Dunning-Kruger + Gamma = Aaron

The most intellectually challenged gamma at File 770, much to everyone’s surprise, doubles down.

I disagree. I think I’m very smart. And you’re dumb. I’m easily smarter than most people on this blog, including Vox. Vox said something pretty stupid, and instead of having the balls to man up, he doubled down. I’m not impressed. At all.

Easily smarter… than people with confirmed +3SD and +4SD IQs. I have no doubt whatsoever that he believes that, as he’s an example of both Dunning-Kruger Syndrome and Vox’s First Law in action.

What’s particularly funny about this is that he’s referring to this post. Notice how much of it is devoted to intelligence and immigration. Aaron, as wounded Gammas are wont to do, leaped to attack one minor point that he interpreted to be in error, then attempted to build an entire edifice of discredit and disqualify upon it, even going so far as to claim, on that basis, that “You always double down. I’ve never seen you concede any point at any time anywhere.”

No doubt this would confuse James Miller, Robert Murphy, and Thomas Woods, to say nothing of Ian Fletcher, to whom I have conceded considerably more than just a single point. Some other readers attempted to explain to Aaron that he’d missed the salient point, which he not only ended up rejecting but also claims I did not mean despite the readily available evidence to the contrary.

So, the immigration of stupid people has created conditions that make the super smart innovators have less babies, and that many of the super smart who have babies do so with Mexican fruit pickers and Somali gangsters and such like.

THAT’S what Vox meant when he said the immigration of stupid people has led to a lower average national IQ, and thus fewer smart people to be entrepreneurs.

If you SERIOUSLY think this is what Vox meant, then that’s a perfectly coherent position, although to my mind, not plausible.

But I for one, don’t think that’s what vox meant.

Of course it is part of what Vox meant, though only part, as should be obvious to anyone who is familiar with my writing about feminism’s effect on declining Western intelligence. One wonders what else I could have possibly meant, considering the following:


As the average IQ of the population declines, the number of members of the cognitive elite being born similarly decline. If the smart population mixes with the less intelligent immigrants, or even fails to breed at replacement levels, the ABSOLUTE number of smart people will decline. Do either of those scenarios happen to apply here?

Of course, both scenarios do. Aaron’s assertion of my “error” relied upon no native-immigrant intermixing and non-declining birthrates among the native cognitive elite, both false assumptions. What Aaron is exhibiting, in addition to the usual gamma “You are wrong and stupid due to incorrect assumptions on my part”, is typical SJW reasoning in action.They are binary thinkers, which renders complexity a complete mystery to them. That’s why they think that “well, it’s more complex than that” is a sufficient rebuttal, because the possibility of unraveling the complexities and successfully accounting for more than one influential factor is not only beyond their capabilities, but beyond their actions.

Notice how the SJW ends up relying upon his interpretation of what he imagines the other person to be thinking so that he can himself the victor, regardless of what every other observer concludes. The Secret King triumphs again, if only in his own head. But usually, the gamma doesn’t pay enough attention to what others are saying to even understand them correctly.

But isn’t that exactly the point? They’re in a position of weakness, so they’re using bluster and bravado to regain momentum. Thats what I said. File this under “making my point for me again” dpt. You’re good at that, vox.

No, it’s not exactly the point. Aaron failed to understand that I was correcting his statement that “pushing through their agenda in an even more ruthless and uncompromising way is the best tactic they have to deal with a moment of weakness”.  Yes, we both agree that the EU elite is in a position of weakness, which is precisely why bluster and bravado is not their best tactic if they wish the EU to survive. To the contrary, it’s a very risky bluff, which the Euroskeptics should call and exploit to the full, in order to destroy the entire edifice.

The sad thing about the gamma is that he neither knows himself nor his enemies. That is why he is, per Sun Tzu, destined for repeated failure:

YOU’RE answering ME, but it is *I* who engage in the detestable gamma behavior of never letting things go or lashing back – and since when are you known for letting go or refraining from lashing back? I get it. When you do it, it’s super duper genius rhetoric alpha Aristotle stuff, when anyone else, why, it’s a gamma. 

Yes, you are indeed a gamma male. No, you clearly don’t get it. Let’s consider the facts.

  • I very seldom write about Aaron or pay any attention to his activities. Even when I did, recently, he was not the topic at hand. The battle on A Game of Thrones was.
  • Aaron frequently opines about me and my various activities, as a search of File 770’s comments will demonstrate.
  • Aaron is here commenting repeatedly on my blog. That’s fine, but the point is, he came here to do it because he is still feeling butthurt about his risible defense of the LEEEROY JENKINS strategy in the Stark-Bolton battle. His response was so predictable that another game-savvy reader even predicted it.
  • I often respond to critics who comment on this blog. That was not a unique event.
  • I let go of most attacks directed at me. As numerous critics who comment here can testify, I don’t even reply to most of them, let alone lash back at all of them. Moreover, I am quite willing to let bygones be bygones, as numerous commenters with whom I have had differences in the past can also testify.

Unlike the gamma, I don’t dwell upon past injuries and insults, licking my wounds and biding my time until an opportunity to lash back presents itself. Nor do I feel any need to reinterpret past defeats as victories, or pretend to myself and others that my failures are successes. I don’t pretend to understand why gammas behave in this way, but I have observed the pattern of behavior often enough to be able to reliably predict it. Since most male SF-SJWs are gammas, it’s not hard to anticipate their reactions to any given stimulus.

UPDATE: Oh dear. Timing, it seems, is everything.

Aaron: It is masculine to admit when you’re wrong. Just very few people do it, and certainly not vox.

Two hours ago on Twitter:

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
Daikatana was, like my Rebel Moon designs, too ambitious for its own good.

John Romero ‏@romero
it wasn’t an ambitious design that was Daikatana’s problem

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
I stand corrected.


Reviews of The Missionaries

Rawle Nynanzi reviews Owen Stanley’s satirical bestseller, The Missionaries:

When academic theories collide with practical reality, fun is had by all and sundry. The Missionaries is a hilarious book that will have you turning the page to see how badly a UN bureaucrat’s quest to modernize a distant tribe can go — and believe me, it goes really wrong. It shows the limits of the academic way of thinking while making you laugh all the way.

In the book, Dr. Prout is on a mission from the UN to develop the tribes of Elephant Island. As he does this, he finds himself going up against Roger Fletcher, a local administrator who prefers to let the tribes live as they always have, with him smoothing over any disputes. Despite Fletcher’s crude behavior and jokes about the natives’ culture, he clearly understands and respects them on a fundamental level. Dr. Prout, on the other hand, strides in like a know-it-all, spouting a mix of UN propaganda and left-wing orthodoxy while making no effort to understand the people in front of him. Most of the book’s humor comes from the collision of Fletcher’s practicality and Prout’s theoretical thinking…. I would proudly say that I loved the book. Highly recommended.

While you’re on Nyanzi’s site, I recommend having a look at his interesting take on proposition nations and the problem with them.

Some other comments about The Missionaries by reviewers.

  • A fun read that reminds me of Voltaire’s Candide.
  • This book is absolutely hilarious and a must buy. 6 stars out of 5.
  • I cannot praise the craftsmanship that went into the plot too highly; the entire novel is as tight-knit as a Chekov short story.
  • The way the bureaucrat reinterprets everything to fit his academic theories will leave you rolling on the floor.
  • HitchHikers Guide meets social justice warriors in a United Nations 3rd world development project.

I think it should now be clear that we have not exaggerated, in the least, how good this book is. If you haven’t picked up a copy yet, you really, truly, should. When readers are openly comparing it to Voltaire, Chekov, and Douglas Adams, you know it is a classic-in-the-making.


A Game of Thrones: rounding the curve

With the end of season six, A Game of Thrones is now approaching the final stretch, and indeed, it does appear to be increasing its pace now that the finish line is in sight. Since those who haven’t seen the most recent season will probably prefer we avoid any spoilers at the top, I shall begin by linking to a self-described demographics nerd’s article on the intrinsic absurdity of Westeros:

Westeros is an interesting setting for lots of reasons: characters, plot, writing, the fact that there’s a high-production-value HBO series, take your pick. There are lots of reasons for it to be popular or to capture interest. But what bothers me, as a really picky nerd, is when people think that it’s a particularly well-crafted setting. It is not. Westeros is shoddily assembled as far as political, cultural, or demographic realism goes. There is too much dynastic stability, too little cultural, linguistic, and ethnic diversity, the basic size of the world seems to change to fit the immediate exigencies of the plot, the cities and armies are implausibly large in many cases, and even careful analysis makes it hard to determine even a wide ballpark for population. None of these criticisms matter in a setting not trading on its claims to a kind of “realism.” But for a setting whose market value in some sense depends on its “realism,” yeah, it’s an issue.

Don’t continue past the jump if you don’t wish to encounter spoilers.


The interesting thing about the most recent season, of course, is the fact that it had to venture completely beyond the territory of the published books in Martin’s epic series. This was both good and bad, in that at times the producers seemed to have freed themselves from some of Martin’s idiosyncracies, while at others, they did so only to resort to clumsy Hollywood cliches that were even worse.

For example, the second-to-last episode was a painful exercise in grrl power combined with multiple stupidities so epic that I almost concluded the only reasonable way to bring the series to a just end was to go full SJW and full meta, have Danerys marry Yara under canopy of rainbow banners, then have Tyrion mount the stage and break the fourth wall to declare “love wins!” If nothing else, it would have made me laugh to see the show end with a bang by not merely jumping the shark, but going into orbit over it.

And then, somehow, the season was salvaged by the last episode, with Cersei wreaking astonishing havoc on her domestic enemies, only to fail in her goals yet again due to her total failure to understand anything about other people, even the people she loves most. Cersei is a truly great character, a genuinely great villainess, whose ruthlessness is consistently undermined by her pride and her narcissism.

(Sure, the unnecessary drama was ridiculous, with the Sparrow being stabbed, but left to live, so that he could crawl close to the candles, but not soon enough to extinguish them. One thing I increasingly dislike about the producers is their addiction to cheap and unconvincing drama. Trust the story, gentlemen, trust the story!)

King Tomlin’s suicide was even more shocking than the wildfire bombing, but it was entirely in character, as his despair at losing his wife was magnified by his knowledge that he would never escape the control of his ruthless mother, and by his guilt at the murder of the High Sparrow and the religious hierarchy. It will be interesting to see if the people will revolt; I doubt it, but historically, that would be the most probable outcome. The analogy is flawed, but it reminded me a little of the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre, which was, at least traditionally, also believed to have been instigated by a queen.

Only the scene between Danerys and her lover, Daario Naharis, was on the lame side; let’s face it, he’s coming out of it rather well for a mercenary captain, seeing as Mereen is being turned over to him for an indefinite period. Whether he loves her or not, the man is a mercenary, and frankly, it would have been more in character for him to fake dismay at being left behind, then cheerfully return to a chamber full of Mereen beauties. Regardless, the invasion fleet with the dragons flying over them was an awesome sight.

It was also interesting to note that Sansa came out and admitted what had only been conjectured after last week’s lunacy; she had known all along that the Knights of the Vale were on their way. Yes, Sansa, you really should have told your brother and his commanders that while they were planning their little battle. It was, to put it mildly, pertinent. The entire setup was, as I and many others correctly surmised, an idiot plot to set up some artificial drama to cap off the equally idiotic battle between Stark and Bolton.

The Arya plot, too, was overwrought, but at least its excessive drama was a nod to classical mythology, specifically, King Tantalus of Phrygia being served his son Pelops in a pie.

Now it looks as if everything is being set up for Danerys to defeat Cersei, join Jon in fighting the White Walkers, and just when defeat appears imminent, the Three-Eyed Raven figures out how to break the spell and magically destroy them all in the nick of time. If the story was left up to the producers, that would be a safe assumption, which would presumably end with the marriage of Jon to Daneyris. But given Rape Rape’s continued involvement, I wouldn’t entirely count out the possibility that winter triumphs over all.

That, I have to say, would make for a much more interesting end to the saga.


The mask comes off

Remember, the EU proponents always swore up and down that it was not a political project. Of course, as some of us always knew, they lied. Now they’re not even bothering to pretend otherwise anymore, as in reaction to Brexit, two foreign ministers propose eliminating all the other national member-states before any other nations are able to escape globalist rule.

The foreign ministers of France and Germany are due to reveal a blueprint to effectively do away with individual member states in what is being described as an “ultimatum”. Under the radical proposals EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all those powers being transferred to Brussels.

Controversially member states would also lose what few controls they have left over their own borders, including the procedure for admitting and relocating refugees.  The plot has sparked fury and panic in Poland – a traditional ally of Britain in the fight against federalism – after being leaked to Polish news channel TVP Info.

The public broadcaster reported the bombshell proposal would be presented to a meeting of the Visegrad group of countries – made up of Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia – by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

In the preamble to the text the two ministers write: “Our countries share a common destiny and a common set of values that give rise to an even closer union between our citizens. We will therefore strive for a political union in Europe and invite the next Europeans to participate in this venture.”

The revelations come just days after Britain shook the Brussels establishment by voting to leave the European Union in a move some have predicted could leave to the break-up of the EU.

A number of member states are deeply unhappy about the creeping federalism of the European project with anti-EU sentiments running high in eastern Europe, Scandinavia and France.

I can’t think of anything that will bring about Fixit and Frexit and Nexit, and any number of additional exits faster, than the EU doubling down on political integration. It’s prodigiously stupid in any event; it could not be more obvious that economic integration has completely failed. But, as we know, SJWs always double down, and apparently there is no amount of failure and democratic rejection that will even slow down the globalists in their mad grasp for international power.

I have never been more certain that the EU will collapse, hopefully sooner rather than later. Socionomics always predicted the EU’s failure to be inevitable, but now we’re actually beginning to see it happen.


Destroying Ukraine to save it

The Saker is concerned that Ukraine is the next Syria to be “saved” by the USA:

The initial plan was to make the Ukraine a sort of “black hole” which would suck in all the economic, political, and military resources of Russia, ideally by having Russia occupying the Donbass. But now that the Russians have declined to get sucked in, it is Europe which is now threatened with the Ukrainian black hole.

The Americans probably realize by now that it is too late to put Humpty Dumpty together again and they are right. While, in theory, a join effort of the USA, EU and Russia could, at a huge cost, try to rebuild the Ukraine, political realities make such a joint action impossible, at least for the foreseeable future. They also realize that, courtesy of Mrs Nuland’s candid words, the blame for the disastrous outcome in the Ukraine will be put on the USA (which is not quite fair, the Europeans are also guilty as hell, but such is life). And if “losing Syria” was bad enough, then “losing the Ukraine” will do irreparable damage to the USA simply by debunking the myth of the USA’s omnipotence. This is very serious, especially for an Empire which has basically given up on negotiations or diplomacy and which now only delivers ultimatums.

So what are the US options here?

It is hard to predict at this time what the US might try to do. The normal US practice in such a situation is to simply declare victory and leave. That would work in Africa or Asia, but smack in the middle of the European continent that is hardly an option as it would result in a PR disaster.

The second option could be to basically blame the Ukrainians themselves for everything and try to protect Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Moldova from the inevitable consequences of the spreading chaos. The risk here, at least from the US point of view, is that Russia and her Novorussian allies would be more or less free to move in the created vacuum and that is something the USA absolutely cannot accept. The Americans would have visions of Zakharchenko in Kiev or pro-Russian riots in Odessa and that is simply beyond unacceptable.

Which leaves option three: to deliberately blow up the Ukraine.

It’s going to be fascinating to see what happens once President Trump is able to put the leash on the foreign policy lunatics who still think they can control the world through their ever-judicious interventions. Did no one ever explain to them that breaking things is a) is not controlling them, and b) is a lot easier than controlling them?


The education of the SJWs

This is exactly how you respond to SJW entryism:

I was able to get a summer internship at a company that does work in the industry I want to work in after I graduate. Even though the division I was hired to work in doesn’t deal with clients or customers, there still was a very strict dress code. I felt the dress code was overly strict but I wasn’t going to say anything, until I noticed one of the workers always wore flat shoes that were made from a fabric other than leather, or running shoes, even though both of these things were contrary to the dress code.

I spoke with my manager about being allowed some leeway under the dress code and was told this was not possible, despite the other person being allowed to do it. I soon found out that many of the other interns felt the same way, and the ones who asked their managers about it were told the same thing as me. We decided to write a proposal stating why we should be allowed someone leeway under the dress code. We accompanied the proposal with a petition, signed by all of the interns (except for one who declined to sign it) and gave it to our managers to consider. Our proposal requested that we also be allowed to wear running shoes and non leather flats, as well as sandals (not flip-flops though) and other non-dress shoes that would fit under a more business casual dress code. It was mostly about the footwear, but we also incorporated a request that we not have to wear suits and/or blazers in favor of a more casual, but still professional dress code.

The next day, all of us who signed the petition were called into a meeting where we thought our proposal would be discussed. Instead, we were informed that due to our “unprofessional” behavior, we were being let go from our internships. We were told to hand in our ID badges and to gather our things and leave the property ASAP.

We were shocked.

FANTASTIC! That, ladies and gentlemen, is the optimal way to handle SJWs. Once they positively identify themselves as such, fire them and have them immediately escorted off the property.

For more on how to deal with SJWs, well, you know where to find it.


The insanity of Pink SF

Imagine, if you will, the idea of “species-neutral” fiction. And in that school of writing, it was decided by those who adhere to it that true literary quality was determined by how closely the author managed to eliminate all signs of what species an animal belonged to. The more difficult it was to determine whether an animal was a cat or a dog, the harder it was to distinguish between a horse and a cow, or a rabbit and fox, the better the writing was considered to be.

Do you think that this new school of writing might have an effect if books like Watership Down or Misty of Chincoteague or even Mr. Popper’s Penguins were rewritten? Do you think this species-neutrality would it change them for the better or for the worse?

Because, you see, that is much the same effect that the race-neutrality and sex-neutrality have on Pink SF books and short stories. And yet, that is precisely their objective! McCreepy, otherwise known as Tor Books author Jim C. Hines, explains the ideal way for a Pink SF writer duly devoted to race- and sex-neutrality to improve her writing.

I would, of course, have written “his writing” according to the rules of English grammar, but I am interested in improving my literary style and I am reliably informed that “gender-swapping” is the way to do it.

Jim C. Hines
Years ago, I went back and rewrote a story, changing from a male PoV protagonist to female. It was educational and eye-opening, and made me see a lot of unconscious and ingrained assumptions I’d been carrying.

Samizdat
I did that with my WIP, swapped the male lead to female, then had the same people read what I had so far. The women loved it, the men hated it, whereas before the men loved it, and the women were just sorta meh about it. Made me decide to leave it as a female lead. I figured, if it was making the men so uncomfortable, then I was doing something right.

John L. Payton
You’ve demonstrated an excellent exercise here, one that any writers’ group would do well to adopt. If the piece sounds unrealistic when gender-swapped, then it needs more work. I intend to keep this in mind. Thank you.

Jim C. Hines
Masculinity can be toxic as hell. We could do whole books about the physical and emotional rigidity, the brutal punishment for men who stray too far from the narrowly-defined idea of what a man “should” be, the obsession with power and control and the damage that does to men and the people around them, and so much more. Getting rid of sexism and creating a more aware and accepting culture when it comes to gender would benefit everyone involved, not just women.

What is astonishing, and all too telling, is Samizdat’s reaction to the men hating her protagonist. Instead of deciding that it is a terrible idea to intentionally pursue a strategy that her readers hate, she decides that cramming it down their throats is “doing something right”. And then these people are surprised and dismayed when they discover that no one is interested in buying or reading their books.

Just remember, if there are any observable differences in the behavior of male and female characters in your writing, they must be eradicated. Also, please try to avoid using the terms “cat” and “dog”, as they, too, are offensive. The preferred term is “companion animal of indeterminate species”.

They really believe this nonsense. Sarah Hoyt’s term, “grey goo”, is apt indeed. I’ve written before about how their moralblindness renders their works devoid of color to their artistic detriment, but now they have thrown out perspective and are intentionally blurring the monochromatic lines as well. They are intentionally doing their best to render their works flat, unrealistic, and devoid of life, so it should come as no surprise that they have succeeded so well in doing so.


The prison of peoples

Marine Le Pen writes a powerful argument for nationalism and the end of the EU in the New York Times:

The European Union has become a prison of peoples. Each of the 28 countries that constitute it has slowly lost its democratic prerogatives to commissions and councils with no popular mandate. Every nation in the union has had to apply laws it did not want for itself. Member nations no longer determine their own budgets. They are called upon to open their borders against their will.

Countries in the eurozone face an even less enviable situation. In the name of ideology, different economies are forced to adopt the same currency, even if doing so bleeds them dry. It’s a modern version of the Procrustean bed, and the people no longer have a say.

And what about the European Parliament? It’s democratic in appearance only, because it’s based on a lie: the pretense that there is a homogeneous European people, and that a Polish member of the European Parliament has the legitimacy to make law for the Spanish. We have tried to deny the existence of sovereign nations. It’s only natural that they would not allow being denied.

Brexit wasn’t the European people’s first cry of revolt. In 2005, France and the Netherlands held referendums about the proposed European Union constitution. In both countries, opposition was massive, and other governments decided on the spot to halt the experiment for fear the contagion might spread. A few years later, the European Union constitution was forced on the people of Europe anyway, under the guise of the Lisbon Treaty. In 2008, Ireland, also by way of referendum, refused to apply that treaty. And once again, a popular decision was brushed aside.

When in 2015 Greece decided by referendum to reject Brussels’ austerity plans, the European Union’s antidemocratic response took no one by surprise: To deny the people’s will had become a habit. In a flash of honesty, the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, unabashedly declared, “There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties.”

Brexit may not have been the first cry of hope, but it may be the people’s first real victory.

With eloquent nationalist leaders like her, Viktor Orban, and Matteo Salvini, among others there is reason to believe it will not be the last one. The EU is immoral, unnatural, anti-democratic, and evil. The sooner it collapses, the better off everyone will be.

The globalists are the Nazis of the 30s and 40s and the Communists of the Cold War. They are the enemy of Man. As Le Pen aptly notes, “more and more, the destiny of the European Union resembles the destiny of the Soviet Union, which died from its own contradictions.”


Another day, another bomb

We’re beginning to learn what life was like during the anarchist bombings of the late 19th and early 20th century:

Turkish newspaper Hurriyet is reporting that two explosions have occurred at Istanbul’s Atatürk Airport. The mayor of Istanbul has confirmed 28 deaths and 50 injuries.

Officials have confirmed that three attackers orchestrated the attack. At least one opened fire with an AK-47 firearm before detonating a suicide bomb he was wearing. Two other attackers committed suicide attacks on other areas of the airport.

Update 6:25PM EST: Authorities are now placing the death toll at closer to 50, according to the Associated Press. The AP also notes that senior Turkish officials are leaning toward the Islamic State as the possible culprits of the attack.

Imagine what it will be like if the EU grants the free movement of peoples to Turkey. Britain was wise to vote out when they did.


Declaring economic independence

Think what you will of Trump, the man has great rhetoric:

Trump, in his speech, portrayed Clinton as an agent of a status quo “that worships globalism over Americanism” and criticized her past support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which he described as “the deathblow for American manufacturing.”

He said the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was signed by Bill Clinton, was a “disaster” and pointed to the Clintons support for normalizing trade relations with China.

He said that, as president, he would dramatically overhaul the way the country approaches trade, threatening to wield new tariffs and taxes to push his way.

“Ladies and gentlemen, It’s time to declare our economic independence once again,” he said.

He vowed to renegotiate North American Free Trade Agreement to get a better deal “by a lot, not just a little,” for American workers – and threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the deal if his proposals aren’t agreed.

“We already have a trade war. And were losing badly,” Trump said.

Trump understands, as the globalists do not, that only one side is required to fight for a state of war to exist.

Make America Great Again.

UPDATE: in light of his attacks on Mr. Trump’s economic policies, I have challenged Ben Shapiro to a debate on free trade.

Ben Shapiro ‏@benshapiro
Trumponomics is garbage stacked on other garbage stacked on flaming piles of dog crap 

Trump’s entire plan to create jobs relies on trade protectionism – the single most debunked economic fallacy of the last two centuries, an idea so bad that it has largely reduced Latin America, which bought into “dependency theory,” to poverty and food riots. Trump’s theory seems to be that if we increase the price of imports, make it more difficult for American companies to export, and punish American companies for locating overseas, this ridiculous combination of counterproductive policies will result in alchemist economic gold.

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday  Ben, Trump’s economics are superior to Ricardian neo-classical economics, Chicago School monetarism, and Marxian free trade.

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday 
I wrote a #1 bestseller on free trade with Dr. Miller.

Now I’m challenging you to a debate on free trade. Are you up to it?