property - I'm not obligated to value that person in any way other than however I choose. In fact, I'm not obligated to value anyone for any reason. You don't actually have to rob me - you can have negative value to me for other reasons! For example, if you think people should be allowed to rob me! If you believe that, I also value my stuff more than your life. So if someone (or something) ABSORBS value, but PRODUCES none, then that human is not valuable. Of course, sometimes we GIVE value. I have "saved" several damsels in distress in my life, and it cost me a lot. They returned very little. But I VALUED helping them. Parents don't get much back from their children before they grow up, but they VALUE their children HAVING a good life. Usually. So the transaction model remains intact. "Here's the deal: I'll support you, and in turn, you just BE supported, which makes me happy." ((VALUE IN) - (VALUE OUT)). So if we're stranded on an island and I go fishing, and you build a hut, and I give you fish, and you let me live in the hut, we both CREATED value and then TRADED value to create MORE value. I'd rather have half my fish and a hut than all fish and no hut, and you'd rather have half your hut and some fish than all hut no fish. That's where human value comes from. Not from crying like a spoiled child about how you "deserve" fish for doing nothing. My "THE TABLE" drawing (included) shows a girl "bringing nothing to the table" while a guy, frustrated, is trying to get something for his effort (true story; I don't miss her). Does he HAVE TO value her? I hope you don't think so. If you do, what do you think he'd say to you if you told him so? "You have to support and care for this awful lying tramp who gives you nothing in return but a hard time." You think he'd agree? So why would anyone care if you think the life of a criminal or an unwelcome invader "has value?" If you think, so, prove it. Let him take from you instead. And if you don't, then shut up about what I owe. In fact, shut up about what I owe anyway! You can give your stuff to useless burdens if you want, but I still don't have to. If you do things that have negative value to me, then you have negative value to me. I went over this in another long post recently about "hate." If you do harm to me or anything I care about, (and you don't change and you're not sorry), then I probably hate you, which is good. If you do things that don't affect me, I feel neutral. If you do things I like, I value you. These are transactions. It's all economic. It's all "math." This "THE TABLE" drawing is what I mean by "hoe_math." She's saying "just give me infinity for free and stop asking for anything in return." That attitude, which is unfortunately spearheaded by the vast majority of my dating pool (educated white women), is a negative value proposition for me, and when applied politically, it is negative for the country, the civilization, the culture, and the world. THAT IS WHERE THE VALUE IS GOING. It is being "deserved" into oblivion. We are being forced to PAY for things we DO NOT VALUE. (Image 2) We are not AGREEING to a TRADE that INCREASES our value. We are being FORCED to pay for things we DO NOT WANT. ((VALUE IN) - (VALUE OUT)) = X If X is positive, life gets better. If negative, it gets worse. (That's why they used to execute so many criminals. People used to be wiser before they were all McFat and in love with Captain SuperMovie. They simply said: "That guy did bad things? He's bad. Hang him." And they did. And life got much better very fast.) Right now, OUR lives are getting worse, and OTHER PEOPLE'S lives are getting better - people we don't value. Criminals. Lazy burdens. People we didn't welcome. And don't forget the women with made-up nonsense jobs who get paid by corporations to do nothing because the government gave them diversity incentives. Do you understand how bad that is? The government is making you PAY to create FAKE JOBS and handing them out on a demographic basis, and then the people with those jobs look down on you because they believe they did it all themselves. There are a lot of ways to look at society. Everyone has their own "no, the REAL reason society is bad is..." And a lot of those people are at least somewhat right. But there is one core principle that all those things have in common: we stopped caring about right and wrong and started caring about "equality," which means "I get what I want even though you don't agree." Do you see how that fits the equation? "I get value" and "you don't want to give value but you have to" means ((VALUE IN) - (VALUE OUT)) is negative. "Equality" is a negative value proposition because it cannot exist without creating negative value for people who have more of it. And it's all because we let go of "right and wrong" and clung to "I want." You can see it in every issue. Abortion? It's not wrong because I want! Healthcare? YOU have to pay because I want! You don't like Illegal immigration? But they want! Do you value your STUFF more than you value a burglar's LIFE? ...But he WANTS! What never seems to matter is what YOU want. They use a lot of tricky language and complicated lies, but it's really actually so simple. "What I want matters; what you want doesn't matter." Look for that statement in everything they say. You don't have to agree to it.

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

@ItIsHoeMath @RandPaul Using the same word "people" for groups of individuals of very different genetic ancestries already assumes the sameness that should be disputed.

@Macroevo My LLM friends tell me this has been observed with respect to Neanderthal gene introgression: none observed in Y or mtDNA. On the other hand, they think @Macroevo's 2024 bioRxiv preprint is at best inconclusive, notably lacking a control test with other mammals.

Not just mtDNA, but Y chromosome should also be primate in the event of hybridization as per @Macroevo: not only does backcross happen on the mother's side, but male hybrids, even if viable, are quite unlikely to win the sexual competition, whereas female hybrids don't have to.

@esrtweet @BoyishGirlie Raw onions have their place hydrating you when you're walking in the heat of the djebel, hunting islamo-national-socialist terrorists (supported by both KGB and US DoS) who horrifically murder those who dare support the Republic.

@JM4LISD @japan_nobunaga How did Prince Valiant, of Thule, great the boxes?

@EricLDaugh x.com/fare/status/72…

François-René Rideau @fare

10 years ago

Some say: "Term limits for politicians: one term in office, one in jail." I say just the one in jail, just long enough to erect the gallows.

0 0 0 0 0

@MahikRani50377 He only deserves enough jail time to raise the gallows.

@charlesmurray @ds_hoffman It's the opposite of civil to yield to communists.

@cthulhupotamus @Miss_Snuffy She's not credulous at all—she's an evil lying commie.

Thanks to socialism, the average Zimbabwean became a trillionaire before @elonmusk 💪

Sheeple eagerly consume soma from their schools and mass media, reassured to live in an illusion of stability... until the illusion becomes untenable due to the ever increasing abuse. Then—violence, revolution, civil and uncivil war—till they fall prey to the next illusionists.

Politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, welfare queens, cops and outright embezzlers are also in eternal cold (at times hot) Anarchic warfare with each other at stealing bigger piles of the loot pile for themselves. Behind "democracy" and other "ideologies" to fool sheeple—Anarchy.

William Spaniel @gametheory101 teaches little appreciate truths about how bluffing and bargaining failures between States are based on mutual ignorance of each other's private information. Even less appreciated: the same happens between States (so called) and "their" "citizens".