In the early 1970s, Sixto Rodriguez created two albums of abysmal, didactic folk-rock music. Few copies sold, though a few big timers in the music industry regarded Rodriguez's work as fantastic. After losing his contract, Rodriguez vanished into greater obscurity, reemerging to tour Australia in 1979 and 1981. The ruthlessness of the music industry is such that even unprofitable "justice" acts can't be spared cash for long.
Unknown to Rodriguez, a few copies of his work traveled to South Africa. Bootleg copies spread, creating a sensation "bigger than Elvis" among White, multicultural South Africans. Since Rodriguez disappeared, South Africans believed rumors of his death.
In the late 1990s, fans found Rodriguez living a working class life in Detroit, informing Rodriguez of his superstar status in South Africa. Rodriguez then performed before adoring White, multiculturalist crowds in South Africa.
A 2012 Academy Award winning film, Searching for Sugar Man, documented the events, a story so bizarre, skeptical viewers may be excused for thinking the narrative is a ruse, a subtle mockumentary, but, in fact, the story is mostly true.
Now why am I wasting time on this?
Because the film came and went without much comment on nonmulticultural sites, though it has some relevance to understanding multicultural whites. The film gives an unintended lesson in how naive, creepy, and feel good orientated multiculturalism is. The lives of white multiculturalists lack moral purpose, and they vainly try to find purpose in the evils of cultural Marxism. No one in the film stops to say, "This music is cliched demagoguery, lacking hooks."
I wonder how many of those screaming and sobbing Rodriguez fans in South Africa are still multiculturalists or even alive.
The film reminds us how multiculturalism evolves as its power increases. They talk about what they imagine is justice, then years later the justice talk includes far more kill the whites rhetoric and actions.
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Tuesday, May 23, 2017
Sounds Like a Eugenic Plan for Schools
We somewhat improve the academic performance of nonwhite disadvantaged children by sending them to almost all white schools. In other words, one environmental factor that lowers the performance of disadvantaged nonwhites is being around other lower IQ nonwhites, primarily through increased concentrations of rotten values and those children wrecking learning environments via misbehavior, plus quality individuals not wanting to teach in those schools. Mass media, of course, ignore the disadvantaged harming each other. They imagine institutional racism and vaguely bad neighborhoods as if bad neighborhood vapors were rising from sewers.
So let's help by sending every disadvantaged nonwhite student in America to schools that are almost all white.
Oh, wait.
Then those schools overflow with disadvantaged nonwhites, recreating the same problem and creating the additional problem of nonwhite children wrecking the social and learning environments for whites.
The way the scheme could work is by creating several billion more high IQ white children.
It almost sounds good, except for the fact that by itself it doesn't reverse cultural Marxian boring from within, not to mention the difficulty of creating several billion more white children.
We're better off with self-determination and complete separation.
So let's help by sending every disadvantaged nonwhite student in America to schools that are almost all white.
Oh, wait.
Then those schools overflow with disadvantaged nonwhites, recreating the same problem and creating the additional problem of nonwhite children wrecking the social and learning environments for whites.
The way the scheme could work is by creating several billion more high IQ white children.
It almost sounds good, except for the fact that by itself it doesn't reverse cultural Marxian boring from within, not to mention the difficulty of creating several billion more white children.
We're better off with self-determination and complete separation.
Friday, May 12, 2017
Migrants and the Immune System: a Sickening Study
An article about a new study asserts "strong feelings about immigrants are controlled by something as surprising as the immune system."
"The research also shows that hypersensitive people are completely indifferent to any good intentions that immigrants might have to contribute to society." Because good intentions are fleeting and done for grandstanding and conspicuous tokenism reasons. Nonwhites gradually make things worse, then when society collapses, they almost always side with their own kind and blame the victims of their invasion.
"Those who are very concerned about the risk of infection are those who are most reluctant to seek out social contact with immigrants–something that we otherwise know fosters tolerance," says Associate Professor Lene Aarøe. Nope. Nope. Nope.
"People with a hypersensitive behavioral immune system do not avoid immigrants because they are consciously afraid of becoming ill if they interact with them. Immigrants are not a source of infection." Oh, really.
"If some people see dangers in immigrants that others don't, it's difficult to reach a mutual understanding with reason-based, rational arguments." Oh, please. Apparently, evidence from the billions of horrors caused by diversity doesn't matter. Circumstantial ad hominem attacks on people's immune systems and abusive ad hominem attacks on "hypersensitive people" are what matter. This study is more scientism gone wild, part of a trend in studies used to promote political policies unsupported by the research.
But "if people are concerned about an entirely different risk–and perhaps one they aren't even fully aware of–it's difficult to achieve a mutual understanding of what is the right policy."
Moriori Man: Hey, these migrants are really effing us over.
Moriori Woman: Oh, don't worry. It's just your hypersensitive immune system. Just relax and make more contact. Those thoughts will go away. They're plenty friendly to your face.
(later)
Moriori Woman: Why are we the last Moriori? Why are we being tortured and why are we slaves?
The article provides no evidence of any direction of causation, if any even exists. And any direction of causation between migrant acceptance and the immune system is ethically irrelevant anyway.
Studies of why multiculturalists have such poor ethical character would be much more beneficial to society.
"The research also shows that hypersensitive people are completely indifferent to any good intentions that immigrants might have to contribute to society." Because good intentions are fleeting and done for grandstanding and conspicuous tokenism reasons. Nonwhites gradually make things worse, then when society collapses, they almost always side with their own kind and blame the victims of their invasion.
"Those who are very concerned about the risk of infection are those who are most reluctant to seek out social contact with immigrants–something that we otherwise know fosters tolerance," says Associate Professor Lene Aarøe. Nope. Nope. Nope.
"People with a hypersensitive behavioral immune system do not avoid immigrants because they are consciously afraid of becoming ill if they interact with them. Immigrants are not a source of infection." Oh, really.
"If some people see dangers in immigrants that others don't, it's difficult to reach a mutual understanding with reason-based, rational arguments." Oh, please. Apparently, evidence from the billions of horrors caused by diversity doesn't matter. Circumstantial ad hominem attacks on people's immune systems and abusive ad hominem attacks on "hypersensitive people" are what matter. This study is more scientism gone wild, part of a trend in studies used to promote political policies unsupported by the research.
But "if people are concerned about an entirely different risk–and perhaps one they aren't even fully aware of–it's difficult to achieve a mutual understanding of what is the right policy."
Moriori Man: Hey, these migrants are really effing us over.
Moriori Woman: Oh, don't worry. It's just your hypersensitive immune system. Just relax and make more contact. Those thoughts will go away. They're plenty friendly to your face.
(later)
Moriori Woman: Why are we the last Moriori? Why are we being tortured and why are we slaves?
The article provides no evidence of any direction of causation, if any even exists. And any direction of causation between migrant acceptance and the immune system is ethically irrelevant anyway.
Studies of why multiculturalists have such poor ethical character would be much more beneficial to society.
Thursday, May 4, 2017
Context on the Murders of South African Farmers
The official murder rate of (mostly white) South African farmers is 313 per 100,000 population. Some argue that the real number is larger, that the South African government deliberately undercounts.
To those less familiar with statistics, the annual number does not look astronomical by itself, but it means over the course of their lifetimes those farmers have at least a 20 percent chance of being murdered if the stat were to remain the same and nothing else changed. But like neighboring Zimbabwe, that stat will likely skyrocket.
In Zimbabwe, the former bread basket of Africa, the black ruling group's forces murdered white farmers and gave the farms to allies. Lacking the character, intelligence, and conscientiousness for modern farming, the new black farmers sold the farm equipment for scrap, leading to famine. Some hungry blacks resorted to starting brush fires, then eating animals that died in the conflagrations.
For comparison, much less than one percent of Americans were murdered during World War II by Axis countries. We frequently see photos of burned out Japanese cities from that era, but roughly three percent of Japanese died from war related causes during the same period.
America's murder rate in 2013 was about 64 times lower than among South African farmers.
If those White farmers were to organize, arm themselves, and carve out a country for themselves, the global multiculturalists would be outraged, though they permit nonwhites to defend themselves from much lesser threats.
Multiculturalists treat all of South Africa as present or future Bantu property because Bantus are indigenous to Africa. though whites migrated to those South African farms well before Bantus, who arrived after expanding their population from around Cameroon. Of course, multiculturalists don't treat all of Asia as Chinese or Indian property because that would be an irrelevant and ludicrous property claim.
But the irrelevant and ludicrous becomes conventional belief when it involves Whites.
To those less familiar with statistics, the annual number does not look astronomical by itself, but it means over the course of their lifetimes those farmers have at least a 20 percent chance of being murdered if the stat were to remain the same and nothing else changed. But like neighboring Zimbabwe, that stat will likely skyrocket.
In Zimbabwe, the former bread basket of Africa, the black ruling group's forces murdered white farmers and gave the farms to allies. Lacking the character, intelligence, and conscientiousness for modern farming, the new black farmers sold the farm equipment for scrap, leading to famine. Some hungry blacks resorted to starting brush fires, then eating animals that died in the conflagrations.
For comparison, much less than one percent of Americans were murdered during World War II by Axis countries. We frequently see photos of burned out Japanese cities from that era, but roughly three percent of Japanese died from war related causes during the same period.
America's murder rate in 2013 was about 64 times lower than among South African farmers.
If those White farmers were to organize, arm themselves, and carve out a country for themselves, the global multiculturalists would be outraged, though they permit nonwhites to defend themselves from much lesser threats.
Multiculturalists treat all of South Africa as present or future Bantu property because Bantus are indigenous to Africa. though whites migrated to those South African farms well before Bantus, who arrived after expanding their population from around Cameroon. Of course, multiculturalists don't treat all of Asia as Chinese or Indian property because that would be an irrelevant and ludicrous property claim.
But the irrelevant and ludicrous becomes conventional belief when it involves Whites.
Wednesday, May 3, 2017
The Content of Ethical Character
An internet poster once claimed, as best I remember, that no one on Earth judges by the content of character, those most vociferous in saying they do so are often least likely to judge based on real character.
That poster did have a bit of a point, though many individuals do somewhat judge according to character. Pollsters asking respondents for their most admired person tend to get wealthy celebrities and politicians having atrocious policies for answers, hardly examples of good character.
Our rulers regularly portray nonwhites as pious, humble, innocent, and filled with goodness, much to the surprise of fact facers, who live among large numbers ordinary nonwhites. The film Elysium takes this portrayal to hilarious extremes.
The few multiculturalists who talk the content of character talk run smack into multicultural dogma, power, and groupthink, then acquiesce.
Multicultural nonwhites behave as if:
Polls hint that large percentages of nonwhite Muslims think infidels, apostates, blasphemers, and females accused of adultery should all be murdered. Given the reluctance of humans to self-report such views to pollsters, the actual numbers are probably closer to 100 percent. The unstated end game of multiculturalism is nonwhite, endogamous Islam everywhere humans exist.
Individuals having such beliefs do not have good character, no matter how polite or hard working they appear.
Ironically, nonmulticulturalists behave closer to the content of character norm. Nonmulticulturalists are willing to make exceptions for Frank Salter and other ethical nonwhites.
Nonmulticulturalists should separate themselves from nonwhites because nearly all nonwhites are unable or unwilling to walk the content of character walk. Everyone has a right to avoid massive undeserved harms from ethnoracial outgroups. We should not be deemed "racist" for wanting to avoid those who seek to exploit and destroy us. (Anyone calling others the R word condemns and contradicts themselves with their own ad hominem claim.) Lack of freedom of association is a form of servitude, of not owning your own life.
That poster did have a bit of a point, though many individuals do somewhat judge according to character. Pollsters asking respondents for their most admired person tend to get wealthy celebrities and politicians having atrocious policies for answers, hardly examples of good character.
Our rulers regularly portray nonwhites as pious, humble, innocent, and filled with goodness, much to the surprise of fact facers, who live among large numbers ordinary nonwhites. The film Elysium takes this portrayal to hilarious extremes.
The few multiculturalists who talk the content of character talk run smack into multicultural dogma, power, and groupthink, then acquiesce.
Multicultural nonwhites behave as if:
- they have a right to colonize Western countries but that their own countries should not be colonized by outgroups.
- they have a right to genocide whites but would wage war if anyone tried the same on their own ingroups.
- they should have freedom of association but whites should not.
- equality should be supported when it benefits themselves or their perceived allies but seldom otherwise.
- excessive self-interest is good, except in whites.
- eugenics related arguments are automatically very, very frightening, but ally themselves with individuals spreading many copies of their atrocious genes, leading to disasters.
Polls hint that large percentages of nonwhite Muslims think infidels, apostates, blasphemers, and females accused of adultery should all be murdered. Given the reluctance of humans to self-report such views to pollsters, the actual numbers are probably closer to 100 percent. The unstated end game of multiculturalism is nonwhite, endogamous Islam everywhere humans exist.
Individuals having such beliefs do not have good character, no matter how polite or hard working they appear.
Ironically, nonmulticulturalists behave closer to the content of character norm. Nonmulticulturalists are willing to make exceptions for Frank Salter and other ethical nonwhites.
Nonmulticulturalists should separate themselves from nonwhites because nearly all nonwhites are unable or unwilling to walk the content of character walk. Everyone has a right to avoid massive undeserved harms from ethnoracial outgroups. We should not be deemed "racist" for wanting to avoid those who seek to exploit and destroy us. (Anyone calling others the R word condemns and contradicts themselves with their own ad hominem claim.) Lack of freedom of association is a form of servitude, of not owning your own life.
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
The Bigger Story on Straw Person Attacks
On Reddit, a heavily upvoted thread discussed straw person attacks. The posters repeatedly wrote about distorting others' words. But there's more to the story.
If some ordinary stranger posts something preposterous on Twitter and we attack their claims, a straw person exists, even if you quote it exactly.
Taking a blatantly ironic comment and pretending the writer actually has that belief is also a straw person.
In short, a straw person is:
The exception is if powerful individuals--billionaires, national politicians, university presidents--post preposterous ideas. It is not a straw person to attack their arguments because atrocious ideas in powerful hands have disastrous consequences.
But if all we do is ridicule powerful political opponents without addressing the strongest counterarguments to our own views, then that is also a straw person.
A cottage industry of mocking Trump's tweets and speeches now exists. That's sometimes good, but the people doing the mocking believe in neo-Marxism, neoconservatism, and other horrific ideologies. They're often merely trying to bolster their own rotten world views.
We also have a duty to focus more on what politicians do than what they say because previous behavior is a better guide than political boilerplate.
The power of contemporary establishments rests on slurs, straw person attacks, small sample claims, and other fallacies spread through the mass media. The individuals who profit from and listen to the mass media often have no idea what the strongest counterarguments to their worldviews are because they haven't heard them and don't want to hear them. Fifty-four percent of respondents to a 2016 post election Pew poll claim to have never have heard of the "alt-right." Among those who have heard of the alt-right, many make no attempt to read the strongest arguments on the alt-right. Instead, they believe what the mass media tells them the alt-right stands for. In addition, most people seem to think the slurs they call their opponents aren't slurs or that they're just "calling them what they are," though that's seldom what they are. Such behavior is a recipe for unjust wars and extreme totalitarianism.
If some ordinary stranger posts something preposterous on Twitter and we attack their claims, a straw person exists, even if you quote it exactly.
Taking a blatantly ironic comment and pretending the writer actually has that belief is also a straw person.
In short, a straw person is:
- twisting someone's quote or otherwise pretending others have beliefs they are unlikely to have.
- attacking easy, unimportant targets rather than presenting the strongest arguments that differ from your own.
The exception is if powerful individuals--billionaires, national politicians, university presidents--post preposterous ideas. It is not a straw person to attack their arguments because atrocious ideas in powerful hands have disastrous consequences.
But if all we do is ridicule powerful political opponents without addressing the strongest counterarguments to our own views, then that is also a straw person.
A cottage industry of mocking Trump's tweets and speeches now exists. That's sometimes good, but the people doing the mocking believe in neo-Marxism, neoconservatism, and other horrific ideologies. They're often merely trying to bolster their own rotten world views.
We also have a duty to focus more on what politicians do than what they say because previous behavior is a better guide than political boilerplate.
The power of contemporary establishments rests on slurs, straw person attacks, small sample claims, and other fallacies spread through the mass media. The individuals who profit from and listen to the mass media often have no idea what the strongest counterarguments to their worldviews are because they haven't heard them and don't want to hear them. Fifty-four percent of respondents to a 2016 post election Pew poll claim to have never have heard of the "alt-right." Among those who have heard of the alt-right, many make no attempt to read the strongest arguments on the alt-right. Instead, they believe what the mass media tells them the alt-right stands for. In addition, most people seem to think the slurs they call their opponents aren't slurs or that they're just "calling them what they are," though that's seldom what they are. Such behavior is a recipe for unjust wars and extreme totalitarianism.
And if the strongest arguments that differ from our own, deserve more weight than our own, then we all have ethical duties to switch our beliefs.
Monday, April 24, 2017
The Smart Person's Guide to College
Graduation season approaches, so let me explain college to young readers considering college:
Psychology: junk science of pretending genes have no relevance to parental and ethnoracial issues while noticing genes when health and other pragmatic issues are at stake.
Engineering: you may assume that a field as efficiency oriented as engineering will teach only the stuff important for engineering jobs. Wrong. Engineering degrees often require matrix theory and differential equations, though many engineers find jobs requiring little more than algebra.
Business: field for mediocre, partying students, culminating in the MBA: Mendacity Buttressing Arrogance.
History: art of historical one-sidedness and small sample fallacies.
English and literature: art of treating fictional claims as if they were well-reasoned facts.
Computer science: intrinsically boring as hell field made interesting by hype, money, intermittent reinforcement, and the attraction of staring at glowing screens. Be thankful they seldom teach Fortran anymore.
Nursing: deliberately understaffed, often having waiting lists to enroll, so we can import low competence nurses from developing countries. Another example of our rulers failing to provide the beneficial things while bombarding us with harmful things.
Primary education: important for teaching reading and basic math to children, but increasing used to politically influence young children, who haven't even mastered the art of not pissing and shitting their pants.
Secondary education: provides workers for custodial institutions as teenagers eat and breathe their way toward their IQ genotypes and mass media role models.
Queer studies: study of things that aren't worth two seconds time.
Natural sciences: demanding fields that consume the minds of practitioners. Nevertheless, activist natural scientists act as if they should be treated as experts in public affairs in which they have no expertise.
Administration: art of creating more and higher paid administrators until their are more administrators than producers.
Medicine: rigorous field but not ethically rigorous enough to prevent doctors from being unjustly influenced by cartels and free samples.
Philosophy: bizarrely entrusted with teaching logic and ethics, though philosophers are culturally more similar to preachers and aesthetes.
Sociology: junk science of teaching egoism and tribalism to nonwhites--not they need help in that regard--while excoriating whites for their legitimate interests.
Cultural anthropology: Ditto sociology.
Economics: junk science of exaggerating the benefits of policies that agree with economists' perceived self-interests while ignoring the costs of those policies to others.
Other humanities and social science degrees: expensive degrees for people who should have dropped out of middle school and helped their family or themselves out. Not surprisingly, they blame society for their college debts.
Better yet. Don't attend college. Getting a college degree is merely an expensive way to signal smartness and task persistence to potential employers. Here is what you do: You take Methoxsalen to make your skin dark. You buy yourself some spiffy corporate gear. You research when colleges have job fairs. You stride around the job fair, engaging recruiters, carrying some Tennyson in one hand and Classical Electrodynamics in the other, making you look smart but not one dimensional. Recruiters will want to talk to you. They may even chase after you. Don't worry about being an empty suit. Empty suits abound. You can usually learn on the job.
Once they hire you, stop taking Methoxsalen. If they wonder why you suddenly have white skin, tell them you contracted severe vitiligo and it affected your entire surface area.
Even better: learn for free at libraries and in the real world. Start your own business in a field having a high probability of success, copying the practices of successful businesses in that field.
Whatever you do, don't take any loans unless you enter a low unemployment field paying six figure incomes.
(Note: this article is satire. Don't take Methoxsalen unless you want skin and liver damage.)
Psychology: junk science of pretending genes have no relevance to parental and ethnoracial issues while noticing genes when health and other pragmatic issues are at stake.
Engineering: you may assume that a field as efficiency oriented as engineering will teach only the stuff important for engineering jobs. Wrong. Engineering degrees often require matrix theory and differential equations, though many engineers find jobs requiring little more than algebra.
Business: field for mediocre, partying students, culminating in the MBA: Mendacity Buttressing Arrogance.
History: art of historical one-sidedness and small sample fallacies.
English and literature: art of treating fictional claims as if they were well-reasoned facts.
Computer science: intrinsically boring as hell field made interesting by hype, money, intermittent reinforcement, and the attraction of staring at glowing screens. Be thankful they seldom teach Fortran anymore.
Nursing: deliberately understaffed, often having waiting lists to enroll, so we can import low competence nurses from developing countries. Another example of our rulers failing to provide the beneficial things while bombarding us with harmful things.
Primary education: important for teaching reading and basic math to children, but increasing used to politically influence young children, who haven't even mastered the art of not pissing and shitting their pants.
Secondary education: provides workers for custodial institutions as teenagers eat and breathe their way toward their IQ genotypes and mass media role models.
Queer studies: study of things that aren't worth two seconds time.
Natural sciences: demanding fields that consume the minds of practitioners. Nevertheless, activist natural scientists act as if they should be treated as experts in public affairs in which they have no expertise.
Administration: art of creating more and higher paid administrators until their are more administrators than producers.
Medicine: rigorous field but not ethically rigorous enough to prevent doctors from being unjustly influenced by cartels and free samples.
Philosophy: bizarrely entrusted with teaching logic and ethics, though philosophers are culturally more similar to preachers and aesthetes.
Sociology: junk science of teaching egoism and tribalism to nonwhites--not they need help in that regard--while excoriating whites for their legitimate interests.
Cultural anthropology: Ditto sociology.
Economics: junk science of exaggerating the benefits of policies that agree with economists' perceived self-interests while ignoring the costs of those policies to others.
Other humanities and social science degrees: expensive degrees for people who should have dropped out of middle school and helped their family or themselves out. Not surprisingly, they blame society for their college debts.
Better yet. Don't attend college. Getting a college degree is merely an expensive way to signal smartness and task persistence to potential employers. Here is what you do: You take Methoxsalen to make your skin dark. You buy yourself some spiffy corporate gear. You research when colleges have job fairs. You stride around the job fair, engaging recruiters, carrying some Tennyson in one hand and Classical Electrodynamics in the other, making you look smart but not one dimensional. Recruiters will want to talk to you. They may even chase after you. Don't worry about being an empty suit. Empty suits abound. You can usually learn on the job.
Once they hire you, stop taking Methoxsalen. If they wonder why you suddenly have white skin, tell them you contracted severe vitiligo and it affected your entire surface area.
Even better: learn for free at libraries and in the real world. Start your own business in a field having a high probability of success, copying the practices of successful businesses in that field.
Whatever you do, don't take any loans unless you enter a low unemployment field paying six figure incomes.
(Note: this article is satire. Don't take Methoxsalen unless you want skin and liver damage.)
Friday, April 21, 2017
The Never Ending "Scandal"
Donald Trump's Russian ties remained the top news story for most of the past five months. A recent study suggests that Rachel Maddow's show spends more time on "Russia focused segments" than everything else in the world combined.
Whatever happened to scandal fatigue?
Interest in ongoing scandals seems to increase when individuals are highly aroused, explaining why sex and violence scandals linger. In this case, the driving arousal is illogical hatred of Whites and the West. Multiculturalists can barely wait for the next juicy details, no matter how preposterous, leading to 52 percent of Democrats believing the evidence free baloney that Russia directly hacked the election.
And when the mass media repeat garbage often enough, most people believe it.
The left once again allowed itself to be used by neoconservatives, especially considering this "scandal" involves trying to improve relations with a power and paranoia driven nuclear giant. (We should not trust people who brag about being former Trotskyites. Once a person chooses an abysmal ideology they typically stick with it or replace it with another horrific ideology.)
The media act as if Russia influencing the kleptocratic process is worse than the risk of nuclear war. Never mind that establishment Democrats and Republicans have far worse entanglements with African, Hispanic, and Southwest Asian countries actively working to destroy us from within. (When the Soviet Union engaged in much worse meddling, the left seldom noticed. The reason the Soviet Union didn't need any U2 style spy planes flying over the U.S. was it had multitudes of agents and activists on the ground.)
The big scandal we should be focusing on is the role the media, business, and political establishments play in trying to incite World War III, especially with an erratic, easily manipulated president.
For more ethical individuals, that is, almost no one in the establishments, our focus should be on de-escalating tensions and seeking alliances with fellow whites. The establishments claim we can't get along with Russia because our "interests conflict" and because Russia is corrupt.
Well, guess what?
We have worse and bigger conflicting interests with dozens of corrupt countries, yet establishments coddle them and often take marching orders from them.
Every nation should have interests that sometimes conflict with other nations. Otherwise, you get cucked and steamrolled.
At one point, Trump should have said, "Yes, I conspired with Russians to avoid World War III. I'm sorry so many of you prefer World War III.'' Instead, Trump sold part of his soul to neoconservatives, for their money and faint praise. At least Trump still has Jeff Sessions.
The establishments may not meet the legal definition of treason, but they sure as hell meet the moral definition.
Whatever happened to scandal fatigue?
Interest in ongoing scandals seems to increase when individuals are highly aroused, explaining why sex and violence scandals linger. In this case, the driving arousal is illogical hatred of Whites and the West. Multiculturalists can barely wait for the next juicy details, no matter how preposterous, leading to 52 percent of Democrats believing the evidence free baloney that Russia directly hacked the election.
And when the mass media repeat garbage often enough, most people believe it.
The left once again allowed itself to be used by neoconservatives, especially considering this "scandal" involves trying to improve relations with a power and paranoia driven nuclear giant. (We should not trust people who brag about being former Trotskyites. Once a person chooses an abysmal ideology they typically stick with it or replace it with another horrific ideology.)
The media act as if Russia influencing the kleptocratic process is worse than the risk of nuclear war. Never mind that establishment Democrats and Republicans have far worse entanglements with African, Hispanic, and Southwest Asian countries actively working to destroy us from within. (When the Soviet Union engaged in much worse meddling, the left seldom noticed. The reason the Soviet Union didn't need any U2 style spy planes flying over the U.S. was it had multitudes of agents and activists on the ground.)
The big scandal we should be focusing on is the role the media, business, and political establishments play in trying to incite World War III, especially with an erratic, easily manipulated president.
For more ethical individuals, that is, almost no one in the establishments, our focus should be on de-escalating tensions and seeking alliances with fellow whites. The establishments claim we can't get along with Russia because our "interests conflict" and because Russia is corrupt.
Well, guess what?
We have worse and bigger conflicting interests with dozens of corrupt countries, yet establishments coddle them and often take marching orders from them.
Every nation should have interests that sometimes conflict with other nations. Otherwise, you get cucked and steamrolled.
At one point, Trump should have said, "Yes, I conspired with Russians to avoid World War III. I'm sorry so many of you prefer World War III.'' Instead, Trump sold part of his soul to neoconservatives, for their money and faint praise. At least Trump still has Jeff Sessions.
The establishments may not meet the legal definition of treason, but they sure as hell meet the moral definition.
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Blameworthiness and the Legacy of Slavery
Multiculturalists love the legacy of slavery causal explanation for African-American problems.
Why?
Because it cannot be undone. It implies that whites are permanently guilty and permanently liable, no matter the consequences. To them, it doesn't matter whether Whites have already given umpteen trillion in welfare, health care, affirmative action, and other benefits to African-Americans.
The word cause means to change the probability of a thing occurring. Bringing African slaves to the Western Hemisphere was a cause of what happens to African-Americans, just as millions of other causes were and are. Otherwise, there would be few, if any, African-Americans and few African-American events.
But the problem with overemphasizing these distant historical causes and harms are that a) the villains are dead, b) millions of distant historical causes exist, c) they lead to mutually destructive tit-for-tat conflicts, d) they de-emphasize policies that would make things better, e) they help ruling groups exploit us with divide-and-screw policies.
The English treated the Irish worse than they treated African-Americans. Would Ireland be a better place today if today's Irish spent massive energies denouncing the British and demanding reparations? I doubt it.
If Africans and African-Americans started pursuing a rigorous program of eugenics 100 years ago, life would be much better for them than chanting the legacy of slavery. But that didn't happen.
Robert Mugabe and his successors will still blame whites as they loot what little wealth Zimbabwe creates in the future.
Multitudes of events (bad luck, good luck, volcanic eruptions, comet collisions, manorial feudalism, random mutations, harmful policies, beneficial policies, the evolution of malaria, Middle Eastern religious texts, etc.) caused our present situations. We can't change that they happened. It would do whites no good to endlessly blame manorial feudalism for our present decline. Sure, we should note what manorial feudalism caused but not dwell on it.
Every racial group has suffered grievous harms from ethnoracial outgroups in prior centuries. Bantu tribes enslaved and wiped out multitudes of outgroups, including Bushmen and other hominids.
Despite establishment propaganda to the contrary, Southwest Asians and North Africans have caused massive harms to Europeans and black Africans for centuries, including slave taking that dwarfed the trans-Atlantic slave trade. But they seldom mention that legacy of slavery, a far more brutal death camp form of slavery. Or the slavery White establishments inflicted upon other Whites. Nevertheless, Whites shouldn't sit around demanding reparations from Arabs and other Southwest Asians.
We must focus on liberating our own lives and nations from every ingroup and outgroup that seeks to harm and destroy us.
Why?
Because it cannot be undone. It implies that whites are permanently guilty and permanently liable, no matter the consequences. To them, it doesn't matter whether Whites have already given umpteen trillion in welfare, health care, affirmative action, and other benefits to African-Americans.
The word cause means to change the probability of a thing occurring. Bringing African slaves to the Western Hemisphere was a cause of what happens to African-Americans, just as millions of other causes were and are. Otherwise, there would be few, if any, African-Americans and few African-American events.
But the problem with overemphasizing these distant historical causes and harms are that a) the villains are dead, b) millions of distant historical causes exist, c) they lead to mutually destructive tit-for-tat conflicts, d) they de-emphasize policies that would make things better, e) they help ruling groups exploit us with divide-and-screw policies.
The English treated the Irish worse than they treated African-Americans. Would Ireland be a better place today if today's Irish spent massive energies denouncing the British and demanding reparations? I doubt it.
If Africans and African-Americans started pursuing a rigorous program of eugenics 100 years ago, life would be much better for them than chanting the legacy of slavery. But that didn't happen.
Robert Mugabe and his successors will still blame whites as they loot what little wealth Zimbabwe creates in the future.
Multitudes of events (bad luck, good luck, volcanic eruptions, comet collisions, manorial feudalism, random mutations, harmful policies, beneficial policies, the evolution of malaria, Middle Eastern religious texts, etc.) caused our present situations. We can't change that they happened. It would do whites no good to endlessly blame manorial feudalism for our present decline. Sure, we should note what manorial feudalism caused but not dwell on it.
Every racial group has suffered grievous harms from ethnoracial outgroups in prior centuries. Bantu tribes enslaved and wiped out multitudes of outgroups, including Bushmen and other hominids.
Despite establishment propaganda to the contrary, Southwest Asians and North Africans have caused massive harms to Europeans and black Africans for centuries, including slave taking that dwarfed the trans-Atlantic slave trade. But they seldom mention that legacy of slavery, a far more brutal death camp form of slavery. Or the slavery White establishments inflicted upon other Whites. Nevertheless, Whites shouldn't sit around demanding reparations from Arabs and other Southwest Asians.
We must focus on liberating our own lives and nations from every ingroup and outgroup that seeks to harm and destroy us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)