Nick Land on Moldbug.

More on diversity and progressivism, etc.

Why doesn’t Congress want power?

– Mapping economic classes in New York.

– You’re reading Radish, right?

– How much interest rate risk does the Fed have? Seems odd to have the guys controlling interest rates running such a large portfolio of assets with values that depend on such rates, but what could go wrong?

– Now where have I heard that before?

– Cheers to this Irish council.


57 Responses to Randoms

  1. I can’t stop laughing at the name long enough to read the stinking newsletter.

    “The Thomas Carlyle Club for Young Reactionaries (Students Against a Democratic Society)” sounds a bit like the Young Communist League, “Progressive” permutations of which exist on every college campus in the Cathedral.

    I propose they change it to “The Uncle Carlyle Club for Grumpy Old Farts (And Those Well On Their Way).”

    You’d call a member a “Carlyle’s Nephew” (fuck equal gender representation), and two members would greet each other as “cousins Carlyle”.

    And they’d have day trips where they went to Rhodesia and shot elephants with Mannlicher Carcanos and recited Kipling from memory.

    Hell, at that point, I’d join.

  2. Allan says:

    In the Yukon it used to be legal to drink while driving
    though I am not sure whether or not the law still stands.

  3. vishmehr24 says:

    The Mencius view: “sovereign power is properly understood as the owner of a country” is compounded of a confusion between Property and Territory, a confusion commonly to found among Libertarians.

    The Nation or a Tribe occupies a Territory. It is no mere semantics not to call it a ownership or a property. A property is a right and a right is a conclusion to a series of arguments, such as those made in a Court of Law.

    Thus, a territory is a animal thing, something held by force and thus existing in a State of Nature (Locke-the Princes exist in a State of Nature).

    While Property is a rational thing, held by arguments, and thus existing in a State of Law.

    Thus individual properties exist within the national territory. But libertarians do not recognize nations. It is all private property to them and thus they fail to distinguish the rational nature of property from the brute nature of Territory.

    • sardonic_sob says:

      Not all of us (although I am a libertarian-emeritus) fail in the way you think.

      Some of us – and I believe Moldbug to be in this camp – deny that your distinction has any validity in the first place, because in the end, it is the superior force which will determine the superior right. In a very real sense, no one in the US “owns” anything: we are allowed to play a very large game of Monopoly (or perhaps The Game of Life is a better metaphor) with “our” stuff just exactly so long as the government does not decide it can put it to better use.

      Since this is the case, and since the government will always win any argument about superior rights (in our particular case, the government consists of the Supreme Court) the two things collapse into a single thing: the Supreme Court owns everything in the United States, both as your “property” and as “territory.” It can dispose of property rights and territory alike exactly as it sees fit, and short of a radical realignment of power (NOT of rights) nothing can change it. ‘We are not final because we are infallible: we are infallible because we are final.”

      Once you understand this, you either become a libertarian-emeritus or a very strange breed of libertarian indeed, if you retain any libertarian sympathies at all.

      • Foseti says:

        “the Supreme Court owns everything in the United States, both as your “property” and as “territory.” It can dispose of property rights and territory alike exactly as it sees fit,”


      • vishmehr24 says:

        There is a grain of truth in what you say-that I express as “The Soverign Will is an unanswerable Argument.”

        “no one in the US “owns” anything”—if true, then you have a wrong theory of what ‘owning’ means-probably steaming from some Misean or Randian idea of individual soverignity.
        And nobody has ever ‘owned’ anything since all property ever has been subjected to numerous State restrictions.
        And then what is the utiity of this ‘ownership’ concept that has never been realized?

        Again, I ask you to reflect on why Property is a Right and why Theft is Wrong.

        Property is a Right, a conclusion of series of arguments that ultimately go back to the Moral Premise that a Man must eat by the sweat of his labor.

        You assertion that Property is Control and Might is Right makes the concept of Theft meaningless.

      • vishmehr24 says:

        You neglect that the Supreme Court is required to justify its decisions. It judges between arguments and its conclusions follow from the premises. Thus it can not be arbitrary in the same sense the Executive can be.

        However, irrationality can follow from choosing wrong premises and this, I feel, is a major cause of liberal tyranny in modern world.

      • sardonic_sob says:

        Little man, that might work on the easily perplexed, but the short and sweet answer to your prattle is that I am not required to abide by your definitions. I do not care what Locke has to say on the real nature of property any more than I care what Mises has to say about it, though I had rather listen to the latter than the former. Over either of them I had rather trust my own eyes. If I let you Define the Terms, then of course you will “Win” the Argument. (Dreamer’s Law has no exceptions.) And by the way, Randomly Capitalizing your Terms is the Surest Mark of a Person attempting to graft Gravitas onto an Argument which has no real Heft of its Own.

        To answer your second post, no, the Supreme Court is not required to justify its decisions, in that there is no one who can hold them to account for those decisions.

        They aren’t even technically required to justify them in the sense that they *must* issue a written opinion. They usually do, and when they do, they give a “justification” for what they did couched in the arcane lingo of the Constitutional scholar. But they don’t have to, and if they read a clause which says, “Shall not do X” as “may do X essentially whenever they feel like it,” none can challenge their “justification.” At this point it’s something they do more because it muddies the waters and satisfies the crowd’s need for pageantry than for any actual logical purpose.

      • Tarl says:

        Supreme Court decisions, like other judicial decisions, are an elaborate effort to justify a preordained conclusion. They have contrived convoluted arguments to support all sorts of absurd conclusions. Thus this “requirement to justify decisions” is little protection if any from arbitrary rule.

      • Bill says:

        You neglect that the Supreme Court is required to justify its decisions. It judges between arguments and its conclusions follow from the premises. Thus it can not be arbitrary in the same sense the Executive can be.

        How old are you?

      • vishmehr24 says:

        That the Court must justify itself follows from the very nature of what a Court is. That certain Courts do not or did not is a perversion and an abuse-tyranny in fact.
        But an abuse does not render meaningless the notion of ‘right use’.

      • vishmehr24 says:

        The capitalization was there to direct attention to contested terms and preclude glib reading, which unfortunately it has not done.
        Any redefinition going has been done by Mencius who claims (according to Land) that property is control, that nobody in America owns anything.
        To these innovative redefintions, I have merely asserted the conventional and commonsensical answer–that property is a right and the property-owner is entitled to his property and that right remains even if he loses the control of the said property.

    • Handle says:


      You neglect that the Supreme Court is required to justify its decisions. It judges between arguments and its conclusions follow from the premises.

      The Supreme Court isn’t required to do that at all (not in the Constitution), and often doesn’t (look at all the per curium simple declarative affirmations), and who exactly could make them / enforce the “requirement” if they refused, or half-assed it, or made decisions full of incoherent sophistry or contrary to facts or logic? In our system – no one.

      That’s the lie behind “checks and balances” – there is no check to The Court. It wouldn’t be hard to engineer an override besides the impossible amendment process – it exists in other common law countries with judicial review (e.g. Canada), it’s just that USG doesn’t have one.

      The only real “discipline” the executive and/or legislative branches can really attempt against the judiciary is to either pack (or threaten to pack) the court – which worked for FDR – or threaten to disobey them / ignore their injunctions – which worked for Lincoln. It’s not like he didn’t warn them early on.

      At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

      Look at Justice Taney’s moral outrage!

      These great and fundamental laws, which congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found


      When Churchill was advocating for Poland’s independence from Soviet control following WWII by mentioning that it was a Catholic country and the failure to do so would complicate Britain’s relations with the Vatican, Stalin interrupted him and asked sardonically, “And how many divisions does the Pope have?”

      Personally, I’m in favor of what I call “distributed judicialism” and I ask, “And how many divisions does the Chief Justice have?”

  4. vishmehr24 says:

    And the view that “You own something if you alone control it” renders meaningless the notion of Stealing.
    Why is stealing wrong while Conquest of a territory not wrong?
    Why are people proud that their forefathers conquered some land but not even a thief is proud of his thefts?

    Because, a conquest takes something by force that was held by force.
    It does not violate the natural order men live in.
    But stealing takes something by force or stealth something that was held by arguments, by logic. Stealing is a violation of the rational nature of man and of the rational order all men live in (the State of Law).

    • sardonic_sob says:

      Actually lots of people are proud of thefts – all they need is a little historical remove, just like conquering territories.

      That is because they are the same thing.

      • vishmehr24 says:

        Define Theft if you regard Property as Control.

        It is not possible to speak of Property or ownership without smuggling in notion of a Right somewhere, perhaps a a Right to Control.

      • Foseti says:

        I don’t see the problem.

        If I own something and I let you possess it under certain terms and then someone else takes it, it’s still a theft. What am I missing?

      • vishmehr24 says:

        But why it is a theft when property itself is defined as Control.
        So when you no longer control something, it is no longer your property, under this definition.

        See, the condition “I let you possess it under certain terms” is an argument, something possible between rational creatures and impossible for animals. An animal may control or occupy a territory but it is simply absurd of talk of animals having a property or ownership relation with anything. But libertarian economists confuse here by speaking of some rudimentary notion of ownership that animals display. But strictly speaking, it is nonsense.

      • Handle says:

        Remember, there are two kinds of property control – sovereign and sub-sovereign. Sovereign control (essentially allodium for land) is backed up by force the sovereign itself can command to defend its interest.

        Sub-sovereign control is basically a legal right to indemnification that the sovereign grants to its subjects. The sovereign says that if certain interests are violated, any person can benefit from the sovereign’s financial, legal, and physical resources to force a remedy.

        A “formal” (vs. “natural”) definition of “property” then could easily be whatever interests the sovereign’s law will defend your exclusive rights to possession, control, and enjoyment in. A formal definition of theft follows immediately.

      • vishmehr24 says:

        You have explicitly invoked the notion of ‘right’: the right to control, enjoyment etc.
        I did say that one can not consistently talk of property without bringing in ‘right’ talk since essence of property lies in being a ‘right’ and not ‘control’.

  5. spandrell says:

    Radish is doing it wrong. Slavery isn’t good.
    How can you be for slavery and against illegal immigrants? Economies based on cheap labor are bad for society. End of story.

    • Foseti says:

      I think it’s still a bit more complicated than that. Society has to do something with people who are on the left-side of the productivity/ability/motivation bell curve.

      • spandrell says:

        Yeah, let’s go to Africa to buy people who are further to the left-side of the productivity/ability/motivation bell curve.
        Europe did OK for 1500 years without slavery. China has been doing OK for millennia without slavery.

        You can have forced labor for inmates pour encourager les autres without basing the whole economy in living off the backs of poor genes.

    • sardonic_sob says:

      One way to answer that perfectly reasonable question is that we hold slave-owners accountable for their slaves. We may or may not have had rules about how they are to be treated, but we certainly have had rules about making *other people* pay for their food, health care, education, etc. Specifically, YOU COULD NOT DO THAT. It’s your slave: you feed him, clothe him, provide for his children, etc.

      Illegal immigrants are the best of both worlds for our metaphorical slaveowner: they get labor at nearly the lowest possible cost – the metaphorical equivalent of not beating them so much they become psychotic and attack the overseer. But a huge portion of the overhead is borne by others through transfer payments. This is why making illegal aliens eligible for welfare, emergency medical services, etc, is particularly insidious.

      • spandrell says:

        Southern belles were cute but slave societies are not good. Besides the moral dimension of enslaving people, economies based on cheap labor suck, period. Go to Latin America and check for yourself.

        We just had a discussion on class divisions in the HBD sphere. If you are going to argue that slavery is necessary to make proles productive don’t be surprised others despise you as genteel plutocrats.

      • Foseti says:

        I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that proles require slavery. But do you really believe that all adults can be productive “independent” citizens? Call the support mechanisms whatever you want – its how people used to understand slavery.

      • Alex J. says:

        I am not so enamored with paying for the welfare etc. of my fellow citizens.

      • josh says:

        Slavery is a form of government. The quality of that government varied. How much freedom, for example, there was for individual slaves is a matter that can be discussed and analyzed. The slavery that existed was not in any sense the opposite of freedom.

        I think it is good question whether the typical black American was more free in 1800 or 2012.

      • vishmehr24 says:

        All that is needed is to get rid of the spectre of Political Equality.
        The British Empire had a notion of ‘Criminal Tribes’ that were subject to special rules.
        I see that Mencius with his recent discussion of Bayesian reasoning that should be employed in Courts is inching towards similar conclusions. Once the Bayesian reasoning is employed collectively, the stage is set for the End of Political Equality.

    • “How can you be for slavery and against illegal immigrants?”

      how can you be *for* spaying and neutering your pets and *against* the New York Jets?

      i dunno man

      today i learned that if you oversimplify an idea, it stop making sense

  6. fnn says:

    The Maoist period in China was obviously far worse than Southern slavery. I think even the lice in Hollywood know that.

  7. dearieme says:

    Why can’t the rural Irish drink and cycle? Lazy sods.

  8. SOBL1 says:

    The problem with the left 25% of the curve which receives individual welfare at higher rates than the middle or right side of the curve is the negative externality issue. If we could have a set up like the Co-Dominion where the welfare recipients were walled off with opportunity to come out to the taxpayer area if they fulfilled certain rules and requirements, I’d support it. It’s a shame to have welfare recipients’ children change a local K-5 school from a great school to an OK school where the NAMs create a climate of fear that makes parents who care about their children’s education pull them out.

  9. Jehu says:

    Being a slave sucks. Being a slave in Africa or on a slave galley in the Med sucked much worse than being a slave in the US. Being an urban worker in NYC at the same time in the US sucked pretty badly too, perhaps worse on average. If I recall, in Time on the Cross, the estimate of US slavery in the Old South was that the master reaped approximately 10% of the value produced by the slave—the other 90% went into the maintenance of the slave and their provision for old age, injury, etc. I bet Uncle Sam reaps a way higher percentage of every reader’s labor.

    • asdf says:

      My own people lost 25% of our population in the potato famine. We weren’t slaved, but we might as well have been.

    • Varus says:

      Arguably the metic were worse off than the slaves of Athens. They often got the worse of both worlds with punishment by the public unsuitable for a citizen but also being fully responsible for themselves.

      Also slaves could occupy the role of lawyers, accountants, artists, educators, and other high ranking positions. Metic could as well but they were much less likely to have benefactors to pay for their education and training.

      The practice of slavery could entail almost anything. The moral and social landscape that dictates what is fit for a slave and what is fit for a free man are apparently very subjective.

  10. spandrell says:

    I’m really not getting it. Since when was slavery a paternalistic policy to provide guidance to unproductive people?
    If people can’t be independently productive let them leech their families, their cults, or whoever wants to take care of them. Or else starve.

    I thought you fellas understood HBD? Even if you enslave them those unproductive people won’t produce much. The only reason blacks were employed in picking cotton as that they were physically better adapted to long exertion in the southern heat.

    • Foseti says:

      There’s lots of people who can be productive in nearly any society, but have no business making major life decisions (let alone voting).

      • spandrell says:

        Well take their vote. Western Civilisation has been dealing with dumb people for ages without enslaving them. There’s religion, there’s family, there’s tons of small power structures that don’t depend on outright legal ownership.

        Slavery is about ethnic warfare. It always was. Slaves were spoil, then merchandise.
        You people don’t think that the American continent would be all the better if the slaves had stayed in Africa? Just think of it. No Haiti.

    • Jehu says:

      Blacks in the US were actually pretty productive in plantation agriculture. They produced an adequate rate of return at the price they usually sold for (about as much as a sports car in today’s equivalent dollars). I don’t think their inflation-adjusted productivity has ever been as high since. Given that slaves could, and did often work side jobs for wages and could have bank accounts and the like, I wouldn’t be shocked if the average black family’s net worth under slavery wasn’t higher than it is now (net worth to themselves, not in terms of contribution to GDP or their master).

      • josh says:

        Today, the median net worth of a female headed black household (which is a lot of households) is zero dollars.

        Take into account the limitations imposed by gangs, drug addiction, slavery to other vices, and living in communities without even a grocery store, undoubtedly a good many blacks find actually flourishing as human beings much more difficult in the modern era.

    • vishmehr24 says:

      Read the current article on Bagelot at New Criterion site by Kimball.

      “Slavery, too, has a bad name in the later world, and very justly. We connect it with gangs in chains, with laws which keep men ignorant, with laws that hinder families. But the evils which we have endured from slavery in recent ages must not blind us to, or make us forget, the great services that slavery rendered in early ages. . . . Refinement is only possible when leisure is possible; and slavery first makes it possible”

      ““Civilization begins,” Bagehot writes, “because the beginning of civilization is a military advantage”—an unflattering thought that many will find shocking.”

  11. vishmehr24 says:

    Bagelot is against the presumption of Political Equality, against the view that
    “politics are simply a subdivision of immutable ethics; that there are certain rights of men in all places and all times, which are the sole and sufficient foundation of all government, and that accordingly a single stereotype government is to make the tour of the world—and you have no more right to deprive a Dyak of his vote in a “possible” Polynesian Parliament, than you have to steal his mat”

    The difficult insight that Bagehot is everywhere at pains to communicate is that not all things are possible at all times and all places. If political liberty is a precious possession, it is forged in a long, painful development of civilization, much of which is distinctly, and necessarily, illiberal

  12. spandrell says:

    “Refinement is only possible when leisure is possible; and slavery first makes it possible”

    I used to think that too. Then I met Latin American elites.
    It’s not that simple.

    • Candide III says:

      But not that complicated, either: a certain amount of leisure is a necessary, not a sufficient condition for refinement. Leisure, like almost all things, is subject to diminishing returns. Around a certain point other factors and conditions swamp the effects of additional leisure.

  13. Handle says:

    Let’s compare Slavery with the old model of Military Service. I say “old” because a great deal of this is obsolete in the current US force structure due to many reasons, prime among them being that a shrinking personnel end strength in a period of awful labor markets means that the armed forces have recently become much more selective, especially for cognitive ability, and now not only exclude the lower extreme of the bell curve, but now more than the entire left half. Also private contractors have taken over a lot of the support tasks that your dimmer Joes used to do for you.

    The old deal was that almost anyone in the society could join the Army and even the dullest among them could be assigned some useful task (a semi-modern example you don’t see much anymore but still exists, MOS 57E – laundry and shower specialist)

    You were, if not a “slave” (or “serf”) certainly something close. You had to do what you were told, follow orders, work unlimited hours without extra pay besides your monthly salary, go anywhere, fight and risk your life, and failure or refusal or any misconduct would result in strict, harsh, and swift discipline (including corporal punishment and whipping) run by your commander in a completely separate and simplified justice system that cares more about collective needs than individual rights. Everything you did in life required permission and supervision, according to your rank.

    In exchange, however, you would be provided with shelter, food, clothing, medical care, and even a very small amount of pay. If you did what you were told to the best of your ability and stayed out of trouble, you may not rise up the ranks, but you could eventually earn a pension with benefits and be taken care of for life.

    Now, the system was mostly voluntary, but remember, until recently, there was also the draft, and not always with good justification (look at the history in the US for years prior to Pearl Harbor).

    The point is that the labor-intensive military (again, historically, not the capital and technologically-intensive version we have now), had a version of a hierarchical social tradition and aristocratic cultural institution that resembled in many important ways the “paternalistic” version of Slavery. You give up almost all your liberty, rights, ability to vote on anything, etc. and enter a dictatorial system of severe structure in exchange for provision. And that hard life nevertheless appealed to – and was a kind of solution for – a great number of people for reasons besides pure patriotism. And a large number of those people would admit that they enjoyed the “liberation” from the “burden” of having to manage their own lives, at which they were never very capable and would often make a mess of when given too much opportunity to give into their injudicious impulsiveness without the constant terror of severe consequences. People from the right half of the bell curve have no idea whatsoever what it’s like to be in the lower quintile – all major (and some minor) issues in their lives is like you trying to play chess against Kasparov. They do what you would do – which is just give up even trying after repeated failures.

    If I’m not mistaken, my interpretation of the Carlyle, Moldbug, Foseti, and Radish “position” (if that’s the right word) is basically that there are a lot of people who would do a poor job of managing their own affairs if “alienated and atomized” (in the Marxist sense) and left to their own devices, but who would really benefit from being part of a similar paternalistic institution today instead of the system of unsupervised giveaways that currently passes for the welfare state. It also seems justifiable that some people could be “involuntarily committed” by fair process to such an institution after demonstrating a manifest inability to be self-reliant outside of it.

    I think if you read “A south-side view of Slavery” and “Roll Jordan Roll”, you’ll see that American Slavery at most times and places had many of the aspects of this kind of system. Combined, of course, with some evil and abominable elements as well. I don’t think even Carlyle would defend the bondage of a man capable of independence being a slave by virtue of nothing more than being born into it and without recourse to prove his merit and win his freedom.

    Dabney (ht Moldbug), warned the North that they’d better figure out something to replace it once it was gone or there would be trouble. The military was, once, just such an opportunity to provide, for some men, an adequate substitute that preserved most of the benefit of paternalism without the evils of racial inheritable bondage at birth. But now that’s gone too, and there’s nothing to replace it.

    • spandrell says:

      I’m not contesting that point. But that’s not what Slavery is about. Slavery has its own character, a history, an ethnic dimension to it. And slave’s children are born into servitude.

      As you say there’s the military to provide structure to dim kids. There used to be tons of such structures in society. Your family took care of you, your feudal lord took care of you, your church, your village, you name it.

      That dumb people have it hard in modern society is a good point. Why would you want to associate that point with slavery? Nobody ever called soldiers ‘slaves’, for good reason. Some PR training would come in handy over here.

      • Foseti says:

        “But that’s not what Slavery is about. Slavery has its own character, a history, an ethnic dimension to it. And slave’s children are born into servitude.”

        That’s like saying in a marriage a husband owns his wife. Institutions are reformed all the time.

    • Federico says:

      Spandrell, one of the rights-restrictions within modern Western society is the inability to enter voluntary bondage. It is difficult even to sign an enforceable non-compete contract.

      Handle’s point, it seems, is that our society has an “ugh field” around slavery, when it should unbundle the concept into good and bad parts. The bad part of negro slavery (and other historical forms) is that it was involuntary and inherited. The good part is that unintelligent people can have their lives managed, and their productivity increased—to the benefit of themselves and others.

      I am skeptical that legal bondage is necessary to the lower quintile. The cause of social atomisation is etatism (welfare state, loss of rights to exclude, loss of economic freedom). Absent this, there are other ways to look after the bottom quintile—tradition, community, church etc.

      The danger of voluntary, contractual slavery is that unintelligent people are liable to enter a harmful relationship from which they cannot escape. The solution is libertarian paternalism: one can sign away one’s freedom, but only within limited terms. This requires a more competent legal regime than ours.

  14. spandrell says:

    Fellas I understood your point. Let’s say it’s a marketing problem. There’s thousands of ways of making that point through without writing a webzine praising slavery.

    “I am skeptical that legal bondage is necessary to the lower quintile. The cause of social atomisation is etatism (welfare state, loss of rights to exclude, loss of economic freedom). Absent this, there are other ways to look after the bottom quintile—tradition, community, church etc.”


    • Bill says:

      Almost this. It is utopian to believe that people with messed up decision-making skills will voluntarily decide to surrender their decision-making rights in exactly or even approximately those circumstances where it is a good idea to do so. The necessary coercion can be tarted up in a number of ways, but coercion there must be.

      You’re right about US chattel slavery, though.

  15. vishmehr24 says:

    As family is formed by the complementarity of the male and female, the State is formed by the complementarity of the ruling and the ruled element
    a paraphase from Aristotle’s Politics.
    Now the ruling element is Mind and the ruled element is Brute force. Thus, every state has some whose thinking counts, the Eminent Men that order a state. All the others, the non-elite, the ordinaries, belong in the ruled element.

  16. I recoiled upon encountering the topic of discussion at the latest Radish, but upon reading the issue, I feel that it was magnificent! I can’t imagine doing any better in so few pages. ‘Marketing’ as spandrell harps on, is futile if your targets are the masses, for they will be controlled by the dominant narrative wielded by the present power-holding elites. No, if marketing is to be used at all, it is to be used on the Brahmin young. Obviously I can’t see how this issue can endear the Carlyle Club or any similar undertaking to the young Brahmins. Nonetheless, it is superbly done.

  17. dearieme says:

    “this French-speaking Haitian immigrant is a very big fan of Anglo-American culture, because of the rule of law and the cultural values”: jolly good. But what is the opinion of his sons?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: