Jerry Pournelle on the Usurping Judge

From: Jerry Pournelle's Chaos Manor [link]:

A Federal Judge in Washington is trying to say that Trump’s executive orders regarding restricting immigration are not constitutional, and the need to suppress them is so urgent that he has issued a judicial order. This judicial order seems to me to be unconstitutional on its face, because he says that he finds that Trump’s finding of a threat to national security is not his finding, and is not in accord with the historical record since 0/11 2001. 

This is sufficient judicial activism that I think it warrants a Bill of Impeachment by the House; there is little likelihood that the Senate would convict, but the impeachment would send a clear message. Whatever the scope of the Federal Judicial Branch it does not extend to finding of facts about foreign affairs; if there is one thing clear in constitutional law, it is that the President controls foreign policy and foreign affairs in general. Judges generally don’t find facts anyway; juries do that. 

If the executive orders applied to US citizens., the courts could claim some jurisdiction under the constitution; but the President is in charge of who may and may not enter the United States absent relevant legislation: and the relevant legislation, black letter law, gives what amounts to absolute discretion to the President over non-citizen immigrants, specifically mentioning exclusion by country of origin. This appears to be a clear case of a judge saying that what he wants the law to be is in fact the law; it is an unconstitutional act, and deserves impeachment, if only for the encouragement of other judges. I doubt it will happen, but were I a representative I should certainly introduce such a Bill. I doubt it would pass, but I strongly believe in separation of powers, and Judges do not exist to protect non-citizens from being treated as threats to national security, That is the President’s job.

-------------
I agree. Anybody in Congress gutsy enough to start impeachment?
-------------
Quibcag: I know the quote isn't relevant, but I wanted some Pournelle quote for this. I found the Roman soldier girl on the net.

Dialogue Between Katie, Matt, and Ex-Army

Katie:

Social Justice Warriors are leftists who have stared into the abyss until the abyss stared back into them. In their crusade against monsters called racism and sexism, they have become the racist, sexist monsters. Similarly, anarchists are libertarians who have stared into the abyss called "government" until they no longer cared how severely or how often liberty is violated, as long as those who violate it do not call themselves government. The alt-right must walk a fine line and remember not just what it is fighting against, but what it is fighting for, if it is to avoid the mistakes of the monsters of the 1930s.

Matt:

Mistakes of the "1930s":
Not developing a long range strategic bomber.
Not speeding up development of the Me-262 jet fighter.
Attacking the Soviets too soon.
These are examples of ACTUAL Nazi mistakes, defined as things which prevent your objectives and victory. OTOH, it is a mistake to classify "stomping the crap out of enemies in a not nice manner" in and of itself as a mistake. That's how you win. The Left's policy of using violence to suppress Alt Right speech IS a victory for them, UNLESS we use it to get the somnolent average Joes on our side to destroy the Left. That's the objective, not some mythical level playing field that has never existed.
Curing ideology-induced autism, my neverending quest. But if I beat the disease you can too!

I'm not advocating Naziism as my preferred form of government btw. I'm simply pointing out that "not becoming a monster" isn't a goal. If you want to take on Godzilla, you need King Kong.

Most rank and file Left and Right folks in America want to live in basically the same kind of place, in broad strokes. The difference is strategy to get there. The best strategy will be crafted by those willing to acknowledge the most pertinent data, such as the experiment in importing Muslims which Europe has conducted for us.

Ex-Army:

Great points from both. Katie is dead right about the SJW's. They are guilty of all the excesses that they accuse us wrongly of. And of course the Alt-right is all about defending and preserving Western Civilization, which is a nice way of summarizing the bundle of values (to use a word the left is fond of misusing) that motivates us all.

And Matt is also right. It's far to easy to judge the alleged excesses of the Axis in Europe, when we don't have Stalin breathing down our necks and using every sort of brutal method to destroy us. And, seriously, that was a pretty extreme war on the Western Front as well, and if you condemn Axis behavior, what can you say about Dresden during the war [link] and Operation Keelhaul [link] afterwards.

We were stupidly fighting on the side of the Soviet Union, spending American blood and treasure to preserve its existence. We "won," and the Axis' plan to wipe communism out failed. So we had to cope with communist aggression and insurgency overseas for the following decades. And now we're having to cope with the violent "protesters" who are best thought of as spores of the dead USSR.

And that's as extreme as I'm going to get today.

----------

Quibcags: The first is illustrated by Maria from Hayate the Combat Butler (ハヤテのごとく! Hayate no Gotoku!)., superimposed on what looks like an abyss. Number two is another superimposition, Mugi of K-On! (けいおん! Keion!)  on a still of King Kong and Godzilla.

Communist Street Thugs

One very annoying assertion I keep hearing from the so-called "right wing": the violent leftists rioting in the streets are the real fascists. This shows an ignorance of history in general and fascism in particular. The implication is (and this is what the MAG* is constantly telling us) that everybody was doing just fine in Europe back in the day and then the fascists showed up on the street and ruined it for everybody. Wrong. The fascists came into being to oppose the communist thugs who were taking over the street. You know, just like they're trying to do here, in America today. So the scum rioting in Berkeley aren't the "real fascists" — they're the real communists, the sort that always try to take over through lawlessness and brutality. If and when (and let's hope they don't wait too long) actual fascist form ranks to oppose them, they will be crushed, just like their communist sisters were crushed in Europe in the early part of last century. And when this happens, and we have our own street auxiliaries, people like this coward with the pepper spray will be beaten senseless immediately and on the spot.



Fascism, you see, is what happens when the established order either can't handle the pressure from the left, or outright gives in to it. The fact that only one arrest was made during the entire riot at Berkeley is proof that one of those situations prevails.

And, really, it's a simple matter of the defenders of civilization realizing that the destroyers have several effective techniques that can only be opposed by emulating them. When they riot in the street, and the government fails to stop them, it falls to us to counter-riot and destroy them. Now, we've had what amounts to a Weimar government for quite some time now, and all of a sudden we might have a cure for all that in the form of the Trump Administration. Let's hope so. We may not need street troops of our own to prevail. Trump certainly seems to understand what his priorities ought to be, and it's possible that we can return to the benign conditions of America and the West a century ago without having to invoke fascism. I, for one, would be delighted with that.

The fact that the left keeps screeching "Nazi" at Trump and his supporters doesn't prove that they are Nazis, but rather that the left fears that they will crush the left and make fascism unnecessary.

At any rate, don't let anybody pull the "the leftists are the real fascists" line on you. They're nothing of the kind. Fascists had principles, and for all their failings, had a much more realistic and less ideological view of the world than the Berkely thugs do. And they don't pepper-spray women. And they don't rape. They may get a little rambunctious now and then, but it's mostly the roughness of a soldier and not the brutality of a communist apparatchik. 

As I keep telling you, we must have no enemies on the right, just as our leftist opponents have no enemies on the left. The fascists are on the right (never mind what Trotskyite/Neocon Jonah Goldberg) says, and are our allies. If they use tactics you don't like, just remember that the left routinely uses much worse tactics, and is proud of it, too.

When the left advocates "punching Nazis," they don't mean actual Nazis, you know — they mean you, and me, and everybody to the right of Black Lives Matter.

Have you hugged a fascist today?
-----------------
*Media, Academia, Government. Yes, I've decided to keep my acronym, and not worry about it getting mixed up with Trump's MAGA, which means almost the exact opposite.
-------------------
Quibcags: Well, gosh. I had these illustrations in reserve, so now I can't remember where I got them in the first place.

What kind of immigrants do we want? Hmm?

Some things are so obvious that only an intellectual could fail to notice them. Orwell said something of the sort. And one obvious thing is that crossing a border doesn't turn one kind of person into another kind of person. When I visited France a few years ago, I didn't turn into a Frenchman. I remained an American. Now, if I'd immigrated into France, I'd have tried my best to become as French as possible, because that's why I'd be immigrating. Most "immigrants" to the US and other Western (White) countries don't feel that way at all these days, and fully intend to continue to be Mexicans or Salvadorans, or Eritreans or whatever-third-world-rubbish-heap-ans they might be.

One thing that never happens. Muslims moving to non-Muslim countries never ever seem to stop being Muslims. Now, of course a handful do, just as a handful of Christians who move to nonChristian countries go native and become Hindus or Muslims or mud-worshippers or whatever. But the vast majority of them go right on being Christians.

Yes, I know that most Muslims aren't terrorists. But most Germans aren't brewers, either, and countries who have no German immigrants just about never have any breweries, but as soon as they do get German immigrants, the breweries start up, and we have Corona and Sapporo and Tsingao. So, if you don't want beer brewed in your country, don't let German immigrants in. And fill in the blank —"If you don't want Islamic terrorism in your country, don't let ______ immigrants in."

One more analogy: If you have a thousand M&M's and only one is poisoned, do you risk eating a handful? Or do you have mixed nuts instead?

This is from https://sultanknish.blogspot.com

Stop Muslim Terror by Stopping Muslim Immigration

Posted by Daniel Greenfield 

Lone wolf terrorism is the biggest trend in Islamic terrorism. Unlike classic Islamic terrorism, it requires no cells stretching across countries the way that 9/11 did. The perpetrators don’t even need to enter the country under false pretenses the way that the World Trade Center bombers did.

In many cases, they are already citizens. Some were even born in their target country.

Classic counterterrorism is directed at organizations. It’s inadequate for stopping individual Muslim terrorists like Omar Mateen who was able to murder 49 people at a nightclub in Orlando or closely related duos like the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston or the husband and wife team who carried out the San Bernardino terrorist attack which took the lives of 14 people.

Even the standard technique of planting informants into mosques, deeply opposed by the Islamic lobby in the United States, fails when individuals decide to act alone or only trust their wives or brothers to be in on the plot with them. If an individual Islamic terrorist fails to let his plans slip, either online or to an FBI informant, stopping him can be extremely difficult if not entirely impossible without a stroke of luck.

And Islamic terrorists only need to be lucky once. We have to be lucky every time.

Every absurd Islamic terror plot broken up by law enforcement, the type of thing dismissed by the media and ridiculed by commentators, launching rockets at planes, underwear bombs and blowing up trains, contained the seed of a horrific terrorist attack just like Orlando, Boston or Nice.

When you turn on the evening news and see a running death toll, it’s because one of those absurd and ridiculous terror plots actually succeeded. And it’s happening more and more often.

The reason is simple. Unlike classic Islamic terrorism which required organization and infrastructure, the new brand of Islamic terror only needs one thing… Muslims.

Lone wolf terrorism operates entirely off the existing Muslim population in a particular country. The bigger the Muslim population, the bigger the risk. Any Muslim or Muslims who have settled in a particular non-Muslim country can answer the call of Jihad at any given time without warning.

There is no way that the FBI or other law enforcement agencies could begin to monitor even a fraction of the Islamic settler population sympathetic to terror. The FBI alone has almost 1,000 active ISIS cases it was investigating last year in all 50 states. It does not have nearly the resources it needs to handle them.

As the Muslim settler population in the country increases, the number of cases will grow. No matter how much law enforcement expands the scope of its operations, it will not be able to keep up with the high natural birth rates of the Muslim settler population whose terrorists don’t need a fraction of the training or skills that trained law enforcement figures do. The more the Muslim population grows, the more terror attacks like Orlando, Boston and Nice will get past law enforcement.

Any technological or logistical solutions to this crisis on the law enforcement end will only be band aids.

The source of the problem is Islamic immigration. That is the only possible solution. The only way to reduce the growth of the lone wolf Islamic terrorism problem is to reduce or end Muslim migration.

If this is how bad it is when Muslims are only 1% of the population, what happens when the Muslim settler population doubles and then doubles again? Accompanying these rising population numbers will be rising influence by the Islamic lobby. Islamic groups such as CAIR with a history of terror ties and opposition to counterterrorism will have even more power to stymie law enforcement investigations. The end result will be far more successful Muslim terrorist massacres taking place on a constant basis.

Muslim immigrants are already inherently privileged when it comes to their ability to enter this country ahead of far more peaceful and far more deserving groups. For example, the vast majority of Syrian refugees admitted to this country are the Muslims who perpetrated and are perpetuating their religious war in the region rather than their Christian and Yazidi victims who face slavery and genocide at their hands.

This Islamic immigration privilege must be withdrawn. Muslim immigration must at the very least be scaled back to a level that law enforcement can cope with. At best it must end entirely until the Muslim world manages to stabilize its way of life to the extent that it can peacefully co-exist with non-Muslims.

There will be endless arguments over what percentage of Muslims support terrorism, but our own experience of recent attacks shows that many of them came from attackers who overtly appeared to be “moderate” and “ordinary”. For every Islamist activist dressed in Salafist fashion and tweeting praise of ISIS, there is at least one, if not many more, whom you would pass on the street without a second look.

Before the Boston Marathon bombing, the Tsarnaevs did not seem like Jihadists. They would have been classed with the general category of “moderate” Muslims. And then they struck.

That is how it is.

The internet has decentralized terrorist training camps. Any Muslim can acquire the skills and equipment he needs to kill a few or a dozen or even a hundred if he chooses to follow his religion.

Not every Muslim will shoot up a nightclub or bomb a marathon, but we have no foolproof way of telling them apart. And even many Muslims who would not shoot up an office party in San Bernardino will still sympathize with the perpetrators. And even those Muslims who don’t will often continue supporting the Muslim lobby of organizations like CAIR that stymie law enforcement investigations of Islamic terrorism.

Muslim immigration makes Muslim terrorism worse.

Once we understand this inconvenient truth, then everything else naturally flows from it. The type of terrorism that we are dealing now won’t be beaten by breaking up organizations or droning terrorist leaders in training camps in Yemen or Pakistan. The enemy is right here. He speaks our language. He walks down our streets. He looks at us with hate in his Halal heart and he plots to kill us.

He may pledge allegiance to ISIS or Al Qaeda, but he is part of the larger organization of Islam. It is this organization, more than any of its Jihadist factional subdivisions, that represents the true threat.

Lone wolf terrorism is a viral threat that is spread by Islamic migration. We can only end it by closing the door. As long as the door to the Muslim migrant stays open, we will live under the threat that our neighbor or co-worker will be the one to kill us tomorrow or the day after that.

-----------

Quibcag: It's that Isis girl from K-On! (けいおん! Keion!)   again.

The College Scam

You'd think I was crazy if I pontificated that every young person should go to Juilliard. No, you'd say (and rightly so), only people with the commensurate talent should go there.

So where do we get this nonsense cliché that everybody should go to college? If that's the case, then college would have to be dumbed down, would it not? Don't worry — that's already been taken care of. [link]

College was a scam even back in my day over fifty years ago, but it hadn't reached the magnitude and sophistication it has today. I could actually pay my tuition with a part-time job, and college loans were minuscule compared to what they are today.

The fact is, a large part of the population has internalized about all the formal education they can tolerate by age sixteen, never mind high school graduation and never, never mind college. The people making a living off the collage trough are well aware of this, except maybe for the stupider ones, but they don't want to endanger their rice bowl by saying so. The more warm bodies they scam into wasting their time attending college, the more money they make, and the more secure their jobs are.

And if you don't believe it's largely a waste of time, just look at your local college catalog, and see some of the dopey classes they offer. And a lot of colleges will let you major in idiotic things like Women's Studies, Black Studies, Queer Studies (funny how so many of them are "Studies"), and other propaganda programs which are worse than useless.

No, some time back, college education was limited to law, theology, and medicine. Everything else was either on-the-job training, or some kind of recreation that you were expected to do on your own, if you wanted to.

Careers like music, engineering, art, literature, STEM in general, are probably better handled by specialized private schools that teach what is needed for those professions, and nothing else. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for scientists and engineers and the like knowing about art/music/literature, but why should any of that be part of their curriculum leading to their specialty? The only answer to that one is that it's good for the instructors teaching that sort of thing because it guarantees them students.

And please don't tell me that we need people to get well-rounded college educations, because many such courses are practically designed to prevent a well-rounded education by fulfilling requirements with easy courses instead of challenging ones. I recently learned that in some colleges, it's possible to get a bachelor's degree in English without studying Shakespeare. So much for well-rounded. I know I had to read a Shakespeare play in high school. I wonder what they're reading now. Probably Toni Morrison.

And do be aware that a person who graduated from high school in the 19th Century was better educated than your average college graduate today. Maybe it was because they didn't spend their time watching films about Martin Luther King all day.  But there were problems long before my day, too [link].

In his piece below, Stuart Schneiderman points out that in other countries, effective apprenticeship programs take the place of college degrees for many job careers. I'm all for that, and I'd take it further than most people would. Take education, for example. Why do you need a college degree to teach, say, geometry in high school. How about a high school graduate who's good at geometry, and who takes a standardized test to prove he is? And maybe an internet course in "how to teach." And then apprentice him to a geometry teacher for a year, and then he's qualified. Thousands of dollars saved, and you most likely have a better teacher, too. And of course this applies to teachers of most subjects. And now here's Stuart Schneiderman's piece, from Had Enough Therapy?:

Educational System Failure

Bringing the jobs back home might be easier said than done. The American educational system, run by the same teachers unions that are up in arms about Betsy Devos, is apparently not doing a very good job of educating children. 

Teachers are very fortunate that their salaries are not related to student performance. 

The New York Times reports:

When the German engineering company Siemens Energy opened a gas turbine production plant in Charlotte, N.C., some 10,000 people showed up at a job fair for 800 positions. But fewer than 15 percent of the applicants were able to pass a reading, writing and math screening test geared toward a ninth-grade education.

“In our factories, there’s a computer about every 20 or 30 feet,” said Eric Spiegel, who recently retired as president and chief executive of Siemens U.S.A. “People on the plant floor need to be much more skilled than they were in the past. There are no jobs for high school graduates at Siemens today.”

Funnily enough, it’s not about having a high school education. These job applicants could not pass at test geared toward ninth grade students. The world of educational testing has shown over and over again that American children cannot compete against their peers in many other countries. Count this as further, and more practical evidence of this phenomenon.

How to solve this problem? Should we send more students to college? Or do we send too many children to college? Unfortunately, if you think that elementary and high school education is bad, college is a racket to end all rackets. It’s yet another instance of what happens when the free market is stifled.

Anyway, the Times does not see any great advantage to sending more unqualified candidates to college:

Even if those jobs returned, a high school diploma is simply no longer good enough to fill them. Yet rarely discussed in the political debate over lost jobs are the academic skills needed for today’s factory-floor positions, and the pathways through education that lead to them.

Many believe that the solution is for more Americans to go to college. But the college-for-all movement, which got its start in the 1970s as American manufacturing began its decline, is often conflated with earning a bachelor’s degree.

Many high school students rush off to four-year campuses not ready for the academic work or not sure why they are there. Government data show that 44 percent of new graduates enroll directly in a four-year college, but based on recent trends, less than half of them will earn a degree within four years. And though two-year colleges have long been identified as the institutions that fill the job-training role, some 80 percent of community college students say they intend to go on for a bachelor’s degree, or they leave with generic associate degrees that are of little value in the job market.

Students go off to college, but they do not have the skills to do college level work. And besides, what are they taught in college: how to protest for social justice?

In other countries, students can choose between a liberal arts education, and an apprenticeship program that prepares them for good-paying jobs.

In America such programs are occasionally sponsored by corporations themselves. Clearly, it is far too little, considering the need and the demand.

The Times tells about how it works at John Deere:

Faced with a skills gap, employers are increasingly working with community colleges to provide students with both the academic education needed to succeed in today’s work force and the specific hands-on skills to get a job in their companies. John Deere, for example, has designed a curriculum and donated farm equipment to several community colleges to train technicians for its dealer network. About 15 to 20 students come through the program at Walla Walla each semester. Because they are sponsored by a John Deere dealership, where the students work for half the program, most graduate in two years with a job in hand. 

Siemans did something similar in Charlotte:

Struggling to fill jobs in the Charlotte plant, Siemens in 2011 created an apprenticeship program for seniors at local high schools that combines four years of on-the-job training with an associate degree in mechatronics from nearby Central Piedmont Community College. When they finish, graduates have no student loans and earn more than $50,000 a year.

Apparently, there is bipartisan support for apprenticeship programs in America. One suspects that university system, needing more warm bodies to justify itself, will oppose this. 

The Times explains:

Here in the United States, most students are offered a choice between college or a dead end. The college-for-all movement, it seems, has closed off rather than opened up career options. For working-class voters who feel left out in this economy to be able to secure meaningful jobs, educational pathways must be expanded and legitimized — in the process redefining and broadening what is meant by higher education.

One cannot help but agree.

----------

Quibcag: Illustration is of the characters from Gin Tama (銀魂 Gintama, lit. "Silver Soul")  in a classroom.

“For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.”

Guest post from:
Jonathan David Baird

The natural state of man in the wild is the same as a wolf pack. An extended family group that works and hunts together over a large territory. In nature Man packs and Wolf packs rarely fight among themselves. The idea of the Alpha dog is a myth in a hunting and gathering society. Packs are lead by the parents or grandparents. This alpha mentality only exists when packs are cobbled together from different family groups. Men and wolves when forced to live with unrelated pack members resort to an Alpha dog mentality that puts the strongest at the top of the heap. This unnatural state became man's primary mode of governance when he is no longer a nomadic hunter. Tribalism, feudalism, and totalitarianism grow out of the unnatural state of being settled in one place for too long.

-----------------

Ex-Army talking now. I've over-romanticized wolves and wolf packs in the past [link], but what Baird says here has the ring of scientific truth about it. Somebody said once that primitive man could be described as an offshoot of chimpanzees who adopted a wolf lifestyle. That's not quite true, because I believe wolves are exclusively hunters, and basically carnivores, while our species certainly hunts, but also gathers, and is omnivorous. 

But the suggestion that a lot of bad stuff happened when human groups got too big, and in getting big, tended to become sedentary (or vice-versa — the causation may go both ways), I've heard elsewhere, and it's rather revealing. We've learned that savages are seldom noble, but very often very free by our standards. And one of the purposes of statecraft is to create and preserve a polity that provides room for freedom in spite of the fact that we're very urban and tend to live in very large groups.

Now, coincidentally, over at the Anonymous Conservative, there's a piece that melds nicely with Baird's, and goes a little deeper into the wolf thing, and compares it to other animals that don't live in packs. And I'm given to wonder just how much difference there is between Koch and cuck:

Koch-servative Brothers Go To War With President Trump

 by Anonymous Conservative

One Koch Brother comes out against the immigration pause:

Tea Party founder and conservative billionaire Charles Koch has attacked Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban, branding it as ‘authoritarian’. Koch said he will oppose the billionaire president if and when he deviates from a commitment to ‘free and open societies’. Commenting on the travel ban controversy, he said: ‘[The] travel ban is the wrong approach and will likely be counterproductive.’

While a Koch group opposes the Buy American movement President Trump supports:

The pro-jobs tax plan being developed by establishment Republicans, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, is now being opposed by the Koch brothers’ advocacy group, Americans For Prosperity. 

The opposition of the Koch-funded group shows a widening clash between the GOP’s donors and Donald Trump’s expanding populist “Buy American, Hire American” coalition. 

So far, the two groups have clashed over cheap-labor immigration and Trump’s successful candidacy. That clash was garishly demonstrated late December, when Trump publicly booted a friend of David Koch off one of his golf courses, prompting Koch to also leave. 

Brothers Charles and David Koch opposed Trump during the Republican primary season and refused to help him against Hillary Clinton, partly because Trump and many of his voters oppose unrestricted trade and mass immigration.

As I have said, libertarianism is a reproductive strategy designed to function alone, in spread out areas with low population densities, where large groups do not form. In r/K Theory, it is akin to the breakdown in r/K that occurs when population densities drop.

Koch is designed to function alone, avoid trouble with others, and only fight as a last resort, if it is absolutely necessary. He lacks the group-forming and reflexively competing urge of the K-strategist. Without that urge, he cannot fathom why we should have borders, or try to out-compete other nations by only buying American. He wants to avoid all conflict, and he is driven to do that by minimizing any constraints we impose on others. 

He will formulate all sorts of arguments for why his position is superior. He will talk about the need to treat all religions as equals, he will argue against discrimination, and so on. But he is just trying to punch amygdala buttons that are supportive of his underlying urges, which lack any drive to associate with or form groups or initiate aggressive actions with others in a direct fashion.

He is very much akin to the Grizzly Bear, who wants to avoid others, avoid conflict, and leave everyone else alone. The Grizzly bear can’t grasp why the wolf wants to join a pack or why they attack others they happen upon in their territory for no reason other than the trespass.

Koch would be right, if there were only a few humans around, and we could all avoid each other. But in a densely packed world with other K-strategists actively trying to defeat us, and the insanity of radical Islam lashing out at us, his strategy, no matter how “moral” it “feels”to him, is destined for failure. Amazingly, if he had his way and President Trump imported millions of Muslims, they took over the nation, and suddenly gays were being thrown from rooftops, women were being forcibly circumcised and murdered in honor killings, and all non-Muslims ended up subjugated and taxed for being unbelievers, Koch would proudly say that we should take solace in the fact that we had acted “morally.”

What he wouldn’t grasp is that his morals are just his reproductive strategy, and it was not properly adapted to the K-selected world he was living in. 

I understand this, because as a programmed libertarian, I feel his urges. It has only been through intensive observation and contemplation that I came to understand that outside of select areas like the forests of Alaska and the Midwest, the world is too densely packed for libertarianism. r and K will always beat it out, because there are too many people, and they are all driven to either compete or betray. As a result, the only choices we have that will be enacted are r or K. Given the inherent resource scarcity of the world, the only practical option is the K-strategy, and fortunately for libertarians, you can find enough common ground there to provide enough freedom to make the world it creates tolerable.

As the Apocalypse approaches, K will be the only option, because the entire nation is going K.

Tell other people about r/K Theory, because we need everyone to grasp that morals cannot get in the way of the destruction of leftism

-----------

Quibcag: That's Princess Mononoke on her wolf, from Princess Mononoke (Japanese: もののけ姫 Hepburn: Mononoke-hime, "Spirit/Monster Princess"), not to be confused with Kagura on her dog, from Gin Tama (銀魂 Gintama, lit. "Silver Soul").

Oh, the title is a quote from Kipling.

Pepe, what is best in life?

From Vox Day [link]. Enjoy!