ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, October 08, 2012

WND column

Debased Money, Debased Marriages

“When a government compulsorily overvalues one type of money and undervalues another, the undervalued money will leave the country or disappear from circulation into hoards, while the overvalued money will flood into circulation.” 
– Gresham’s law, Sir Thomas Gresham

When gasoline prices are rapidly approaching $5 per gallon, it is no secret that U.S. money does not buy what it used to. Even if we use the CPI-U, which significantly underestimates historical inflation, the value of a dollar in 2012 is approximately one-twenty fifth of a dollar in 1913, when the Federal Reserve was first given the responsibility of ensuring stable prices. How a relentless increase in prices is somehow equated with price stability remains a mystery to everyone not working for the Federal Reserve or seated in Congress; if this performance is considered successful, one can only wonder what would constitute failure.

Labels: ,

38 Comments:

Anonymous Roundtine October 08, 2012 4:29 AM  

Soon to be overhead comment: "Marriage is so gay."

Anonymous Difster October 08, 2012 4:43 AM  

That new city in Honduras is looking better every minute.

Blogger Dave October 08, 2012 5:19 AM  

US gas prices nearly $5 per gallon? Try UK prices, we are currently at £6.80 per gallon which equates to just under $11 per gallon at the current exchange rate.

Anonymous FrankNorman October 08, 2012 5:57 AM  

Here in South Africa, gasoline is more expensive than in the USA but still cheaper than in the UK.
It seems the country with the most expensive fuel is Norway.
http://www.mytravelcost.com/petrol-prices/

Anonymous TheExpat October 08, 2012 6:52 AM  

Excellent hat tip to Dalrock. Subversive, almost.
Should be interesting to see the WND readership reactions.

However, the link to his site has a superfluous quotation mark at the end so one has to jump through an extra hoop to get to the actual article.

Anonymous Logan October 08, 2012 7:36 AM  

What is the preferred response to the oft-heard claim that a libertarian opposed to gay marriage is oxymoronic? (I've heard it a number of times, as well as similar claims, anyway.)

Anonymous Cryan Ryan October 08, 2012 8:03 AM  

"These changes began with the 19th Amendment and women’s suffrage in the early 20th century."

This is the heart of the matter.

Great article.

Whenever I hear that we boomers have screwed the youth of this country, I tell them it mattered not how we (white male boomers)voted, as our somewhat rational votes were long ago replaced by a larger number of emotion based, irrational votes.

Try swimming upstream sometime.

Each month, each day, brings more single mothers, more immigrants, more non white dependent types to the top of the heap...wanting more of what white men have created.

Eventually, it will collapse with much pain and death, and white men will rise up and get things back on track.

Then...after things stabilize...they will give women the vote again, start letting the dim dark hordes come in for cheap labor...and it will all repeat...

Thank God my ashes will be blowing in the wind.

Anonymous JartStar October 08, 2012 8:27 AM  

Eventually, it will collapse with much pain and death, and white men will rise up and get things back on track.


Not necessarily. The Mongols once ruled the largest empire ever known. Now what do they rule?

There's no gurantee that the white man will put anything back on track.

Anonymous stg58 October 08, 2012 8:28 AM  

If Vox thinks he is smart, all he has to do is let Tatiana Covington, WND commenter extraordinaire, have at him for a bit. She will knock him down to size.

Blogger Joshua_D October 08, 2012 8:44 AM  

Logan October 08, 2012 7:36 AM

What is the preferred response to the oft-heard claim that a libertarian opposed to gay marriage is oxymoronic? (I've heard it a number of times, as well as similar claims, anyway.)


As a mostly libertarian, I'd say the a good response is to simply point out that 1. There is no reason for the state to be involved in marriage at all, and 2. Marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman.

Anonymous paradox October 08, 2012 8:45 AM  

Cryan Ryan

Eventually, it will collapse with much pain and death, and white men will rise up and get things back on track.

Then...after things stabilize...they will give women the vote again, start letting the dim dark hordes come in for cheap labor...and it will all repeat...


All of this has happened before and it happen again... an again... an again...

Anonymous DrTorch October 08, 2012 8:47 AM  

The feminist changes of which you write began long before the 19th Amendment. All of this was afoot in the mid-19th C, and had started in the early 1800s.

Anonymous dh October 08, 2012 8:51 AM  

> if this performance is considered successful, one can only wonder what would constitute failure.

Such a stupid drama queen. Hyper-inflation.

See how easy that was?

Anonymous LES October 08, 2012 8:56 AM  

Gay "marriage" uses the power of the government to force everyone to accept it as the
equivalent of heterosexual marriage. So perhaps the government should not sanction
any marriage but that creates other problems.

Blogger Ingemar October 08, 2012 9:31 AM  

You know, now that I think about it, Gresham's Law also applies to food.

"Why pick berries, cultivate crops, and raise animals for my food when I could just get everything from Safeway?"

"Where does it come from? How was it made? Who cares! It's cheap!"

Anonymous rycamor October 08, 2012 10:16 AM  

Ingemar... so true, and in a sense it comes from the same common cause. The left-thinking elite--contrary to the futile dreams of the left-thinking hippies--would like every aspect of our lives pre-packaged and delivered to us in a myriad of 'choices', all designed to keep us from bothering our silly heads about the underlying truths. Truths which have not changed for millenia of mankind, nor need any bureaucratic oversight or interpretation by designated authorities.

The left-thinking elite (which is most of them) are in love with bureaucracy above all things. The thought of a family living independently in the countryside, raising their own livestock, eating food from their own garden, and trading goods with other local families is a horror they can not bear to contemplate.

Anonymous VD October 08, 2012 10:22 AM  

What is the preferred response to the oft-heard claim that a libertarian opposed to gay marriage is oxymoronic?

It's completely false. Homogamy is an expansion of government, since it involves government licensing and the imposed violation of freedom of religion. Using government to modify the dictionary is intrinsically anti-libertarian.

Anonymous CMC October 08, 2012 10:39 AM  

There were some interesting nitpicking type comments to Dalrock's post. Seems to me that, generally, debasement is a much more devastating, pernicious thing, requiring the cooperation or promotion by the government or ruling elites, whereas coin clipping (Dalrock's graphic), is much less so, more private, and can be cracked down on. So while clipping can be... clipped in the bud by a society without changing it's elite (e.g. England), debasement leads to a much more thorough replacement (e.g. Rome). Does my analysis here hold any water?

Anonymous TheVillageIdiotRet October 08, 2012 10:56 AM  

Caesar marriage's aren't real marriage's

DannyR

Anonymous Luscinia October 08, 2012 11:16 AM  

You keep using the word homogamy. It does not mean what you think it means.

Anonymous VD October 08, 2012 11:34 AM  

You keep using the word homogamy. It does not mean what you think it means.

According to the dictionary, it means: "interbreeding of individuals with like characteristics". It is a much more sensible term for the government recognition and formalization of a sexual relationship between two same-sex individuals than "gay marriage".

Anonymous HardReturn¶ October 08, 2012 12:20 PM  

I haven't found a pre-1965 quarter in change in many years, because everybody knows it's more valuable than a clad phony. If there is a requirement to enforce legal marriage as any permutation of any pair, against social custom, then I would expect some kind of push back from certain churches against that type of clad phony. Legal and customary marriage would part ways. Maybe clergy would withdraw consent and refuse to record customary marriages with the clerk of courts. Those with a customary marriage would at least have recognition as common law marriage. Clergy would get in trouble with TPTB; nothing new there.

Blogger ajw308 October 08, 2012 12:48 PM  

There's no gurantee that the white man will put anything back on track.
Maybe not, but we'll die trying.

Blogger James Dixon October 08, 2012 1:12 PM  

> Maybe not, but we'll die trying.

I'm 54, I'll be dead before we get that far.

And I'm not sure I'd bother trying anyway. The people have made it clear what they want. Who am I to deny it to them?

Anonymous Aeoli Pera October 08, 2012 3:56 PM  

The feminist changes of which you write began long before the 19th Amendment. All of this was afoot in the mid-19th C, and had started in the early 1800s.

And those were caused by the universal wavefunction and the boundary conditions of the universe, which were in turn caused by an omniderigent God.

H/T SMBC and TIA.

Anonymous Jimmy October 08, 2012 6:59 PM  

The Government version of marriage is inherently unChristian in character. It isn't neutral. Thus, if you choose to get married under that framework, it is damaging to your religion. But what if you choose to get married in the Church and neglect to turn in your marriage license, would it still be a marriage?

The government and courts have recognized the parental rights of unmarried parents. A father doesn't appear to automatically lose parental rights if he never married his child's mother.

Thus the dilemma is do you take the government santioned marriage route or not? Fathers don't lose any parental rights, yet the parental rights weren't much be begin with.

The debate is deceptive. It isn't properly framed. Feminism, the Church, and the Government are blamed in one sweeping motion. Not sure if the problem can be fixed in any one place. It is likely to not be fixed. Let the decline continue. Either the difficulties makes us stronger or we surrender.

Anonymous Daybreaker October 09, 2012 1:59 AM  

James Dixon: "And I'm not sure I'd bother trying anyway. The people have made it clear what they want. Who am I to deny it to them?"

The children of all your ancestors, including many better men and women than you see around you squandering the legacy of the White race and condemning all our innocent future generations to ruin.

Pick up the mantra and strike!

Anonymous FrankNorman October 09, 2012 5:46 AM  

JartStar October 08, 2012 8:27 AM
Not necessarily. The Mongols once ruled the largest empire ever known. Now what do they rule?


Jart, two obvious points there:

1) The Mongols are not White people.
2) They didn't build anything. They just conquered what other people had built. And destroyed a whole lot of it in the process.

Anonymous FrankNorman October 09, 2012 5:50 AM  

Jimmy October 08, 2012 6:59 PM

The Government version of marriage is inherently unChristian in character. It isn't neutral. Thus, if you choose to get married under that framework, it is damaging to your religion. But what if you choose to get married in the Church and neglect to turn in your marriage license, would it still be a marriage?


If you and a girl were living somewhere in the world where there was no government to issue licenses, could you and she get married?

Anonymous Stilicho October 09, 2012 6:05 AM  

If you and a girl were living somewhere in the world where there was no government to issue licenses, could you and she get married?

There's a larger point to be made there: in this Brave New World, can any legitimate action take place without a gov't functionary approving and/or recording it? Put another way: if a tree falls in a forest and there's no bureaucrat there to tax it, did it really fall?

Blogger James Dixon October 09, 2012 9:19 AM  

> The children of all your ancestors,

Well, yeah. And so are the ones choosing the path we're on.

> ...including many better men and women than you see around you...

See above.

> ...squandering the legacy of the White race...

This IS our legacy. We started the process, and are complicit in the outcome.

... and condemning all our innocent future generations to ruin ...

No one involved is innocent. And since I don't have any children, why should I care about the future ruin?

> Pick up the mantra and strike!

Again, why? The future we're getting is what they want. As I said: Who am I to deny it to them?

Anonymous Daybreaker October 09, 2012 10:17 AM  

"No one involved is innocent. And since I don't have any children, why should I care about the future ruin?"

All the more reason for you to struggle for your race, since your nearest kin now are simply those of your own race. You should act accordingly.

"Again, why? The future we're getting is what they want. As I said: Who am I to deny it to them?"

If you give up, who pays you for this humiliating passivity? When and where do they pay you, and in what coin? Do you think anyone is going to respect you more in fifty years or so, because you did nothing? Do you think Heaven holds a place for those who accept White genocide without resistance, and are you hanging out for your cloud and harp?

Your ancestors, struggled so that you could live, and do the same for others who also are their descendants. There were others who were not directly your ancestors, but who struggled so that those like them could live on, which is what I am asking you to do for future generations who will be like you and genetically very similar to you, even if they do not directly descend from you.

There is a great chain of generations. It has been forgotten, but it ought not to be forgotten. It can be broken, but it ought not to be broken. For those who break it, there is no lasting reward but shame. For those who do what they can to preserve and extend it, however little that is, there is at least honor, conferred in advance by the manifest intentions of men, women and children who were better than this generation of traitors.

Anonymous Daybreaker October 09, 2012 10:49 AM  

“When a government compulsorily overvalues one type of money and undervalues another, the undervalued money will leave the country or disappear from circulation into hoards, while the overvalued money will flood into circulation.”

What you say about kinds of marriage is good.

Now, what if a government compulsorily overvalues one type of person and undervalues another, for example by making cheaply imported but hostile and uncreative Somalis artificially the equal or superior to well-behaved and creative but expensively reproduced and educated authentic Swedes? Would the fake Swedes then not flood the market, and drive out the real Swedes, like counterfeits driving out good money?

Anonymous WaterBoy October 09, 2012 11:58 AM  

Jimmy: "But what if you choose to get married in the Church and neglect to turn in your marriage license, would it still be a marriage?"

Legally speaking, it depends on the location. In US states with recognition of Common Law marriage, you only have to present yourself as husband and wife for a certain period of time before you are considered to be married for legal purposes. This comprises such things as referring to each other as "my husband/my wife", signing names as "Mr. & Mrs. X", identifying each other as a spouse on legal documents, opening a joint bank account, etc.

Under this provision, it would not matter whether or not you had a signed and stamped marriage license, nor even whether someone recognized by the state to conduct a marriage ceremony had done so. Men who are not willing to marry a live-in girlfriend would do well to understand the law in their state of residence, and to promptly correct any misunderstanding propagated by said mate.

Anonymous Jimmy October 09, 2012 12:34 PM  

@Waterboy: I was referring to the Christian marriage, not legal marriage. If more people marry outside of the law, then it would be the new cultural standard. Certainly, the couple should craft their own legal contracts, but the couple would no longer enjoy some government advantages like tax breaks, and private companies don't insure unmarried couples.

Nonetheless, will society learn to recognize this new marriage arrangement? We seem to recognize cohabiting couples as trial marriages. Could the church sanction such arrangements?

If debasement has continued in the current framework, you can certainly try another route to change the situation. Or move to a small city where the woman has few options.

Anonymous WaterBoy October 09, 2012 1:07 PM  

The phrase and neglect to turn in your marriage license seemed to indicate you were questioning the legality; sorry if I misunderstood.

I leave the specifics of Christian marriage to those who know more.

Anonymous Mark Call October 10, 2012 10:27 AM  

Just try to go find ONE example in Scripture of ANY 'man of YHVH' who goes and gets permission from ANY government of man before taking a wife...

(And then read what Exodus 21 says about when a master gives a slave a wife.)

Anonymous Anonymous October 10, 2012 11:28 PM  

As Hans Hermann-Hoppe correctly equated, the homos support statist goals since they have no posterity...they're perfectly willing to throw all of humanities future to hell so they can live a rich life on the toil of others.

No wonder the government so vehemently supports them.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts