Posted by Rory on Tue, 06 Aug 2013 19:16 | #

The Washington Post is being purchased by Jeff Bezos.  1981-1983 I was the local support team leader in Miami for the Space Studies Institute sponsoring public awareness events about space settlement. Some punk gave his valedictorian speech on space settlement during Miami Palmetto Senior High School’s 1982 graduation ceremonies.  That punk’s name was Jeff Bezos.  Things are working out pretty much the way I foresaw in 1982.

Can you elaborate?

What’s the connection between what you foresaw in 1982 and Bezos’s buying of The Washington Post?

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 06 Aug 2013 20:19 | #

As an exemplar, Bezos may have been contaminated by my influence in Miami space settlement promotion during his formative years, but otherwise he does fit the genetic profile I described in

the first people to participate in the videotex network will represent some of the most pioneering of Americans, since videotex is a new “territory”.

From the Wikipedia article on Jeff “Bezos”:

Bezos was born Jeffrey Preston Jorgensen in Albuquerque, New Mexico, to Jacklyn Gise Jorgensen and Ted Jorgensen.[5] His maternal ancestors were settlers who lived in Texas, and over the generations acquired a 25,000 acre (101 km2 or 39 miles2) ranch near Cotulla. Bezos’ maternal grandfather was a regional director of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in Albuquerque. He retired early to the ranch, where Bezos spent many summers as a youth, working with him.[6] At an early age, Bezos displayed a striking mechanical aptitude – as a toddler, he tried dismantling his crib.[7]

And, in case you missed the emphasis on the newspaper industry, click through to my response to a slashdot story about the first electronic newspaper experiment in the US and why it didn’t turn into the Internet circa 1983.

Long story short:  If the Knight-Ridder management hadn’t been so anal about retaining a strangle hold on editorial control of content, they could have been the launching point for the internet 15 years earlier and they might have been able to develop new business models—such as those I outlined in the 1982 essay I wrote when I was in charge of their network architecture.  I rather predicted their unenlightened self-interest in the essay and the eventual emergence of “pioneer” stock like “Bezos”.

Posted by Rory on Tue, 06 Aug 2013 21:07 | #

I see. So you mean that someone like Bezos will finally update old media institutions like The Washington Post to the internet era?

I thought you meant something about space settlement, since Bezos has an aerospace company called Blue Origin as well.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 06 Aug 2013 21:09 | #

Hmmmm…. what is it about “Videotex Networking and the American Pioneer” that failed to draw the connection between those two interpretations?

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 06 Aug 2013 21:43 | #

A citizens income is broadly a policy I would favour. The Devil is in the details of course. But the idea of a citizens income has interest from elements on both the left and the right. Certainly in the UK our welfare system is a complex mess, expensive to run, and most of all extremely mean-spirited in how it operates.

People pay in lots in terms of taxes and if they actually ever need help they are more or less treated like scum - especially if they are of the wrong ethnic background - in this case native to Britain. Other ethnic groups are of course treated with ‘kid gloves’.

I have a close personal relation that works directly within the welfare system and they are regularly disgusted by what goes on within the system.

It’s politically important to signal to our own people that we value each other beyond mere words. Actions are important. Decent standards of housing, education, health and other ‘quality of life’ factors are central to any sensible ethno-communitarian agenda. It’s one important mechanism to boost in-group loyalty - as seen in Denmark with the gradual rise of an ethnocentric ‘conservative’ social democracy.

Indeed on that theme there is a rather interesting book on the Nazi regime’s policies in this regard. “Hitler’s Beneficiaries” (see http://www.versobooks.com/books/767-hitler-s-beneficiaries). OK it’s the work of a member of the tribe - but that’s not the important issue. Rather the key hypothesis of the book is that the regime - via generous social programs - “bought” the consent and loyalty of the German people.

Now at this point I expect the usual suspects (Mr. Haller et al.) to pipe up about the evils of clientelism and the inherently bad effects of government spending etc. All the bog standard neo-liberal tropes. Yawn.

Now given that the welfare state is not going away any time soon then why not use it for meta-political ends? Yes OK it’s ‘clientelism’ but with a purpose. In this a ruthless and pragmatic tactical flexibility is in service to an invariant strategic goal. In fact such an approach is the mark of true political intelligence.

Let it be noted that the political and economic interests of Mr. and Mrs. Plutocrat are not generally the same as Mr. and Mrs. Economically Average, let alone Mr. and Mrs. Below Economically Average. Especially not in our new ‘global’ epoch.

Popularity and popularism are not political ‘sins’ except for antinomian oddballs and other ‘blessed saints’ that revel in obscurity but do enjoy the glow of ‘ideological purity’ - usually inside a telephone box or a Mini cooper with the one or two other people that share their ‘vision’.

And yes the politics and culture of USA and Western Europe do significantly diverge on this topic - along with many others. European solutions are unlikely to be applicable in the USA and vice-versa. Of course God only knows (and he probably doesn’t exist) what American “solutions” could possibly look like .

Posted by Rory on Tue, 06 Aug 2013 21:57 | #

I agree the connection between the two interpretations is obvious.

I’m just a bit miffed as to why Bezos is keeping alive an old media dinosaur in his foray into news media. Obviously starting from scratch would be harder, but if Bezos really wants to update it to the internet era, I’m not sure if he’ll be able to free it from those who want “a strangle hold on editorial control of content”.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 07 Aug 2013 04:24 | #

Lister@5

I have been a very strong proponent, for at least two decades, of utilizing populist economic arguments for fighting the immigration invasion, as are such impeccable racialists as well as impeccable free marketeers as the editors of vdare.com. There is no necessary contradiction, at least at the practical level, between support for capitalism, and support for immigration restriction. Indeed, very pragmatically speaking, given that 98%+ of USA immigrants are nonwhite, and that nonwhites vote at rates of 70-95% Democrat (and that the Democrats are, to a man, socialists in the traditional understanding of the term), it is empirically accurate to say that, in today’s context, Immigration = Socialism.

Thus, whatever arguments keep nonwhites out also retard the advance of socialism in the USA. The same is equivalently true in the UK, and indeed everywhere in the white world, as far as I can tell. Can Dr. Lister point to a single example where the majority of nonwhite immigrants pouring into some historically white nation are fierce free enterprisers? As long as nonwhite immigrants are also socialist/welfarist voters, the interests of ethnonationalists and (ideological) capitalists are congruent.

It is therefore perfectly acceptable to point out that immigration, not necessarily theoretically, but as currently constituted, represents a vast transfer of wealth from working classes to plutocrats. One need not be any kind of economic leftist either to acknowledge or oppose this. True conservatives ought to be outflanking their treasonous opponents by pointing out just how badly economic inequality (not something bad in itself, but certainly something objectionable when its origins lie in the exploitation of irreplaceable social and genetic ‘capital’ by purely self-interested types) has been worsened by modern immigration. If Romney had spoken of growing income inequality in the context of the mass-importation of a new immigrant proletariat, he could have soaked up working class white votes without ever mentioning WN issues or concerns, and defeated Obama.

We neither need nor want “negative income taxes” (ie, socialism) or “citizens’ income policies” (ditto) or anything similar. I could spell out why if forced to, but c’mon, these issues were critiqued and defeated decades ago. What most white Americans want is simple justice: no more income transfers, except for the most truly frail or disadvantaged (that’s a sop from me, bowing to empirical voter preferences; I want ZERO SOCIALISM, personally); no bailouts for the rich or for businesses for any reason (there must be subsidies, however, for the defense industry); no more FRB QE, which loots Main Street savers and businesses for the benefit of, first, the Federal Govt, and second, Wall Street (all laissez-fairists hate QE); no more special interest economic rent-seeking; and no more driving down of wage levels through artificial expansions of the labor supply (immigration). Expressed correctly, this agenda is at once populist-communitarian and capitalist, and would, over time, dramatically improve the material quality of life for the majority of Americans, even including nonwhites.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 07 Aug 2013 08:39 | #

Let me add something.

What Lister never seems to understand, whether through obstinacy or obtuseness, is that what particular type of ethnonational political economy is most appropriate from an EGI perspective is totally context dependent, and almost certainly cannot be formulated as a general rule. An independent Scotland might well wish to adopt a “citizen’s income” policy, or some other type of ‘predistribution’ regime, in the interests of deepening fellow-feeling among the citizenry, the sense that “we’re all in this together” (whether it will in fact do so is an open question, whatever Lister assumes without demonstration to the contrary).

I don’t altogether disagree that a purely individualistic economy might be at odds with other areas in which ethnocommunitarianism is to be preferred. But such an economic policy is, at best, only likely to have beneficial, community-building effects where the population has thus far remained homogeneous. That is, it would be a pre-multicultural policy enacted so as to prevent future multicultural decay.

Where a population has already substantially ‘diversified’ itself, as in the US, such policies only exacerbate and enlarge the scope of tribal ‘rent-seeking’. A more firmly established general rule seems to be that the more diverse a country is, the fewer the opportunities for wealth redistribution or interference with property rights there ought to be.

If communitarian (but never ruinous communist) economics might enhance ethnosurvival under non-diverse conditions, it almost certainly will hurt white EGI under diversity, and especially under the types of diversity plaguing the US, UK, and Western Europe. Basically, blacks and Muslims are simply morally inferior in all ways to whites, and thus any socialist policies which include them will cause whites to suffer proportionately as a result.

What is killing the USA is neither leftist economics, nor racial integration per se, but the inevitable combination of the two.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 07 Aug 2013 17:08 | #

I’ve made an air-tight case for the citizens dividend based on individual anarchism.  No one has even tried to refute it because they know they can’t.  They simply resort to argument by assertion and hope the idea will go away, along with the existence if not the very memory of nineteenth century, American frontier libertarianism and its roots in the nation of settlers.

Nineteenth century individualist anarchism in the United States according to Wikipedia

Rothbard was influenced by the work of the 19th-century American individualist anarchists[58] (who were also influenced by classical liberalism). In the winter of 1949, influenced by several 19th century individualists anarchists, Rothbard decided to reject minimal state laissez-faire and embrace individualist anarchism.[59] Rothbard said in 1965[60] “Lysander Spooner and Benjamin T. Tucker were unsurpassed as political philosophers and nothing is more needed today than a revival and development of the largely forgotten legacy they left to political philosophy.”

The article goes on to ignore what Spooner said about government in “No Treason:  The Constitution of No Authority”:

It is true that the THEORY of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected.

And Spooner’s “Trial by Jury” section “Taxation”:

All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.

A mutual insurance company, whose object is the establishment of artificial property rights will, in its “articles of the association” be required by the signatory, “if he be a man of sense”, to pay a dividend to him as a voting share holder. As a corollary, this man of sense will also demand terms in the articles of the association that amount to “the politics of exclusion” which will necessarily mean immigration restriction to the land rights enforced by the mutual insurance company; and also exclusion from membership in the association those who do not add to the value of membership in it.

The primary argument that leftists make against this is basically that too many men have taken leave of their senses.

The primary argument that rightists make against this is—to ignore it and blather endlessly about the libraries of nonsense inspired by Jewish “scholars” of “libertarianism”.

I leave it to you, gentle reader, to discern which is the more rational opposition.

Posted by Melba Peachtoste on Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:56 | #

I second James. From Ayers Rock to Cooper’s creek, let a chorus of assent rise from the throat of each wallaby!

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 08 Aug 2013 08:04 | #

At least in this thread there finally seems to be some recognition on the part of the usual economic adversaries that there is a plain difference between the US and European countries - so obvious, but important, that I don’t know why it was ignored.

But I would guess/hope that in either case, whether our European side or our American side, that we would not particularly want our socialism, to whatever extent it exists, even if it is just “social capital” to extend to non-natives/non-Whites.

Which is why I find this statement from Leon to be anachronistic hubris:

“Expressed correctly, this agenda is at once populist-communitarian and capitalist, and would, over time, dramatically improve the material quality of life for the majority of Americans, even including nonwhites.”

And this refusal to deal with the underlying matters to be disingenuous:

“If Romney had spoken of growing income inequality in the context of the mass-importation of a new immigrant proletariat, he could have soaked up working class white votes without ever mentioning WN issues or concerns, and defeated Obama.”

“If Romney:”..

IF

and IF then Maybe

“What is killing the USA is neither leftist economics, nor racial integration per se, but the inevitable combination of the two.”

Why is it inevitable? It is not inevitable. I doubt anybody here really wants to extend their social safety net and shared resource to non-Whites.

Extending it to non-Whites ad infinitum is the concern of your Jewish friends and their client minorities.

“Basically, blacks and Muslims are simply morally inferior in all ways to whites, and thus any socialist policies which include them will cause whites to suffer proportionately as a result.”

And Jews are not morally inferior?

Jim says:

“The primary argument that leftists make against this is basically that too many men have taken leave of their senses.”

People who wish to play the objectivist game, taking leave of their senses, might like to pretend there is a necessary disagreement where there is not necessarily one at all.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 08 Aug 2013 11:33 | #

Then again, this is a good time for Silver to return to Cyprus (I couldn’t resist )

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 08 Aug 2013 11:37 | #

Today’s (July 23 2013) Pew Research poll paints a clear picture of the Obama defectors. They’re almost exclusively white voters without a college degree. Obama’s standing among minorities, college educated whites, and affluent whites has actually improved since the final Pew Research poll before last November’s presidential election. Instead, Obama’s support among white working-class voters has taken a huge hit, opening an unprecedented 41 point education gap among white voters. Incredibly, the poll now even shows Obama with a stronger approval rating among affluent whites than downscale whites—something that’s never happened for a Democrat in a presidential election.

Fuck the white rich. They care more about themselves than their race (trust me: I’ve seen this in clients, too many times to even notice anymore).

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 08 Aug 2013 12:39 | #

Fuck the white rich. They care more about themselves than their race (trust me: I’ve seen this in clients, too many times to even notice anymore).

It’s hard not to chase that bone, especially after Leon has ignored a few snipes.

Yes, I even have a few family members who are that way.

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 09 Aug 2013 10:33 | #

Not exactly on point, but I came across this site, found this article, and thought it relevant to the white cause in general (note the casual racialism -would anyone but an open WN ever write something like this for whites?):

A Plea For Black Unity.
August 6, 2013 by Staff  

(ThyBlackMan.com) I write this from a very personal point of view.

Marcus Book Store, the oldest Black bookstore in the country, is on the verge of being evicted from their home and business location in San Francisco. Why?  Because some people involved made some bad choices, and because we as Black people have abandoned our community.

I say community, but only in word and not actual definition. We as Black people really don’t have a real community anymore. We have neighborhoods where we live, but no community. Now, even our neighborhoods are being taken away from us. Why? Because we as a people have allowed our neighborhoods to be taken because of our selfish, individual ways. We act like whatever happens is okay as long as it doesn’t affect us, except when something so outrageous happens, like the Trayvon Martin murder.  Then we finally stand together. Why do we always wait for the worst-case scenario to happen before we come together?

Have we become so desensitized to what is going on that we literally don’t care about what happens to our families, friends, businesses, and community? These are some serious questions that need to be answered if we are to ever come together as a real community. I admit I don’t have all the answers, but I do know it starts and ends with us. We can’t continue to blame people outside our community for the things that are happening now inside our community.

Yes, it’s a fact that our problems were initially created by people outside the community, and racism is alive and well, but we have taken those problems and expanded them to the point where it’s acceptable for our daughters to be whores and our sons to be bastards. We now pass this mindset on, from generation to generation. I don’t need to go into details about these problems; they’re talked about on a daily basis.

But instead of working together to solve our problems, we continue to look outside for the solution when the solution stares at you in the mirror everyday. The troubles of Marcus Book Store are a microcosm of a bigger problem. If we care so little about some of our most important institutions, then what does that say about us as a people?

Marcus Book Store was created to house and showcase some of our greatest writers, historians, educators, inventors, and others who look like us. Over the years the family that founded and runs the store has worked with the Black Panthers in the sixties, held meetings for other important groups, and created space for the community, in the days when we really had community in San Francisco, and still do this today. They educated the uneducated, including myself. They easily and eagerly shared their knowledge and wisdom with whoever came in the store to ask them. Those that created and sustained Marcus Book Store have done more things than I have room to write about. You can look them up and see for yourselves the contributions they’ve made to the total Black community in San Francisco, across the country, and across the world.

I put part of the blame for the fall of our communities and institutions on our so-called leadership. They are the biggest examples of selfish and individualistic attitudes. They only come out when the cameras are around or when it’s in their best interest. They continue to tell us to rely on the government as our savior, when in fact we’re the only ones who can save us.

This leads to the fact that we are also to blame for the situation we find ourselves in as a community. I believe and know we can solve our own problems if we only do the thing that brought us out of slavery and allowed us to make it this far. That most important thing is Unity. Our ancestors can’t be resting peacefully knowing that what they fought, struggled, and died for has led us to abandon each other in order to fit into the ways of others outside of our communities.

So what is the solution? The solution is simple, not easy, but simple. We have to start spending more time and money with people who are already solving the problems in our community. Black people are solving problems all across the country.  You don’t hear much about them because they’re too busy working on the problems. They’re not looking for the cameras. They rarely get recognition, until someone finally reports about the great things they’re doing or have done in many cases, or we hear that their work is being endangered.

The family that founded Marcus Book Store means the world to me and to many others who’ve had the honor and pleasure to meet them. If we don’t support such people and their institutions, people and institutions who have given their all to make sure we know who we are and what we need to do, then who will?  Who will we blame for not supporting the real people who support us? Look in the mirror. 

Staff Writer; Terrance Amen

Posted by Sambo on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 03:29 | #

“You can look them up and see for yourselves the contributions they’ve made to the total Black community in San Francisco, across the country, and across the world.”

All 5 of them.

Posted by Wild Bill on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 13:22 | #

In about 1995, when the US Congress was making noise about getting rid of the IRS, Bill Clinton told a gathering of the tribe not to worry if the proposed law passed, that he would veto it, to much applause.

Then he added, the tax code is how we, do you get it - we, control the economy.

There is only one legitimate tax, the transaction tax.  Make it what ever is necessary to supply the programs needed for the imagined utopia.  All middlemen are eliminated. 

All property tax abolished.  Grandma can stay on the farm and mom and dad can live out their lives at home. 
The rich will no longer need an army of accountants and the banks can help pay for all the infrastructure instead of sitting in the catbird seat all the time.

To show how serious they are about NOT having a transactions tax just google it.

Here is a start:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10006501/Britain-launches-legal-challenge-to-Financial-Transaction-Tax.html

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 14:36 | #

A transaction is not a State of affairs.  A transaction is a State transition.  A property right is a State of affairs.  Your “right” to engage in a transaction is supported by the State only as a consequence of the State’s support of the State of affairs embodied in property rights.

If it is grandma you are worried about, think about grandma in the State of Nature vs the State in which she has a citizen’s dividend.

Posted by Wild Bill on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 16:01 | #

I believe this is demonstrable: Everyone would like some more money. 

The question is: where does it (the reference dividend) come from?

If the dividend comes from existing or static assets, like property tax on grandma’s old farm, then the farm is actually contracting in value.  Assuming that it is not presently being worked because grandma is in retirement, grandpa dead having worked himself to death on the farm.  In this scenario some percentage of the farm must be sold off to pay taxes of which you propose she will get a dividend.

In my new world we do not hem and haw.  We openly admit that the world exists because of the active people who build and create, who buy and sell and add value.  Our Grandmothers are valuable to us and we want them to live long happy lives helping us raise our children.  While we do not subscribe to the concept of perpetuities it is not and will not be necessary for Grandmother to sell the farm to pay property taxes so that she might somehow get a state stipend or to support others who get benefits paid from her depreciating assets..

The money for dividends and the general fund must come from a tax on transactions.

For example:

MR pays JB $1000 in the form of a check. 

JB deposits this into his account. 

The receiving bank credits the account with $999 forwarding the $1 to the governments tax receiving account.  That is it. 

No accountants, no tax bracket, no subjective valuations. 

The tax is .1%.  This amount is probably too high but if it is not then raise it. 

Everyone pays the same tax.

Pretty simple.

The Dutch dental association does the same thing for their subscribers retirement accounts.

Another example: 

Facebook goes public. 

$13 Billion raised in twelve seconds. 

Thus far the government fund got nothing. 

In my system they would have gotten $13 Million. 

Grandma would be watching the kids and momma and I would be off making another beautiful and handsome Aryan child.

What is it about this you do not get?

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 18:58 | #

Your argument is so riddled with errors and sloppy thinking I will take it only one piece at a time since any one of these errors demolishes your position.

Let’s just talk about grandma’s farm for starters—and I hope your religious commitment to your bad idea won’t continue to confabulate and exponentiation into endless argumentation.

Grandma and grandpa on the farm used to be mom and dad on the farm back when they were both alive and able to keep it productive and the kids were kids and had no business running a farm.  Right?  That much is obvious, I would hope.

Now, the kids grow up on the farm and learn the skills necessary to run it.  Dad dies.  Mom grows old.  The, now grown, kids move off the farm and work for an Indian immigrant at 7-11 for minimum wage trying to afford to have kids of their own.

Oops!

BTW, if you haven’t been conscious for the last 40 years, Mr. Let’s Genocide The White Race, this is exactly the scenario that has contributed to the demographic collapse of the US nation of settlers by tens of millions during that period.

Posted by Hymie in Afula on Mon, 12 Aug 2013 00:04 | #

a levy on a THING is a tax.  The THING is at risk of being seized if the levy is not paid. If you don’t pay your property tax, you are not in jeopardy of being criminally prosecuted - there is merely a civil process to seize the house and then re-sell it to satisfy the levy.

a levy on an EVENT is an EXCISE. If you don’t pay the levy, you are committing a criminal act.

The “income tax” is not levied on the “income”, else it would lay even if you died and never received it.  It is actually an excise levied against your transaction of receiving the money.

The opposition to an “income tax” is due to the idea that one has a Natural Right to support oneself by gaining an income. And rights cannot be taxed.

Posted by Classic Sparkle on Tue, 13 Aug 2013 05:24 | #

Clever Heeb!

Now at this point I expect the usual suspects (Mr. Haller et al.) to pipe up about the evils of clientelism and the inherently bad effects of government spending etc. All the bog standard neo-liberal tropes. Yawn.

Indeed, Roepke emphasized the transformative power of the private garden. As he wrote, the keeping of a family garden “was not only ‘the purest of human pleasures’ but also offered the indispensable natural foundation for family life and the upbringing of children.” In praising the “Magnetism of the Garden,” he told the story of a friend who was showing the family gardens of several workers to a “dogmatic old-time liberal;” some think this was Ludwig von Mises. In any cause, Roepke continued: “on seeing these happy people spending their free evenings in their gardens,” the laissez-faire liberal “could think of nothing better than the cool remark this was an irrational form of vegetable production.” Roepke retorted: “He could not get it into his head that it was a very rational form of ‘happiness production’ which surely is what matters most.”

The necessary task, he said, was broader still: a “deproletarization” that would take industrial workers who lacked roots in “home, property, environment, family and occupation” and transform them into free men.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 13 Aug 2013 21:06 | #

That “dogmatic old-time liberal” reminds me of a hard-core leftist I know who, during a conversation about China, when I pointed out the inhumanity of the massive urbanization of the rural Chinese, virtually screeched: “But they aren’t doing anything!”

Posted by Lurker on Fri, 16 Aug 2013 02:21 | #

Like the gardening quote. Anecdotally - gardeners do seem better adjusted people on the whole.