White wine? No thanks, I prefer red I must be racist

As you know by now, I love shooting fish in a barrel. There's plenty of fish in the #WhiteWhine – A 12-Point Rant post. I'll just repeat the points here and scoff at them one by one:

The time has come for a 10-point dressing down of white South Africans who bitch and moan about everything. Let’s call it #WhiteWhine.

That's not really making a point now is it?

Many white South Africans seem unaware that they are considered just a cut above Nazis in the international scoundrel rankings.

Know who also sits fairly high on the international scoundrel rankings? Omar al-Bashir, Muammar Gadaffi and Robert Mugabe. None of those are exactly Nazis, and none of those are exactly friends of Apartheid. In fact, all of those seem to be pretty cosy with the ANC leadership, which by the way does not sit fairly high on the international scoundrel rankings. And by the way, all of those are large scale owners of capital in South Africa.

The logical conclusion is that when it comes to ranking scoundrels, the international community doesn't know its earhole from its arsehole. I'm not sure what to make of this point, except to conclude that it's ill-conceived.

Even in American movies, white South Africans are often portrayed as generic bad guys, on a par with Nazis, terrorists and rogue aliens.

Name one film where Charlize Theron was the bad guy.

American movies also portray the Klu Klux Klan as the good guys, least we forget about the Birth of a Nation. Perhaps American movies are not exactly barometers of what constitutes generic bad guys, nor generic good guys? At least this point is moot and not a throwaway, but pretty much stillborn.

Why are we, white South Africans, portrayed this way? Is it fair that we should be so grossly stereotyped? Are we really like Nazis?

These are a few rhetorical questions. In order to make a point of any kind, one has to make a statement of some sort, preferably an assertion. TKO.

The answer: it’s understandable. Why? Imagine if the Nazis had retained their ill-gotten gains after the Second World War.

Imagine if it were true that the Apartheid spoils were kept as ill-gotten gains. Only they weren't.

The government was and still remains the majority land owner, and the biggest owner of capital in the country. The largest corporations are by far the state-owned enterprises like Eskom and Telkom. These are no longer in the hands of Apartheid-era statesmen, nor Apartheid-era whites, nor even in the hands of white people in general. They are managed by the largely black ANC government and most of their employees are also black.

What about shares? The largest pension fund in Africa is the GEPF. Guess who is in charge of that? Pro-tip: It's not F.W de Klerk, it is managed by the largely black ANC government.

What about the JSE? This article on how to protect your wealth from Zumafication explains that most of the top companies listed on the JSE rely on foreign profits. They rely not on Apartheid spoils, but on current modern day trades with other nations, and most of them invest offshore due to corruption and mismanagement in South Africa since 1994. That's after Apartheid, in case you were wondering.

They are not owned nor managed by Apartheid agents. By law they have to comply with BEE, and they do. If you do not believe me, search for the companies listed there and look at their board of directors before making ignorant statements about capital ownership in South Africa. Just start here with the biggest private companies in South Africa. You will notice that many of the faces there are also in government. 

Those are the minority capital owners in the new South Africa, just like they were the minority capital owners in the old Apartheid South Africa. Only they are not the same people. Nor are they of the same race.

You’re thinking: “Bullshit! We aren’t Nazis! We didn’t commit genocide!” Well, perhaps you and your parents didn’t, but our ancestors did.

Actually yes, bullshit. South Africa was never involved in genocide. Nor were our ancestors. The closest practice to genocide we have seen in South Africa is the employment of concentration camps during the Anglo-Boer War . They do not count as genocide since they did not focus on wiping out one particular racial or ethnic group exclusively, the Brits were rather indiscriminate.

White people have murdered and exploited other nations and peoples for centuries, since colonial times, when our days of privilege began.

So have the Black people, Asians and Arabs. You really need the IQ in order to understand why this statement is utter bullshit, but then if you had the IQ you wouldn't be making such ignorant statements in the first place.

You’re thinking: “Ja, but what can I do about that?” Well, let’s look at how Germany has dealt with its grotesque Nazi past.

Finally, a good point. Germany dealt with its grotesque Nazi past by rebuilding its capital stock with a highly skilled workforce. Yes, really, it is that simple, but if you want more details have a look at the Wirtschaftsfwunder.

They were lucky in the sense that they had a highly skilled workforce and brilliant leaders at the time. We do not have a highly skilled workforce and our leaders surprise me every day because they don't inadvertently drown themselves in their own bath tub.

Germany has flourished by working hard, trying to do better, setting an example in terms of equality, cooperation and generosity.

Germany also does not have a race-based affirmative action program. Finally, another good point and one certainly worth considering. How we can change our current efforts to be more in line with what worked in Germany? Perhaps we should not have a race-based affirmative action program either?

Perhaps we should be focusing on making the majority of our population employable by turning ourselves into a highly skilled workforce?

Perhaps we should be focusing on building capital stock?

Perhaps we shouldn't be throwing the majority of our population into a debt trap and blaming a small yet skilled and hard-working minority for carrying the bulk of the burden?

Perhaps we should realise that there isn't a privilege queue where all the pale faces line up and all the rest are shown away?

White SA’ns who bitch and moan need to imagine Nazis bitching and moaning because their world has changed. That’s how you’re seen.

Imagine for a second that white South Africans are not Nazis. I know it is hard because there is more EQ than IQ here, but just try and picture the scene.

BONUS! You need to be more like Germans. Understand the privileges you enjoy. Do better. Strive for equality, cooperation, generosity.

That's not really a point now is it? That is empty sloganeering. Unless the point is that we should follow in Germany's footsteps, in which case it is a repeated point. This is the third time, by the way.

EXTRA BONUS! You’re thinking: “Get off your high horse, arsehole.” But I already shot the horse and gave away the meat a long time ago.

That's not really a point now is it? 

Either this is list is scraping the barrel for other incredulous troglodytes or it is an ingenious application of Poe's Law. For the author's sake, I hope it is the latter, because the points aren't even counted correctly. The only point worth mentioning is that we should try to emulate the success of Germany. Since it is repeated three times, that's a hit rate of 1/12 or 8,33%. It wouldn't even get Matric in the new South Africa.

The first African Disney princess is not even Black

If the peanut gallery is to be believed, the first African Disney princess is a white colonial. Why should we make a big fuss over the demographics of Disney princesses in this age of non-racialism and trying really hard not to perpetuate stereotypes? The article is helpful in prescribing our concerns to us:

1. The Disney Princess franchise doesn't have a history that celebrates diversity.
2. Tiana is Disney’s first and only black princess, but she spent most of her movie being green. Also she wasn't African enough.
3. Children films reinforce stereotypes and this can have a measurable, negative effect on children.

 

The Diversity of Disney Princesses

The Disney princesses include a Bavarian, four Frenchies, a Dane, an Arabian, a Native American, a Chinese, an African-American and a Scot. This does not however do for stringent diversity requirements, since there's clearly only one token Scot.

With an overwhelming majority of four out of eleven French princesses, this indisputable evidence indicates a hidden Hollywood agenda of classically conditioning our poor children into being French.

 

Tiana is the only black princess

In another troubling diversity window-dressing attempt, Tiana is black but she's not African. She's only African-American, like nearly 13% of the American population. America being Disney's home country. She should rather have been black and African, which would evidently go a long way towards not portraying African people as stereotypes.

To boot, she was forced into portraying a typical garden variety bi-racial relationship because Disney couldn't stomach the idea of an African-American girl bringing an African-American boyfriend home to meet the folks. Such a revolutionary idea is just much too far ahead of its time to appeal to African-Americans.

Instead, she spends most of the film in your typical garden variety interspecies romance. Duly note that along with Ariel and Belle, Tiana is one of only three Disney princesses who portray an interspecies romance. Even more problematic, along with Pocahontas, Tiana is one of only two princesses who portray an inter-racial romance. Truth be told, this shocking lack of diversity just shakes me to my core.

 

Research shows that media exposure influences the body image of our kids

The first empirical study conducted into this area clearly found how "exposure did not affect body dissatisfaction or engagement in appearance-related play behaviours".

Regardless, it is imperative to note how roughly 6,6% (N=8 out of 121 participants) of the test subjects indicated they would have to change their hair colour or their skin colour in order to be a princess.

Be careful to notice how even though 32,3% of the correspondents agreed that looks don't make one a princess, and 53,3% agreed that their accessories alone make them a princess, that lonely 6,6% exception is the exception that proves the rule.

I'm glad that I found this article, which is bolstered so undeniably by empirical research. Clearly, more should be done occupy that 6,6%'s minds so they can be more like the majority of girls who see things our way.

Response to the Muslim Judicial Council

Following the barbaric attack on a bunch of nearly retired cartoonists in France, it is inevitable that Islamophobia would rear its head again. There's also this half-baked, watered down and not really helpful comment from the Muslim Judicial Council. They're not really doing a good job to help the rest of us discern between Muslim extremists and moderate Muslims. This comment has been deleted from their drivel (Freedom of speech has its limits), so here it is in all its glory:

"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist" ~Salman Rushdie. 

A depiction of someone's imaginary friend is not hate speech. Hate speech is clearly defined in our constitution. Drawing cartoons does not target a specific group for their race, religion or beliefs. 'I believe in freedom of speech, but..' sounds a lot like 'I am not a racist, but ...'. Nobody has the right not to be offended and neither does anyone's god or prophet.

The burden of proof is on the Muslim Judicial Council to show that Islam is in fact the religion of peace and that they do not tolerate extremist savages in their midsts. Their condemnation of these acts should be unequivocal and their support for freedom of expression should likewise be unequivocal so that the more ignorant amongst us have no chance of associating them with extremism.
That being said, I for one am looking forward to this year's Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.

Russell Brand and the Messiah Simplex

Moved to Steemit. Read it here:

Russell Brand and the Messiah Simplex

The Commodification of Activism

The commodification of activism is a term I've coined to describe the popular culture phenomenon whereby everyone who creates awareness for their personal bugbears considers themselves an activist.

 I've since moved my blog to Steemit. This is just kept here to verify the date and to invite you to read more on a more decent blogging platform, built on a blockchain, opposed to censorship unlike Big Tech, and supports Markdown!

The Resource Based Economy mind virus

We've seen the Zeitgeist films and sadly they're still taking a hold on impressionable young minds that could be doing something useful instead. Despite its shoddy research, its baseless assertions and its gross generalisations (or perhaps because of them), a few things about the films stand out:

1. We have to get rid of all monetary systems.
2. The answer to all our woes is a Resource Based Economy.

Bad ideas have a habit of outliving good ones, perhaps because they are neat, plausible and wrong. These are all hallmarks of the kind of thinking that does not require much thinking, and as we know thinking is the hardest work of all. Perhaps this is why the bad ideas keep being perpetuated, while paradoxically the good ones are also neat, plausible and slightly less wrong. Why the good ideas don't get perpetuated as readily is beyond me.

Here's an image of Frank Zappa. Because Zappa is god.

 

Why should we get rid of a monetary system?

The Zeitgeist films try very hard to blame all our current problems on a monetary system. This is probably because the Zeitgeist movement conflates a fractional reserve banking system with monetary systems everywhere. Most people are economically illiterate and the notion that money is the root of all evil is not exactly a hard-earned conclusion.

"Money is a matter of functions four, a medium, a measure, a standard, a store".

Let's picture a world without money to highlight why there is money in the first place: If all we have are commodities without a currency to mediate, we are reliant on the coincidence of wants. To simplify the point, let's forget all the other complications such as a lack of a store of value, a lack of a unit of account, a lack of a standard for deferred payment, and all the other benefits that money gives us. Let's just focus on the coincidence of wants.

Suggest that you are a dental floss salesman from Montana. You go to the dentist. Your dentist is already well-stocked when it comes to dental paraphernalia and he does not require more dental floss. You are living in a society that has been exorcised of all money. How do you pay for your dentist visit?

This is perhaps why some anthropologists claim that debt is the first instance of money. Maybe some barterers got sick of getting the same goods from the same people and just said let's stick to I.O.U.s. Just like Menger's original account of where money originated, this is pure speculation and the functions of money do not rely on the order of things. It does however show two things:

1. Without money, we still need a coincidence of wants. This coincidence of wants presents an unsolvable problem. To be more succinct, it is impossible to please everyone.
2. The Resource Based Economy relies on commodities and conveniently ignores services that are provided by skilled people. This is perhaps because its chief evangelist is not a trained engineer and is unfamiliar with the kind of perseverance it takes to become skilled in a discipline. The Resource Based Economy just assumes we'd all be happy to get our daily bread from spambots and go on our merry way while automatically just obtaining the kind of skills required to maintain the spambots. If this is the case, why is there such high incidence of crime amongst people on welfare who do have the bare minimum that anyone could ask for given to them? But I'm getting ahead of myself, let's see what an RBE is.

 What is a Resource Based Economy?

Before we get to the Venus Project, it is worth noting what economics is. Economics is a social science primarily concerned with the production, consumption and distribution of resources. A Resource Based Economy thus refers to an economic problem per definition. Any notions that a Resource Based Economy is a radically new idea are thus misguided and testifies plainly of ignorance of economics as a field.


The Zeitgeist evangelists are familiar with the term as a reference to a system where information, goods and services are freely available. Their Resource Based Economy (RBE) relies fundamentally on the "average man" - a notion that first inspired the Socialism and Communism from which Zeitgeist bildungsphilisters are trying to separate themselves at all non-monetary costs.

This begs quite a few questions:

1. Where do these skills and services come from? The information content of virtually any tertiary education is already freely available (see Khan Academy for one), but this has not yielded the masses of skilled semi-professionals that it could have yielded. By contrast, voluntary free association has yielded many fruitful projects, amongst them Wikipedia and SETI@home (and no, these are not examples of gift economies, these are examples of Collective Intelligence). 
2. What about people who prefer having more of a given commodity than is provided by the spambots? We are told that the Venus Project does not rely on bartering or on a monetary system. What if I like hoarding chickens and I end up with more chickens than anyone in the Venus Project? Are the spambots going to dish my chickens out to all and sundry, in which case I have no more incentive to keep them in addition to experiencing the tyranny of social engineering first hand? What if my chickens require more land than my allocated land? Will the Venus Project assure me the property rights to enlarge my coop, or will I have to conduct a chicken coup d'edat? Death to the naked apes! Power to the flightless birds!
3. How does this system deal with scarcity? Some commodities are in fact scarce and this is more or less reflected in their monetary value, give or take a few hiccups. If we share scarce resources equally, we'd all be fitted with essentially a pittance of that resource that is of no use to anyone.
4. How does this system prevent bartering, trading and all the other innately human impulses that give rise to inequality in the first place?

The dangers of this system are not contained in its misguided calls for getting rid of currency, but in its social engineering implications. Social engineering is nothing new: It has been tried and tested and it doesn't work. The reason why it doesn't work is because the needs and wants of a group of individuals cannot be accurately portrayed by merely averaging out their individual whims and conveniently ignoring the outliers. Many of the brightest, most highly qualified engineers have tried, and failed. This is nothing but the principle of 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need' in denial and in disguise.

Is it a good idea to unravel all the gains of the Age of Enlightenment to return to a serfdom? Except now it's an improvement because of social engineering, scientific socialism, and the consolement that the serfdom is run by the same kind of bots that crashed Wall Street?

Open letter opposing etolls

This is my letter of complaint regarding the etolls. I decided to replicate it here because I received no acknowledgement that my letter has in fact been received. Government seems hellbent on rubberstamping this bullshit through, so I am merely putting this out there so they can't act surprised when they sit with the tax revolt and the civil disobedience when they try to go through with this highway robbery.

If you'd also like to add your voice, feel free to get the details from the government gazette and email these clowns. Also please support Outa if you can. Government is a gang of thieves at large (apologies to Rothbard).





Kindly note that I am opposed to etolling and any means of tolling any public road. I feel that the fuel levy should be sufficient to maintain roads and that tolling is not an efficient nor desirable means to pay for road maintenance. The treasury should foot the bill, as we pay taxes for maintaining infrastructure. We do not pay taxes for upgrading official presidency residences like Nkandla, nor do we pay taxes for petty lawsuits to protect the 'dignity' of a certain privileged elite. Taxes should go towards the benefit of the public. Everyone benefits when government does its job of maintaining public resources.

I am opposed to the user pay principle, because many road users from as far as Durban and even Cape Town do in fact use the Gauteng roads to transfer goods into and out of the province.  Furthermore, if one would like to maintain the user pay principle, then ALL of the road users - including ministers of parliament and public transport users - should pay for the privilege of using the road. A principle is only valid if it counts for everyone. There can be no exceptions, because if there are, the principle does not hold.

Since the government has been collecting fuel levies for quite some time, from all users, by means of the national fuel levy, there should have been enough funding available to maintain the road. The fact that there may not be, is not a valid reason to fleece the public some more. Rather, it is reason enough for the powers that be to abdicate.

In addition, I feel that the government is being dishonest here. We were not given 30 days to comment on the tolls, we were given less. Also, we should have been given this opportunity BEFORE any construction on the gantries started, not AFTER they have been constructed. Most of  the costs go towards paying for toll collecting fees (85c out of each Rand according to public information sessions), so this is ridiculous. These are externalities and do not relate directly to building and maintaining the road at all. Also, the tariffs are allegedly not new, this according to the Justice Project SA.

Finally, I feel that government should be responsible with managing public resources. It was irresponsible to gamble public pensions on this 'white elephant'. The road should have been maintained already, we already paid to maintain it and this was arguably the least efficient means that government could have gone about maintaining the road. Government should foot the bill and stop fleecing the public every time it makes a mistake.