The school of hard knocks. Vegan, individualist, bad mf. I like shooting, martial arts, motorbikes and ping-pong. no simp

Bangkok
Joined June 2017
Falls ihr es noch nie gehört habt: Lernt, was der Cantillon-Effekt bedeutet. Neues Geld landet nicht gleichmäßig bei allen. Wer es zuerst bekommt (Staat, Banken, Großkonzerne), kauft Dinge, bevor die Preise steigen. Wer es zuletzt bekommt (Arbeitnehmer, Sparer), zahlt schon die höheren Preise. Deshalb: – steigen Immobilien und Aktien schneller als Löhne – wird Wohneigentum für viele unbezahlbar – profitiert, wer Vermögen besitzt, und verliert, wer nur Einkommen hat – geht die Schere zwischen Arm und Reich immer weiter auf – fühlt sich das Leben an wie ein Hamsterrad, in dem man trotz Arbeit nicht vorankommt Je mehr Geld ins System kommt, desto unfairer wird es verteilt. Das Problem ist nicht der Kapitalismus, sondern unser Geldsystem.
28
50
6
257
6,465
Maybe?
This is why I'm super optimistic.
1
37
Governments that plan to kill their own people take the guns first. When the Ottomans ordered Armenians to surrender weapons in 1914, those who complied were defenseless by the time the massacres started the next year. Musa Dagh kept theirs and held off Ottoman forces for 53 days. Nazi Germany stripped Jewish civilians of firearms in 1938, months before Kristallnacht. Rwanda had already disarmed its Tutsis before the killings that took 800,000 lives. Registration, then confiscation, then elimination. The Second Amendment was written by men who had just proven armed civilians could stop that sequence.
34
776
28
2,254
44,811
Thomas Sowell explains why fascism and Nazism are left-wing ideologies: “Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely—and correctly—regarded as being on the political left.” “Jonah Goldberg’s great book ‘Liberal Fascism’ cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists’ consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left’s embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.” “Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.” “It was in the 1930s, when ugly internal and international actions by Hitler and Mussolini repelled the world, that the left distanced themselves from fascism and its Nazi offshoot—and verbally transferred these totalitarian dictatorships to the right, saddling their opponents with these pariahs.” “What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people—like themselves—need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.” Source: “Socialist or Fascist?” (2012)
28
569
48
1,671
41,324
Gun rights became very personal to me after a home invasion in which I was nearly murdered while my toddler was in the same room. Yet some people still insist it’s “wrong” for me to own a gun for protection. Their stance shows how little they value my life and my child’s.
269
570
21
5,625
39,701
Someone owes me money.
2
79
77
648
66
8,029
275,014
An overtly unconstitutional ban.
The Trump administration is refusing to enforce a nearly 60-year-old federal protection that bans handgun sales to 18, 19, and 20-year-olds. This is very bad. Our kids and communities deserve better.
1
59
Mao – The Bloodiest Idiot Who Ever Lived Between 45 and 80 million dead. Not in war. Not in camps, mostly. In peacetime, in a country at peace with itself, killed by a series of decisions so stupid that a competent farmer could have refuted every one of them in an afternoon. This is what happens when a warlord with no education in anything runs a billion people – and is applauded from Paris while he does it. 1. The sparrows. In 1958 he decided the birds were eating the grain. So the entire country was mobilized to kill them: villagers banging pots and drums for days so the sparrows could not land, until they dropped dead from exhaustion. Hundreds of millions killed. Then came the locusts, which the sparrows had been eating. The harvest was devoured. The country had to import sparrows from the Soviet Union. A single conversation with an ornithologist – or a farmer – would have prevented it. There was no such conversation, because by then nobody told Mao anything he had not already decided. 2. The backyard furnaces. He wanted to overtake British steel production, so ordinary people were ordered to smelt steel in their yards. Millions of households melted down their own pots, tools, door handles and farm implements in mud furnaces, burning their furniture and their doors for fuel. What came out was unusable pig iron, immediately discarded. They had destroyed working tools to produce slag. And they had done it during harvest season, so the crops rotted in the fields while the peasantry played at metallurgy. 3. The planting theories. Close planting: crowd the seeds together, because plants of the same class do not compete. Deep ploughing: turn the soil to two metres, because deeper roots mean bigger yields. Both were nonsense, both were imposed nationwide on the authority of a man who had never farmed, and both destroyed the harvest wherever they were applied. The agronomists who knew better had learned what happened to agronomists who knew better. 4. Then the lie ate the country. Local officials, facing quotas and terror, reported harvests that did not exist. The state requisitioned grain proportional to the fake numbers. So the villages that had reported the biggest imaginary surpluses had the most real grain taken away. People starved beside empty granaries while China exported food to prove the Leap was working. This is the systemic lie in its purest form: a country that had made truth a crime, then starved on the arithmetic. 5. Between 45 and 80 million dead. The range is that wide because nobody counted – counting would have been a political act. And when Mao was informed, at the Lushan conference in 1959, that the policy was killing people, the man who told him was denounced and purged, and the campaign was intensified. There is no version of this where he did not know. There is only a version where knowing did not matter. 6. Then he did it again to the mind. The Cultural Revolution: students beating teachers, children denouncing parents, temples and libraries and instruments burned, a decade spent severing a four-thousand-year-old civilization from its own memory. Not a side effect – the objective. Destroy the transmission and the new man appears. The new man did not appear. Only the wreckage did. 7. And all the while, Paris applauded. The French intelligentsia – professors, editors, philosophers, entire journals – declared Maoism the future, made the Little Red Book fashionable, and treated any report of the famine as reactionary propaganda. They were not deceived; the reports were available. They simply preferred the theory to the peasants. Sartre and his circle backed the Cultural Revolution while it was burning the libraries. They paid nothing. They were never asked to. The lesson is not that Mao was evil, though he was. It is that he was stupid – and that stupidity at the top is only lethal when nothing below can correct it. Kill the price signal, kill the free press, kill the expert who contradicts you, and there is no mechanism left to stop a bad idea about sparrows before it becomes forty-five million funerals. Every system that abolishes correction eventually kills at the scale of its own ignorance. Mao’s ignorance was enormous, and so was his population. And his portrait still hangs over Tiananmen Square.
Pol Pot – What Happens When a True Believer Takes Power. He learned it in Paris. And he thought it was for real – not just the moral posturing of irresponsible French intellectuals in their Parisian cafés. That was the difference. And the difference was two million dead. Most communist leaders were opportunists. They used the ideology to seize power, and once they had it, the ideology bent to serve the power. Stalin was a gangster with a philosophy. Mao was a warlord with a manifesto. They killed millions – but in the service of control, not conviction. Pol Pot was a true believer. And that made him the most dangerous kind. In the early 1950s, as a scholarship student in Paris, he encountered the French Communist Party, the Marxist study circles, the cafés of the Latin Quarter where the ideas circulated among students who would never face the consequences of taking them seriously. The French intellectuals produced these ideas from comfortable apartments – moral posturing, civilizational performance, the gesture of opposition without the risk of implementation. They never intended it to be taken literally. Pol Pot took it literally. He returned to Cambodia with the complete theory in his head and the absolute conviction that it was correct. And when he took power in April 1975, he did not wait. Within days – within days – he ordered the complete evacuation of Phnom Penh. Two million people expelled from the capital on foot, at gunpoint, regardless of age or condition. Hospitals emptied. Patients wheeled out on their beds into the street. Because the city was the problem – the center of capitalism, corruption, bourgeois contamination. An honest communist works in the fields. So everyone would work in the fields. Then he abolished money. Completely. Overnight. The most total implementation of Marxist economics ever attempted – no currency, no markets, no private property, no trade. The economy would be organized by the Angkar – the Organization, which knew what people needed and would provide it. This is what the theory says. He did what it said. Year Zero. The past abolished. The educated eliminated – they carried the old consciousness in their heads. The family destroyed – it created loyalties that competed with the collective. Glasses confiscated – wearing them suggested literacy, which suggested education, which suggested bourgeois contamination. The killing fields were not a deviation from the theory. They were its conclusion, applied by a man who had read the texts carefully and believed them completely. Between 1975 and 1979, approximately two million Cambodians died – a quarter of the entire population. Executed, starved, worked to death. The French intellectuals who produced the ideas that formed him were never held responsible. Sartre continued to write. The cafés continued to operate. In the universities of Paris and Berkeley and Columbia, professors explained that Cambodia was a deviation, an excess, a misapplication. It was not a deviation. It was the experiment. The answer to the question: what happens when you take the theory seriously and have the power to implement it without constraint? The intellectuals who taught him went home for dinner. He went home to Cambodia. That is the difference between posturing and belief. And it is why ideas have consequences – especially the ones that are never meant to be taken seriously.
264
2,209
236
6,193
284,996
💯
Burnham says life is “too expensive” and blames Thatcher, privatisation, deindustrialisation, austerity and Brexit. The true reason goods are so expensive in Britain is INFLATION which has primarily been caused by successive governments printing money to fill budget deficits and so reducing the value of the pound in our pockets. Burnham cannot legislate, redistribute, nationalise or vibe his way out of an inflation-driven debt crisis. The only way to reduce the cost of living in the long time is to cut spending and borrowing, and drive growth by cutting taxes. This will be painful, and so he won’t do it. But at some point, the consequences of living beyond our means for the last 50 years are going to hit us very hard indeed.
50
The nationalised water industry in the 1970s and 1980 s regularly dumped sewage in the rivers and sea. When they started to monitor and report this the UK became known as the “dirty man of Europe”.
24
56
3
348
7,130
Exactly so, it indicates sociopathy.
Why do intellectuals gravitate toward socialism and collectivism in general? Many intellectuals, Hayek argues, vastly overestimate their ability to direct society, treating people as if they were pieces to be moved on a chessboard.
43
Benin’s Marxist experiment ended with the dictator losing an election and going home. Mathieu Kérékou seized Dahomey in a 1972 coup, declared Marxism-Leninism, renamed it the People’s Republic of Benin in 1975, and built a one party Soviet aligned state. Nationalized industry and central planning wrecked the economy so completely that by the late 1980s the government could not reliably pay its own civil servants or soldiers. Facing collapse he abolished Marxism-Leninism as state ideology in 1989, they held a national conference in 1990 to negotiate the end of one party rule, and in 1991 he lost the first free election in decades and left office. The end.
FRELIMO liberated Mozambique from Portugal in 1975 and immediately delivered a Marxist famine plus one of Africa’s deadliest civil wars. They seized power, built a Soviet aligned one party state and herded millions of peasants onto collective farms copied from the USSR, wrecking traditional agriculture and starving 100,000s within a few years. Opponents formed RENAMO. Rhodesia and South Africa armed them, while Moscow and Havana armed FRELIMO, and the fighting went on for 15 years, killing up to a million more. Ordinary Mozambicans paid for both the socialist experiment and the proxy war.
3
20
121
16,991
I always understood why the Second Amendment was constitutionally protected. What I never really understood was why people called it a natural right. Then I moved from New York to Florida. I didn’t own a gun yet. One afternoon I was loading things into the trunk of my car outside a HomeGoods when a man approached me. “Excuse me.” He must have thought he’d startled me, because he immediately added, “Don’t worry. I’m not going to get close.” I laughed. “I’m a New Yorker. I’m used to close. How can I help you?” He started telling me that he needed money for gas. At some point while he was talking, I got into my car. And sitting there, with the conversation still unfolding, I suddenly realized something: He didn’t know whether I had a gun. Not somewhere at home. Not hypothetically. For all he knew, I could have had one right there in the car, tucked under the steering wheel or within reach. I didn’t. But he couldn’t know that. Schrödinger’s gun. And in that instant, before I even knew whether his story was true, something changed in the space between us. I thought about New York. I thought about my friend who had been murdered in his own apartment during a burglary gone wrong. Would those men have gone into his apartment if they had believed he might be armed? I don’t know. I thought about the time I was mugged at gunpoint, with a gun pressed against my temple. Would that man have approached me with the same confidence if he had believed there was even a possibility that I could defend myself? I don’t know that either. But sitting there in that Florida parking lot, listening to this stranger talk, I suddenly understood deterrence in a way I never had before. Not as military theory. Not as constitutional law. As something intimate. My body. My life. The few feet between one person and another. For years I had thought about guns primarily as objects: who had one, who shouldn’t have one, what laws should govern them. Suddenly I understood the question from the other direction. What changes when another person cannot simply assume that I am defenseless? I felt taller. Not because I had a gun. I didn’t. But because, for the first time, I understood that someone approaching me could not automatically assume that being physically stronger meant having power over me. There was uncertainty. There was a boundary around my body that had to be taken seriously. Then his story began to fall apart. I told him I didn’t have cash, but offered to help another way. I could put some gas in his car. He took off. So apparently, yes, it was a scam. But by then I had already understood something much larger than the scam. The phrase natural right finally made sense to me. The Constitution had not given me ownership of my body. It had not given me my life. It had not invented my right to protect either one. Those things came first. What I understood that afternoon was the thing underneath them. I had once been completely helpless while another human being held a gun against my temple. Years later, without a gun in my possession at all, I understood what it meant for the person approaching me not to know whether I was helpless. That uncertainty changed the space between us. And that was the moment I finally understood the natural right behind the Second Amendment: My life is mine, and the right to defend it has to exist before anyone gives me permission to do so.
363
1,382
166
5,801
181,894