François-René Rideau retweeted
J’ai entendu dire que la France était finie, qu’il était trop tard pour la sauver.
Mais la France est toujours aussi belle, enviable même. Sa grandeur n’a pas disparu, elle ne demande qu’à renaître.
Nous avons surmonté en un an un problème cent fois plus grave, sans avoir les moyens dont dispose la France.
La France pourrait y arriver en une semaine.
François-René Rideau retweeted
Any simple numerical score for something that’s complex & subjective (like “quality of life”) is trying to trick you into putting someone else’s values & tastes over your own. The weighting of the factors is a value judgment. Don’t surrender to people who hide values in data.
François-René Rideau retweeted
Heard this today from a smart European:
Europe has subcontracted security to America. Its economy to China. Energy to Russia and its labor force to the Islamists.
This model now has completely collapsed.
François-René Rideau retweeted
Before 1991, communists were all waiting for Stalin's armies and his successors' to roll over you and send you to Gulag so they enjoy dining on top of your bodies. After 1991, they figured they had to conquer the institutions from the inside Gramsci-style—all at the same time.
François-René Rideau retweeted
Some psychiatrist very hypocritically going into the Clancy stuff while saying he doesn't, just to say things that support the insanity defense.
Ted Bundy was insane too.
How many psychotic people kill? Not a lot.
I believe the idea that psychotic people should be irresponsible is actually psychophobic.
The insane aren't animals.
The ones who kill should be done away with period.
As a psychiatrist, I have no interest in going anywhere near the Clancy stuff. The only things you need to know are:
1. It is too terrible for words.
2. People really can get that sick. Really, they can.
3. The very idea of it will be tormenting young mothers all over the world, who are already at the end of their tethers and stressed out of their brains.
François-René Rideau retweeted
You'd think that this is absolutely insane, but it follows a method: Anarcho-Tyranny!
Communists prosecute the innocent and help the criminals, because they hope that high crime rates will destabilize the country so they can succeed with a communist revolution.
This quoted post is unavailable.
François-René Rideau retweeted
Coincidentally, Accra is where African and Caribbean leaders led by Ghana met earlier this month to demand slavery reparations from the West.
Of course, they don’t mention that it was other African tribes who captured and sold them into slavery.
Or the Arab traders who bought millions more and castrated them.
And they conveniently forget that it was the West that abolished the slave trade, ended slavery, and pressured every other country to do the same.
Because they don’t actually care about slavery.
It’s an eternal grift to shake down the West for more and more money.
Which is why the target audience of this reenactment is the leftist who will give them everything they want and more.
François-René Rideau retweeted
In the UK, Police officers would have special "cop nights" run by the Pakistani rape gangs where they were allowed to gang rape grooming gang victims as a "Thankyou" for turning the other way.
Bring back capital punishment 😡
François-René Rideau retweeted
Civilization, and barbarism, are not defined by the presence or absence of violence, but by who is targeted and why.
François-René Rideau retweeted
Females are attracted by social status in males.
In high school the most powerful kids are the thugs.
Lots of poor kids with potential go the wrong way because of that.
Old English boarding schools assigned actual privileges that mattered to kids with good grades and humiliated those with bad grades. They made sure the kids social hierarchy was forcefully aligned with the purpose of school.
Misplaced empathy has made us regress.
Smart guys finish last.
“Adolescents with an IQ of 130 were 3-5 times less likely to have had intercourse than those with average IQ.
Boys with an IQ that would qualify for intellectual disability (60) were still more likely to have had sex than those with a very high IQ (130)” — Ideas Sleep Furiously/Halpern et al., 2000.
François-René Rideau retweeted
“There are only two ways of telling the complete truth: anonymously and posthumously.”
— Thomas Sowell
François-René Rideau retweeted
The vote is neither a right nor a reward nor a privilege.
It is an office.
This is Heinlein's point.
One who wields force on behalf of the state is an "officer".
He is not someone who has been rewarded with the power to wield violence. Nor is he someone who wields violence as a right or privilege, because he has no right whatsoever to do so beyond the exact scope of his duties.
Wielding this violence is his job. His office. And he is appointed to that office by reason of being qualified and verified according to a set of criteria.
And if wielding discretionary violence on behalf of the state is an office, so is deciding the policies and guidelines which define the scope of that officer's duties.
Thus, representative is also an office.
And if representatives are elected by vote, and are ultimately to be accountable to voters, then to be a voter, to be a member of the "demos" from which the word democracy derives... that, too, is an office.
There can be no question that the cutesy phrases modern leftists use to describe the vote, such as "exercise your rights", and "make your voice heard" are illegitimate and unjust.
To vote is to exercise control over the actions of others, and no one has a right to a "voice" in what others do.
The only legitimate reason for that control is to restrain others from anti-social action, which is a practical necessity, not an individual right.
Thus, the vote is an office, which must be held by those who are qualified — proven capable and willing to set aside their own interests and exercise power solely on behalf of the group.
This is Heinlein's point, elegantly and irrefutably argued.
This is why Heinlein is the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, and it is also why leftists hate him.
Because what is leftism?
It is a rebellion against civilization itself, motivated by the desire to tear open and loot the storehouse, to gut the accumulation of stored effort, wisdom, and self-control, the inheritance of all future generations, in an orgy of hedonistic consumption.
Leftism is the rats convincing the farmers that cats are fascists.
But just as cats were necessary for creating civilization, the officers of the demos, the citizens who can put aside their own desires and act in the interest of the republic, are necessary for preserving it.
The majority of the human race cannot or will not see beyond their own desires for more wealth, more pleasure, more status, and less work. They must be restrained even by the most libertarian of civilizations, because without that restraint, there is no civilization, and without civilization, no liberty.
America would be better off with only 10,000 voters, vetted for intelligence, prosocial attitudes, loyalty or America, and skin in the game. Perhaps even 1,000 would suffice.
Failing that, pretty much any test of competence, loyalty, or worth applied as a filter on the vote would improve America immensely. Net worth, ability to pass an algebra or reading comprehension test, anything.
The Constitution has no language forbidding any prerequisite for voting, other than sex, race, or the payment of a poll tax.
But first we must tear down the delusion that the vote belongs to everyone. Heinlein got us started.
This Post is from a suspended account. Learn more
François-René Rideau retweeted
YOU DO NOT HAVE VALUE BECAUSE YOU EXIST.
You have value because you DO things that OTHERS find valuable.
The liberal idea that "all human lives have value" is not only logically and functionally false, it's also the cornerstone of their destructive, anti-social behavior, and it's why our world is rotting. It's just a simple equation - ((VALUE IN) - (VALUE OUT)) = VALUE
A human life takes value to create. Food, attention, shelter -- you're human; you know the drill.
This value comes from somewhere. It's not a magic present brought by Santa. Food has to be planted, grown, raised, harvested, prepared, packaged, shipped. Fibers have to be gathered, synthesized, woven, dyed, cut, and sewn to be clothes. People DO those things, and those people have NEEDS. They trade their work for what they need - what they VALUE.
If someone does not GET enough value for the value that they GAVE, then they do not VALUE the transaction. And that is entirely subjective.
THIS IS WHAT LIBERALS HATE: You are allowed to value anything you want, any amount you want, including negative amounts. You'd vomit if you knew how much money I spent to get AWAY from my old neighborhood after crime went up overnight during guess when.
Liberals want to TELL you what to value. They say things like "if you would shoot a burglar for stealing your stuff, it means you value your stuff more than a person's life. Well, at least the liberals are finally right about something! That person was stealing my stuff! I value that negatively, whereas I value my stuff positively, which is why I WORKED FOR IT.
I traded my own value for my stuff. If someone tries to take my value away - my property - I'm not obligated to value that person in any way other than however I choose. In fact, I'm not obligated to value anyone for any reason. You don't actually have to rob me - you can have negative value to me for other reasons! For example, if you think people should be allowed to rob me! If you believe that, I also value my stuff more than your life.
So if someone (or something) ABSORBS value, but PRODUCES none, then that human is not valuable. Of course, sometimes we GIVE value. I have "saved" several damsels in distress in my life, and it cost me a lot. They returned very little. But I VALUED helping them. Parents don't get much back from their children before they grow up, but they VALUE their children HAVING a good life. Usually. So the transaction model remains intact. "Here's the deal: I'll support you, and in turn, you just BE supported, which makes me happy." ((VALUE IN) - (VALUE OUT)).
So if we're stranded on an island and I go fishing, and you build a hut, and I give you fish, and you let me live in the hut, we both CREATED value and then TRADED value to create MORE value. I'd rather have half my fish and a hut than all fish and no hut, and you'd rather have half your hut and some fish than all hut no fish.
That's where human value comes from. Not from crying like a spoiled child about how you "deserve" fish for doing nothing.
My "THE TABLE" drawing (included) shows a girl "bringing nothing to the table" while a guy, frustrated, is trying to get something for his effort (true story; I don't miss her). Does he HAVE TO value her? I hope you don't think so. If you do, what do you think he'd say to you if you told him so? "You have to support and care for this awful lying tramp who gives you nothing in return but a hard time." You think he'd agree?
So why would anyone care if you think the life of a criminal or an unwelcome invader "has value?" If you think, so, prove it. Let him take from you instead. And if you don't, then shut up about what I owe. In fact, shut up about what I owe anyway! You can give your stuff to useless burdens if you want, but I still don't have to.
If you do things that have negative value to me, then you have negative value to me. I went over this in another long post recently about "hate." If you do harm to me or anything I care about, (and you don't change and you're not sorry), then I probably hate you, which is good. If you do things that don't affect me, I feel neutral. If you do things I like, I value you.
These are transactions. It's all economic. It's all "math." This "THE TABLE" drawing is what I mean by "hoe_math." She's saying "just give me infinity for free and stop asking for anything in return." That attitude, which is unfortunately spearheaded by the vast majority of my dating pool (educated white women), is a negative value proposition for me, and when applied politically, it is negative for the country, the civilization, the culture, and the world.
THAT IS WHERE THE VALUE IS GOING. It is being "deserved" into oblivion. We are being forced to PAY for things we DO NOT VALUE. (Image 2) We are not AGREEING to a TRADE that INCREASES our value. We are being FORCED to pay for things we DO NOT WANT.
((VALUE IN) - (VALUE OUT)) = X
If X is positive, life gets better. If negative, it gets worse.
(That's why they used to execute so many criminals. People used to be wiser before they were all McFat and in love with Captain SuperMovie. They simply said: "That guy did bad things? He's bad. Hang him." And they did. And life got much better very fast.)
Right now, OUR lives are getting worse, and OTHER PEOPLE'S lives are getting better - people we don't value. Criminals. Lazy burdens. People we didn't welcome.
And don't forget the women with made-up nonsense jobs who get paid by corporations to do nothing because the government gave them diversity incentives.
Do you understand how bad that is? The government is making you PAY to create FAKE JOBS and handing them out on a demographic basis, and then the people with those jobs look down on you because they believe they did it all themselves.
There are a lot of ways to look at society. Everyone has their own "no, the REAL reason society is bad is..." And a lot of those people are at least somewhat right. But there is one core principle that all those things have in common: we stopped caring about right and wrong and started caring about "equality," which means "I get what I want even though you don't agree."
Do you see how that fits the equation? "I get value" and "you don't want to give value but you have to" means ((VALUE IN) - (VALUE OUT)) is negative.
"Equality" is a negative value proposition because it cannot exist without creating negative value for people who have more of it.
And it's all because we let go of "right and wrong" and clung to "I want."
You can see it in every issue. Abortion? It's not wrong because I want! Healthcare? YOU have to pay because I want! You don't like Illegal immigration? But they want! Do you value your STUFF more than you value a burglar's LIFE? ...But he WANTS!
What never seems to matter is what YOU want.
They use a lot of tricky language and complicated lies, but it's really actually so simple. "What I want matters; what you want doesn't matter."
Look for that statement in everything they say. You don't have to agree to it.
François-René Rideau retweeted
Thanks to socialism, the average Zimbabwean became a trillionaire before @elonmusk 💪
François-René Rideau retweeted
The message of a protest is "we don't like this".
The message of a riot is "we don't like this, and we're able to do something about it".
People who unconditionally call for peace and calm, regardless of the provocation, don't fundamentally understand how politics works in the real world.
They do understand that the purpose of politics is to provide an alternative to violence, but that's as far as their understanding goes. They don't think through the implications, usually because they are quite comfortable with things as they are.
If politics is an alternative to violence, then politics is a proxy for violence.
And that means you have to dole out power in proportion to capacity for violence. Or someone's going to figure out they can do better by flipping the table.
Monarchy wasn't replaced by democracy because of fine-sounding philosophical ideals and eloquent documents declaring this or that.
Democracy happened because if you added rifling to the flintlock firearm, suddenly a individual farmer with a tube was the pinnacle of military technology, and now you had to keep all the farmers with tubes happy by giving them political power.
(Ancient Greek democracy had a similar relationship with the hoplite warrior.)
When political systems work well, for a while, the violence they represent becomes further and further from people's minds, and those who can't effectively commit or direct violence worm their way into power, and begin to take it away from those who can.
And they'll defend their position by saying that violence is unthinkable, barbaric, always bad, must be disavowed at all costs, etc.
This isn't some sort of high-minded principle on their part. It simply means one of two things. Either "the status quo works for me, so I don't want you to upset it", or "I suck at violence, and I don't want to have to fight".
They want young men demoralized, so that their artificial meritocracy of spreadsheets, or their non-meritocracy of patronage networks, can be protected from the natural meritocracy of conflict.
This means that riots aren't actually for achieving any specific material aim. They are for reminding the comfortable that judges and bureaucrats and policemen have home addresses and families. And that violence is always on the table.
A protest would only send the message that the Irish don't want to be ethnically cleansed. But the bureaucrats and judges and lawyers already know that. They just don't care.
A riot reminds them that they have to care, because the Irish have a long tradition of doing something about it.
François-René Rideau retweeted
Once more with feeling: The West Wing is to politics was pornography is to sex—a complete fantasy that leads to unrealistic expectations and real world disappointment.
