dems r da real rayciss

It is Boomer-tier idiocy to make any statement or argument including the premise that liberals are more racist than conservatives (Democrats are the real racists) or anything along those lines. By those with even a modicum of social understanding, this is known. But, why is this the case? It is manifestly true that in many cases, liberal policies actually are “more racist” than some conservative ones. Why does no one care? The answer may be obvious to some, but I thought an explicit exploration of the topic worthwhile. More fun than programming at work anyway…

Fundamentally, I think the problem is one of framing. Talking about racism, at all, in any capacity, is inherently accepting of a liberal frame. Who is concerned about “the evils of racist discrimination”? Liberals. When a conservative accepts the liberal frame which assumes that not only is racism real, and bad, it is in fact the root of all evil, and worse than pederasty, then pretty much anything else the conservative says is irrelevant. At best, for the conservative, this represents winning the battle at the cost of the war. Sure, maybe liberal policy X is actually more racist than conservative policy Y, but by even addressing that topic, the conservative is admitting that liberals are right about the evils of racism in general. And that’s the more fundamental question. So if the liberal is right about the fundamentals, who really cares what the conservative says about piddly little details?

The framing issue is responsible for a large portion of the derision rightly heaped on anyone who cries “dems r da real rayciss” but I think the dual-definition of “racism” also takes some of the wind out of the sails of this argument. Racism, according to a sane dictionary means “discrimination or prejudice based on race.” But unfortunately, racism is a motte-and-bailey, and as such has a second definition.  As used in the common parlance of the day, racism also means “not being obsequious toward non-whites.” This combined with the demographic realities of the Democrat and Republican parties (92% of blacks voted Democrat, Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 89% of Republican self-identifiers nationwide in 2012) means that any argument purporting that the party of whites (Republicans) is less racist than the party of non-whites (Democrats) is absurd on it’s face. Don’t you know? Black people cannot be racist. Only white people can be racist. (This by the way is a non-exaggerated quote from far left radicals). By the second definition of racism, “dems r da real rayciss” makes about as much sense as 2+2 = 5.

Don’t be a Boomer. Don’t try to tell me that dems r da real rayciss. Don’t accept the framing. Racism is not in fact the root of all evil. Under the sane definition, it’s not even necessarily evil at all. To discriminate is merely to judge. Sometimes you judge rightly.

against christian buddhism

if you havent read ‘s recent series on “christian buddhism” I highly recommend, and also this post probably wont make much sense.

ok so he details this inbuilt tendency christianity has. but, how do we counteract it? If the practices of the Christian buddhist are “fasting, prayer, self denial” then what are the practices of the Christian crusader? almsgiving is a good start I think because it both refutes the world and embraces it. to give alms, you first must have alms. to give alms is to recognize that people in the world actually do need money, and that money is not intrinsically evil.

this list reminds me of zippy:

There are tried and true methods for doing this: prayer, fasting, almsgiving, spiritual and corporal works of mercy, devotionals, pilgrimages, studying, and most importantly the sacraments.

I guess we can add the “spiritual and corporal works of mercy” and “pilgrimages” to the Christian crusader list, since both require an engagement with the world rather than a retreat from it.

I think also the communal aspect of christianity is essential to a practical refutation of the Christian buddhist, since it requires a recognition of the other as a specific other, not just as another impersonal “Christ-Buddha.” You cannot really relate to someone else in a meaningful way without recognizing that there is actually someone else there, as opposed to some meat robot that laughs at your jokes.


yeah, but…

I think I was convinced into my current religion+worldview by a series of “yeah, but” statements from random people online.

Milton friedman: communism is dumb, since the free market is the most efficient pricing mechanism we have

Moldbug: yeah, but libertarians are dumb too, since authority is a necessary feature of society.

Zippy catholic: yeah, but neoreaction is just repackaged liberalism.


I wonder which “yeah, but” will be next

Gospel notes 7/23/19

MT 12:46-50

While Jesus was speaking to the crowds,
his mother and his brothers appeared outside,
wishing to speak with him.
Someone told him, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside,
asking to speak with you.”
But he said in reply to the one who told him,
“Who is my mother?  Who are my brothers?”
And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said,
“Here are my mother and my brothers.
For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father
is my brother, and sister, and mother.”


  • worldly attachments vs spiritual attachments
    • family distraction
      • malicious vs well intentioned
    • priority
  • “does the will” vs believes/faith, etc
  • jesus’ “brothers” as proof that mary did not remain virgin
    • brother as more extended “cousin”
    • brother as half-brother


  • why was this included in the gospel/what is it between

The most striking thing to me is how abrasive such a statement from Jesus really is. To basically brush off his family? The virgin Mary? Dang, dude that’s harsh. But the harshness illustrates the point: God is more important than any worldly concern, even your family. (of course often times God is calling you to deal with worldly concerns in a Godly way, but still the question of priorities is fundamental)

Gospel notes for July 22, 2019

Gospel JN 20:1-2, 11-18

On the first day of the week,
Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early in the morning,
while it was still dark,
and saw the stone removed from the tomb.
So she ran and went to Simon Peter
and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and told them,
“They have taken the Lord from the tomb,
and we don’t know where they put him.”

Mary stayed outside the tomb weeping.
And as she wept, she bent over into the tomb
and saw two angels in white sitting there,
one at the head and one at the feet
where the Body of Jesus had been.
And they said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?”
She said to them, “They have taken my Lord,
and I don’t know where they laid him.”
When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus there,
but did not know it was Jesus.
Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?
Whom are you looking for?”
She thought it was the gardener and said to him,
“Sir, if you carried him away,
tell me where you laid him,
and I will take him.”
Jesus said to her, “Mary!”
She turned and said to him in Hebrew,
“Rabbouni,” which means Teacher.
Jesus said to her,
“Stop holding on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father.
But go to my brothers and tell them,
‘I am going to my Father and your Father,
to my God and your God.'”
Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples,
“I have seen the Lord,”
and then reported what he told her.

Obvious takeaways:
  • a woman sees the empty tomb first and appears to be the first to see the Lord
    • lends credence to truth of story, since culture of time did not regard women’s testimony as true (🤔)
    • also elevates women’s position in society, showing that God’s message is for all
  • Mary expected Jesus’ body to be there despite his frequent predictions of his own resurrection, so clearly it’s hard to trust God
  • Also, duh, Jesus actually rose from the dead at a real historical point in time, never ever forget this!!! This is the central founding miracle of Christianity. If it is not true we are fools.
  • Something is obviously different about the resurrected Jesus since she who loved him so much did not even recognize him.
    • hopefully this is because our resurrected bodies are all super perfect and jacked and handsome
  • When the resurrected Jesus told Mary to go tell the others she immediately did.
    • the attitude of submission and obedience is worthy of emulation
    • the Gospel, which just means “good news” immediately starts to spread. This “evangelism” seems to be intrinsic to the Gospel.
      • Are we spreading it? Why not?
      • Do we not really believe it?
      • Do we not really think it is good?

high level takeaways:

  • Aquinas points out that this happens at the beginning of the week which can be seen as symbolizing a new era for humanity. The dawn of the new week heralds the dawn of Christianity, and the tangible possibility of salvation
  • He also said: “Mary Magdalene had copious tears of compunction at the time of her conversion, when she had been the village sinner. Then, in her love for the truth, she washed the stains of her sins with her tears: “Her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much” (Lk 7:47). She also shed abundant tears of devotion over the passion and resurrection of Christ, as we see here.”
  • and in reference to mary turning around to see jesus: We see from this that if anyone desires to see Christ, they must turn round to him: “Return to me, says the Lord of hosts, and I will return to you” (Zech 1:3). Those come to the point of seeing him who entirely turn themselves to him by love
    • remember that “repentance” means “to turn around or away” and so Mary who had spiritually repented earlier now physically “repents” and in doing so immediately sees Jesus.

practical ideas:

  • if there is anything here worthy of emulation is it Mary’s love and devotion to Jesus. She got up before the sun to go see his tomb! Do we have that same vigor to go see him at Mass? probably not.
    • Why not? probably because we do not love Jesus as Mary did. Remember, Mary was the town sinner when she met Jesus. She is very aware of how much she has been forgiven and thus loves him so strongly. If you find yourself not loving God, try reflecting on all the evil you have done and wonder that God has forgiven even one such as you.
  • If you do love God and you do see him, what should immediately follow? We should go and tell others, immediately following the great command of Jesus, as Mary did. How often when you get in to work on Monday, and your co-worker asks “how was the weekend” do you say, “It was great! I saw the most wonderful thing on Sunday! Jesus, came down into bread at the altar!” Why not? Too weird? Still… just because you have seen it before does not make it any less of a miracle.

Gospel notes for today

LK 10:38-42

Jesus entered a village
where a woman whose name was Martha welcomed him.
She had a sister named Mary
who sat beside the Lord at his feet listening to him speak.
Martha, burdened with much serving, came to him and said,
“Lord, do you not care
that my sister has left me by myself to do the serving?
Tell her to help me.”
The Lord said to her in reply,
“Martha, Martha, you are anxious and worried about many things.
There is need of only one thing.
Mary has chosen the better part
and it will not be taken from her.”
Ok, what’s the most obvious lesson to draw from this? I’m tired of being creative all the time. What do we have? Something like:
  • spending time with Jesus is more valuable than the mundane details of daily life
  • The contemplative life vs the active life
  • Anti-anxiety and worry
  • Mary is the name of good ladies I guess
  • the image of “listening at Jesus’ fees” as a model for the Christian posture
  • Passive aggressive sniping doesn’t win you any Jesus points

I really like the first interpretation/lesson from this story where the idea is about priorities. Probably because I’ve been feeling like my priorities lately are all wonky. But anyway it would be pretty difficult to read this passage and come to the conclusion that we should value the mundane details of daily life MORE than we currently do. To me it seems to indicate that even if we may actually need to eventually cook dinner, we should personally look forward to, prioritize, care about more the time we can spend in Jesus’s presence. Who can honestly say that they look forward to Mass, or Eucharistic Adoration, or morning prayer more than they look forward to dinner? Honestly most of the time? Not me. And that should change.

As to the second obvious interpretation, the church has long recognized two distinct kinds of Christian life: “active” and “contemplative.” St. Thomas Aquinas said that the “contemplative life is simply more excellent than the active.” And I’m not as smart as him so if you disagree you can take it up with him, but I think that this passage supports his claim pretty easily when you assign to Martha the active life and Mary the contemplative, and you see that Jesus calls Mary’s path the “better part.”

I had a friend who pointed out that it might not have been that activity on Martha’s part that Jesus was rebuking (since Jesus obviously has nothing against serving others, which cooking dinner certainly is an example of), but rather Jesus might have been rebuking Martha’s anxiety and worry. This certainly fits into much of what Jesus says elsewhere since he is, you know, the God who created and sustains all of existence, and he also loves you literally more than you can imagine, so he’ll take care of you, just chill out dude.

I do also like the image of Mary listening at Jesus’ feet. I mean, really, that’s what we are all called to do, whether we take the active life or the contemplative. We are all Jesus’ disciples, called to know him, to learn from him, to sit at his feet in submission and worship. Seriously, if you find ways to mimic this attitude in your life, I don’t know, maybe just literally going to adoration and literally sitting at the literal Jesus present in the eucharist and just trying to listen to him, I really really doubt that you could do that and NOT grow closer to the Lord.

It’s also good to note that Martha is totally being a passive aggressive B. If she wanted Mary to help why not just go ask Mary to help? Dont be a whiny little turd. C’mon it’s not that hard.

Anyway. Good gospel. There’s a lot there.


Gamestop’s price makes no sense. It is selling for $8.62 right now when it has $1600 M cash in the bank. There are ~102 M shares. This means, if Gamestop just distributed all of its cash to shareholders as a special dividend, everyone would get about $16, or almost 2X what the shares currently cost. Gamestop also has an insane dividend of 0.38c per share per quarter which is ~ 17.6% yield. Is this dividend safe? Safe enough. Their payout ratio is 76%. I get that everyone thinks revenue will continue to decline. And it probably will. Who cares? At a low enough price, even a declining business is a bargain. But don’t listen to me, every time I recommend something it immediately crashes in price.

current plan

GME, CVS, and CPLG are all “distressed” businesses with substantial recent price drops that seem to me to be far out of line with real business value and future prospects. As such I am re-allocating capital from other investments to these positions. Too much diversification is just admitting you dont know what you’re doing. I think I understand the value proposition of these three companies well, and have evaluated the bearish case and think it’s overblown. I’m either right or I’m wrong. But if I’m wrong I dont see how, so might as well assume I’m right and act confidently.