Naturally baby formula is Satanist. Of course is it. With Satan dead, nobody can get it.
I dunno if you've heard, there's this amazing product called "breast milk." Try it. Even without teeth, babies can eat the stuff. An astounding advance. I've heard this too - practically every mother has access. Very democratic.
Practically every baby has a mother too, I think? What an amazing thing.
Also note that due to the finely-ground food issue, the Gerber stuff is basically also poison. It's persorption or something. I would recommend against even buying your own blender; the good ones really do blend like mad. That said, I have no hard evidence to indict blenders. Gerber has so many red flags it's hard to know where to start.
But, like, if your child doesn't have teeth, try the breast milk. They seem to really go for that stuff. If they do have teeth, have you considered letting them chew their own food? The need for braces is caused by crowded teeth, which is caused by lack of jaw development, which is caused by not chewing enough.
You can tell Tucker doesn't quite get anti-Fascism because he throws shade at breast milk.
It's a class thing. Even the proles can get access to breast milk. They can't afford to be sophisticated and artificial. You're not some prole, are you?
For nearly ten thousand years, mothers could afford not to work outside the home. America is too poor for that, apparently.
"You just showed that you DONT want women to have adventures! That you don't even think women are really people!!!!!! You hate women you my-soggy-nist!!!!!"
Formula helps gets women back to their important jobs, which are mostly important because they keep the cost of actual skilled labour down, which is important for the husbands of women who actually breast feed.
The labour thing isn't real, but yes they have some nefarious purpose behind having women work.
If you increase the supply of labour you also increase the supply of goods, so prices go down at the same time wages go down, or more exactly nothing changes. Though I'm neglecting price shocks, to be fair. This is an equilibrium analysis.
Probably taxes? Stay-at-home moms don't get paid taxable wages, whereas if you give your kids to a nanny and go work, that's two women being paid taxable wages.
Which is a bit odd, considering they print 100% of the budget. Tax revenues don't restrict the budget in the slightest.
Much the same way they obsess about who votes even though in the final analysis they're going to cheat the vote and anyway it's only a figurehead, not real power.
A bit odd, to repeat.
There's the class thing again, too. They like having a sharp divide between the upper class, which can let women be idle, and everyone else. The underclass always had to have women work at least part time. Washerwomen, fishmongers, seamstresses, teachers. They want the underclass to expand until it's directly touching the upper class.
No cottage industry, though. Women weaving in between changing diapers is healthy, so we can't have any of that.
Oh my goodness Alrenous! I haven't looked here for over a year, since that time I got really pissed. I still don't buy any of that post, but it's funny in its crotchetiness, which god knows you always have. The riddle seems always to be, at least partially, how you think being Amish is "worth about a billion dollars", yet somehow talk to all sorts of non-Amish. I don't know how you think anyone outside certain enclaves can understand much of what you say re3garding those religious things at least...but I also gather that you aren't so concerned. Still, they aren't going to, because they can't live like you. I can't, and don't know why I find you somehow likable. I am "not one of you" mostly (I don't mean Amish here, of course) but I am in other ways.
You might even give me accolades for winning an anti-woke lawsuit in the bluest city in the world. (I often wondered whether you ever had been to New York, and I don't get the idea from the time stamps that you are even in the U.S. You are of course right that "Switzerland is a good country". My closest living friend is Swiss and I spent 5 weeks with him in Lausanne in 1997. Until you immerse in it, you don't see how incredibly successful it is, how everything really does work. Swiss are utterly horrified at things that happen here, including my friend horrified at some things that happened recently to me. But I won the fucking case, I didn't care how much it cost and how much credit debt I had to go into. The evil lesbian will be evicted in a few weeks, and I've already hired the marshal, who will come packing pistols. Okay, now, I don't think this is nothing. All these woke bitches put this slut in her place and she kept acting this garbage "No, I'M the 'good people', not him. Don't you know that a lesbian always wins a lawsuit ion the blue cities even when we are wrong, not to mention don't bathe?" They all laughed at her and scorned her (yes, including the liberal judges). She destroyed the finest of my works of art, drawings by my late best friend with whom I did a book, along with the Swiss, who also paints, and is the publisher.
But I haven't ever seen such FILTH as I did this year-and it did take a whole year--as I did working legal manoeuvres and doing paperwork checking to the point of several levels of migraine. The final judge who threw her ass out also refused to look at her paperwork, because she hadn't bothered to get it right. No Swiss problem or her.
Well, I can't talk to you about all these things your bring up, but I understood that if you think being Amish is worth about a billion dollars, then you would probably automatically not think "fornication is good for you" (you wrote disapprovingly that someone said that) and might think it sinful, or at least not very profound, to stare and leer at Ann Reinking's Broadway legs. I don't know how much I and many others would like those long Amish hymns I've read about. I should at least listen to some of them on YT. It seems to me your interaction with non-Amish is mostly science and mathematics than art because I think you think little of all the dance and music I posted here well over a year ago.
I see you've been writing up a storm, and I've been trying to find you for a few days. I don't know why the googling didn't work till now. Once there was a note about a comment you made now that Jim's Blog has resurfaced. How could you? About that I am certain. It was always so obvious, even if I disagree with so many things you say about the Arts, that you could mow them all down into either sauerkraut or just powdered ginger over there, but I think you ought to think about that, now...Jim's Blog the most foetid place I have ever "visited" and if I had actually found your comment, I was afraid I might actually comment, which is stupid because and Jim and his lady-in-waiting once aka Peppermint would have yelled "Faggot" or whatever they do in their raving embarassment--as if there were somehow some importance at being accepted at the Jim's Blog. Membership at Jim's Blog has got to be as puny as anything I ever heard of.
I ought to take a look at Nick's "outsideness" Twitter too. I always liked him, although I sometimes think he takes so easily to sarcasm at all times because of being somehow wounded--and accepting it. Brilliant, tbough. I forgot all about Curtis Moldbug.
I've also really been into food and am a great cook again. I was seeing some gorgeeous Sri Lankan super-savoury dishes I was just lusting over, but they require about 25 ingredients and every one of these is outrageously expensive. But I saw "ghee" several times and remembered you recommended it. I am going to get some. I have made the best steaks and chickens and pork I ever tasted the last few weeks.
Beaucoup apologies for ridiculous length, but I figured I should wish you well in a big way since I had to make a point of not reading you for so long. I don't know anything to say about breast-feeding and formula, although I do think it was wonderful my mother never had to work outside our home, and neither did my sisters. I can imagine how much more *starched* it would have been with some pre-feminist mother..
Au revoir, monsieur!
>The labour thing isn't real, but yes they have some nefarious purpose behind having women work.
It is real. You double the workforce, you double the supply of labour, you can lower the cost.
There are a lot of other benefits too. Women tend not to do a lot of overtime so they don't have much of an argument for a pay rise, generally - thus you can limit the base male rate and limit the maximum total you pay for real competence. (ie, you know Prices law is real and so if half of your useless staff are not very driven you can make a great argument about paying them less.).
AND on top of that, women are very good at social games. I don't at all mind knowing that someone gets paid double what I get paid if he's doing double the work. Women.. not so much. Very resentful. (I've seen women organise to have highly paid salesmen fired).
Not that women aren't CAPABLE of exceptional competence? But in my experience women are much more likely to work to live, not live to work.
All of these things are very useful to our corporate overlords. Max productivity for minimum pay, AND you don't have to use a stick. Social forcing!
I read on the unknownmisandry blog some time ago a newspaper clipping of women in the 1800's having a mini revolution and demanding to stop working outside the home. (I tried to find to link but that blog is not that well organised.) So.. they were working, then they stopped, the ww2 seems to have driven them back into the workforce. Let's not also forget tobacco companies memed women into smoking cigarettes and ruined tobacco for everyone else.
But, true, there's additional social "benefits" for wanting it to happen and I believe you're correct it does revolve around class warfare.
I think you're right about the divide and where they want it. Being in the upperclass you want to attract the highest quality females (and not even because you're eugenic and wanting high quality children explicitly- it's just human nature). But you don't want the lower class to be TOO uncouth.
I noted an ad on the side of a juicebar the other day - a late teen in a bikini - and it got me to thinking what that implies about social class. SOMEONE has to grow the fruit, transport it, and serve it to you, the elite female who has nothing better to do than sit around in the sun. And, of course, this is what the ad implies. It's not like fruit juice is particularly good for you, being basically candy in liquid form, so it's pure class signalling.
Parisian : Re: Ghee.
Make it yourself, check out some youtube vids. (It's just butter). It's really not difficult and they tend to charge you a hefty premium for buying it pre-made.
"It's not like fruit juice is particularly good for you, being basically candy in liquid form, so it's pure class signalling."
Maybe so, but I don't care about any of that, including the 'class signalling'. I need a bottle of Guanabana, Mango, Pear, or other Fruit Nectar to be refreshed if I don't just do it with water and ice. I do not worry about such things, because I don't eat sweets and chocolate and sugary things. I do not eat candy, and do not think you have a point with this part. Aren't you going too far with calling it "candy in liquid form". Alas, I couldn't care less, I eat so well and it has nothing to do with class signalling, not any part of it. Not even when I eat rillettes and terrines. They're just GOOD. So, in a sense, even if you're technically somewhat correct, you also don't know what you're talking about.
You double the workforce, you double the supply of labour, you can lower the cost.
And then you also double the supply of goods. You also double the supply of dollars demanding the products of labour, which is exactly what I just said but from the other side. It cancels out.
However, that's assuming women are in fact productive, which is a dubious proposition.
More like the IRS wanted to increase taxable wages, but since women rarely produce anything outside the home, they effectively lower all-cause labour force productivity. You end up paying the same wages but to more people. All it accomplishes is increasing overhead, benefiting no-one. Conquest #3 is an Iron Law.
Americans are largely rich for a living. The Eccles Building prints money and buys things for Americans, partially by accident, functionally stealing from everyone outside America who holds dollars. As a result, American jobs, aside from things like power plant workers, are ego trips. They are there to slobber on the boss's knob. Women, naturally, are much better at this.
>And then you also double the supply of goods
No, demand remains comparable. Simple example : Factory needs 100 employees to meet productivity demands. If you double the prospective pool of employees, you can offer less and still get the desired amount of labour. Don't additionally forget that lowering the cost of labour doesn't mean you lower the price of your goods; your potential market gets relatively smaller.
It is possible to increase demand, eg, by creating more households. Example - get divorced, then you have an extra household that needs goods.
>You end up paying the same wages but to more people. All it accomplishes is increasing overhead, benefiting no-one.
Sort of - as I note, if you understand Prices law you understand that only very few people are legitimately productive. The goal is to devalue unproductive labour as much as possible so you can get the real value cheaper.
Why don't we use piece rates? You know the answer, because commies hate it when you point out that some people are incapable of productivity.
Piece rates were widely used at the start of modern-scaled industry, but then we're squashed due to, well, the reason in the article. The top producers in fruit picking will be pressured to produce as much as they previously did, despite actually receiving a pay cut and having to watch people with literally 1/4 their productivity get paid 4/5 as much as they do.
If you look at mens real wages before women entered the workforce en masse, they mostly remained stable even after the removal of piece rates. Increasing the labour force in this way really helped dilute wages.
>As a result, American jobs, aside from things like power plant workers, are ego trips
This is a consequence of the desire to lower how much people who are entirely unproductive get paid. Thanks, communism!
>Maybe so, but I don't care about any of that, including the 'class signalling'
Well, firstly, I didn't say you did. You're commenting here on Alrenous' blog so it's pretty likely you're not a total NPC.
My point being that the way they advertise it is for class signalling. Consider the cost of production and what they subtly imply about the people who consume it. Have you ever seen an ad for steak, or butter, or eggs with happy young bikini girls on the beach?
If you want to consider what I said in regards to your own personal life, ask yourself this - do you think people who drink fruit juices are "good" people? Is it a high quality food? Is it a good "diet" food? Does a person who is very attractive drink fruit juice, or coca cola?
>Aren't you going too far with calling it "candy in liquid form".
It's sugar with flavour. Contains not much in the way of actual nutrition. So.. no. I'm being pretty accurate.
>Not even when I eat rillettes and terrines. They're just GOOD.
These foods are legitimately good for you. (Also, delicious. I love rilettes!) Very nutritionally dense. It's funny to me that these foods gained status as "snobby" foods, and now they are out of fashion.
We prefer rubbish empty calories and poo-poo quality foods, such is our decadence.
>You also double the supply of dollars demanding the products of labour
Well no, you're lowering wages.
Sorry - my last sentence actually fits after the first paragraph. This browser is weird.
Some interesting points thqt I just never thought about. No, I don't think people who drink fruit juices are 'good people", and I KNOW most of the vegans I know are NOT good people, usually dykes like the one I described above. I think it horrifying that the one woman still as beautiful as the Golden Age Beauties of Hollywood, Michelle Pfeiffer (yes, even though getting oldish) is a fucking vegan. She is so gorgeous it's unbelievable, but took off several years from acting to "look after her children". Can you even believe the vegan abuse her children had to endure?
Since I was brought up in the South with incredibly healthful food, our own vegetable garden, and all the beef and pork and chickens from my Grandfather's farm, I just take some things for granted, since I have always just wanted to eat delicious thing that also happen to be healthy. I realize most are not so fortunate, though. Since I don't eat obviuosly awful things, I guess I just never thought about Pear Nectar as being "bad for you" because those nectars are3 just so refreshing. I never think of them as being in the same category as chocolate, although I have periods when I want Black Forest Cake, and I never feel weird about it.
I do want to go back to the South though. Recent events have proved to me that I have "made it in New York" quite enough to be done with the misery it causes the aging body. I miss my family anyway, and would like to be with them again, instead of just on the phone and email.
Best to you!
We also had fabulous fig trees and peach trees and miles of blackberry bushes, as well as pear trees that my mother made incredible preserves and pies from. Thinking about it now, I do see hardly anybody I know in NYC had such a luscious-food past. Oh, and my Fried Chicken Marinated in Buttermilk and Mustard is the best Southern thing, but I'll shut up now. I'm just surprised I only recently realized how fortunate I have been in terms of healthy food with not effort having been necessary to get it at all. And we had game birds like quail and dove, and you know what else is delicious? Fried squirrel. And my other grandfather had orange and grapefruit trees right in his Florida yard.
À tout à l’heure! Delighted to find that rillettes and terrines are OBJECTIVELY "good for you". I love them and foie gras too.
>No, I don't think people who drink fruit juices are 'good people", and I KNOW most of the vegans I know are NOT good people, usually dykes like the one I described above.
Well, again, my criticism of the marketing clearly not levelled at you. It doesn't work on you that way. But I think you see my point, indirectly you've addressed it.
> I guess I just never thought about Pear Nectar as being "bad for you" because those nectars are3 just so refreshing.
It's relative, I guess. If most of your diet is candy you're gonna have a bad time, if its 3%, whatever. Sounds like you win at food, yum!
>And we had game birds like quail and dove, and you know what else is delicious? Fried squirrel.
I'm deeply jealous. My brother hunts often (he's out camping now! haha) and brings me home deer forelegs, which I'm not complaining about but I really do like game birds. I'd also eat a squirrel. I imagine it tastes like rabbit, especially fried?
>Delighted to find that rillettes and terrines are OBJECTIVELY "good for you". I love them and foie gras too.
Meat and fat, people are carnivores. But, it's funny, the old decadence is (for the most part) health promoting (see the "French paradox" in heart disease research), ie, if you're rich you can afford the "good foods" - now the new decadence is health destroying. Candy for every meal!
I think rabbit may be even better, but I had them in such radically different ways. The squirrel was shot by the male relatives (my father was bored by such things, wanted football, basketball, baseball, that was about it, except he went crazy over classical music when I became a real virtuoso--that sounds like boasting, but I really was/am). I didn't like the huning either, all these Baptist hicks (I'm afraid that part is true), but loved fishing with my white-trash friend who lived on Granddaddy's farm, and we could turtles as well as fish, you name it)
The rabbit I had in Paris in all this domestic elegance of one of my first French friends, and it was roasted on one of those spit-roasters. That was truly luxe and phebomenally good, but I still don't want to compare. Otherwise, I've wanted to make hare dishes and have never gotten to it. there are some German and English ones that sound great.
But you won't find me saying "it tastes kinda like chicken". That is so pitiful.
One of the worst things about NYC is that you can get amazing food, and it is all overpriced. I find healthy things that aren't too expensive anyway. But for decent sbellfish and salmon, I walk down to Chinatown, a loathsomely filthy place, but they do have superb fish for half the price.
I was talking to Alrenous about some of these food things over a year ago, and he thought that some of his extreme reactions might have to do with conditions he mentions but that I don't fully understand. Like, he mentioned a horrible morning after (I believe) even after one alcoholic drink, and another intolerable reaction to coffee. I don't want much alcohol, really only red wine on the rare occasions I get to a resto, or white with Veal Scallopine, which is too expensive but often worth it it's so good, but I don't know how I'd like without coffee and I mean strong expresso. Thoreau didn't know shit about such things, criticizing people for drinking tea and coffee instead of "water is a much more noble drink". Well, yes, but who needs it all the fucking time. I bet he'd like the rabbit (not possum, I was disgusted at my grandfather for eating all THAT much fat) and he does shoot, and maybe someday he'll tell us what fauna he shoots for food. Would be most interested. I shot a flying squirrel once, but the hunting party was godawful Baptist Sunday School classes and a redneck Sunday School teacher, so that was my only sojourn into our (quite vast) woodlands.
Good talking to you. Yes, I understand all of what you said now (I think), and see how utterly deprived the VAST majority of Western populations are. I think in Eastern Europe it may be better, and of course France, Italy abd Greece never neglect their food, especially the Greeks, with their famously healthy natural diet. They use okra a lot in main dishes just as we do in the South.
my only sojourn into our (quite vast) woodlands.
This isn't important to anybody else, but it does say sometbing about the way I feel about my family.
My mother's half-sister, my half-aunt, and therefore the age not of my mother but of my two older sisters, died last week at 85. She had lived in Iowa most of her life, and there was a funeral there. But she chose to have her ashes placed at our favourite woods, that we called simply Rock Hill, instead of the hick Baptist Church she was stuck with growing up. I went there as recently as 2012, and we all did growing up. So poetic, couldn't get more so, and she had been a great beauty and incredibly soft and sensitive just like a beautiful woman should be.
But there were tons of woodlands on our land, and I didn't make just "one soujourn' to any of them except for the disgusting hunting parties, I went to all of them all the time, ane my parents let me go out by myself from the time I was 3 years old every morning. And they knew there were rattlesnakes galore on the farm. I didn't see one here, but did once see one hanging out sunning from a ditch on this lovely lane we called "Maypop Lane" becayse Passiflora grew wild all over it, and I was totally terrified, he was so confident. Just half out of the ditch paying me no mind, but it was like I was totally alone with him. I told my oldest aunt about him and sbe said "well, that was probably Satan". I told Nick Land about this years ago, and he said "Oh, to have had such aunts". Although I bet he came from a nice family himself. He's very refined, just sometimes makes imperfect judgments (who doesn't?).
Okay, I will really be quiet for a while now. Alrenous wants to concentrate on other things now. I always love to read him, but cannot understand a lot of it. Don't worry, he'll tell you he knows he's just as smart as he seems to be!! Ho ho ho. I never minded that, since he really is, but maybe he'll do a new riff--they're all amusing.
Post a Comment