Garland, Islam, and the Threat at Hand

Yesterday evening, two Islamist goat fuckers attempted to shoot up a Muhammad cartoon contest in Garland, TX. I say attemptted, because thanks to the good work of the Garland Police Department, their kaffiyehs (the traditional Arab male headdress) were well and truly split before they could do anything more than wound a Garland school district police officer in the ankle (we hope he’s on his feet again very soon). While these two bumbling assholes made the mistake of trying to pull this sort of shit in Texas, the next group might not be quite so dumb.

Right now, our defenses are being probed, and have been since the 1990s, in one way or another. These people have a vast supply of zealous pawns, who are willing to go to their deaths, because they see it as their religious duty to punish “blasphemy”. While the useful idiots test our reactions and procedures with the promise of 72 virgins (I think it’s more likely the goats they raped are getting a little payback in hell), the clever bastards who hand out the orders are coming up with new ways to kill Americans. While we don’t know who sent these two particular turds (the public may never know for sure), it really doesn’t matter. Whether it’s Daesh, Al Qaeda, one of Iran’s proxy groups, etc. they all share much the same ideology. Muslims are under a religious obligation to expand the Dar-al-Islam (“the land of Islam”). Simply put, this is the land that is directly ruled by those of the Islamic faith. Everywhere else is referred to as the Dar-al-Harb, or land of war. This imperative has been followed by Muslims, as far as they were able, since the religion’s beginning in the seventh century. Make no mistake, the people who inspired this attack take a seventh century view of the world and this is their goal.

In the 1990s, we saw a string of attacks, similar in several ways, became increasingly bolder as time went on. First, there was the Khobar bombing in Saudi Arabia. Then, the bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Next was the bombing of the USS Cole in Aden harbor (Yemen) in 2000. Finally, there was September 11th. I’m not suggesting that terrorists are going to attempt to fly planes into buildings again. That particular plan relied on the passengers keeping quiet and if tried again, they would put on an ass whipping that would impress most MMA fighters. However, an attack on somewhere in the middle of the US, somewhere with somewhat stricter gun laws than Texas or less of a police presence than Garland this evening, is plausible. After all, our southern border, has been left wide open for droves of illegal aliens, I mean, undocumented Democrats. Except for the states that have taken up the patrol of the border (incomplete, despite their best efforts) that the Feds have been ordered to leave off, we really have no idea who’s coming in.

The question then is, what can be done to stop this? While I’m a proponent of the “kill ’em there rather than here” idea, political realities mean this is not always a possibility. The responsible thing to do, first, would be securing the borders. This will solve a number of problems, not least of which, is giving us an idea of who is entering our country. With our current administration, unfortunately, this is not likely to happen soon, as they have millions more voters to import. Second, I would promote gun ownership, training, and concealed carrying by civilians. I understand that concealed carry is not something with which many people are comfortable. However, the police can’t always be in as much force where they are needed as they were this evening. Armed civilians make many more targets far less “soft” than they would be otherwise. Finally, if using US forces to fight these bastards where they sleep is not politically feasible, I support arming and training those forces friendly to us to do the fighting for US. By this, I definitely do not mean the Iraqi government, who is in hock to Teheran. I suggest we back the Kurds to the hilt and the Anbar Sunni tribes that fought with us after the Awakening in 2006.

In conclusion, we are in a war, whether we like it or not. The worst thing we could do is revert to a pre-9/11 mindset and look at these attacks from a criminal justice standpoint. We need to hit these bastards where they live.


The Red Pill and Economic Illiteracy


There are times when you see something that just stops you dead in your tracks. Today, I was browsing through a few manosphere sites and came across this post on Chateau Heartiste. While I normally enjoy their work and find many of the points mentioned in the post unobjectionable, everything under heading “Oligarchization” could’ve been written by a fan of Rage Against the Machine, or, the band for people who took one community college economics course.

Allow me to start by letting you judge this drivel for yourself. First, from JohnnyWalker123, a commenter on a piece by Steve Sailer at The Unz Review:

2. Oligarchization. Our media and govt are controlled by a few very wealthy oligarchs. The masses of America need to use a variety of tactics (raising taxes on the wealthy, financial regulation, forming labor unions, stopping immigration, protective trade barriers, tariffs, effective usage of anti-trust laws, forming pro-worker third parties, creating alternative media) to break the power of the oligarchs. This is our country, not theirs.

And now, the concurring statement from the Chateau:

Strip wealthy oligarchs of their power over policy and the composition of the nation’s citizens. Tariffs, big tax increases on the 0.1%, improved government oversight of their backroom dealings, very high minimum wages, and laws designed to limit the ability of the super wealthy to lobby for cheap labor.

Both of these writers seem to take issue with what is commonly known as “crony capitalism.” I agree that the granting of favors to large and wealthy corporations is not something to be tolerated and is corroding the fabric of our republic. However, the solutions they pose are asinine, to say the least. One of the principles of economics is that people react to incentives and this plan provides all of the wrong ones.

Let’s start with taxes. The US currently has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world (35%). It is for this reason that corporations have recently been moving their headquarters to more tax-friendly nations. The highest rate for personal taxes is 39.6% which comes into effect for every dollar made in excess of $413,200. What Messrs. Walker and Heartiste do not seem to realize is that their higher taxes, in addition to de-incentivizing any additional wealth creation by the wealthy and/or incentivizing the increased use of tax havens (which would reduce the tax base and necessitate higher taxes on everyone else to pay for the essential purposes of government) raising the highest personal tax rate would also hurt small businesses, which are also taxed at the individual rate. This additional expense, which our dear friends are so eager to impose, would impose additional costs on businesses, causing extensive job losses and decreases in the wealth of many of the “normal” citizens they propose to help.

Now, let’s move to the favored the left’s favorite economic masturbatory issue: the minimum wage. The minimum wage is what economists call a price floor. It is, as it sounds, a minimum price, set by the government for one particular market.


A price floor, or another example of why the government needs to stay out of the market.

When a price floor is effective, as shown in the picture above, the market price for this particular good is now illegal and so trading takes place at the government dictated price. The problem is that there is now excess supply, since it buyers don’t want to buy nearly as much as sellers are willing to supply at the new higher price. In the labor market, we call this excess supply unemployment. If you increase the cost of hiring workers, employers (whose main purpose is the keep the business going and thereby accrue profit) will have no choice but to hire fewer workers or increase prices. For those of you who follow the news, this is why many businesses in Seattle have been cutting hours, laying off workers, and closing their doors recently and prices have gone up significantly.

Finally, let’s discuss labor unions. Union membership (outside of public sector unions, another beast entirely)  has been decreasing for decades now, yet the unions have still have outsized influence in Washington that the muses of this particular rant are supposedly fighting against. Unions, in the last political cycle, constituted 4 of the top 10, 6 of the top 15, and 9 of the top 20 political contributors. This was just in their own name, as they most definitely contributed to PACs who are also on the list. Unions contribute more negatives than just outsized influence in Washington and the state capitals; they also hinder economic growth. You see, unions are all about gathering market power, by gathering as many members as possible. This gives them more leverage when negotiating with the companies to whom they supply labor. The thing is, in economics, market power is a bad thing. The market works most efficiently when there are many buyers and sellers in the market and no one person, or group, can affect the market price. The way to achieve this state with businesses is to promote pro-growth policies and get out of the way and let competition do your work for you. The way to accomplish this with labor is to promote right-to-work. Right-to-work policies allow workers to choose what they do with their own labor, including, whether or not to be in a union. This allows the market to work more efficiently for everyone. In fact, states with right-to-work policies have seen median household income grow faster than states with forced unionization.

In closing, our friends should seek further education in economics, particularly of the Austrian school. Then they might see the peril in what they are advocating so ardently.