Spain appointed a ‘sex tsar’

Spain appoints ‘sex tsar’ in bid to boost declining population:

Spain reported a higher number of deaths than births for the first time last year 

In response and faced with an impending population crisis, the government has appointed Edelmira Barreira to the position of sex tsar. 

The portfolio was created by Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy and Ms Barreira, a demographic expert, will help draft a document for a national strategy of demographic imbalances. 

Spain’s education ministry said the declining birth-rate “aggravates other economic imbalances and generates important “impacts” in the Welfare State”, Spanish news site ABC reported.

Well… there’s the problem. Socialism. It’s the weapon of choice when you want to destroy a people.

More brand new discoveries by the left

In addition to the constitution and the concept of limits on executive power being good things, the leftists appear to have discovered, for the first time ever, the notion that government interference in our affairs may result in brain drain, and also in “instability and uncertainty” in the economy.

It’s as if they’ve heard us and understood us all along, and just didn’t give a damn.

As I’ve been saying recently, it is a mistake to assume gross stupidity among your enemies. They know, and they laugh at you calling them stupid.

Of course they’re still incapable of openly distinguishing between legal immigration and illegal immigration, because that would blow their current gig. The WA Post article is based entirely on that lie of non-distinction.

They’ll use that lie now, in the courts, and muck up immigration enforcement as much possible. We will play along as though they actually had the power to do that, thus granting them that power. And so it will have been conservatives and libertarians who broke with the principles, as much as the Progressive Marxists.

Just as sure as you’re born, however, the leftist agitator sector will at some point even recognize the importance of preventing the courts from assuming authority they do not have, over-stepping their purpose and exceeding their constitutional limits. But they’ll only recognize that when it suits them. Today it does not suit them.

You may call them stupid, or blithering idiots or whatever. I’ll call them brilliantly evil.

They’re Coming to Grab Your Guns, And That’s A Beautiful Thing

They’re coming to grab your guns. They’re your friends, family, loved ones. Even strangers will do it, if you let them. Some reporters have been known to do it, too, if you invite them.

With your permission, these people will take your gun, gently, from your hands into theirs. Shoot, they will. Learn, they must.

They will touch your gun all over. And another one. And another one. And other one. So many makes, so many models!

Questions will be asked, probed. They’ll load your gun, but certainly won’t loathe your gun. They’ll ooh, ahh, ogle, and be in awe of your gun(s).

It goes unsaid, but for those who don’t know: you will teach them to keep it pointed in a safe direction.

They might even “borrow” your ammunition. And leave behind the brass.

Though your ammo will be spent, you’ll oftentimes expect no reimbursement.

When the moment, or day, or shooting weekend is over, they’ll express gratitude, then return your tool, graciously.

You’ll clean the instrument, without minding at all.

Not only is an armed society a polite society, it’s a gunsharing, caring society.

If you’re a righteous gun owner, you’re essentially part of the gunsharing community. Gunsharing is a voluntary, legal activity in which one person owns and shares their gun(s) with one or more people, whilst providing gun safety teaching, free of charge. This is done out of compassion, because gun owners care about sharing their knowledge, skills, and tools.

After gunsharing, fellow gun users will want to grab your gun. Because it’s so much fun. Safe, too.

Gunsharing is it’s own little sharing economy of sorts.

This post goes out to all the men and women, who, over the years, have allowed me to familiarize myself with their magnificent tools. Thank you. And you. And you. And you.

Readers, what kind of guns have you legally borrowed from other righteous gun owners? I’m bracing myself for a looooong list. Let’s hear it. Tell the gun grabbers just how far – and how safely – one gun goes.

#GunSharingCaring

Oh, look… the hashtag’s registered at Twubs. How nice.

CRA – not tired of winning

This popped up on a couple of different sources at about the same time, not sure who was first. Likely the WSJ, as this ZeroHedge post cites it. Short version: when congress passes a law and the president signs it, it will often have an outline of what’s to be done, and it directs the appropriate agencies involved to write up the implementing regulations and guidelines. A three page law might have hundreds of pages of legalese added to the Federal Register. Heck, the entire edifice built on “title IX” is standing on a single sentence! Anyway, a law passed in 1996 called the Congressional Review Act requires that after the regulations are written they have to send a report to congress, where they must be voted up or down by simple majority vote within 60 days. Congress was trying to keep an out-of-control agency from getting too hog wild on the details that were delegated to them.

The clock stars ticking when the regulations are published, or when the report gets sent to congress, whichever is later.

Well, it seems that the last administration was a tad sloppy on their paperwork. They rarely sent a report to congress. Trump can direct any agency under his command (effectively all of them) to send a report to congress if they have not done so already. If it gets voted down, the law is on hold until they can put together regs that are acceptable to congress, and the next attempt at reg-writing cannot be to simply re-submit essentially the same thing again. So a whole bunch of junk passed in the last 8 years might be, ah, revisited.

Suddenly Trump’s statements about reducing regulation hugely doesn’t sound so absurd.

Nope, not tired of winning yet.

Quote of the day—John Robb

In Trump’s post cold war world, US foreign policy will be dominated by trade policy.  Even national security policy will be subservient to trade policy.  If trade policy is dominant, we’ll see China, Mexico and the EU (Germany) become competitors.  Russia, in contrast will become an ally since it doesn’t pose a trade threat.

National security under this regime will be used to reinforce and grow positive trade relationships.  For example, military tension with China creates the opportunity for sanctions that simulate the function of tariffs (allowing the US to circumvent trade organizations and domestic resistance to tariffs).   In a national security policy slaved to trade, any and all security guarantees extended to other nations will require a positive trade arrangement with the US.  The US simply won’t protect or extent security guarantees to any nation that has a non-beneficial economic relationship with the US (i.e. runs a trade deficit).

John Robb
January 19, 2017
Will the World be Safer or More Dangerous Under a Trump Presidency?
[Interesting. Very, very interesting.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jim Quinn

Global debt issuance reached a record $6.6 trillion in 2016, with corporations accounting for $3.6 trillion – most of which was used to buy back their stock at all-time highs. What could possibly go wrong? The level of normalcy bias amongst financial “experts”, the intelligentsia, and the common man is breathtaking to behold. We are in the midst of the mother of all bubbles, never witnessed in the history of mankind, and we pretend everything is normal, with no consequences for our reckless disregard for honesty, rational thinking, or simple math.

Jim Quinn
December 31, 2016
A BIASED 2017 FORECAST (PART ONE)
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Stephen Green

Twitter was fun in its freewheeling early days, a sort-of 24/7 cocktail party you could visit when it suited you. But it never was useful at driving web traffic, and its signal-to-noise ratio got way out of whack, just as the company was making ham-fisted efforts at monetizing a platform where there wasn’t much money to be made.

The social justice warrior stuff of the last couple of years was really just the stale icing on a badly made cake.

Stephen Green
December 21, 2016
ANALYST: Twitter is ‘toast’ and the stock is not even worth $10.
[Three top executives in the company have left in the last month or so. It will be interesting to watch Twitter over the next few months as the rubber hits the road of economic reality. —Joe]

QOTD

The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.
      – Gustave Le Bon (1841 – 1931)

A sad truth politicians, government functionaries, con men, the media, and psychopaths (but I repeat myself) depend on. As a teacher, I have lost count of the number of times I’ve heard “will this be on the test?” from “smart” students who do well in school but are destined to do poorly in life because they do not hunger to truth or reality, but diplomas and accolades. They are fundamentally lazy and incurious. They are confused enough they think knowledge and diplomas are the same thing. It’s the sort of person that believes the story ends when the Disney Princess gets married, and Prince Charming will always come back from the war (or tavern, or brothel, or…). Continue reading

Sanctuary

Seattle is proud to be a “Sanctuary City,” where lawbreakers can hide unmolested. Trump has promised to withhold funding from such places, which would save untold billions if he can follow through on it. Maybe he needs to get a Federal law that explicitly allows victims of crimes committed by illegal alien in sanctuary cities to sue said city for damages and legal fees, as they are explicitly “partners in crime” as enablers. Make it hurt enough and they will be properly incentivized to reconsider their position.

Action, reaction; the left never learns

Seattle passed a “gun tax” they claimed would raise hundreds of thousands of dollars, dollars to be spent on gun violence research. Being idiots they are, the did not expect that anyone would react to changing incentives. Of course any significant percentage tax-rate increase on something that costs several hundred to a couple of thousand dollars is a considerable sum. So people changed buying habits and bought from outside the city limits. So the ordinary sales-taxes collected plummeted because of falling sales. The city is refusing to say how much has been raised, or lost, as a result of the decision.

So is it that they cannot learn, are they are blinded by ideology, are they clinically insane, or what? I know some of them appear to be intellegent and function in daily work life OK, soooo? Why/how is it that something so obvious is done again and again? This sort of thing gets predicted over and over, but it’s like watching Charlie Brown going after Lucy’s football.

Quote of day—Brett

I think the U.S. will default. It has to.

But we will be okay. This is because we will still have all the stuff and they will just have paper.

Brett
October 7, 2016
[Brett is a co-worker of mine.

He goes on to say that in the case of a default the multinational companies are screwed. This is because our foreign creditors will seize the assets in their countries.—Joe]


Those who need to know already know what the following means. If it’s not crystal clear to you then don’t worry about it. It’s not for you. It’s more fun and games for the NSA:

ofks+9QzvfSoOlBaCgCKHfzWF3/TAEZlcILwWE/seSQbGQkkBYMfvhMqSiB8AmSVDR7X3fYd
b4bg2tAaqyYkpN2HQeJSkEJiRwE3Zv9fTBhMhL4/JXMgkaW/gn4ZY4O2AIUS4PfVk2x6aYI
dxZRGwSSmCpLmBOn5sHbFtPs9tVQ0IosN9HZzKpsSo5I9a3YtDAcLt5erH8HfjKyohoFFvR
pz7tzmiVy/JTEytskizGrk+YzRQWTxuwE9IGJLtSkcIkA9HEnkVFmG08umf7HuwjPP89rSw
s1biIsBMPCjIKCkITk6LUg3MwWdZ0jpLrZLtD3bvijvLKZ7iDis/4XbOfsYgaDOhun0TViT
JBvk77yFhxToJlKbt201JeVurxbK

Quote of the day—Fernando Ferfal Aguirre

Survivalism … is mostly about attitude and skills, not shopping and stockpiling tons of products.

Having said that, neither attitude nor skill will materialize a gun when you need it, or create water when there’s none to be found.

Fernando Ferfal Aguirre
Page 63 in The Modern Survival Manual; surviving the Economic Collapse
2009
[I bought this book over three years ago and gave it to Brother Doug. He read it, gave me a synopsis, and gave it back a few months later. I just started reading it.

Aguirre lived through the economic collapse of Argentina in 2001 and tells us:

What finally convinced me that I had to something important to say was the huge, massive amount of misinformation with the survivalist and preparedness community, in particular regarding how to prepare for an economic collapse.

Unfortunately, many people take for granted concepts and ideas from movies or works of fiction that have little to do with reality.

The biggest take away I have after reading less than a quarter of the book is that good neighborhoods in cities and small towns may be safer than rural areas. In addition to other issues, in the city your neighbors are more likely to notice and help, or at least call the police, in the case where you are the victim of a home invasion. If your nearest neighbor is a half mile away they won’t hear your screams as you are tortured into giving up the combination to your safe.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Lord Jacob Rothschild

The six months under review have seen central bankers continuing what is surely the greatest experiment in monetary policy in the history of the world.

We are therefore in uncharted waters and it is impossible to predict the unintended consequences of very low interest rates, with some 30 per cent of global government debt at negative yields, combined with quantitative easing on a massive scale.

In times like these, preservation of capital in real terms continues to be as important an objective as any in the management of your company’s assets.

Lord Jacob Rothschild
British investment banker
August 16, 2016
Rothchilds Buying Gold On “Greatest” Money “Experiment” In “History The of World”
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ed Driscoll

Hillary’s entire career has been dedicated to taking things away from you “on behalf of the common good,” to borrow from her rare moment of candor in 2004. It’s the intellectual milieu she’s been steeped in for her entire adult life.

Ed Driscoll
July 18, 2016
HILLARY EMBRACES LIBERAL EXTREMISM
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Krieger

In my writings, when I first came out of Wall Street, I focused on debt, I focused on economics and I focused on financial markets. I did all of that stuff, but I stopped doing that for one simple reason. It was obvious to me . . . that this thing had only one way to go, which is a complete collapse of everything. We’re going to need to start over. There’s too much debt. There’s too much corruption. There’s too much BS. There’s too much war. There’s too much everything that is bad in this world, and debt is one aspect of it. Are we going to have to wipe out the debts one way or the other? Of course, we will. I guess the reason I have stopped talking about that and writing about that is because it is so obvious. So, what I have been doing over the last three years is getting people aware and engaged on everything, not just the economics, but the political corruption. Every single industry in this world is basically hitting peak corruption, peak shadiness, peak violence and peak everything. So, it’s not just the debt or the economies that are going to collapse, it’s everything, the political establishment and the social fabric. All of these things we have been living under our entire lives will be replaced by something else. . . . The only question is, are we going to get something better or are we going to get something worse?

Michael Krieger
July 3, 2016
Disintegration & Overthrow of Global Elite Regime-Michael Krieger
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Thomas Sowell

Politics has sometimes been called “the art of the possible”. But that implies a level of constraint that simply does not exist in democratic politics.

As a noted economist has pointed out, “No voting system could prevent the California electorate from simultaneously demanding low electricity prices and no new generating plants while using ever increasing amounts of electricity.”

This is just one of many ways the impossible can win elections. Beliefs can trump facts in politics. And have repeatedly trumped facts throughout history.

Thomas Sowell
2008
Applied Economics, 2nd Edition
[Everything of Sowell’s which I have read is awesome. This book is no exception. I have three more QOTDs to pull from this book.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bob Livingston

Yes, there are winners and losers in capitalism. The winners are those who are honest, industrious, thoughtful, prudent, frugal, responsible, disciplined, and efficient. The losers are those who are shiftless, lazy, imprudent, extravagant, negligent, impractical, and inefficient.

Bob Livingston
May 9, 2016
Socialism is an immoral system
[There are also cases in capitalism where people just get lucky (both bad and good luck). These bad luck situations are what the critics of capitalism typically focus on but bad luck happens in any system. And the “bad luck” examples of socialism are far worse (see Venezuela) than the capitalist examples.

A system with free markets and free minds (capitalism) is not only the most moral system but also has the best overall results. Even with the evidence on display from the last 7+ years of a socialist president that we have openly and thinly veiled socialist candidates for public office let alone serious candidates for U.S. President is mindboggling to me.

I’ve been stockpiling food and precious metals (steel, copper, and lead) in preparation for the end game which I have done all I could to avoid. I’m pretty much all set as best I can now. I think I just need to add some popcorn to my food stores.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

And now we arrive at a fourth and final group. This group is supremely rational, economically knowledgeable, and indispensable to economic stability. This group can override the foolish decisions of the others and keep the economy from falling into depressions or inflationary excess.

You probably won’t be shocked to learn that the far-seeing wizards who comprise Keynes’s fourth group are government officials.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
May 23, 2016
Keynes Must Die
[This reminds me of something I wrote almost four years ago:

The Communist Manifesto tells its readers that supporters of Communism are the intelligent people. They deserve, are destined to, and the good of all human kind depends on them, being in charge. That they “understand” the benefits of Communism to the bafflement of others is probably proof to them that they are the intellectual superiors of those that think Communism is, at best, prone to abuse.

And of course telling people in power they are the only ones who are “indispensable” and must “override the foolish decisions of the others” was a recipe for disaster. Henry David Thoreau wrote about that over 160 years ago.

We are now living the disaster of Keyne’s, narcissistic, economic folly.—Joe]

Heterogeneous cultures

Reading through the comments on this post, which has a reference to a Fred blurb, I came across a very astute summary of the problem.

Reading Fred, I see by the very questions the culture shock.

Cargo culture shock. They want the cargo only produced by high-trust, long time preference, but not change their culture or virtue. DNA might deal them a bad hand, but human beings can bluff. Simply think a moment. So they build totem towers.

Both liberals and libertarians don’t realize the experiments in law will fail. The 55 page iPhone ToS isn’t read, and at some point Tim will be Cooked because law and force are the opposite of trust. The libertarians too design elaborate replacements – DROs, arbitration, etc. not realizing in a trust/posterity/K society they aren’t needed, and in a suspicion/me-now/r society they won’t work.

And that is the crux of the problem when trying to mix heterogeneous cultures. Cargo Cult culture cannot contribute to creation-of-cargo culture anything other than consumers. What is the term in biology for an organism that only consumes of its host and contributes nothing back?