“As God had promised to extend his care to the poor and afflicted among his people, David, as an argument to enforce the prayer which he presents in behalf of the king, shows that the granting of it will tend to the comfort of the poor. God is indeed no respecter of persons; but it is not without cause that God takes a more special care of the poor than of others, since they are most exposed to injuries and violence. Let laws and the administration of justice be taken away, and the consequence will be, that the more powerful a man is, he will be the more able to oppress his poor brethren. David, therefore, particularly mentions that the king will be the defender of those who can only be safe under the protection of the magistrate, and declares that he will be their avenger when they are made the victims of injustice and wrong. . . .
“But as the king cannot discharge the duty of succouring and defending the poor which David imposes upon him, unless he curb the wicked by authority and the power of the sword, it is very justly added in the end of the verse, that when righteousness reigns, oppressors or extortioners will be broken in pieces. It would be foolish to wait till they should give place of their own accord. They must be repressed by the sword, that their audacity and wickedness may be prevented from proceeding to greater lengths. It is therefore requisite for a king to be a man of wisdom, and resolutely prepared effectually to restrain the violent and injurious, that the rights of the meek and orderly may be preserved unimpaired. Thus none will be fit for governing a people but he who has learned to be rigorous when the case requires. Licentiousness must necessarily prevail under an effeminate and inactive sovereign, or even under one who is of a disposition too gentle and forbearing. There is much truth in the old saying, that it is worse to live under a prince through whose lenity everything is lawful, than under a tyrant where there is no liberty at all.”
Merry Christmas. I’m enjoying my days off, so blogging will be light. Here’s some links to get you through. There will likely not be a Lightning Round next Wednesday. Enjoy your holidays.
The Path to Legionnaire: Social
True Christian women do not need to be gamed: against Dalrock and Vox.
Related: Finding a good woman.
Related: The red pill truth for men.
Related: Withholding from the other sex will not make them better.
Related: Monogamy is natural; as it goes so to does civilization and beauty.
Master of the Hall: a hospitality guide.
American women, stay away from me.
To the women who choose not to have kids.
Refusing to man-up is rational.
The two modesties.
The 1% marriage meme.
Building an internet business.
The Private Man offers himself up for interviews.
Democracy sucks and voters are morons.
The left-wing roots of anarcho-tyranny.
The NYT dips it’s toe into HBD.
GQ article on Phil Robertson, of Duck Dynasty.
Related: Duck Dynasty and liberal bigotry.
Related: Why Phil Robertson was really suspended.
Related: The conclusive proof of media bias.
Related: Dear A&E, you just committed suicide.
Related: What the Duck Dynasty folks should do.
Related: The pointlessness of the duck fight.
Related: Chik-Fil-A Day for Duck Dynasty.
Related: The only way to handle a bully is to stand up to them.
Related: Is an entertainer being fired for being Christian something that may be seen as a prelude to civil war?
Related: The controversy that wasn’t.
Related: Steyn: Age of intolerance.
Related: Steyn: Re-education camp.
Related: The patriarch teaches.
Laidnyc also hates the stupidity of “correlation doesn’t equal causation”.
There’s nothing to be done about mass shootings.
About 1 in 200 women report having virgin births.
“I don’t want to really scare you,” he said, after half a chuckle. “But it was alarming how many people I talked to who are highly placed people in AI who have retreats that are sort of ‘bug out’ houses”
The greatness of Canada. I don’t have to care.
The Star attempts a coup on Rob Ford.
On the American labour problem.
Humour: 7 reasons the TSA sucks from a security expert.
The third-worldification of Britain: businesses to be paid to turn of lights to prevent blackouts.
Contrary to the false beliefs of some, Marilyn Monroe was skinny. (Yes, the article is exceedingly annoying, but the point is interesting).
Red skin was not a slur against aboriginals.
20 things the rich do every day.
3 reasons not to become a lawyer right now.
Recently the idea of a “living wage” has come to the for with the “Fight for 15” campaign. The living wage has been a popular idea in the left for a while. I don’t plan on on showing how a “living wage” it will increase unemployment or hurt economic growth, you can find that stuff elsewhere. Rather I am going to show you how a living wage is impossible; it is simply not something that can exist given our present society.
As I have pointed out before, housing is the single largest expense in most households (other than possibly taxes) and is effectively a positional good. (Read the link for the full argument). Americans spend about a third of their income on housing, a number which has been increasing over time. As people become richer, they tend to spend more absolute money to obtain larger houses keeping proportionate housing expenditures at similar or even higher amounts. Housing costs as a proportion of income do not decrease as incomes rise on a societal level.
If you increase the minimum wage, people on minimum wage will spend more on housing as competition for housing increases deu to its status as a largely positional good. This will drive the costs of housing up. After a time of correction, housing costs will have increased in absolute terms but have stayed roughly the same relative to income. There will be no real improvement in the housing situation of most people.
The next big expense for homes with children and working parents is childcare. I’ve already explained why child care will always be unaffordable; essentially, given child care worker to child ratios, a minimum of a quarter of one person’s income is necessary per child for child care. If you raise the minimum wage you simply increase child care costs proportionately.
Finally, the costs of all other goods will increase as well. If you pay minimum wage workers more, the price of all goods will increase across the board, raising the cost of living, particularly for the poor who depend the most on low-cost goods.
Increasing the minimum wage will create minimal improvements for poor families receiving minimum wage (they may create moderate improvement for poor singles who don’t have child care costs and have lower housing needs) because the increased costs of good and services, particularly housing and childcare, will eat away any gains from the higher nominal wages.
A living wage is impossible for this reason; increases in the minimum wage will simply inflate the value of goods proportionately, so there are minimal real agins for the impovershed.
(This of course ignores the impact on the middle class; who will be greatly damaged by a “living wage” as the costs of goods and services increase while wages stagnate).
I’m a little late on the bandwagon, so by now you’ve probably heard that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E from the reality show, Duck Dynasty for some comments made during an interview with GQ. I made a small series of tweets when I first came across the event.
This event is significant because it is the first time the brown scare has impacted a particular person this well known to the mainstream. Sure, Watson, Dickenson, Summers, Richwine, Derbyshire, et al. were victims of the witchhunt, but none of those names are ones the average Joe on the street would rcognize. Sure, Chic-Fil-A was persecuted, but its a faceless corporation; who’s ever heard of Dan Cathy?
But Duck Dynasty is huge and Phil Robertson is a recognizable individual. It’s the most-watched nonfiction show of all time and A&E’s highest rated show fo all time. He is somebody your average middle-American knows and likes.
The culture war has been raging for a while, but mostly in words and on the political level. Phil shows the red states, the vaisyas, how far the the progressives are willing to go to enforce ideological conformity. It shows how much the elites truly do detest middle America. It makes the culture war personal by showing that they’re ready and willing to not just denounce you, but to steal your livelihood simply for speaking what you think.
Now that the working-to-middle class whites now have a sampling of the elites hatred towards them, hopefully they will see the class war being waged against them.
For hate is the only explanation* for this: Duck Dynasty is insanely profitable and popular for a second-rate cable network previously best known for Law and Order reruns. There is absolutely no business reason to mess with a formula that works. Any fool can see that the 77% of America that are Christian vastly outnumber the <4% of America that is gay.
The cultural elites hate the conservative low-to-middle class whites that are the primary consumers of the show and they hate the Christian morality and traditional family structures the show portrays.
They wish to destroy these whites, their lifestyle, and their morality.
Oh, how the elites at A&E must rue how their attempt to mock the rednecks has backfired. I would have loved to see their faces when they realized their laugh-at-the-rednecks show become popular for all the ‘wrong’ reasons. It’s Archie Bunker all over again.
In a cultural wasteland of “reality” programming showcasing degenerates, freaks, perverts, broken homes, blackened souls, and empty, twisted hearts, Duck Dynasty focuses on a normal, functional, loving family holding to a solid moral framework and enjoying their lives. It presents a cultural alternative to the broken, empty world the cultural elites are trying to force onto the masses.
Whatever our opinions of TV, the simple fact is most Americans are consumers of TV. Duck Dynasty is one of the few shows to show working-class whites, Christianity, and traditional morality in a positive light and it is one of the few that gives the masses something moral and uplifting.
For this Duck Dynasty and Phil Robertson deserves support.
*There is a very small chance this was a publicity stunt by A&E. I don’t think its likely, but you never know.
The easy way to get people to do what you want.
A quick solution to being boring.
What Mark Driscoll gets wrong.
Related: Mark Driscoll continues to sink into silliness.
Related: Selling sense for men and marriage.
Related: Moral lemmings jumping off the marriage cliff.
Related: So you want me to man up and marry?
Treat them mean.
Related: Chicks despise nice guys.
Related: Game: Biting.
Related: The degradation of the age.
Related: Women’s desire to be roughed in the bedroom is a perversity of true submission.
Related: Wives should submit to their husbands.
There is no such thing as unconditional love.
A few points from Sex Wars.
Advice for women to avoid temptation.
Related: Advice for women feeling neglected.
Related: Women: Why you’re on the bang, don’t marry list.
Related: Six ways for women to stamp out the risk of divorce.
I was unfamiliar with this passage from Malachi. It seems to give scripture an even greater pro-natalist position than I had previously thought.
Dalrock criticizes Matt Walsh.
The hilarity of feminist programming languages. It’s not supposed to work.
Related: Feminist Software Foundation: “No coding experience is necessary.”
Related Humour: C+=
Related: Throwing out Aristotle.
Agon contemplates the web holding him in place.
This paper on IQ and dysgenics has been making the rounds.
The rightist singularity.
I always look forward to the new Radish: Anarcho-tyranny.
Leftists may (sorta) acknowledge the falseness of their ideology when it comes to them getting murdered.
On the Jewish conspiracy.
When did white trash become normal?
Faith, family, community, and work create happiness. Also, conservative women are much happier than liberal women.
‘Hey nice guys; please wait for us while we waste ourselves on losers.’
Spanish feminists do what feminists do. Take extra notice of the pictures.
Remember white men; if you want to help “anti-racism” and “anti-sexism” you are a second-class citizen who should shut up.
Related: ‘My students don’t want to be forced to attend sermons accusing them of being racist sexists. Therefore we should change the entire college model.’
Related: We’re all racists, but intelligent people are better at covering it up.
“Who is more at risk of having her writing career damaged by something she was written: an American writer who publishes a book or article highly critical of the US national security establishment, or an American writer who publishes a book or article highly critical of gay rights, or progressive feminist and racial orthodoxies?”
Some pictures with an interesting take on a tumbler meme.
Women should get no more than 2 divorces. I think Danny’s one divorce too generous.
Does the BMI underestimate female obesity?
Slate Feminists: Why do feelings of gender inequality exist when we constantly stoke them?
Alert the presses: Amanda Marcotte is wrong.
The truth of false rape accusations.
The manosphere producers vs. the mainstream parasites.
26 more signs she’s a slut.
The Greek of meek and humble; disciplined and lowly.
A child’s father is a major factor in religious behaviour.
Teaching kids to think by teaching writing.
Immigration then and now.
Is mass immigration a method of ethnically cleansing blacks?
Are you an enemy of liberty?
Media bias in regards to shootings.
Police state: 10-year-old suspended for shooting imaginary arrows.
NY liberal tears over Obamacare. Delicious.
More 6-figure white collar jobs for the elite. Go #occupy!
The minimum wage is the wrong tool.
The hidden divide in American institutions.
The dysfunction of the modern labour market.
Related: The Fed notes that college doesn’t pay off for most.
Related: Retroactive grade inflation in law schools; because your degrees were already worth too much.
The decline of the underclass on TV, profiting the Democrat demographics.
Hilarity at Mandela’s funeral.
Related: More amusement.
Related: Mandela and the W-force.
Related: Mandela’s legacy in video. Shoot the Boer.
“And was this also not the truth about the whole of the Mandela memorial ceremony? All the crocodile tears of the dignitaries were a self-congratulatory exercise, and Jangtjie translated them into what they effectively were: nonsense.”
The US Cathedral infiltrates Canadian politics.
Microsoft categorizes the USG as a cyber-criminal organization.
Uber might be the next big company of the future.
The land tax.
Michael Anissimov has put out the 5 premises of neoreaction with which a someone must totally agree to be a neoreactionary. He argues that “anyone who disagrees with any one of them is almost certainly not a reactionary.”
I agree fully with all the points except possibly #4, which got me thinking about the rather petty problem of self-labelling. Particularly the fact that my self-descriptive label on my about page has been “reactionary libertarian” since I last updated it months ago.
I hold to a form of libertarianism, anarcho-monarchism, as the optimal form of government for English people, something which I just commented on that a couple weeks back. If asked I’d describe myself as a reactionary anarcho-monarchist.
But then again, I don’t “make personal freedom axiomatic“; rather I hold to the principal of subsidiarity. I do not “refuse to consider the negative externalities of that freedom to traditional structures” but rather I believe these structures are best preserved by distributing power primarily to the individual, family, and the community to best “foster community, family, and social cohesion”.
I definitely do hold to the “socialism” of “family and friends helping each other of their own free will.” (I wouldn’t call it socialism though).
Rather than not caring “if a libertarian society would leave many out in the cold” I have thought of the problem of natural slaves, although, simply having strong community values and mores from birth would probably take care of the problem.
I don’t think any who have read my blog are overly concerned about me being “excessively materialistic” in my outlook.
It would seem his criticisms of libertarianism do not apply to me or my thinking.
So, maybe I fall into the category of “theoretically compatible with libertarianism, but is not compatible with the mood and spirit of libertarianism”?
Or am I simply an unwitting entryist?
Could it be possible I’m “lonely and want friends to debate politics with, or [am] intrigued by the personalities of reactionaries, though they are not one”?
Or maybe by rejecting the axiom of a natural right to freedom, I am simply not a libertarian, whatever the similarities?
Maybe it’s time to retire the libertarian label.
I’ve worn it for many a year, but maybe I’m in the ideological territory of post-libertarianism and the label no longer fits.
He spends the first few paragraphs deriding faith and religious people, with such arrogantly superior gems as this:
There is no point in it. All this back-and-forth sniping serves to do is to make us feel a sense of superiority to the person making the claims and does nothing for them except leave them with a smugness about their assumption that “atheists are all mean.” Faith overrides knowledge and truth in any situation, so arguing with a theist is akin to banging your head against a brick wall: You will injure yourself and achieve little.
Just after a few paragraphs of this type of arrogance, he then states this:
I have decided to define myself by what I stand for in life rather than what I don’t believe in. I call this “methodological humanism.” In essence, methodological humanism is a standpoint by which everyone, theist, agnostic, and atheist alike, can agree on as a platform from which we can all benefit: the need for food, water, and sanitation; the protection of our natural environment; and the preservation of the world as a whole. Without these things, we, as a species, cease to exist.
Make sure to read the link to “methodological humanism.”
Are atheists really this intellectually blind? Can he honestly not see the disconnect?
He derides faith, then blindly creates his own little faith-based beliefs which we should all agree for we will all “benefit”.
But I’m probably just “banging my head against a brick wall” as even if he reads this he probably will not see.
Bonus Fun: On the sidebar of his blog he states “I am a member of Secular Woman”. I have no point with this but it amused me.