A reasonable black person would say:
We are an unintelligent, amoral, spiritually dull, ruthless, violent race.
Thanks goodness for white people of whose astonishing civilization we, blacks, can partake for free!
We are blessed that whites allow us to mingle with them, for there would be no hope for us otherwise.
I’d respect any dude with such an attitude. It’s unfortunate that blacks are so disgustingly ungrateful and continually bite the hand the feeds them.
Another dangerous group of fanatics wants to ruin life for the human race by “passing laws.”
In his article “Why is the ‘Cost of Living’ in Cities so High?” Robert Murphy argues that higher population density such as in big cities can lead to a greater productivity of labor of the citizens.
But wouldn’t most of the gains of such an increase in productivity go to landowners, since land-in-big-cities is by definition scarce? (Land as such is actually superabundant in the US, but undeveloped tracts of land cannot be considered big cities.)
Sure, they can build skyscrapers or perhaps in the future underground dwellings, but it seems that the urban folks who don’t own the land and buildings lose out.
I mean, they get paid higher wages but also pay higher rents.
Why then are they there? My guess is that the population distribution is somewhat equilibrated, and it’s just a matter of personal preference where one chooses to live.
A fat and ugly black chick is upset that white people are not sucking her dick with sufficient zeal:
“All social activities of fraternities at Syracuse University have been suspended for the rest of the fall semester following the latest in a string of incidents involving racism,” says CNN.
Great. Some guy said some Bad Words, and all students are punished. It’s definitely not Ok to be white these days.
White people in power are getting increasingly crazier.
Oh, and it’s entirely possible the “victim” is lying.
The fact that the mainstream media refuses so much as to mention the idea that Epstein was murdered in his jail cell means that that they want to humiliate us by insisting that we believe the lie.
The way of power is through destruction and torture of the other.
To make your fellow man suffer is to demonstrate your power over him. To crush his body and soul, to make him your abject slave is to elevate yourself to the status of a god over him.
The only problem is that by torturing him you will make him hate you. The ultimate power therefore consists in the infliction of suffering coupled with making your victim love you.
Abusive relationships, Stockholm syndrome in kidnappings, and especially the state all succeed at attaining both ends.
This is of course the way of the devil who seeks both to have us willingly destroy each other and, in the meantime, to be worshiped by us.
God, despite His creative omnipotence, not only abstains from using His power but is hidden so well that some people doubt whether He even exists. And God does not compel our love despite being by His very nature good or goodness and hence for that reason essentially and irresistibly lovable.
It’s each man’s choice whom to imitate.
If an essentially unliftable stone is possible, then God can create it without having the power later to lift it.
If such a stone is not possible, then God cannot create it.
But these are not limitations on divine omnipotence, because not even an almighty being can do what is logically impossible, such as:
lift something whose very nature does not allow it to be lifted by anyone including God,
or conversely, make something impossible to make in the first place also including by God.
One might as well ask whether an omnipotent God can make 2 and 2 add to 5. That He can’t does not make Him any less powerful.
If pressed for an answer I’d choose the second horn: an essentially unliftable stone is impossible, because the stone would have to be material and that which has power in God is God’s spirit. But the divine spirit is 100% above matter. Therefore, no material object can be an obstacle to God.
David Gordon reviews the book The Myth of Ownership by Liam Murphy and Thomas Nagel. The authors claim that we have no natural rights:
Private property is a legal convention, defined in part by the tax system; therefore, the tax system cannot be evaluated by looking at its impact on private property, conceived as something that has independent existence and validity. Taxes must be evaluated as part of the overall system of property rights that they help to create.
These statements accurately and cynically describe reality. Your alleged right to breathe air is in fact a government privilege revocable on the government’s whim.
Similarly, all your income in fact belongs to the state; what you keep after taxes is just what the state in its mercy allocates to you.
The only reason why you are not in prison right now, being tortured, is that you do not stir the pot, you shut up and pay your tribute, you’ve been able to blend in with the crowd, and the state hasn’t decided to make an example out of you to strike fear into the hearts of other “law-abiding citizens.”
You want to buy and sell? Get a digital mark of the beast tattooed on your forehead.
As Etienne de la Boetie wrote, you “have no wealth, no kin, nor wife nor children, not even life itself that you can call your own.” The state gives, and the state takes away. You may feel safe for now, but your time will come, or it will be your children’s.
People loot each other, but even the looters have no rights; they only have powers which will be lost anyway whenever still more powerful looters come on the scene.
But what if the tax system is unjust? Then the the entire legal convention is illegitimate.
Further, even under their conventionalism, absence of rights does not follow. If they are utilitarians, then perhaps the greatest good for the greatest number is achieved precisely when the “illusion” of absolute natural rights is strictly maintained. If government omnipotence results in poverty, and libertarianism and the concomitant absence of taxes result in prosperity, then positive law will almost perfectly mimic natural law.
For Murphy and Nagel, it is the state and only the state which decides who shall own what. But the “state” is not omnipotent. We can destroy it, and our natural rights will then be swiftly restored.
Bernie and AOC, as part of their Green New Deal, seek to renovate the government “projects,” i.e., state-owned housing.
Of course, all “projects,” i.e., depraved foul hellholes (abandon all hope all who rot there), ought to be razed to the ground, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, abolished 100%.
The zombies infesting these horrible lands must be cleansed with holy fire — of demolition explosives.