In a normal society, the most reasonable attitude a white person would have toward blacks is to ignore them completely:

The truth is that, until recently, most whites gave blacks relatively little thought, and would not have cared enough about blacks one way or the other to invest energy in obscuring their achievements.

Blacks simply have not mattered as much to the white world as Afrocentrists implicitly claim they did — and perhaps wish they did, for having powerful enemies is considerably more flattering than being ignored.

The limited interest in blacks shown by conventional historians is best explained by the belief that further interest was unwarranted. (Levin, Why Race Matters, 195)

In saying this, he echoes Mises:

The scholars of the West have amassed an enormous amount of material concerning the high civilizations of China and India and the primitive civilizations of the Asiatic, American, Australian, and African aborigines.

It is safe to say that all that is worth knowing about the ideas of these races is known. (HA, 86)

When white leftists falsely accuse whites of “hating” blacks, blacks get on board with the lie, because it makes them feel more important. “Good news!” blacks think. “Whites care enough about us at least to ‘hate’ us.”

The reality, of course, is that in a welfare-less pure free market economy with no special privileges to any official victims, blacks would be invisible. “Few blacks have achieved eminence in areas other than sports, entertainment, the demand for rights, or writing about race itself,” argues Levin.

There is no hatred for blacks; there is rather indifference, and that’s what stings.

I should buy something that mocks “prophet” Muhammad.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, asked the online retailer last week to remove the products, which included —

doormats, bath mats and other items imprinted with Islamic calligraphy, references to the Prophet Muhammad and scripture.

The products, which were being sold by independent merchants on Amazon’s website, are deemed offensive because they “would be stepped-on or otherwise disrespected by customers,” CAIR said in a statement on Thursday.

This guy Hooper says, “But there are others crossing the line into intentional Islamophobia. Some of the companies have things like toilet seats. I mean come on, why else would you do that?”

Why?! Because some people are willing to pay their own money for them! It’s none of your business what other people buy and sell. Hooper is free not to buy the Muhammad toilet seats. But other people are free to make their own choices, or would be in a less ridiculous society than ours.

Amazon, stop caving to the PC bullies! Political correctness is not about “respect”; it’s about ruining the lives of innocents for having “inappropriate” thoughts (and, now, apparently, products). How can you allow random punks falsely feigning “offense” to have such power over your great company?!

The CAIR “activists” are right now saying to themselves: “We’re going to mess you up, Amazon, just because we can.” Their boot is on your face, and you’re licking it!

Don’t you even realize that it won’t end here? You’ve just encouraged every “offended” abuser to demand that you stop selling stuff. Every product has the potential to offend some pathetic slob nursing a grudge. You have millions of products on sale now. You let this go on, and it’ll turn into zero.

So, for all our sakes, please, ignore the “correct”!

To add another point, Pope Benedict did not realize that arguing for Christianity was strictly forbidden these days when he quoted from a book: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

In every place where Islam differs from Christianity, it is mistaken. It eminently deserves to be “disrespected.”

The New York Times “reporters” are disgusting sickos.

Now libertarians, for example, too, have an ideological axe to grind. We also use case studies of various government failures and injustices. But those really are everywhere. We don’t desperately search for a “Great Corrupt Bureaucrat.”

That the Times is so eager to falsely frame some — any — white guy for a murder of a black person indicates only that white-on-black crime is almost non-existent.

What is wrong with these people in mainstream media? They lie, they scandalize, and they’re traitors to their own kind. What allegedly noble ends can justify such atrocious behavior?

Amazon represents me as a consumer infinitely better than “my” congressman represents me as a voter.

With our statism, so much of human potential and creativity is bottled up, not given a chance to thrive and bear fruit both for the individual and society.

The CIA has gone politically correct, with “the top three directorates of the agency, for operations, analysis, and science and technology now all headed by women” and its “work force now almost 50 percent women.”

Good. It’ll reduce its effectiveness.

“Crosland faced six months in jail and a $5,000 fine” for “feeding a sick puppy to a snapping turtle in front of students.”

Bah! There should be no crime like “animal cruelty.” We owe no regard to any animal unless voluntarily incurred.

The sight should have been at least as entertaining as watching a TV nature show with animals ripping each other apart in a variety of creative ways.

No wonder that “many of Crosland’s students showed support for him.” The law should not be grounded in sentimental nonsense.

Poor federal government bureaucrats.

They are destructive while working.

With the shutdown, sitting at home, they are merely useless. It’s a win-win.

In economics, we distinguish between circulating and fixed durable capital. Circulating capital fully depreciates during a round of production, whereas durable capital perseveres through multiple rounds. The former is various raw materials like wood or paint, basic supplies like nails, and suchlike “passive” capital; the latter are generally “active” machines.

The distinction is important if only because the term “capital accumulation” refers to durable producer goods.

For circulating capital society needs to have “implemented methods of production” that, by evenly rotating, replenish it day in and day out. Thus, a coal-mining firm is as though accumulated circulating capital.

Durable capital can be repaired; not circulating capital. And so on.

Circulating capital is less specific than fixed capital, which means that it can be used for more purposes. A machine can generally do only one thing and be employed for only one purpose. But this greater versatility of circulating capital is bought at a price: such goods are also far less technologically advanced that fixed capital.

Matter then is non-specific but simple; machines are complex but specific.

The only complex nonspecific factor of production is human labor, since people can learn new skills complementary to capital they use in their work.

Or rather that was the case until recently. The new Industrial Revolution actuated by information technology has made all sorts of machines far less specific than they used to be.

A computer or smartphone is a programmable device. The same machine can run numerous vastly different applications, including at the same time. It can show your email, play music, and navigate your car, all at once. New software can be loaded and removed from it at pleasure. Apps “get better” on their own by automatically self-updating. And, unlike the nonspecific molten metal, the nonspecific computer is a marvel of engineering.

3D printing, computer-controlled robots, AI that learns are present and future refinements of IT. (I look forward to checking out CES next week.)

That such devices are possible could not have been predicted in advance. And they have utterly changed the way business works. May God be praised for creating the universe this amazing.