Showing posts with label John Calvin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Calvin. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 20, 2019

Momentous political hubbub of the day: Andrew Yang accused of deleting circumcision tweets under pressure from Jews

Except Yang hasn't deleted them.

They are still there, today.

The anti-circumcision crowd is disappointed that Yang has clarified that he won't advocate outlawing the practice pure and simple, but that is hardly inconsistent with Yang's position that he's against circumcision.

Yang is a Christian of the Reformed tradition, apparently. His Pastor is Mark E. Mast of New Paltz, NY. It is a gay-friendly, environmentalist wacko church with female as well as male leadership, so not your granddad's Calvinism.




Saturday, October 28, 2017

A cuck at Taki's Magazine falsifies some "moral equivalency" between Antifa and White Nationalism

From an "apocalyptic psychologist", here:

Lacking any higher values, and surrounded on all sides by the base and the untrue, white nationalists and diversity’s agents, Antifa and Black Lives Matter, understandably turn to violence—for at least it is real, a brutal assertion of something true in the midst of so much deception. Inspired by envy and pride, these groups all deserve one another, and the American public, relishing the opportunity to hate while appearing righteous, will delight in the evil spectacle.

The violence is all Antifa's, but hey, it takes a cuck to recognize cuckery in white nationalism, right? The truth is there is no white nationalist violence to speak of, let alone any white nationalism. One gets the impression for a moment that this cuckologist secretly isn't too happy about this. It's almost as if he's goading his readers with the unpleasant truth that, just like him, they're all just pussies.

Well, he is a Calvinist atheist.

White nationalism is pretty much a phenomenon limited to the internet's world of anonymous commenters, such as at Taki's. In the main the commenters there do a good job of giving voice to white identity, but most of the discussion ends up in arguments refighting every war ever fought and no one seems to be able to agree about much of anything important, including religion. Ardent Protestants and Catholics spar with each other, as do the theists with the atheists. The editors typically feature articles which tread right up to the line, creating the playground, but go no farther. Meanwhile the actual Party of Violence is threatening the real thing, the latest action being a nationwide event set to begin on Nov. 4.

We'll see how that goes. So far if it rains Antifa's legions have shown that they will find something better to do, so if the weather interferes, Nov. 4 may turn out to be just another bust no less than every demonstration of white nationalism has turned out to be a bust. In any case Antifa only makes its biggest splashes when the whites plan to show up to contest the field, so barring that I'm expecting nothing very remarkable on the first Saturday in November.

Besides, the nation's property owners, most of whom are white, have property to protect and keep busy doing just that. There are about 75 million owner-occupied single family homes in this country, occupied by 60% of the population. They look askance at anyone threatening that property, or the businesses in which they work or which they own, whether it's Black Lives Matter doing the rioting, burning and looting and killing the cops whose duty it is to protect that property, or any other group of hooligans promising this kind of trouble.

Until the lives and fortunes of these ordinary white Americans are at real risk, there will be no sympathy for movements claiming to fight on their behalf, despite what the alarmists at the Southern Poverty Law Center may tell you.

And from a theoretical point of view, ordinary whites have no sympathy either for those who only wish matters were so dire, or half-believe they really are. 

Monday, April 21, 2014

Quelle Surprise: Clive Crook Reads Thomas Piketty And Comes Out For Capital Accumulation

Here he is at Bloomberg View having read Thomas Piketty's new . . . um . . . novel, Capital in the 21st Century, and found it wanting:

There's a persistent tension between the limits of the data he presents and the grandiosity of the conclusions he draws. At times this borders on schizophrenia. ... Aside from its other flaws, "Capital in the 21st Century" invites readers to believe not just that inequality is important but that nothing else matters. This book wants you to worry about low growth in the coming decades not because that would mean a slower rise in living standards, but because it might cause the ratio of capital to output to rise, which would worsen inequality. ... In Piketty's view of the world, where inequality is all that counts, capital accumulation is almost a sin in its own right. ...
-----------------------------------------------

As much as I love the rest of what Clive Crook has to say on behalf of capital accumulation, I think that's it right there. More than anything else, Thomas Piketty is an anti-Calvinist of the French type, an heir of Jacobinism who is more interested in leveling society than in lifting it.

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Godless Libertarian Triumph In MI-3: Justin Amash Is Pro-Gay All The Way, Just Like Brian Ellis His Challenger

There really is no choice for social conservatives between the two Republicans in the MI-3 primary in 2014.

Neither candidate can bring himself to support Republican Committeeman Dave Agema's lonely stand against moral and spiritual decadence in our society. In fact, both candidates attack Dave Agema. The only reason to vote for Ellis in the primary is to spoil the reelection of Amash who is a complete traitor to conservatism and never was a conservative to begin with. Of course this means a Democrat has a winning chance in MI-3. But arguably Republicans should vote for the Democrat in the general that the full measure of God's wrath may be felt here.

Michigan's 3rd Congressional District is hopelessly lost from the Judeo-Christian point of view in any case, for reasons which prevailed long before Brian Ellis and Justin Amash existed. Whatever power traditional Calvinism may have possessed in the area in the past is long since transmuted. At least Vern Ehlers gave the appearance of a Christian. This place is cursed, and deserves everything that's come to it, and is coming.

Justin Amash, Antiochian Orthodox, quoted here in January:

“Defending civil liberties is at the heart of the Republican Party and our Constitution. As I've demonstrated with my words and record, I am trying to grow a new generation of Republicans that includes more gays and lesbians, racial-ethnic minorities, women and young people," Amash said.

And Brian Ellis, an Episcopalian, in the same story:

"Dave Agema’s discriminatory rhetoric gets in the way of sharing our Republican solutions," Ellis said in his statement.

Well, look at it this way. If you are looking for a church to join, you now have two more to cross off your list.

Sunday, May 5, 2013

Aren't Keynesianism and Homosexuality Equally Forms Of Psychological Rebellion?

"Despite his Cambridge education, aristocratic manner and wealth, Keynes was also an outsider in his own way. He was an aesthete who enjoyed describing himself as an 'immoralist,' a leading member of that sparkling circle of British intellectuals known as the Bloomsbury group that defied Victorian mores in both art and love. Keynes was married but was also homosexual, a fact that automatically put him in defiance of social convention.

"Keynes's rebellion against economic orthodoxy, as he explained himself, was not derived from the political discontents of socialism and class conflict. It was based on a psychological insight: capitalism was ripe for unprecedented abundance, universally distributed, if only human society could get beyond the stern dogma of the Protestant ethic, the Calvinist ethos that insisted self-denial and suffering were good and necessary for the human spirit. Save for the future, the Calvinist creed taught, and you will be rewarded in the long run and certainly in heaven. 'In the long run,' Keynes observed, 'we are all dead.' Enjoy the here and now, he insisted. Pleasure is good. Suffering is mostly unnecessary."

-- William Greider, Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country (New York: Touchstone, 1989), p. 318.

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Perhaps The Most Important Argument Against Consumption Taxes

Perhaps the most important argument against consumption taxes is Murray Rothbard's critique of them here, noting their time-preference prejudice:


"The major argument for replacing an income by a consumption tax is that savings would no longer be taxed. A consumption tax, its advocates assert, would tax consumption and not savings. The fact that this argument is generally advanced by free-market economists, in our day mainly by the supply-siders, strikes one immediately as rather peculiar. For individuals on the free market, after all, each decide their own allocation of income to consumption or to savings. This proportion of consumption to savings, as Austrian economics teaches us, is determined by each individual's rate of time preference, the degree by which he prefers present to future goods. For each person is continually allocating his income between consumption now, as against saving to invest in goods that will bring an income in the future. And each person decides the allocation on the basis of his time preference. To say, therefore, that only consumption should be taxed and not savings is to challenge the voluntary preferences and choices of individuals on the free market, and to say that they are saving far too little and consuming too much, and therefore that taxes on savings should be removed and all the burdens placed on present as compared to future consumption. But to do that is to challenge free-market expressions of time preference, and to advocate government coercion to forcibly alter the expression of those preferences, so as to coerce a higher saving-to-consumption ratio than desired by free individuals."

Rothbard goes on to ascribe this prejudice to "Calvinism", which may be entertaining to the libertarian who is interested in wine, women and song now and has a devil may care attitude about present frugality as a defense against want later. But this assumes there is no moral difference between savings and consumption, which there certainly is when the penniless old man turns up on your doorstep, hat in hand. The libertarian has his own time preference prejudice, were he to admit it, which life teaches us has serious consequences, more often than not.

Be that as it may, it is important to recognize that standard measurements of economic activity in the United States have for some time shown, in something like the following formulation, that "70% of GDP consists in consumer spending", and were it not for schemes like Social Security and Medicare there would be far more ringing of the bell going on at the front. This is quite a remarkable fact in a supposedly Calvinist civilization, a fact which argues for the moral superiority of savings over consumption because despite our better natures we in reality live otherwise. This suggests that we still ought to do everything we can to encourage the former and punish the latter, for the simple reason which the observation of human nature teaches. We are mixtures of good and evil, but unfortunately too often it turns out to be a bad mixture.

The ancient Greeks, among other things, notably taught us "nothing too much", by which we may infer that the preponderance of present spendthrifts demonstrates individual and social excess which ought to be remedied by tax policy encouraging the increase of savers. To right the ship would mean achieving a better balance between the two, and to Rothbard's main point, which is that under a consumption tax savings would inevitably be taxed in the long run anyway just as consumption is in the present because that is what savings becomes, we therefore ought to have no compunction about taxing savings in the end. That is what the death tax accomplishes, the final message to an excess of savings.

In the present context this recommends taxation of consumption in some form to encourage marginally less of it, better mechanisms of rewarding savings of which we have too little, and a death tax which approximates the same level as a consumption tax would operate at. This means that draconian schemes of estate confiscation by the government at death are in principle unjust because as consumption taxes we would never think of imposing similar levies on the living.

Unless, of course, we subscribe to The New Republic.

Friday, August 31, 2012

Fear Not America! Obama Will Not Succeed With Transformation, Even If He Wins!

Albert Jay Nock, American, here:

Various social superstitions, such as magic, the divine right of kings, the Calvinist teleology, and so on, have stood out against many a vigorous frontal attack, and thrived on it; and when they finally disappeared, it was not under attack. People simply stopped thinking in those terms; no one knew just when or why, and no one even was much aware that they had stopped. ...


Great and salutary social transformations, such as in the end do not cost more than they come to, are not effected by political shifts, by movements, by programs and platforms, least of all by violent revolutions, but by sound and disinterested thinking. The believers in action are numerous, their gospel is widely preached, they have many followers.