—“Universal suffrage is the absurd belief that an unmarried, childless, unemployed drug addict should have the same voting power as a family man who’s a pillar of his community.”— higher-order
Form: Quote Commentary
-
“Universal suffrage is the absurd belief that an unmarried, childless, unemploye
-
“I swear to my fathers and brothers, and to my mothers and sisters, and all thei
—“I swear to my fathers and brothers, and to my mothers and sisters, and all their line, back to the beginning, that I shall transcend myself and mankind, into the gods we seek, by demand for the virtues of heroism, sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, and warranty from all others; and I shall grant the same to any who consent; and shall protect the interest of those who came before us, those of us living, and those of us yet to come, by force of rule, prosecution, restitution, and punishment of those who resist.”—
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-08 10:05:00 UTC
-
NIETZCHE, RAND, EVOLA PROPERLY POSITIONED by Emanuel Venator (solid gold) Nietzs
NIETZCHE, RAND, EVOLA PROPERLY POSITIONED
by Emanuel Venator
(solid gold)
Nietzsche, Rand, Evola, etc. are useful because they show that it is possible for rightists to tell an alternate story about the world and, in doing so, give permission to think differently.
However, they are limited in that they speak in the language of stories rather than falsifiability and therefore cannot be said to deal in truth, strictly defined. In that way, they are like artists and are useful for the same things, propaganda and personal reflection.
Still, insightful as they may be, they are not useful as evidence for the goodness of restoration or as justification for taking coercive measures to achieve it.
For that only truth will do. The sooner we discipline our minds for truth telling the sooner we will get there.
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-08 07:30:00 UTC
-
“The best part of capitalism is that it makes communists suffer.”— Kevin Wu
—“The best part of capitalism is that it makes communists suffer.”— Kevin Wu
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-08 00:38:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1038225073952440321
-
SOUTH AFRICA, SOME DATA. AND IT ISN”T PRETTY by Lloyd De Jongh (Note from Curt:
SOUTH AFRICA, SOME DATA. AND IT ISN”T PRETTY
by Lloyd De Jongh
(Note from Curt: I am all for africa for africans, asia for asians, europe for europeans, but I am not too keen in killing each other)
June 1990 to July 1993 saw a total of 8580 (92%) of the 9,325 violent deaths during the period June 1990 to July 1993 caused by Africans killing Africans, or as the news media often calls it, “Black on Black” violence – hostel killings, ANC killlings of Inkatha Freedom Party members (a policy of the ANC), and taxi and turf war violence.
HRC figures show 21 000 deaths between 1948 and 1994 – only 7 000 of which occurred during the 41 years of Apartheid proper – 1948-1989. Once the ANC was unbanned violence exploded, leading to 14 000 deaths between 1989 and 1994.
The white SA government was accused of killing their political offenders:
In 1979-1980 there were no deaths in SA prisons. In the previous 10 years 37 died versus 274 in the same period in Wales and England.
The activities of the Civil Cooperation Bureau as outlined by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, were also included in these figures.
The security forces of the RSA caused 518 deaths (5.6%) throughout this period.
During the transitional period, the primary causes of death were not security forces nor white right-wing violence against blacks, but mainly due to “black-on-black necklace murders”, tribal conflict between the ANC-IFP, bombs by the ANC and PAC’s military wings in shopping centers, landmines on farm roads, etc.
Violent deaths from 1994 to 2000:
The SA Police reports for the month August 2001 show a total of 174,220 people died violent deaths, from crime-related violence or related to hate-crime against whites, and especially against the Boers, between 1994 and the year 2000. So 29 000 murders per year after the ANC took power for the next 6 years. It was a little safer under the previous government.
• In 1972, SA blacks owned 360,000 vehicles. (More than all the black African states combined).
• The monthly income of blacks per capita in 1988 was R352 per month in South Africa – Malawi and Mozambique was less than R20 per month.
• In 1974, the average monthly income of black workers in South Africa were $ 127 versus the $ 140 in the US, the richest country in the world.
• In 1970, black workers earned R1,751 million, or 25.5% of the total wage fees in SA and increased to R17,238 million in 1984 (1,000% growth) and 32.3% of total wages in SA.
• Between 1962 and 1972 the UN paid $ 298 million to underdeveloped countries compared to South Africa that spent $ 558 million on the development of its black areas.
• The budget amount for black education increased every year from 1970 to almost 30% more than any other government department.
• From 1955 to 1984 the number of black scholars increased from 35,000 to 1,096,000. In 1988 71% of the adult black population could read and write versus 47% in Kenya, 38% in Egypt and 34% in Nigeria. On average during the year 15 new classrooms per working day were built for black scholars.
• In 1985 there were 42,000 black students enrolled at SA universities.
• There were 5 black universities and 28 higher education institutions funded by the government.
• Soweto with its population of 1.2 million had 5 modern stadiums versus Pretoria with its 600,000 whites who had three. Soweto had 365 schools versus Pretoria 229. In Soweto in 1978, there were 115 football fields, three rugby fields, 4 athletic tracks, 11 cricket fields, two golf courses, 47 tennis courts, 7 swimming pools, 5 bowling halls, 81 basketball fields, 39 children playgrounds and countless community halls, cinemas and clubhouses.
• In Soweto in 1978, there were 300 churches, 365 schools, 2 technicons, 8 clinics, 63 kindergartens, 11 post offices and its own fruit and vegetable market.
On the matter of number of deaths pre- and post-Apartheid, we know there were 7000 deaths during those 41 years up to 1989. There were 14000 deaths between 1989 and 1993. In 1994, once Nelson Mandela took office, he opened up the prisons and let out 1000s of hardened criminals. Murder numbers for that year were ~25000, many times the numbers prior to the ANC government. So in 41 years the white government recorded 7000 deaths, but under the ANC there were 40000 between 1989 and 1994, just a 5 year period. Murder rates have remained at or near those levels since then.
Ok, so let’s take the nice black tribes that murdered 2 Million of each other (roughly half the population of the land) before the evil white people put a stop to the genicide. And then they separated them and said if you aren’t in each other’s faces maybe you won’t slaughter each other. Separation – the literal meaning of Apartheid. I know you have a preconceived idea about Apartheid, and obviously know much more than me about the situation, a poorly educated black South African. The Middle Class was integrating well, until the ANC put a definite stop to that. Change takes time, unless you like living next door to murderous, warlike tribes that are in the Stone Age and might go to war at any second with the tribe on the other side of you because “other tribe bad”.
It’s a telling and consistent pattern that there is a subtle effort (overt too) to minimise, obscure or deflect from atrocities committed by blacks, especially when they surpass anything done by Europeans or European settlers. There would be endless recrimination of white people committed these sorts of crimes, but there is little engagement and discussion of black atrocity, incompetence, failure and corruption.
Aborigines literally did crush the heads of newborns each year, but academics want to talk about their efforts in “Agriculture” (TED, you know you’re guilty). It is because of the lack of ability to provide food that the babies were killed, so these efforts at crop growing were patently crap.
But we have to pretend that these efforts were superb and white academics have overlooked this remarkable achievement through misguided racism. When it comes to slavery it gets even worse, the bias is overwhelming. The Nguni in southern Africa made up some of the most primitive, warlike, barbaric tribes in the world – they were not paragons of virtue then or now. They were no strangers to committing genocide or the rights of conquest in their lust for “land”.
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-07 20:49:00 UTC
-
“The best part of capitalism is that it makes communists suffer.”— Kevin Wu
—“The best part of capitalism is that it makes communists suffer.”— Kevin Wu
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-07 20:38:00 UTC
-
Professor Who Coined Term ‘Net Neutrality’ Thinks It’s Time To Break Up Facebook
Professor Who Coined Term ‘Net Neutrality’ Thinks It’s Time To Break Up Facebook (http://theverge.com)
Best known for coining the phrase “net neutrality” and his book The Master Switch: The Rise… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=291276058135958&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-07 03:46:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1037909975295827969
-
September 7th, 2018 8:38 PM —“The best part of capitalism is that it makes com
September 7th, 2018 8:38 PM
—“The best part of capitalism is that it makes communists suffer.”— Kevin Wu
-
September 7th, 2018 8:38 PM —“The best part of capitalism is that it makes com
September 7th, 2018 8:38 PM
—“The best part of capitalism is that it makes communists suffer.”— Kevin Wu
-
Professor Who Coined Term ‘Net Neutrality’ Thinks It’s Time To Break Up Facebook
Professor Who Coined Term ‘Net Neutrality’ Thinks It’s Time To Break Up Facebook (theverge.com http://theverge.com )
Best known for coining the phrase “net neutrality” and his book The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, Wu has a new book coming out in November called The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age. In it, he argues compellingly for a return to aggressive antitrust enforcement in the style of Teddy Roosevelt, saying that Google, Facebook, Amazon, and other huge tech companies are a threat to democracy as they get bigger and bigger. “We live in America, which has a strong and proud tradition of breaking up companies that are too big for inefficient reasons,” Wu told me on this week’s Vergecast. “We need to reverse this idea that it’s not an American tradition. We’ve broken up dozens of companies.”
“I think if you took a hard look at the acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram, the argument that the effects of those acquisitions have been anticompetitive would be easy to prove for a number of reasons,” says Wu.
And breaking up the company wouldn’t be hard, he says. “What would be the harm? You’ll have three competitors. It’s not ‘Oh my god, if you get rid of WhatsApp and Instagram, well then the whole world’s going to fall apart.’ It would be like ‘Okay, now you have some companies actually trying to offer you an alternative to Facebook.’”
Breaking up Facebook (and other huge tech companies like Google and Amazon) could be simple under the current law, suggests Wu.
But it could also lead to a major rethinking of how antitrust law should work in a world where the giant platform companies give their products away for free, and the ability for the government to restrict corporate power seems to be diminishing by the day.
And it demands that we all think seriously about the conditions that create innovation. “I think everyone’s steering way away from the monopolies, and I think it’s hurting innovation in the tech sector,” says Wu.
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-06 23:46:00 UTC