Zippy for Racists: Usury is bad k
As Jim keeps saying, progressives believe that all religions are progressivism when interpreted correctly. They also believe that all current hominids, from Australoids to Pygmies, are really northern european Whites when raised correctly. If it was true, the residual sentimental white skin prejudice would melt away when white-skinned people met other people who aren’t actually different except for how they look, and racism would be seen as a pathetic gambit to temporarily retain some white skin privilege. As Moldbug says, this was not totally excluded in the literature in the middle of the last century, and, of course, at the beginning of the last century, Spengler wrote some history of the world stuff that totally ignored race and the Jews.
Well anyway, Jim also told me that the universities aren’t going to just melt away and all the professors of creative writing and calculus to be reduced to begging for hot dogs outside 7-11, he thinks it will take some kind of forceful military thing or whatever. But I should really prefer to use Wendys as my example fast food, because it’s the only national chain that uses a White woman in its advertising material 14/88 o/
fig. 1. the progressive theory of governance and war in action
I’m a racist. Racism is so obvious, it takes a particularly mendacious clever silly to claim not to believe it. Bob Whitaker calls all alternatives to racism ‘wordism’. Zippy is a Catholic, and it’s possible to be a racist Catholic in the same sense that it’s possible to be a progressive Catholic. The bottom line is that while Catholics recognize that Blacks have souls, racists recognize that Blacks are less soulful than the elephants they are exterminating.
But we all know all of this. That’s why all the old guard neoreactionaries have fallen silent, everyone pretty much already knows everything. But then Free Northerner had some trouble reading Zippy on the topic of usury, because Zippy is a Catholic.
The biggest mistake Free Northerner makes is inventing a distinction between consumption and investment. Probably the best example here is when Jacob jewed Esau out of his birthright. Esau was sick, Jacob named his price; if you think this has nothing to do with investment, consider what normal people mean when they talk about investments in components for their gaming and porn viewing PC. Or, if you don’t like talking about what normal people say as if they know what they’re talking about, consider Free Northerner’s example of consumptive loans, the student loans that are obviously a bad investment for most people who take them. A bad investment is still an investment. Time is the coin of our lives and we should invest in the future of our race, etc, hail victory.
The reason Free Northerner needs to do this is that he doesn’t take Zippy’s definition of usury seriously, because he does take the time value of money seriously, presumably because he was made to calculate it over and over in calculus 2.
Zippy doesn’t talk much about the time value of money besides saying that expecting interest on a loan is like if a gambler were to expect payment for the risk he incurs.
There are two issues here. It is true that a dollar in 2010 would buy a double cheeseburger, while a McDouble in 2015 costs $1.29 (at Wendys, however, a coffee is still under a buck, and comes with real cream). I don’t think Zippy would disagree about returning the same amount of money regardless of what the government does. Talking about time value of money conflates inflation with opportunity cost.
As a Catholic, Zippy is doing the usual physicist thing of deriving equations that predict observations, and he expects you to acknowledge Aristotle and Aquinas. Catholics believe in natural and divine law, and stuff.
The historically usual case of usury was for a farmer to need a loan and the Jew to end up owning the farm. Incidentally, in Shakespeare’s story, Shylock’s loan isn’t usurious because a pound of flesh is the collateral. If the debtor signs everything he owns as collateral, I’m not sure what Zippy would say about it except that people have a wide moral latitude to permit themselves to be victimized (and if a Catholic woman gets knocked up after being raped, it’s a mortal sin for her to abort). Unless we want to specify that the value of collateral must be less than or equal to the value of the loan, and furthermore, Antonio’s ass is worth 3000 ducats (that’s not actually what happened in the play, of course; Shylock was offered his money back).
In Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry, the White family comes up with the money to pay the Jew who demands the rest of the mortgaged principal all at once or he forecloses on their farm and they’re back to serfdom. However, due to the United States Constitution, the Jew has to accept the money, and the family is saved. Well, I guess books you read in middle school should support the Constitution.
Okay, I’ve gone on long enough. The point is predatory lending. Not consumptive lending, whatever that means, not non-collateralized lending which tries to reify opportunity costs or as Aristotle said make money reproduce or whatever. Non-collateralized lending is a decent rubric to decide when lending is predatory, and if you care about mortal sins being well-defined, I guess you want that. I mean, I want mortal sins to be well defined too. Formalism is a good idea.
Predatory lending is bad for the community because it gives resources to predators, who are greasy short-armed characters who rub their hands together incessantly and have noses like cat’s claws.
Free Northerner might have gotten his idea of consumptive loans from reading Crime and Punishment, in which this NEET funds his worthless lifestyle by selling everything he owns to a pawnbroker. Also in that book, some drunk gets an advance on his salary, drinks it away, and then gets run over by a car. The point Dostoyevsky was trying to make is that Russia needs a Communist government to control vice, for which the Tsar almost shot him.
Unlike Dostoyevsky, I don’t think we need Communism to control vice, I think private government is a better solution. Put the people who would take predatory loans under the control of people who know better. But Dostoyevsky is worth reading because his descriptions of his world are brilliant. He makes you feel sorry for all those r-selected types and their K-selected family members who try to look after them. It’s actually the comment of Free Northerner’s commenter that I wanted to address here. Do the r-selected need pressure like payday loans to keep them in their place? Or can they be controlled by other means? I mean, obviously, that’s a rhetorical question.
It would be weird of me to end an article without insulting Henry Dampier, so, hey Henry, you’re still a moron.