Yay, a new year! A new decade.
It's easy to take potshots at the previous decade. We got into the endless and unwinnable 'war on terror' during this decade, due to a complete misunderstanding of ourselves and our enemies. We raised the national debt to stratospheric levels. We lost jobs even while adding 35 million additional people to our country. The stock market is down from where it was in 2000, in inflation adjusted terms, it has lost 30% of its value. Corporate corruption, from the bank bailouts to Enron to Bernie Madoff, all reached unprecedented heights. Wages remain stagnant, even though productivity has gone up and up. Energy prices have tripled, but environmentalists still prevent any production of new dams, oil rigs, nuclear plants, offshore windmills, or even solar power plants to help meet the shortfall. It was a bad year. It was a bad decade. But we already know about that. Maybe it would be better to discuss the good things that happened instead.
This year's crime rates dropped to as low as they were in the 1960's. Crime is the lowest in most living people's memories. Griping continuously about minority crime now sounds ridiculous. What crime? There was more crime when the country was 90% white than there is today. Crime rises and falls not based on race, but on the willingness of a community to fight crime. When a community refuses to capture and imprison its criminals, or give individuals the right to bear arms, crime goes out of control. Alternatively, when criminals are caught and locked up, and people do have the right to bear arms, crime plummets. This decade was the decade America decided it was sick of crime, got serious, and locked up all the criminals while giving concealed carry permits to all of its honest citizenry. As a result, most of us can live peaceful lives whether we're in Salt Lake City or New York City.
The USA's economy did grow, even though the last couple years have been recessionary. But more importantly, the world's economy has been growing. As China, India, Russia, and Brazil get richer, they start to want new computers, new cars, new airplanes, and more beef, things Americans are eager to provide them, giving us new influxes of wealth and jobs through mutually beneficial trade. If the world's economy keeps growing, America will be able to buy better stuff for cheaper on one hand, and sell more expensive stuff to more people, on the other. It is completely win-win.
Over the last decade the internet has shifted from dial-up to broadband. The new internet is light years better than what we had in 2000, and it promises to continue improving well into the future. Features like mobile internet devices, streaming video, blogs, facebook, etc are all innovations of this decade that people can't even imagine living without anymore. Quality of life has improved dramatically due to the internet giving people new ways to access information, make friends, find lovers, share thoughts, and download free digital content.
The internet still has a ways to go. One thing I'd like to see is search engines that can answer questions directly. "How far is it from Chicago to LA?" Another is quick and easy access to obscure data. For instance, I should be able to type in 'French per capita GDP PPP inflation adjusted 1900-2009,' into my search bar, and the link provided should simply be a chart, either already posted online, or constructed then and there by the computer's own intellect after browsing for all the relevant numbers necessary to make the chart itself. Information needs to be at our fingertips, not in oceans of nonsense we can only 'surf' over and through in the hopes of striking gold. But given the amount of innovation in the previous years, I feel confident that the internet isn't nearly done yet. The transformations will continue apace.
The science of food production has improved. Several crop and animal species have had their genomes sequenced, giving farmers another powerful tool to improve yet again. Stem cells derived from adult skin cells have turned a rare resource into a plentiful one, giving scientists the first chance to construct miracle cures to ailments as diverse as blindness to old age. Computers have doubled and redoubled in memory and processing power.
The International Space Station and the Large Hadron Collider are the decade's masterpieces. We will start to reap their rewards in 2010, but their impact will be felt for decades to come. There's no telling what discoveries we'll make in these two research labs.
We found water on Mars and the Moon, upping the possibility for life on other planets, and our ability to colonize them.
We found planets outside our solar system. Hundreds of them. Many of them quite similar to the Earth. This again ups the chances of extra-terrestrial life.
Our decade has probably been the most peaceful in world history. The amount of people who died in violent conflict was far less than the 1990's (Rwanda, Congo, etc). Or the 1980's. (Lebanon, Iran-Iraq war, Afghanistan, etc.) Or the 1970's (Vietnam). Our wars continue to get 'smarter.' Bombs that used to demolish whole cities now fly through windows to take out individual rooms. The 'smart' bombs of the Gulf War weren't nearly as good as the ones we used in the 2000's. Likewise, our missile defense systems shot down every single missile Saddam fired at us in Gulf War II, but were terribly unreliable in Gulf War I. We can protect ourselves better than ever before, and kill our enemies (and only our enemies) better than ever before, thanks to this decade. Three cheers to the F-22 raptor, another product of this decade, whose performance (and cost) was out of this world.
Length of life has steadily increased.
Great music, movies, video games, anime, and books were released. Treasures that never existed before, but will always exist hereafter. Generations of kids yet unborn can return to this decade for pleasure after pleasure. Superhero movies of fantastic quality became a trend. World of Warcraft took the world by storm. Wheel of Time, Sword of Truth, the EA Cycle, Deverry, and yes, Harry Potter was published. Magic the Gathering came out with consistently better looking and better playing sets than anything they managed in the 90's. (Can anyone say Shadowmoor?) Anime entered a golden age -- One Piece, Naruto, Inuyasha, Clannad, Higurashi, Code Geass, Haruhi, K-ON!, practically every good series ever made, was made this last decade. Playstations evolved into Playstation 2's. Playstation 2's evolved into Playstation 3's. The Star Wars prequels and the Lord of the Rings trilogy were filmed, two series that I imagine will never die.
Drug use, divorce rates, drunk driving, and other vices have stabilized or even declined. It's a small solace considering how much higher these rates are than fifty years ago, but at least it's something.
I could go on and on, but you get the point. It really has been a decade full of good news. And as the decade has finally come to a close, there's no better time than today, to celebrate this progress, be grateful for its fruits, and await yet better harvests in the days to come. Happy New Year's! -- Let's toast to an even brighter tomorrow.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
Why do they Do It?
I constantly see erroneous conjectures on why liberals endorse the programs they do. People immediately discard the upfront explanation and search for ulterior motives, because they cannot possibly comprehend the original explanation. It is simply outside their mindset, their mental horizon, that such thinking is even possible. This is an error. Liberals are generally well meaning people, they're just as intelligent if not more intelligent than conservatives, they've studied these issues exhaustively, and simply come to opposite conclusions. They are neither evil, ignorant, nor stupid. They are irrational. And as far as irrationality goes, 'conservatives' are just as bad. Anyone who believes in God, an afterlife, souls, angels, or any of that crap can never, ever complain that their opponents are being irrational. After all, there is zero proof of any miracles, Gods, spirits, souls, or anything else existing in this world. All we have is assorted old books written by people with zero scientific knowledge thousands of years ago. And conservatives believe it all, they just take these old books on their word, without rationally considering or criticizing a single portion of these lurid fantasies. If I wrote a book and put it in a hole, then dug it up and claimed it was old, they'd probably believe this new religion too. Oh, they already did that. It's called Mormonism.
Are we seriously to believe that the tower of Babel was about to reach the heavens before God struck it down, and that linguistic differences were caused by God petulantly just rolling a die and changing up how people spoke, instead of the science of language that has studied comprehensively how languages spread and varied, and their ancient roots, that exactly parallels human migrations?
Are we seriously to believe that if you don't sprinkle a baby's forehead with water after he's born he will be tortured for eternity after his death?
Are we seriously to believe that the whole world was covered in water a few thousand years ago? That all we needed was two of each animal for all species on earth to recover and multiply? Even though we have the genetic data showing far more genetic diversity than one giant inbred nuclear family? That a ship could house and feed the entire earth's flora and fauna for weeks?
Are we seriously to believe that a virgin can give birth? Or that people can rise from the dead, good as new? When have we seen either of these things ever occur? They defy all reality.
Are we seriously to believe we're all descended from Adam and Eve, created whole and fully modern from the Head of God, not from the rest of the animal world, even though we share 99% of our genes with chimpanzees and tell-tale similarities with all other life forms down to bacteria, such that we can trace the common origin of life on Earth all the way down to its foundation?
Are we seriously to believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-benevolent God created the world and all the evil we suffer in it and an afterlife devoted exclusively to infinite suffering afterwards?
The irrationality of conservatives is mind-numbing. The same conservatives who claim we are 'fallen beings' and therefore governments can't be trusted, turn around and say humans are absolutely perfect so long as they don't work for the government and the free market would never do anything wrong to anyone. They wave around ridiculous claims like the free market doesn't use force, and therefore can't harm anyone -- even though the very concept of property rights itself is a use of force (If one person owns something, it means the government shoots anyone else who tries to take it), and companies are ubiquitous in their use of fraud -- just turn on the TV and watch a few commercials and you'll find that if you just buy X, you'll have sex with a beautiful woman today -- EVERY SINGLE COMMERCIAL. They wouldn't air these commercials if they didn't work. So when people say, "oh that fraud isn't important because it's obviously silly." Well, it must work on someone, because in the end it makes money, now doesn't it? They also completely ignore the fact that business works WITH governments to take money from both employees (who aren't paid what they are worth) and taxpayers (who are made to finance corporate welfare). So long as business has any influence over the government via campaign funding, they can simply buy the government that favors them, and therefore gain the full use of force the government supposedly has a monopoly over.
If conservatives set up rules saying the government 'can't do this' or 'can't do that,' they have no system that can stop people from changing said rules seconds later. In a democracy, who will protect your precious constitution from being amended, reinterpreted, or simply voted out of power by a corrupted populace? And yet conservatives fervently support democracy as some sort of holy trinity alongside capitalism and Christianity. Belief in universal democracy is also completely irrational. It hasn't produced any good results anywhere on Earth. There is no theoretical reason why masses of stupid people can make better decisions than a few intelligent people -- it isn't true in corporations, it isn't true in science, it isn't true in math, it isn't true in art, it isn't true in war, it isn't true in ANY OTHER FIELD OF HUMAN ENDEAVOR, but supposedly it's true when it comes to government, which has power over and controls everything aforementioned. So masses of stupid people are completely incapable of progressing science, but they are perfectly capable of deciding what science should be taught, what science should be banned, what science should be funded, etc. In what world does this make sense? In the conservative world.
Conservatives have magical double standards like 'terrorism' is wrong because it hurts civilians, but WWII was the best war ever because we nuked and firebombed hundreds of thousands of civilians, intentionally targeting them for maximum effect, in the last year of an already won war. They say suicide bombers are 'cowards' but think air force bombers who shoot missiles from miles away are 'heroes.' I cannot imagine how much bravery it takes to be a suicide bomber. I cannot imagine the bravery it takes to be a terrorist, with a few thousand people and a few million dollars, taking on our trillion dollar a year military machine with all the fanciest weapons the world can buy and hundreds of thousands of troops. Only a conservative would spit in their eye and pretend they are somehow 'cowards' while our 'brave young men and women' are 'fighting for our freedom.' Our freedom to do what? Invade and occupy other people's countries? Isn't it the terrorists who are fighting for their freedom from foreign occupation? You know, like any people on Earth would do if they were invaded and occupied spontaneously, having not done a SINGLE DAMN THING to the USA beforehand?
So let's make one thing clear, I don't think conservatives actually enjoy frying babies with incendiary bombs or burning babies in hell for eternity -- and yet they still endorse both of these things, and will argue vociferously in favor of both, whenever it is brought up. It isn't because they are evil, ignorant, or stupid. It is because they are irrational. For instance, if a program doesn't compile, it's because a single line of code is bugged. It has an 'R' where there was supposed to be a 'T' or whatever. Coders search for the bug, correct it, and the program runs fine again. At no point do coders imagine the computer, when it fails to compile, is 'evil,' 'stupid,' or 'ignorant.' When a gene fails to transpose correctly and we have a mutation, producing some horrible result like brainless babies, we don't call the genome 'evil,' 'stupid,' or 'ignorant.' When a fuse blows and we have to replace the part, we don't call the electric grid 'evil,' 'stupid,' or 'ignorant.' We basically accept the fact that things that are 99% good can have one tiny error, just one little thing awry, and it crashes the entire system. We also accept the fact that 'what can go wrong, will go wrong,' or entropy, the fact that everything is degrading and breaking and only constant vigilance and maintenance can possibly keep a system afloat.
The same should be applied to our beliefs. People are not evil, stupid, or ignorant, just because they are wrong. Odds are, they are 99% good people, whose system would work perfectly if you just replaced one fuse, one bad line of code, one copy number variation, etc. If constant vigilance and maintenance were applied to people's beliefs, they could be corrected in time, instead of run wild like we see today. But a culture that has lost confidence in itself and therefore will not maintain itself, or doesn't even know what a correct computer code/dna strand/electric grid looks like, and therefore cannot maintain itself, is destined to produce the world we see today.
What is causing these short circuits of logic, these tiny irregularities, these busted fuses of the left? In short, where exactly are people being irrational, and what tiny correction would be required to redeem them from the horrendous harm they are doing the world, to the productive and helpful members of society they ought to be?
Liberals aren't liberals because they hate all life, because they are illiterate and innumerate, or because they have low IQs. All of the traditional explanations for why liberals are liberals are self-evidently absurd. (Which hasn't stopped equally irrational conservatives from clinging to these explanations anyway.)
Why do they do it? Let's break it into groups:
1. Blacks: Why are blacks liberal? Because it gives them money.
2. Hispanics: Why are hispanics liberal? Because it gives them money.
3. Why are single women liberal? Because it gives them money. Furthermore, it gives them the freedom to live however they like, no matter what personal or societal damage they wreak on others.
4. Why are other women liberal? Because they feel bad when they see people suffering and want to help.
5. Why are jews liberal? Because they know, they just KNOW, that any discrimination in any form against anyone would eventually lead back to discrimination against jews, the most historically hated subgroup on Earth.
6. Why are white men liberal? Because they are sick of social injustice. They tend to be blue collar workers who could never afford a decent life in America without liberals' help, gazing up at fat cats who make more money in a day than they'll ever make their whole lives.
7. Why are environmentalists liberal? Because they see quite clearly that the world cannot support 7 billion people living at American consumption levels, and conservatives will not let them control population growth or conserve more resources.
8. Why are Asians liberal? Collectivism is in their genes. Conservatives insist on being individualists. Family is important to them. Christianity insists that you hate your mother and your father, libertarians insist blood is meaningless and only merit, not kinship, should define who you love or support. Why would they be conservatives?
Why don't they accept HBD? Because we have never performed a perfect experiment where all environmental factors were equal -- so how can we possibly prove anything is genetic? Furthermore, we have never found the genes that determine intelligence, behavior, or personality, so what proof do we have? Why jump to conclusions which, if true, would call for a rather drastic revision of all thinking and all morality, when we can err on the safe side and just try to equalize environments first?
Why do they believe in Global Warming? Because greenhouse gasses really do heat up planets -- just look at Venus.
Why are they soft on criminals? Because criminals did not have a perfectly equal environment as non-criminals before they became criminals, this while they are children so they can't possibly be responsible for creating a good environment, so it isn't fair to punish them when it's really society's fault.
Why do they do it? Because nine times out of ten, there is an element of truth to what they say. Because if you look at it from their point of view, it makes perfect sense. Why wouldn't they? Are you telling blacks they should willingly prefer a meritocracy where they will all be left unemployed and impoverished? Why should they give up all of their advantages to live in a pitiless libertarian world of competition with people they cannot possibly compete with? Do we think women would think it is fair if we got rid of women's sports and demanded they compete 'evenly' with men -- disregarding the completely unequal advantages men have over women in sports? Why would they eagerly embrace this? Now imagine if its your livelihood on the line, the very bread on your table, and not a sports event? And we expect blacks to hand that all over in the name of FAIRNESS? It's like demanding a cripple race fairly without any handicaps against an olympic sprinter. In what world is this considered a fair and equal competition?
Anime understands this conundrum so much better than America does. In anime, both the hero and the villain have an interesting, and correct, point of view. For instance, the villain will see things from one perspective, and bring forth evidence showing he is correct. The hero usually grants that the villain is correct, but usually has not taken a broader perspective that limits their narrow truth and amends it into a better, higher truth which the hero holds. In anime, villains are routinely converted to heroes by showing where their thinking has gone wrong, where they have 'blown a fuse.' Oftentimes, villains are simply people who have the exact same feelings as the heroes, but have had too many painful experiences to believe in humanity's goodness anymore, and therefore come to some drastic conclusion as a response. Heroes cry tears of remorse and pity for these villains, even while defeating them. They never once label them evil, stupid, or ignorant. Anime's morality is so far above our pathetic level of discourse, it almost hurts to watch American TV. In America, if a villain ever does have a motivation, he is always exposed as a hypocrite, a liar, a selfish depraved scumbag, etc -- such that his arguments never even have the right to be aired. They always include on the 'rap sheet' of a villain some sort of senseless rape or murder spree, just so the viewer is SURE SURE SURE he's a bad guy, and nothing he thinks or says has any merit.
In America, it's surprising a villain doesn't immediately kick a puppy and then skin a cat after every speech they make explaining their motives, just to drive the point home that they are definitely, absolutely, wrong.
It doesn't help that the usual response to liberal insanity is conservative insanity, which liberals can cut to ribbons within seconds. But whenever rationality is offered to either of these groups, ingrained moral traditions rebel against them. It is very difficult to convince people we need to force women to marry and have kids, that we need to abolish democracy and return to a nobility, that we need to redistribute trillions of dollars a year so that everyone has a citizen's dividend whether they work or not, that there is no God, that genes do matter and the gaps between the races are unbridgeable no matter what environment we put them in, and so on. Partially it is because these things have simply never been tried before in history and therefore no one trusts their chances of success. Partially it is because the results of these policies are draconic and cause pain. Partially it is just due to the momentum of historical patterns of existence that made sense at the time but no longer do. For whatever reason, simply telling the truth and being rational does not magically fix every person you talk to who is 'broken.' In the end, the only way to create a healthy human mind is marry a like-minded spouse and raise like-minded children yourself, start to finish. Even then the result is partially randomized. Marcus Aurelius' son was Commodus. The gap doesn't get much wider than that. The only way to create a healthy community is to find already healthy people, get together, and intermarry as a group, raising said children together in the mindset of their parents.
But people CAN change their minds. We used to think the planets moved on circular orbits, but now we agree they move in elliptical orbits. We used to think the world was flat, now we grant it is round. We used to think airplanes were physically impossible. Now jets regularly fly through the air and space shuttles pierce the heavens. Once enough proof starts circulating in the cultural discourse, the truth eventually prevails. It's practically unstoppable. Someday the genes for intelligence will be discovered. Someday low birth rates (or skyrocketing birth rates in the case of the 3rd world) will compel governments to do something. Someday dysfunctional democracies will compel a military coup or secession. And so on. Bad ideas don't last forever, because they are eventually defeated by reality or the competition of better ideas. After all, babies with brains can't live. Broken fuses can't light up neighborhoods. Bugged codes don't compile. Bad beliefs cannot uphold humanity. They just can't. It might be a long and circuitous route, but there's really nothing liberals can do to stop the approach of destiny. A good argument won't change liberals' minds. But when they cause a new dark age, the error of their ways will become apparent even to them.
Are we seriously to believe that the tower of Babel was about to reach the heavens before God struck it down, and that linguistic differences were caused by God petulantly just rolling a die and changing up how people spoke, instead of the science of language that has studied comprehensively how languages spread and varied, and their ancient roots, that exactly parallels human migrations?
Are we seriously to believe that if you don't sprinkle a baby's forehead with water after he's born he will be tortured for eternity after his death?
Are we seriously to believe that the whole world was covered in water a few thousand years ago? That all we needed was two of each animal for all species on earth to recover and multiply? Even though we have the genetic data showing far more genetic diversity than one giant inbred nuclear family? That a ship could house and feed the entire earth's flora and fauna for weeks?
Are we seriously to believe that a virgin can give birth? Or that people can rise from the dead, good as new? When have we seen either of these things ever occur? They defy all reality.
Are we seriously to believe we're all descended from Adam and Eve, created whole and fully modern from the Head of God, not from the rest of the animal world, even though we share 99% of our genes with chimpanzees and tell-tale similarities with all other life forms down to bacteria, such that we can trace the common origin of life on Earth all the way down to its foundation?
Are we seriously to believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-benevolent God created the world and all the evil we suffer in it and an afterlife devoted exclusively to infinite suffering afterwards?
The irrationality of conservatives is mind-numbing. The same conservatives who claim we are 'fallen beings' and therefore governments can't be trusted, turn around and say humans are absolutely perfect so long as they don't work for the government and the free market would never do anything wrong to anyone. They wave around ridiculous claims like the free market doesn't use force, and therefore can't harm anyone -- even though the very concept of property rights itself is a use of force (If one person owns something, it means the government shoots anyone else who tries to take it), and companies are ubiquitous in their use of fraud -- just turn on the TV and watch a few commercials and you'll find that if you just buy X, you'll have sex with a beautiful woman today -- EVERY SINGLE COMMERCIAL. They wouldn't air these commercials if they didn't work. So when people say, "oh that fraud isn't important because it's obviously silly." Well, it must work on someone, because in the end it makes money, now doesn't it? They also completely ignore the fact that business works WITH governments to take money from both employees (who aren't paid what they are worth) and taxpayers (who are made to finance corporate welfare). So long as business has any influence over the government via campaign funding, they can simply buy the government that favors them, and therefore gain the full use of force the government supposedly has a monopoly over.
If conservatives set up rules saying the government 'can't do this' or 'can't do that,' they have no system that can stop people from changing said rules seconds later. In a democracy, who will protect your precious constitution from being amended, reinterpreted, or simply voted out of power by a corrupted populace? And yet conservatives fervently support democracy as some sort of holy trinity alongside capitalism and Christianity. Belief in universal democracy is also completely irrational. It hasn't produced any good results anywhere on Earth. There is no theoretical reason why masses of stupid people can make better decisions than a few intelligent people -- it isn't true in corporations, it isn't true in science, it isn't true in math, it isn't true in art, it isn't true in war, it isn't true in ANY OTHER FIELD OF HUMAN ENDEAVOR, but supposedly it's true when it comes to government, which has power over and controls everything aforementioned. So masses of stupid people are completely incapable of progressing science, but they are perfectly capable of deciding what science should be taught, what science should be banned, what science should be funded, etc. In what world does this make sense? In the conservative world.
Conservatives have magical double standards like 'terrorism' is wrong because it hurts civilians, but WWII was the best war ever because we nuked and firebombed hundreds of thousands of civilians, intentionally targeting them for maximum effect, in the last year of an already won war. They say suicide bombers are 'cowards' but think air force bombers who shoot missiles from miles away are 'heroes.' I cannot imagine how much bravery it takes to be a suicide bomber. I cannot imagine the bravery it takes to be a terrorist, with a few thousand people and a few million dollars, taking on our trillion dollar a year military machine with all the fanciest weapons the world can buy and hundreds of thousands of troops. Only a conservative would spit in their eye and pretend they are somehow 'cowards' while our 'brave young men and women' are 'fighting for our freedom.' Our freedom to do what? Invade and occupy other people's countries? Isn't it the terrorists who are fighting for their freedom from foreign occupation? You know, like any people on Earth would do if they were invaded and occupied spontaneously, having not done a SINGLE DAMN THING to the USA beforehand?
So let's make one thing clear, I don't think conservatives actually enjoy frying babies with incendiary bombs or burning babies in hell for eternity -- and yet they still endorse both of these things, and will argue vociferously in favor of both, whenever it is brought up. It isn't because they are evil, ignorant, or stupid. It is because they are irrational. For instance, if a program doesn't compile, it's because a single line of code is bugged. It has an 'R' where there was supposed to be a 'T' or whatever. Coders search for the bug, correct it, and the program runs fine again. At no point do coders imagine the computer, when it fails to compile, is 'evil,' 'stupid,' or 'ignorant.' When a gene fails to transpose correctly and we have a mutation, producing some horrible result like brainless babies, we don't call the genome 'evil,' 'stupid,' or 'ignorant.' When a fuse blows and we have to replace the part, we don't call the electric grid 'evil,' 'stupid,' or 'ignorant.' We basically accept the fact that things that are 99% good can have one tiny error, just one little thing awry, and it crashes the entire system. We also accept the fact that 'what can go wrong, will go wrong,' or entropy, the fact that everything is degrading and breaking and only constant vigilance and maintenance can possibly keep a system afloat.
The same should be applied to our beliefs. People are not evil, stupid, or ignorant, just because they are wrong. Odds are, they are 99% good people, whose system would work perfectly if you just replaced one fuse, one bad line of code, one copy number variation, etc. If constant vigilance and maintenance were applied to people's beliefs, they could be corrected in time, instead of run wild like we see today. But a culture that has lost confidence in itself and therefore will not maintain itself, or doesn't even know what a correct computer code/dna strand/electric grid looks like, and therefore cannot maintain itself, is destined to produce the world we see today.
What is causing these short circuits of logic, these tiny irregularities, these busted fuses of the left? In short, where exactly are people being irrational, and what tiny correction would be required to redeem them from the horrendous harm they are doing the world, to the productive and helpful members of society they ought to be?
Liberals aren't liberals because they hate all life, because they are illiterate and innumerate, or because they have low IQs. All of the traditional explanations for why liberals are liberals are self-evidently absurd. (Which hasn't stopped equally irrational conservatives from clinging to these explanations anyway.)
Why do they do it? Let's break it into groups:
1. Blacks: Why are blacks liberal? Because it gives them money.
2. Hispanics: Why are hispanics liberal? Because it gives them money.
3. Why are single women liberal? Because it gives them money. Furthermore, it gives them the freedom to live however they like, no matter what personal or societal damage they wreak on others.
4. Why are other women liberal? Because they feel bad when they see people suffering and want to help.
5. Why are jews liberal? Because they know, they just KNOW, that any discrimination in any form against anyone would eventually lead back to discrimination against jews, the most historically hated subgroup on Earth.
6. Why are white men liberal? Because they are sick of social injustice. They tend to be blue collar workers who could never afford a decent life in America without liberals' help, gazing up at fat cats who make more money in a day than they'll ever make their whole lives.
7. Why are environmentalists liberal? Because they see quite clearly that the world cannot support 7 billion people living at American consumption levels, and conservatives will not let them control population growth or conserve more resources.
8. Why are Asians liberal? Collectivism is in their genes. Conservatives insist on being individualists. Family is important to them. Christianity insists that you hate your mother and your father, libertarians insist blood is meaningless and only merit, not kinship, should define who you love or support. Why would they be conservatives?
Why don't they accept HBD? Because we have never performed a perfect experiment where all environmental factors were equal -- so how can we possibly prove anything is genetic? Furthermore, we have never found the genes that determine intelligence, behavior, or personality, so what proof do we have? Why jump to conclusions which, if true, would call for a rather drastic revision of all thinking and all morality, when we can err on the safe side and just try to equalize environments first?
Why do they believe in Global Warming? Because greenhouse gasses really do heat up planets -- just look at Venus.
Why are they soft on criminals? Because criminals did not have a perfectly equal environment as non-criminals before they became criminals, this while they are children so they can't possibly be responsible for creating a good environment, so it isn't fair to punish them when it's really society's fault.
Why do they do it? Because nine times out of ten, there is an element of truth to what they say. Because if you look at it from their point of view, it makes perfect sense. Why wouldn't they? Are you telling blacks they should willingly prefer a meritocracy where they will all be left unemployed and impoverished? Why should they give up all of their advantages to live in a pitiless libertarian world of competition with people they cannot possibly compete with? Do we think women would think it is fair if we got rid of women's sports and demanded they compete 'evenly' with men -- disregarding the completely unequal advantages men have over women in sports? Why would they eagerly embrace this? Now imagine if its your livelihood on the line, the very bread on your table, and not a sports event? And we expect blacks to hand that all over in the name of FAIRNESS? It's like demanding a cripple race fairly without any handicaps against an olympic sprinter. In what world is this considered a fair and equal competition?
Anime understands this conundrum so much better than America does. In anime, both the hero and the villain have an interesting, and correct, point of view. For instance, the villain will see things from one perspective, and bring forth evidence showing he is correct. The hero usually grants that the villain is correct, but usually has not taken a broader perspective that limits their narrow truth and amends it into a better, higher truth which the hero holds. In anime, villains are routinely converted to heroes by showing where their thinking has gone wrong, where they have 'blown a fuse.' Oftentimes, villains are simply people who have the exact same feelings as the heroes, but have had too many painful experiences to believe in humanity's goodness anymore, and therefore come to some drastic conclusion as a response. Heroes cry tears of remorse and pity for these villains, even while defeating them. They never once label them evil, stupid, or ignorant. Anime's morality is so far above our pathetic level of discourse, it almost hurts to watch American TV. In America, if a villain ever does have a motivation, he is always exposed as a hypocrite, a liar, a selfish depraved scumbag, etc -- such that his arguments never even have the right to be aired. They always include on the 'rap sheet' of a villain some sort of senseless rape or murder spree, just so the viewer is SURE SURE SURE he's a bad guy, and nothing he thinks or says has any merit.
In America, it's surprising a villain doesn't immediately kick a puppy and then skin a cat after every speech they make explaining their motives, just to drive the point home that they are definitely, absolutely, wrong.
It doesn't help that the usual response to liberal insanity is conservative insanity, which liberals can cut to ribbons within seconds. But whenever rationality is offered to either of these groups, ingrained moral traditions rebel against them. It is very difficult to convince people we need to force women to marry and have kids, that we need to abolish democracy and return to a nobility, that we need to redistribute trillions of dollars a year so that everyone has a citizen's dividend whether they work or not, that there is no God, that genes do matter and the gaps between the races are unbridgeable no matter what environment we put them in, and so on. Partially it is because these things have simply never been tried before in history and therefore no one trusts their chances of success. Partially it is because the results of these policies are draconic and cause pain. Partially it is just due to the momentum of historical patterns of existence that made sense at the time but no longer do. For whatever reason, simply telling the truth and being rational does not magically fix every person you talk to who is 'broken.' In the end, the only way to create a healthy human mind is marry a like-minded spouse and raise like-minded children yourself, start to finish. Even then the result is partially randomized. Marcus Aurelius' son was Commodus. The gap doesn't get much wider than that. The only way to create a healthy community is to find already healthy people, get together, and intermarry as a group, raising said children together in the mindset of their parents.
But people CAN change their minds. We used to think the planets moved on circular orbits, but now we agree they move in elliptical orbits. We used to think the world was flat, now we grant it is round. We used to think airplanes were physically impossible. Now jets regularly fly through the air and space shuttles pierce the heavens. Once enough proof starts circulating in the cultural discourse, the truth eventually prevails. It's practically unstoppable. Someday the genes for intelligence will be discovered. Someday low birth rates (or skyrocketing birth rates in the case of the 3rd world) will compel governments to do something. Someday dysfunctional democracies will compel a military coup or secession. And so on. Bad ideas don't last forever, because they are eventually defeated by reality or the competition of better ideas. After all, babies with brains can't live. Broken fuses can't light up neighborhoods. Bugged codes don't compile. Bad beliefs cannot uphold humanity. They just can't. It might be a long and circuitous route, but there's really nothing liberals can do to stop the approach of destiny. A good argument won't change liberals' minds. But when they cause a new dark age, the error of their ways will become apparent even to them.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Money, Votes, Violence
People have three currencies with which to further their political goals. We can spend money to spread our message or support our volunteers, we can make our enemies lose money via boycotts and strikes, we can use our vote on election days to infinitesimally shift things in our favor (even if from worse to less worse), or we can resort to violence (terrorism, revolution, riots).
Even supposing our arguments were persuasive, without money they'll never be heard or presented in a professional and convincing fashion. We need enough money to be spreading the message across all mediums, in exciting, memorable, and entertaining ways. Movies, tv shows, music, festivals, art shows, fashion lines, magazines, billboards, you get the idea. A complete saturation of the culture with our message not just explicitly, but implicitly (ie likable characters people relate to following our values without ever saying them, so that people start to think they must be right, if so many good people always choose them.) One of the things I loved about Covington's novels is his heroes were always good people in all other fields of their lives, (for instance the high school couple that aimed for marriage from the start and only kissed an average of once a year while dating) (for instance, the 'general order number 10' that forbid all drugs and drinking to anyone in the cause) and in addition, most of them were so self-assured about the rightness of their cause, that they never even made an argument for racism, sexism, or whatever. They just were racist sexist anti-semites. It was self-evident they should be. There was no point even thinking about the matter, it was so obviously right. I know his novels were written for people who were already racists, but a toned down version of this can still be used effectively elsewhere.
A girl who turns down offers from black, bad-boy, thug looking types and dates the main character instead. Some guy who doesn't look the other way during a black crime and jumps in to help. A guy who convinces his friend to quit hanging out with that 'seedy crowd' or those 'drug dealers,' or those 'idiots way below your level.' A girl who rescues a white male from a bunch of no good black and hispanic gangster friends to a life of purpose and values. There are infinite stories to be told. ::smiles:: Humans are story-junkies. We love stories so much. Story telling, and our absolute love in listening to them, is part of what makes humans so special. If you tell a good story, people will listen. They will also be swayed, however little, by any implicit messages you include in said story. The most effective anti-racist propaganda is always embedded in entertaining stories. For instance, some intelligent, good looking, loving black boy dating a white girl and destined to become a nobel prize winning doctor, being jeered and harassed by a bunch of ugly, stupid, dirty white trash racists who try to get in the way of their pure and wholesome love. Everyone will immediately realize who the villains, and who the heroes are, in this story. It's self-evident, just by how the story is set up. The same can be done on our side.
A girl in an all-black school just trying to study in a completely disruptive, violent environment. Unwanted black men constantly groping and grabbing her, teasing her and calling her bitch and whore. A gang rape of said innocent girl when she's heading back from a date with some wholesome, kind, and respectful, smart white guy destined to win a nobel prize and become a doctor who's killed in front of her, and a father who seeks them all out and plugs them in the street where they stand in a running gunfight. See? A fun story already. What would the lesson be here? That girls should stick with white guys, who respect women and treat them right, and that whites can't just look away when barbarians are on the loose, they have to stand and fight. That above everything else, white men have to protect our beautiful white women from the beast. Just as no one had to argue that 'there is only one race, the human race' in the first story, there is no need to argue that, 'intelligence is 80% hereditary and varies between the races' in the second.
In a white ethno-state, we would always have enough money to saturate the culture with our message, because we could just use taxpayer dollars to do so. Don't think state propaganda doesn't work. It has worked in every country that uses it. People are stupid and easily suggestible. Just as children pick up the religion of their parents, children learn what is right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable, good and evil, from their community. Saturating the airwaves creates the false consensus that eventually leads to a true consensus. If everyone they see is a racist sexist anti-semite, they'll assume that's basically the model and if they want to fit in and make friends and get a career, they'll need to be racist sexist anti-semites too, then that's what they'll become. It is impossible to believe that all the Hindus in India became Hindus after carefully reflecting on the religion and deciding that it was objectively true, whereas the other 6 billion people on Earth aren't Hindus because they all reflected carefully on the matter and decided it was objectively false, and it is simply pure coincidence that the billion people who felt it was true all live in India, and the six billion who don't all live elsewhere.
Without a white ethno-state, without any public tax dollars, how can we have enough market share to first break the anti-racist consensus our jewish media masters have created, and then actually shoulder it aside with our message spreading like an inkblot across the entire lake of entertainment? Money! Money. Money to publish books, money to back singers. Money to pay actors and make movies like Braveheart. Millions, billions of dollars to insert into every last corner of people's lives a competing message for their eyes and time. Channel after channel subtly designed to entertain and brainwash on cable tv. Election campaigns that have billions to spend on tv and radio and newspaper advertisements for a 'return to common sense and decency.' With enough money, the consensus could be broken even without the help of the state. V-dare can't reach a lowly fundraising target of $50,000 to pay its expenses. Meanwhile, George Soros spends millions regularly on various organizations and media campaigns to influence the outside world. What a joke. White Nationalism will never get off the ground until we have powerful people like George Soros spending billions of their own personal wealth to further our message. Yes, billions of dollars. Fox News lost money for the first ten years it operated, now it has a huge following. It required billions of dollars to keep it afloat until it succeeded. The same can be said of Sony's playstation, or basically any company or product. Nothing sells without the deep pockets of billionaires funding it until it has the strength to stand on its own. Sometimes, it never makes money. You simply pocket the losses every year, for the rest of your life, just to get the message out. We need billionaires who wouldn't mind doing that all their lives and then donating the rest to a non-profit organization that does the same for the rest of eternity. I find it rather sad that there isn't a single idealistic billionaire on Earth willing to spend his own money to further white nationalism. But we can be certain that until he is born, or a white nationalist currently alive decides to make a billion dollars for the express purpose of using it to spread pro-white propaganda, we are powerless.
Apparently, there aren't any rich people in the WN movement. A movement without any rich people is obviously doomed. Without money, you can't accomplish anything. Even a few tractors and bulldozers cost millions of dollars, it's impossible to even dig a ditch without millions of dollars. For Vdare to not have $50,000 just lying around in pocket change is embarrassing. What kind of movement is this? Any viable movement will have billions of dollars in funding, period.
Money can do anything in this world. Money can purchase the media, and the media can capture the public. Money could also purchase clandestine nuclear weapons or fund secret bio-weapons labs. With enough money, I'm sure Russia or North Korea or some other unstable country would simply sell us the weapons we need to blackmail America with. That our movement A) doesn't have a single rich person and B) doesn't have enough middle class people to fund a measly $50,000 for Vdare.com, means we are nothing. We are nobody. We aren't a movement. We aren't a viable alternative. We have no power and no people and no chance.
Supposing we were all poor, but we could still go out and vote on election day, we could still change America. But there is no white nationalist vote. The BNP doesn't have anyone in the House of Commons, they're hoping in 2010 to get one member. What good will one member do? Until the BNP on its own becomes the absolute majority party of Parliament, it will never even be included into any government. Everyone else will unite against them and keep them out of office. The BNP has to become this absolute majority within 30 years, before their country becomes majority non-white. Even worse, as time goes by, they have to win a larger and larger fraction of the white vote each time. Unless non-whites are demented, they would never vote for the BNP. So if the country is currently 10% non-white, the BNP would have to win 56% of the white vote. When the country is 20% non-white, the BNP will have to win 63% of the white vote. When the country is 30% non-white, the BNP will have to win 72% of the white vote. When the country is 40% non-white, the BNP will have to win 84% of the white vote. And when the country is 50% non-white, the BNP will have to win 100% of the white vote.
Likewise, in the last election of 2008 in the USA, all third parties put together didn't even amount to 1% of the vote. None of these third parties had anything similar to a white nationalist platform. Again, as the proportion of the US population shifts more and more non-white, we will be facing the same situation as the BNP. In a 65% white country, the white nationalist party would have to already win around 80% of the white vote. We don't have 1%. We don't have .1%. We don't even HAVE a white nationalist party. And that's if we had an election today. Suppose we had a party, suppose we were running for office -- how are you going to topple the current parties with all their incumbent powers and the inertia of the public? How are you going to convince people to vote for racism, sexism, and anti-semitism? How are you going to do this within the time limit of 30 years when our country becomes majority non-white and no WN party can ever come to power again?
It should be obvious to anyone that in terms of votes, all we can possibly do is back the 'least toxic' of two choices. But even that isn't very satisfying. What if backing the less toxic alternative just makes our collapse all the more certain, due to its gradual speed? If we make sure that our genocide is the slowest and least painful genocide possible, have we really accomplished anything? What is the point in voting for a 'less toxic' genocide? Genocide is genocide. Nothing short of secession or mass deportations or mass sterilization/murder of non-whites will save the white race from eventual extinction in the USA and Europe. Any party that doesn't stand for that doesn't deserve our vote. Basically, all parties are interchangeable if they don't adopt one of those options -- ultimately, none of their other positions on anything matter, because they all equally result in our extinction. Non-whites have higher fertility rates than whites, so simply by existing within our borders, they will eventually become the majority, and from there, they will use their vote to ensure they stay the majority forever. It's not like South Africa will ever have a white government again.
If you think the American public will vote for secession, mass deportations, or mass murder of non-whites within the next 30 years, I have some prime real estate to sell you in Florida. If we are lucky, we will vote to stop mass immigration. That's it. And even that is somewhat unbelievable, given that both the democrat and republican parties are in favor of amnesty and mass immigration. If neither party has any intention of stopping illegal or legal immigration, who exactly are we going to vote for to stop immigration? Do you even think the two parties listen to the will of the people? They listen to their campaign funders, the money men, and the money men want more immigration. Once you realize this, you realize that white nationalism needs money way more than it needs votes. Who can we vote for? And without money, how could we set up a political party anyway? It's all so stupid. Voting our way to a white republic? It's a pipe dream. It's impossible. It is not just unlikely. It is absolutely, 100% impossible that whites would suddenly wake up and vote in a white nationalist party that doesn't even exist yet within 30 years, or that one of the two major parties would somehow transform overnight, ignoring all their special interests and campaign funders, into a white nationalist party, which would then get over 80% of the white vote (which is needed even today) in order to win.
For the same reasons given above, violence won't work either. We don't have the money to fund our violence. Even al qaeda has millions in funding to do its terrorism, and look how ineffective they are. No terrorist attack in the last 8 years. Worthless. Suppose we did have billions of dollars, and bought WMD so we'd have real bang for our buck. So what? We don't have millions of people settled in the same place who want to form their own nation and can agree on what the new laws would be. We have no one to protect. There isn't anyone who shares our dream or wants to live in our new country. Who are we fighting for? Nobody.
What is the use in randomly lashing out and blowing up buildings or killing people? Setting aside the fact that it would only harden people's resolve to crush us, setting aside the fact that it would only turn people away from joining us, it's still absurd. If the violence doesn't result in an independent ethno-state with good laws and a good philosophy, then it's meaningless. It's just meaningless suffering to the victims of our insanity. What good did that 88 year old idiot do by killing one person at the Holocaust museum? We aren't any closer to our own country, and now there's someone dead instead of alive. People suffering instead of happy. The arithmetic should be rather obvious. This whole business of 'leaderless resistance' and 'lone-wolf' terrorism is absurd. Unless we are already a sovereign nation fighting a war of independence like our American forefathers, it's just murder. Just random murder. The day violence would succeed in a revolutionary war is obviously some time after we have billions of dollars in funding and millions of people living in the same place with the same values openly and confidently. It's after we've already achieved a level of autonomy on the level of Kosovo or something, completely dominating our state both politically and culturally. We should have a 'white nationalist' northwest that already on the state and local levels, everything short of the federal government, does everything our own way, with the laws we want and the schools we want and the people we want. Going from that to violence, by calling up the state militias, by buying WMD, or whatever, would be a simple step. And in that case, it could actually work. Probably it wouldn't even be necessary to resort to violence at that point. The mere threat of violence would be enough to scare America into letting us secede, and the loyalty of the people who were seceding to the cause, the unshakable will to use violence if necessary, would be sufficient. Where is this loyalty? This unshakable will? These millions? These billions of dollars? These state governments? We don't have the infrastructure necessary to wage war (or the threat of war.) Anything short of the infrastructure necessary to wage war, and white nationalist violence is just murder. It has no higher cause. It serves no larger purpose. It's just evil.
WN lacks the money, votes, or violence to achieve anything. There is little purpose in pushing it at the present time. Using your money, votes, or violence to push anything short of white nationalism is equally useless. Anything less than white nationalism will result in the extinction of the white race. Therefore, there is little purpose in pushing any political stance whatsoever at present. Nothing will change. Nothing can change.
Conditions may dramatically change given new scientific breakthroughs, economic collapses, world wars, meteor impacts, etc. Basically, only an act of God could change the political calculus we currently live in. If said miracle revives the possibility of a white ethno-state, then naturally we should rally behind it. But until then, who gives a damn.
Even supposing our arguments were persuasive, without money they'll never be heard or presented in a professional and convincing fashion. We need enough money to be spreading the message across all mediums, in exciting, memorable, and entertaining ways. Movies, tv shows, music, festivals, art shows, fashion lines, magazines, billboards, you get the idea. A complete saturation of the culture with our message not just explicitly, but implicitly (ie likable characters people relate to following our values without ever saying them, so that people start to think they must be right, if so many good people always choose them.) One of the things I loved about Covington's novels is his heroes were always good people in all other fields of their lives, (for instance the high school couple that aimed for marriage from the start and only kissed an average of once a year while dating) (for instance, the 'general order number 10' that forbid all drugs and drinking to anyone in the cause) and in addition, most of them were so self-assured about the rightness of their cause, that they never even made an argument for racism, sexism, or whatever. They just were racist sexist anti-semites. It was self-evident they should be. There was no point even thinking about the matter, it was so obviously right. I know his novels were written for people who were already racists, but a toned down version of this can still be used effectively elsewhere.
A girl who turns down offers from black, bad-boy, thug looking types and dates the main character instead. Some guy who doesn't look the other way during a black crime and jumps in to help. A guy who convinces his friend to quit hanging out with that 'seedy crowd' or those 'drug dealers,' or those 'idiots way below your level.' A girl who rescues a white male from a bunch of no good black and hispanic gangster friends to a life of purpose and values. There are infinite stories to be told. ::smiles:: Humans are story-junkies. We love stories so much. Story telling, and our absolute love in listening to them, is part of what makes humans so special. If you tell a good story, people will listen. They will also be swayed, however little, by any implicit messages you include in said story. The most effective anti-racist propaganda is always embedded in entertaining stories. For instance, some intelligent, good looking, loving black boy dating a white girl and destined to become a nobel prize winning doctor, being jeered and harassed by a bunch of ugly, stupid, dirty white trash racists who try to get in the way of their pure and wholesome love. Everyone will immediately realize who the villains, and who the heroes are, in this story. It's self-evident, just by how the story is set up. The same can be done on our side.
A girl in an all-black school just trying to study in a completely disruptive, violent environment. Unwanted black men constantly groping and grabbing her, teasing her and calling her bitch and whore. A gang rape of said innocent girl when she's heading back from a date with some wholesome, kind, and respectful, smart white guy destined to win a nobel prize and become a doctor who's killed in front of her, and a father who seeks them all out and plugs them in the street where they stand in a running gunfight. See? A fun story already. What would the lesson be here? That girls should stick with white guys, who respect women and treat them right, and that whites can't just look away when barbarians are on the loose, they have to stand and fight. That above everything else, white men have to protect our beautiful white women from the beast. Just as no one had to argue that 'there is only one race, the human race' in the first story, there is no need to argue that, 'intelligence is 80% hereditary and varies between the races' in the second.
In a white ethno-state, we would always have enough money to saturate the culture with our message, because we could just use taxpayer dollars to do so. Don't think state propaganda doesn't work. It has worked in every country that uses it. People are stupid and easily suggestible. Just as children pick up the religion of their parents, children learn what is right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable, good and evil, from their community. Saturating the airwaves creates the false consensus that eventually leads to a true consensus. If everyone they see is a racist sexist anti-semite, they'll assume that's basically the model and if they want to fit in and make friends and get a career, they'll need to be racist sexist anti-semites too, then that's what they'll become. It is impossible to believe that all the Hindus in India became Hindus after carefully reflecting on the religion and deciding that it was objectively true, whereas the other 6 billion people on Earth aren't Hindus because they all reflected carefully on the matter and decided it was objectively false, and it is simply pure coincidence that the billion people who felt it was true all live in India, and the six billion who don't all live elsewhere.
Without a white ethno-state, without any public tax dollars, how can we have enough market share to first break the anti-racist consensus our jewish media masters have created, and then actually shoulder it aside with our message spreading like an inkblot across the entire lake of entertainment? Money! Money. Money to publish books, money to back singers. Money to pay actors and make movies like Braveheart. Millions, billions of dollars to insert into every last corner of people's lives a competing message for their eyes and time. Channel after channel subtly designed to entertain and brainwash on cable tv. Election campaigns that have billions to spend on tv and radio and newspaper advertisements for a 'return to common sense and decency.' With enough money, the consensus could be broken even without the help of the state. V-dare can't reach a lowly fundraising target of $50,000 to pay its expenses. Meanwhile, George Soros spends millions regularly on various organizations and media campaigns to influence the outside world. What a joke. White Nationalism will never get off the ground until we have powerful people like George Soros spending billions of their own personal wealth to further our message. Yes, billions of dollars. Fox News lost money for the first ten years it operated, now it has a huge following. It required billions of dollars to keep it afloat until it succeeded. The same can be said of Sony's playstation, or basically any company or product. Nothing sells without the deep pockets of billionaires funding it until it has the strength to stand on its own. Sometimes, it never makes money. You simply pocket the losses every year, for the rest of your life, just to get the message out. We need billionaires who wouldn't mind doing that all their lives and then donating the rest to a non-profit organization that does the same for the rest of eternity. I find it rather sad that there isn't a single idealistic billionaire on Earth willing to spend his own money to further white nationalism. But we can be certain that until he is born, or a white nationalist currently alive decides to make a billion dollars for the express purpose of using it to spread pro-white propaganda, we are powerless.
Apparently, there aren't any rich people in the WN movement. A movement without any rich people is obviously doomed. Without money, you can't accomplish anything. Even a few tractors and bulldozers cost millions of dollars, it's impossible to even dig a ditch without millions of dollars. For Vdare to not have $50,000 just lying around in pocket change is embarrassing. What kind of movement is this? Any viable movement will have billions of dollars in funding, period.
Money can do anything in this world. Money can purchase the media, and the media can capture the public. Money could also purchase clandestine nuclear weapons or fund secret bio-weapons labs. With enough money, I'm sure Russia or North Korea or some other unstable country would simply sell us the weapons we need to blackmail America with. That our movement A) doesn't have a single rich person and B) doesn't have enough middle class people to fund a measly $50,000 for Vdare.com, means we are nothing. We are nobody. We aren't a movement. We aren't a viable alternative. We have no power and no people and no chance.
Supposing we were all poor, but we could still go out and vote on election day, we could still change America. But there is no white nationalist vote. The BNP doesn't have anyone in the House of Commons, they're hoping in 2010 to get one member. What good will one member do? Until the BNP on its own becomes the absolute majority party of Parliament, it will never even be included into any government. Everyone else will unite against them and keep them out of office. The BNP has to become this absolute majority within 30 years, before their country becomes majority non-white. Even worse, as time goes by, they have to win a larger and larger fraction of the white vote each time. Unless non-whites are demented, they would never vote for the BNP. So if the country is currently 10% non-white, the BNP would have to win 56% of the white vote. When the country is 20% non-white, the BNP will have to win 63% of the white vote. When the country is 30% non-white, the BNP will have to win 72% of the white vote. When the country is 40% non-white, the BNP will have to win 84% of the white vote. And when the country is 50% non-white, the BNP will have to win 100% of the white vote.
Likewise, in the last election of 2008 in the USA, all third parties put together didn't even amount to 1% of the vote. None of these third parties had anything similar to a white nationalist platform. Again, as the proportion of the US population shifts more and more non-white, we will be facing the same situation as the BNP. In a 65% white country, the white nationalist party would have to already win around 80% of the white vote. We don't have 1%. We don't have .1%. We don't even HAVE a white nationalist party. And that's if we had an election today. Suppose we had a party, suppose we were running for office -- how are you going to topple the current parties with all their incumbent powers and the inertia of the public? How are you going to convince people to vote for racism, sexism, and anti-semitism? How are you going to do this within the time limit of 30 years when our country becomes majority non-white and no WN party can ever come to power again?
It should be obvious to anyone that in terms of votes, all we can possibly do is back the 'least toxic' of two choices. But even that isn't very satisfying. What if backing the less toxic alternative just makes our collapse all the more certain, due to its gradual speed? If we make sure that our genocide is the slowest and least painful genocide possible, have we really accomplished anything? What is the point in voting for a 'less toxic' genocide? Genocide is genocide. Nothing short of secession or mass deportations or mass sterilization/murder of non-whites will save the white race from eventual extinction in the USA and Europe. Any party that doesn't stand for that doesn't deserve our vote. Basically, all parties are interchangeable if they don't adopt one of those options -- ultimately, none of their other positions on anything matter, because they all equally result in our extinction. Non-whites have higher fertility rates than whites, so simply by existing within our borders, they will eventually become the majority, and from there, they will use their vote to ensure they stay the majority forever. It's not like South Africa will ever have a white government again.
If you think the American public will vote for secession, mass deportations, or mass murder of non-whites within the next 30 years, I have some prime real estate to sell you in Florida. If we are lucky, we will vote to stop mass immigration. That's it. And even that is somewhat unbelievable, given that both the democrat and republican parties are in favor of amnesty and mass immigration. If neither party has any intention of stopping illegal or legal immigration, who exactly are we going to vote for to stop immigration? Do you even think the two parties listen to the will of the people? They listen to their campaign funders, the money men, and the money men want more immigration. Once you realize this, you realize that white nationalism needs money way more than it needs votes. Who can we vote for? And without money, how could we set up a political party anyway? It's all so stupid. Voting our way to a white republic? It's a pipe dream. It's impossible. It is not just unlikely. It is absolutely, 100% impossible that whites would suddenly wake up and vote in a white nationalist party that doesn't even exist yet within 30 years, or that one of the two major parties would somehow transform overnight, ignoring all their special interests and campaign funders, into a white nationalist party, which would then get over 80% of the white vote (which is needed even today) in order to win.
For the same reasons given above, violence won't work either. We don't have the money to fund our violence. Even al qaeda has millions in funding to do its terrorism, and look how ineffective they are. No terrorist attack in the last 8 years. Worthless. Suppose we did have billions of dollars, and bought WMD so we'd have real bang for our buck. So what? We don't have millions of people settled in the same place who want to form their own nation and can agree on what the new laws would be. We have no one to protect. There isn't anyone who shares our dream or wants to live in our new country. Who are we fighting for? Nobody.
What is the use in randomly lashing out and blowing up buildings or killing people? Setting aside the fact that it would only harden people's resolve to crush us, setting aside the fact that it would only turn people away from joining us, it's still absurd. If the violence doesn't result in an independent ethno-state with good laws and a good philosophy, then it's meaningless. It's just meaningless suffering to the victims of our insanity. What good did that 88 year old idiot do by killing one person at the Holocaust museum? We aren't any closer to our own country, and now there's someone dead instead of alive. People suffering instead of happy. The arithmetic should be rather obvious. This whole business of 'leaderless resistance' and 'lone-wolf' terrorism is absurd. Unless we are already a sovereign nation fighting a war of independence like our American forefathers, it's just murder. Just random murder. The day violence would succeed in a revolutionary war is obviously some time after we have billions of dollars in funding and millions of people living in the same place with the same values openly and confidently. It's after we've already achieved a level of autonomy on the level of Kosovo or something, completely dominating our state both politically and culturally. We should have a 'white nationalist' northwest that already on the state and local levels, everything short of the federal government, does everything our own way, with the laws we want and the schools we want and the people we want. Going from that to violence, by calling up the state militias, by buying WMD, or whatever, would be a simple step. And in that case, it could actually work. Probably it wouldn't even be necessary to resort to violence at that point. The mere threat of violence would be enough to scare America into letting us secede, and the loyalty of the people who were seceding to the cause, the unshakable will to use violence if necessary, would be sufficient. Where is this loyalty? This unshakable will? These millions? These billions of dollars? These state governments? We don't have the infrastructure necessary to wage war (or the threat of war.) Anything short of the infrastructure necessary to wage war, and white nationalist violence is just murder. It has no higher cause. It serves no larger purpose. It's just evil.
WN lacks the money, votes, or violence to achieve anything. There is little purpose in pushing it at the present time. Using your money, votes, or violence to push anything short of white nationalism is equally useless. Anything less than white nationalism will result in the extinction of the white race. Therefore, there is little purpose in pushing any political stance whatsoever at present. Nothing will change. Nothing can change.
Conditions may dramatically change given new scientific breakthroughs, economic collapses, world wars, meteor impacts, etc. Basically, only an act of God could change the political calculus we currently live in. If said miracle revives the possibility of a white ethno-state, then naturally we should rally behind it. But until then, who gives a damn.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
A New Concept to Address Borderline Cases: Provisional Whiteness
'Are jews white?'
To answer this, we would first need a definition for 'White.' This definition varies from person to person, and therefore what groups qualify as 'white' also varies from person to person. The argument in this case is largely one of semantics. But beneath the semantic argument are people with agendas. IE, those who choose a definition that does not include jews, are arguing with the agenda to exclude jews from any future white ethno-state, and in general excluding jews from any collective concern or loyalty from other whites. Those who choose a definition that does include jews, are arguing with the agenda to include jews into any future white ethno-state, and in general include jews in any collective concern or loyalty for other whites.
The idea that someone is arguing solely for the sake of objective truth, that they simply want people to follow the English language and admit 'white' means 'white,' cannot be believed. Because white is itself an arbitrary term that has no basic definition in the English language, and has been used variably to include or exclude different people all the time.
Here is the webster's dictionary of white: "2 a : being a member of a group or race characterized by light pigmentation of the skin"
Characterized, but not wholly defined by, light pigmentation of the skin. Otherwise albinos would be 'whites.' It's more like webster's is saying "a race best known for its light skin color." That's all well and good, but it's still far too vague to define white entirely. Our race may be best known for light skin color, but other traits also belong to it, that it is less well known for, but equally necessary to be white. For instance our wider hips, our higher body fat ratios, the shape of our skulls, the shape of our noses, the shape of our lips, etc. So putting the dictionary definition aside as rather vague and useless, we must seek our own definition.
There are other definitions: White means 'sharing X amount of alleles with various other white ethnicities.' White means 'people of European descent.' White means, 'displaying characteristics that typify aryan ideals,' White means, "Caucasians, Mestizos, Indians, and all other mixed race offspring." White could mean a dozen other things, they are all equally valid. There is no higher arbiter of truth that can say one person's labels or categorizations are wrong, and we must abide by some other labels or categorizations. Every single one of these definitions also agrees with the Webster's definition of 'has light skin.' They all could, technically, be the 'right' definition.
Categories and labels are simply tools to better understand the world around us, which of course doesn't fit into any categories or labels. The world simply is, and every single piece of it is interconnected with every other piece. There are no firm dividing lines, or strict categories, to anything. Various people over time have found it useful to categorize the races so that they could make their points, or persuade others about what should be done, about racial matters. All of their categories and labels are arbitrary, they have no basis in reality, they are simply tools for the mind to better grasp the problem, to find a pattern in the madness and bring order to a disordered set of data. To those with an agenda to exclude jews, their categorization of white has shifted to fit this agenda. To those with an agenda to include jews, their categorization of white has shifted to fit this agenda. Since categories are made in order to sort data for the sake of better analysis, both groups are perfectly justified in their having done so. The question then is not 'who is white?' or 'what is the definition of white?' Since this is arbitrary and can be categorized any which way. The real question is 'whose agenda is right?' If the agenda to exclude jews is right, we should obviously define white in such a way that it excludes jews, as that helps us exclude jews. If the agenda to include jews is right, we should obviously define white in such a way that it includes jews, as that helps us include jews.
The argument is entirely circular. Philosemites think jews should be included, therefore they are white. Antisemites think jews should be excluded, therefore they aren't white.
Even if we go by the 'objective' data of "white means sharing X alleles with other white ethnic groups." We are left with a debate over just what number X should be. Philosemites will put X at a number which conveniently includes jews. Antisemites will put X at a number that conveniently excludes jews. The only purpose of the scientific data is to find where X needs to be to include or exclude jews, and then state authoritatively that X is precisely that amount. The argument retreats a step to pore over genetic trees like old wise men pored over cracked chicken bones, but the result is the same. Philosemites will say jews are clearly white, antisemites will say jews clearly aren't white.
Here is a tree showing how related jews are to other white ethnic groups:
As you can see, jews are pretty closely related to whites. But they are less related than any other European ethnicity. Antisemites can draw the line exactly between Finns and Jews, and say, 'everyone to the right of this line is white, everyone to the left isn't. Sorry jews, you just didn't share enough alleles. We measured the numbers fairly and you didn't make the cut.'
Philosemites can make their own argument for why Jews should be included, and everyone to the left of jews clearly aren't white, and everyone to the right, including jews, are white.
Even more comical, we can imagine Philosemites someday proving that jews are more closely related to other white ethnic groups than Finns. Then they'd demand inclusion of jews into the white race. Antisemites would simply reply by throwing Finns under the bus. "I guess we were wrong, both Finns AND Jews aren't white, since neither of you share enough alleles to be white." That is the only concession antisemites would give philosemites, if the data turned out differently. They will never agree to include jews as whites, no matter what the genetic data says. This is because it was never about the genes. This is because the definition of 'white' is much deeper than simply sharing various alleles. People who aren't willing to admit this just end up sounding arbitrary, since they simply include or exclude jews by allele counts that suit them, instead of on any rational firm line that exists regardless of where jews place on it.
Personally, I don't think jews are white. My definition of white is partially genetic. IE, if some genetically pure white, whitest of white whities, were to become a rapper with his pants hanging down and speaking ebonics, raping women and drinking themselves into a stupor every night, I'd sigh and say "yes, he's white. The genes are just too clear to deny. He's white just like the rest of us." But the further out of the genetic mainstream said white becomes, the more provisional his whiteness becomes. There is then a large segment of people on the genetic fringes who are provisionally white, henceforth their white status is determined not by their genes, but by their loyalty, behavior, and culture. If these people practice religions alien to whites, like Islam, or if they call for the genocide of the white race, like Susan Sontag, or if they attack and slander whites at every turn, if they marry non-whites, or simply act like a bunch of thugs, idiots, or scum, they are non-white. Mind you, this is only in cases of provisional whiteness. If you are clearly genetically white, and do all of the above behavior, you're still white. But if you are genetically far away from the center of genetic whiteness, you are provisionally white, and your behavior and loyalty tips the balanced scales one way or the other.
For instance, Georgians and Armenians aren't white. Why? No real reason. I just don't like Georgian and Armenian behavior recently. They are warmongers and whiny victimologists. They cry out in pain while hitting other people, a trait so typical of non-whites but not of whites, who when they attack others do so from a lion-like belief in superiority and mastery, which needs no excuses for hurting others. I have some respect for Lebanese Christians, though not Lebanese muslims, so Lebanese Christians are provisionally white and the Muslims are non-white. I don't like jews or want to include them, so they aren't white. Jews have not been loyal to the welfare of the white race, but instead have done everything in their power to undermine it. Therefore they move from 'provisionally white' to 'non-white.' If jews changed their behavior, they could move from 'non-white' to 'provisionally white' again. Only by interbreeding with other whites and eliminating their genetic distance from us, could they ever be qualified as 'pure white,' where their behavior no longer has any impact on their whiteness. So long as they stay jews, they can only be 'provisionally white.' Right now they are not even provisionally white, since they are an enemy to the white race in everything they say and do.
If someone is 3/4 white and 1/4 black, he's provisionally white. If he acts like a decent white man who calls himself white and defends other whites, he'll stay provisionally white. He can never be pure white, because he is too genetically distant. But he can be provisionally white. If he identifies as a black and walks around with a chip on his shoulder blaming everything on whites and saying 'kill the white man,' then he's a black. For this reason, Jeremiah Wright, who's clearly genetically closer to white than black, is a black. He lost his chance at whiteness by damning us to hell. See how it works? In all borderline cases, the cases constantly thrown at us by anti-racists: "Well what about mixed races? What about jews? What about Armenians? What about --?" The answer is now solvable. "These people are provisionally white, their own behavior will determine whether they are included by us, or excluded by us, as white or non-white." If anyone wants to be included by us, all they have to do is 'act white.' Behave well, behave righteously, identify yourself as white, and be loyal to the white race.
Even if most jews are non-whites, righteous jews can still be included as provisional whites. There is no reason to punish jews collectively. We can judge them one by one, as individuals. I see no reason in excluding all jews just because of the actions of others they have no control over. That isn't fair.
The next question people will have, is, 'why define anything genetically? If you grant that provisionally white people should be sorted by their behavior, why not just do that with everyone?' That would be fine, except for this minor problem -- without the white genotype, the white phenotype cannot exist. We must preserve the white genotype, even if complete idiots and jerks belong to it, and even if angelic saints don't belong to it. This is because the white genome is innately good, regardless of how it ends up displaying itself. It is the most evolved life form on Earth, the closest to perfection, the greatest invention, the greatest artform, of God almighty. Even if the white race weren't the best (which it is), if it has any goodness to it that other races lack, it would still merit preserving for the sake of that quality alone. Our blue eyes and blond hair are just those sorts of unique traits, innately good, and needing to be preserved, regardless of anything else. Less provable, but just as true, our sense of honesty, our compassion, our artistic sense, and our creativity, are other unique traits that must be preserved, even if we were overall worse than other races.
Just like on any product line, sometimes something goes wrong and a 'white' turns out dysfunctional. This does not mean we should shut down the product line. It just means we should use quality control and deal with the errors as they arise. If we were to sort people by anything other than genetics, we would quickly lose the entire white genome. Whites are only 10% of world population, they are only 2% of the population of women of child-bearing age. We are going extinct. If we were to allow non-whites in by any other sorting method than white genotype, we would be swamped. Miscegenation, territory loss, loss of economic opportunity, uncomfortableness of being around large numbers, discrimination or hatred by other races towards us, all sorts of various factors would swarm in like killer bees to extinguish our line.
Therefore, we cannot allow inclusion or exclusion on any other basis except whether you are 'white' or not. People who are genetically similar to us, have the privilege of being less of a threat to our genome, and thus we can extend a more welcome hand to them. Provisionally white people have tickets to our country that non-whites can't have, by virtue of their being closely related to us. But they don't have an olly olly entrance free policy, because they are genetically distinct enough, that they simply aren't worth the effort if they are going to be traitors or parasites.
The next question is, does the fact that sorting by any policy other than genetics would lead to our outright extinction, require that we include people solely by whether they are 'white' or at least 'provisionally white?' My argument would be no. Again, I prefer nuance. Although it is true that including people simply on the basis of IQ, hard work, virtuous lifestyle, good looks, or any other measure would extinguish the white genome via too much immigration, there is no reason why we can't include SOME of these exceptionally good people from elsewhere. Instead, we should have three tiers of acceptance.
First Tier: Genetically white, whitey-mc-white-whites. These people should be given free admission to the country, on the sole basis of loyalty and abiding by the laws we set forth. This is the easiest level of admission.
Second Tier: Borderline cases, provisionally white. These people would be included on a case by case scenario, based on their loyalty, behavior, and character. This is a stricter standard than the previous standard, but admission is still open. IE, as many people of this type as qualify, are allowed in.
Third Tier: Non-whites. These people would again be included only as individuals. But they would have to have exceptional abilities. For instance, an IQ no less than 120. Perfect health. Good looks. Extremely talented athletes. Extremely rich. Skilled workers. Scientists or artists who have proven their stuff. You get the idea. In addition, they must be loyal to our race and abide by our laws. Obviously, if they make trouble, they're gone. Whatever compassion or patience we show for the first tier, will not be shown to the third tier. And in addition to this, they can at no time exceed 10% of the population. So no matter how qualified you are, if our quota is full, you can't enter. Through this simple measure, the white genome can't be extinguished, AND we can select non-whites for their quality. This way, we do not cut ourselves off from the gifts and genes of exceptional non-whites, but we do not destroy ourselves either. It's fair and balanced. If non-whites resent all the restrictions we put upon them, tough, they still have the rest of the world to live on. They don't have to live here. Humorously enough, even if jews weren't provisionally white, I'd still allow many of them in as non-whites with exceptional ability. Excluding jews entirely, who hold the secrets to a 15 IQ boost somewhere in their genes, would be sheer folly.
With this the debate over who is white or not should end. We can simply call all borderline cases Provisionally White, and include them or exclude them on the basis of individual character, rather than genetics. Of course, a new debate would be struck up, who is 'pure white' and who is 'provisionally white.' I'm sure philosemites will start arguing that jews should be included as pure white instead of provisionally white, etc. But surely the absurdity would have to stop somewhere. The very fact that a jew's whiteness is debatable, proves they aren't pure white, but are clearly provisionally white. If jews were pure white, the genetic tests would not put them so far away from the rest of the white race, and so many people wouldn't be questioning their whiteness. They are not pure white. They are not 'as white as English or Germans.' No one in their right mind can argue that. They are provisionally white. Instead of focusing on antisemites and making us include whites through sheer bullying, philosemites should instead be focusing on jews and making sure as many of them as possible qualify as provisionally white, and thus qualify as fellow members of our ethno-state. Since it is possible for every single jew to be provisionally white if they please, and it is possible for jews to interbreed with whites and have pure white progeny after a couple generations, philosemites have the power to include every single jew in a white ethno-state and keep them there forever. I can't imagine a fairer compromise.
If antisemites won't make this compromise, then they risk our ability to make any sort of ethnostate at all, by drawing an inordinate amount of hostility from the most powerful people on earth, while simultaneously driving away fair-minded and compassionate whites from the 'overly harsh' restrictions that 'look like Hitler's Germany.' If philosemites won't make this compromise, they risk driving out all whites from a cause that no longer represents or defends them, and becoming a hollowed out shell that says all the semitically correct things, but has no force of will and inspires no one.
There's only about thirty years left before whites become a minority in all their homelands. I urge all people who wish to stop this to put their agendas aside and compromise around the concept of Provisional Whiteness.
To answer this, we would first need a definition for 'White.' This definition varies from person to person, and therefore what groups qualify as 'white' also varies from person to person. The argument in this case is largely one of semantics. But beneath the semantic argument are people with agendas. IE, those who choose a definition that does not include jews, are arguing with the agenda to exclude jews from any future white ethno-state, and in general excluding jews from any collective concern or loyalty from other whites. Those who choose a definition that does include jews, are arguing with the agenda to include jews into any future white ethno-state, and in general include jews in any collective concern or loyalty for other whites.
The idea that someone is arguing solely for the sake of objective truth, that they simply want people to follow the English language and admit 'white' means 'white,' cannot be believed. Because white is itself an arbitrary term that has no basic definition in the English language, and has been used variably to include or exclude different people all the time.
Here is the webster's dictionary of white: "2 a : being a member of a group or race characterized by light pigmentation of the skin"
Characterized, but not wholly defined by, light pigmentation of the skin. Otherwise albinos would be 'whites.' It's more like webster's is saying "a race best known for its light skin color." That's all well and good, but it's still far too vague to define white entirely. Our race may be best known for light skin color, but other traits also belong to it, that it is less well known for, but equally necessary to be white. For instance our wider hips, our higher body fat ratios, the shape of our skulls, the shape of our noses, the shape of our lips, etc. So putting the dictionary definition aside as rather vague and useless, we must seek our own definition.
There are other definitions: White means 'sharing X amount of alleles with various other white ethnicities.' White means 'people of European descent.' White means, 'displaying characteristics that typify aryan ideals,' White means, "Caucasians, Mestizos, Indians, and all other mixed race offspring." White could mean a dozen other things, they are all equally valid. There is no higher arbiter of truth that can say one person's labels or categorizations are wrong, and we must abide by some other labels or categorizations. Every single one of these definitions also agrees with the Webster's definition of 'has light skin.' They all could, technically, be the 'right' definition.
Categories and labels are simply tools to better understand the world around us, which of course doesn't fit into any categories or labels. The world simply is, and every single piece of it is interconnected with every other piece. There are no firm dividing lines, or strict categories, to anything. Various people over time have found it useful to categorize the races so that they could make their points, or persuade others about what should be done, about racial matters. All of their categories and labels are arbitrary, they have no basis in reality, they are simply tools for the mind to better grasp the problem, to find a pattern in the madness and bring order to a disordered set of data. To those with an agenda to exclude jews, their categorization of white has shifted to fit this agenda. To those with an agenda to include jews, their categorization of white has shifted to fit this agenda. Since categories are made in order to sort data for the sake of better analysis, both groups are perfectly justified in their having done so. The question then is not 'who is white?' or 'what is the definition of white?' Since this is arbitrary and can be categorized any which way. The real question is 'whose agenda is right?' If the agenda to exclude jews is right, we should obviously define white in such a way that it excludes jews, as that helps us exclude jews. If the agenda to include jews is right, we should obviously define white in such a way that it includes jews, as that helps us include jews.
The argument is entirely circular. Philosemites think jews should be included, therefore they are white. Antisemites think jews should be excluded, therefore they aren't white.
Even if we go by the 'objective' data of "white means sharing X alleles with other white ethnic groups." We are left with a debate over just what number X should be. Philosemites will put X at a number which conveniently includes jews. Antisemites will put X at a number that conveniently excludes jews. The only purpose of the scientific data is to find where X needs to be to include or exclude jews, and then state authoritatively that X is precisely that amount. The argument retreats a step to pore over genetic trees like old wise men pored over cracked chicken bones, but the result is the same. Philosemites will say jews are clearly white, antisemites will say jews clearly aren't white.
Here is a tree showing how related jews are to other white ethnic groups:
As you can see, jews are pretty closely related to whites. But they are less related than any other European ethnicity. Antisemites can draw the line exactly between Finns and Jews, and say, 'everyone to the right of this line is white, everyone to the left isn't. Sorry jews, you just didn't share enough alleles. We measured the numbers fairly and you didn't make the cut.'
Philosemites can make their own argument for why Jews should be included, and everyone to the left of jews clearly aren't white, and everyone to the right, including jews, are white.
Even more comical, we can imagine Philosemites someday proving that jews are more closely related to other white ethnic groups than Finns. Then they'd demand inclusion of jews into the white race. Antisemites would simply reply by throwing Finns under the bus. "I guess we were wrong, both Finns AND Jews aren't white, since neither of you share enough alleles to be white." That is the only concession antisemites would give philosemites, if the data turned out differently. They will never agree to include jews as whites, no matter what the genetic data says. This is because it was never about the genes. This is because the definition of 'white' is much deeper than simply sharing various alleles. People who aren't willing to admit this just end up sounding arbitrary, since they simply include or exclude jews by allele counts that suit them, instead of on any rational firm line that exists regardless of where jews place on it.
Personally, I don't think jews are white. My definition of white is partially genetic. IE, if some genetically pure white, whitest of white whities, were to become a rapper with his pants hanging down and speaking ebonics, raping women and drinking themselves into a stupor every night, I'd sigh and say "yes, he's white. The genes are just too clear to deny. He's white just like the rest of us." But the further out of the genetic mainstream said white becomes, the more provisional his whiteness becomes. There is then a large segment of people on the genetic fringes who are provisionally white, henceforth their white status is determined not by their genes, but by their loyalty, behavior, and culture. If these people practice religions alien to whites, like Islam, or if they call for the genocide of the white race, like Susan Sontag, or if they attack and slander whites at every turn, if they marry non-whites, or simply act like a bunch of thugs, idiots, or scum, they are non-white. Mind you, this is only in cases of provisional whiteness. If you are clearly genetically white, and do all of the above behavior, you're still white. But if you are genetically far away from the center of genetic whiteness, you are provisionally white, and your behavior and loyalty tips the balanced scales one way or the other.
For instance, Georgians and Armenians aren't white. Why? No real reason. I just don't like Georgian and Armenian behavior recently. They are warmongers and whiny victimologists. They cry out in pain while hitting other people, a trait so typical of non-whites but not of whites, who when they attack others do so from a lion-like belief in superiority and mastery, which needs no excuses for hurting others. I have some respect for Lebanese Christians, though not Lebanese muslims, so Lebanese Christians are provisionally white and the Muslims are non-white. I don't like jews or want to include them, so they aren't white. Jews have not been loyal to the welfare of the white race, but instead have done everything in their power to undermine it. Therefore they move from 'provisionally white' to 'non-white.' If jews changed their behavior, they could move from 'non-white' to 'provisionally white' again. Only by interbreeding with other whites and eliminating their genetic distance from us, could they ever be qualified as 'pure white,' where their behavior no longer has any impact on their whiteness. So long as they stay jews, they can only be 'provisionally white.' Right now they are not even provisionally white, since they are an enemy to the white race in everything they say and do.
If someone is 3/4 white and 1/4 black, he's provisionally white. If he acts like a decent white man who calls himself white and defends other whites, he'll stay provisionally white. He can never be pure white, because he is too genetically distant. But he can be provisionally white. If he identifies as a black and walks around with a chip on his shoulder blaming everything on whites and saying 'kill the white man,' then he's a black. For this reason, Jeremiah Wright, who's clearly genetically closer to white than black, is a black. He lost his chance at whiteness by damning us to hell. See how it works? In all borderline cases, the cases constantly thrown at us by anti-racists: "Well what about mixed races? What about jews? What about Armenians? What about --?" The answer is now solvable. "These people are provisionally white, their own behavior will determine whether they are included by us, or excluded by us, as white or non-white." If anyone wants to be included by us, all they have to do is 'act white.' Behave well, behave righteously, identify yourself as white, and be loyal to the white race.
Even if most jews are non-whites, righteous jews can still be included as provisional whites. There is no reason to punish jews collectively. We can judge them one by one, as individuals. I see no reason in excluding all jews just because of the actions of others they have no control over. That isn't fair.
The next question people will have, is, 'why define anything genetically? If you grant that provisionally white people should be sorted by their behavior, why not just do that with everyone?' That would be fine, except for this minor problem -- without the white genotype, the white phenotype cannot exist. We must preserve the white genotype, even if complete idiots and jerks belong to it, and even if angelic saints don't belong to it. This is because the white genome is innately good, regardless of how it ends up displaying itself. It is the most evolved life form on Earth, the closest to perfection, the greatest invention, the greatest artform, of God almighty. Even if the white race weren't the best (which it is), if it has any goodness to it that other races lack, it would still merit preserving for the sake of that quality alone. Our blue eyes and blond hair are just those sorts of unique traits, innately good, and needing to be preserved, regardless of anything else. Less provable, but just as true, our sense of honesty, our compassion, our artistic sense, and our creativity, are other unique traits that must be preserved, even if we were overall worse than other races.
Just like on any product line, sometimes something goes wrong and a 'white' turns out dysfunctional. This does not mean we should shut down the product line. It just means we should use quality control and deal with the errors as they arise. If we were to sort people by anything other than genetics, we would quickly lose the entire white genome. Whites are only 10% of world population, they are only 2% of the population of women of child-bearing age. We are going extinct. If we were to allow non-whites in by any other sorting method than white genotype, we would be swamped. Miscegenation, territory loss, loss of economic opportunity, uncomfortableness of being around large numbers, discrimination or hatred by other races towards us, all sorts of various factors would swarm in like killer bees to extinguish our line.
Therefore, we cannot allow inclusion or exclusion on any other basis except whether you are 'white' or not. People who are genetically similar to us, have the privilege of being less of a threat to our genome, and thus we can extend a more welcome hand to them. Provisionally white people have tickets to our country that non-whites can't have, by virtue of their being closely related to us. But they don't have an olly olly entrance free policy, because they are genetically distinct enough, that they simply aren't worth the effort if they are going to be traitors or parasites.
The next question is, does the fact that sorting by any policy other than genetics would lead to our outright extinction, require that we include people solely by whether they are 'white' or at least 'provisionally white?' My argument would be no. Again, I prefer nuance. Although it is true that including people simply on the basis of IQ, hard work, virtuous lifestyle, good looks, or any other measure would extinguish the white genome via too much immigration, there is no reason why we can't include SOME of these exceptionally good people from elsewhere. Instead, we should have three tiers of acceptance.
First Tier: Genetically white, whitey-mc-white-whites. These people should be given free admission to the country, on the sole basis of loyalty and abiding by the laws we set forth. This is the easiest level of admission.
Second Tier: Borderline cases, provisionally white. These people would be included on a case by case scenario, based on their loyalty, behavior, and character. This is a stricter standard than the previous standard, but admission is still open. IE, as many people of this type as qualify, are allowed in.
Third Tier: Non-whites. These people would again be included only as individuals. But they would have to have exceptional abilities. For instance, an IQ no less than 120. Perfect health. Good looks. Extremely talented athletes. Extremely rich. Skilled workers. Scientists or artists who have proven their stuff. You get the idea. In addition, they must be loyal to our race and abide by our laws. Obviously, if they make trouble, they're gone. Whatever compassion or patience we show for the first tier, will not be shown to the third tier. And in addition to this, they can at no time exceed 10% of the population. So no matter how qualified you are, if our quota is full, you can't enter. Through this simple measure, the white genome can't be extinguished, AND we can select non-whites for their quality. This way, we do not cut ourselves off from the gifts and genes of exceptional non-whites, but we do not destroy ourselves either. It's fair and balanced. If non-whites resent all the restrictions we put upon them, tough, they still have the rest of the world to live on. They don't have to live here. Humorously enough, even if jews weren't provisionally white, I'd still allow many of them in as non-whites with exceptional ability. Excluding jews entirely, who hold the secrets to a 15 IQ boost somewhere in their genes, would be sheer folly.
With this the debate over who is white or not should end. We can simply call all borderline cases Provisionally White, and include them or exclude them on the basis of individual character, rather than genetics. Of course, a new debate would be struck up, who is 'pure white' and who is 'provisionally white.' I'm sure philosemites will start arguing that jews should be included as pure white instead of provisionally white, etc. But surely the absurdity would have to stop somewhere. The very fact that a jew's whiteness is debatable, proves they aren't pure white, but are clearly provisionally white. If jews were pure white, the genetic tests would not put them so far away from the rest of the white race, and so many people wouldn't be questioning their whiteness. They are not pure white. They are not 'as white as English or Germans.' No one in their right mind can argue that. They are provisionally white. Instead of focusing on antisemites and making us include whites through sheer bullying, philosemites should instead be focusing on jews and making sure as many of them as possible qualify as provisionally white, and thus qualify as fellow members of our ethno-state. Since it is possible for every single jew to be provisionally white if they please, and it is possible for jews to interbreed with whites and have pure white progeny after a couple generations, philosemites have the power to include every single jew in a white ethno-state and keep them there forever. I can't imagine a fairer compromise.
If antisemites won't make this compromise, then they risk our ability to make any sort of ethnostate at all, by drawing an inordinate amount of hostility from the most powerful people on earth, while simultaneously driving away fair-minded and compassionate whites from the 'overly harsh' restrictions that 'look like Hitler's Germany.' If philosemites won't make this compromise, they risk driving out all whites from a cause that no longer represents or defends them, and becoming a hollowed out shell that says all the semitically correct things, but has no force of will and inspires no one.
There's only about thirty years left before whites become a minority in all their homelands. I urge all people who wish to stop this to put their agendas aside and compromise around the concept of Provisional Whiteness.
Monday, December 7, 2009
More Proof Capitalism Sucks:
Socialism hands down defeats capitalism by any measurement:
Consider:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/05/world-happiest-places-lifestyle-travel-world-happiest.html
Over in Europe, there are countries working fewer hours than Americans, with a much lower unemployment rate, and a much higher per capita GDP. They also have universal health care, longer length of life, and are measurably happier than us! It is ridiculous. Oh, and they've also managed to avoid any wars for the last 50 years, whereas we have been in wars non-stop, always telling ourselves that they were 'necessary' and 'world security' was at risk and 'New York City was about to become a mushroom cloud.' Somehow peace works for Europe, it's only America that's ever under attack. We may as well point out Europe has lower crime than America too.
Of course, this is apples and oranges, right? If America were 100% white like Denmark and Finland, maybe we could compete, right? WRONG. The capitalist system requires we import cheap labor immigrants from abroad. It requires that we live in a diverse society of worker-bee like unintelligent, criminal underclasses. It requires that our borders be open. Directly due to our capitalist economy, our society has always been more diverse than Europe. Starting with our enslavement and importation of blacks, for the sake of cheap labor, and moving all the way to the 1980's when Reagan gave an amnesty to illegal alien hispanics, announcing to latin america that we had an 'olly olly entrance free' policy from here on, Capitalism has directly and necessarily led to a majority minority country.
It's also likely that capitalism has directly led to our invade the world policy. If not for all sorts of corporations that profit off of war, how likely is it that America would always be at war? The rest of the world spends next to nothing on their militaries, but none of them have been invaded or nuked. We, meanwhile, spend over 400 billion dollars a year, and have nothing to show for it accept the smiling faces of military contractors.
Here's a great article on the complete failure of capitalism in America:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-warren/america-without-a-middle_b_377829.html
I'm not really interested in their solutions, I think they're dumb. But I am very interested in the data they provide about how bad things have gotten:
"Today, one in five Americans is unemployed, underemployed or just plain out of work."
IE: I continue to say we have a 20% unemployment rate, not the 10% unemployment rate the government is reporting. Meanwhile Denmark has a 2% unemployment rate. Why does capitalism have ten times as high an unemployment rate as socialism? I thought capitalism was the best engine for jobs and socialism discouraged work? So much for that sack of lies. The truth is capitalism makes higher profits the more people it can lay off, so in a perfect capitalist system we would have 100% unemployment. Socialism provides job security and therefore Europe has a much lower unemployment rate.
"One in nine families can't make the minimum payment on their credit cards."
Anyone who is in debt to a credit card is insane. The interest rates are usurious and the late fees just keep piling up. The fact that 1/9 of our people are now basically debt slaves, working every month just to pay off interest on their debts, without ever making a dent in their principle, is inhuman. In fact, it means we now have as high a slavery rate, as we had before slavery was banned in 1865.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/population1860.htm
As you can see, at the time of the civil war, 12.5% of America's population were slaves. 1/9 families 'not able to make their minimum credit card payments,' = 11.1%
The slavers never quit. If they can't enslave blacks, they import Mexicans. If they have to pay a minimum wage, they simply fire everyone. If usury is banned, they just introduce credit cards. When will we learn that the capitalists do not have our best interests in mind? When will we discover that the common good and the bottom line have nothing to do with each other?
Okay, next data point: "One in eight mortgages is in default or foreclosure."
So basically, if not for people simply living in houses and not making any payments on them, America would currently have a 1/8 homeless rate. I'm not sure what homeless rates usually are, but I have a feeling that even in the dark ages they were higher than 7/8. In fact, I've never really heard of a 'homeless crisis' until the modern age, where families no longer housed everyone in said family regardless of age. By randomly making it shameful for the same family to live in the same house, even though there is still plenty of room, and even though most of the world in no way shares this sense of shame and still does share a roof with their family, we now have 1/8 of our country unable to afford a roof over their heads, and, like usual, in massive debts they can never repay. Where will all these people go? To parents who don't welcome them and don't want them? What parents, anyway? Most families are broken homes, or remarried long ago. Will you really want to move in with a step-dad, a step-mom, and a bunch of step-brothers and step-sisters also fleeing to their parent, because the very idea of parents is long dead in this country?
Next fact: "One in eight Americans is on food stamps."
So basically, if not for the government feeding people directly, 1 in 8 Americans would be starving to death. This from a country that has the most farmland on Earth, and exports billions of dollars of crops all over the world. In fact, we have so much access to food, our government pays dairy farms to slaughter their cows, and pays farmers to leave their fields fallow. We also pay farmers billions to take all of their corn and turn it into expensive, unusably bad oil called 'ethanol' that even the environmentalists despise. So the government is using its left hand to get our country to produce as little food as possible, driving up the cost of food, and using its right hand to give food stamps to all the people who can no longer afford food. What sense does this make? In what world does this make sense? In the capitalist world of course. Because in the capitalist world, it isn't about production, it's about supply vs. demand. Profit comes from marginal return. IE, if you can make more money by producing less of a good and selling it at a higher price, that's what you will do. Only in the capitalist system could America have a food crisis, but of course we've managed it expertly. Just like in the Great Depression, we had starving people right alongside massive crop harvests guarded by people with machine guns to make sure no one stole food they could no longer afford.
"More than 120,000 families are filing for bankruptcy every month." Good luck. Recent rules passed by George W. Bush have made it virtually impossible to declare bankruptcy and get out of your debts. Of course, if you have the proper connections, whenever your company goes bankrupt you can just get billions of taxpayer dollars from the Government -- like AIG, or GM. For the rest of the 'hoi polloi,' you're just sunk. And of course, supposing people do escape their current debts with a bankrupty, they face the same problems as when they entered bankruptcy. They're probably unemployed, their house foreclosed, with some health cost that far exceeds anything they can pay, and some insurance company determined not to pay for said health problem. It's not like bankruptcy solves the underlying causes of a person's poverty, it's just a symptom of how bad their poverty has become. Capitalism has discovered that the best possible system is where they can get taxpayer bailouts, but none of their customers can ever escape from the insatiable debt collectors on all of their products -- health care, housing, cars, education, and every other basic necessity to simply live in America by.
Next data point: "In the boom of the 1960s, for example, median family income jumped by 33% (adjusted for inflation). But the boom of the 2000s resulted in an almost-imperceptible 1.6% increase for the typical family."
Whatever gains we made in the entire decade of the 00's is now wiped out. We still have not reached the same economic health we had under Clinton in the 90's. For all we know, we never will again. Perhaps this is the start of a permanent decline. How can it be otherwise when Capitalism has bankrupted the entire country while giving trillions of dollars away to the few super-rich?
Next data point: "The crisis facing the middle class started more than a generation ago. Even as productivity rose, the wages of the average fully-employed male have been flat since the 1970s."
And we aren't talking about some minuscule gain in productivity:
How is it that for decades productivity and wages rose in perfect sychrony, as though an honest day's work netted an honest day's wage? How is it that in the past, people understood that if you made more money per hour for your company, you should also be paid more money per hour by your company? This fascinating logic has ceased to exist in the modern economy. Instead you must work harder for less. And the reason, of course, is our population continues to rise at a staggering speed while our job opportunities have remained flat. If one hundred million people are steamrolled into the country on various H1-B visas and an open borders policy, then companies can demand more from their workers and pay less, or simply show said workers the door. With a 20% unemployment rate, who is going to complain that their wages aren't as high as they are worth? Who is going to demand that they are compensated commensurately to their productivity, when they are fortunate just to have any job at all? Even as this country has been losing jobs all year, another million hispanics have entered our country looking for work. How are you going to stand up to that kind of tidal wave? Of course it's impossible. And so of course, ever since the floodgates opened in 1965, we see these diverging lines that get wider every year. Isn't capitalism grand?
Next data point: "But core expenses kept going up. By the early 2000s, families were spending twice as much (adjusted for inflation) on mortgages than they did a generation ago -- for a house that was, on average, only ten percent bigger and 25 years older. They also had to pay twice as much to hang on to their health insurance."
Why are people paying twice as much for houses that are no better than the houses of a generation ago? I can think of a few reasons: The extra hundred million Americans forcefully shoved down our throats these last few decades has created a housing crunch compared to the number of people needing to be housed. Furthermore, every time mud people immigrate into your neighborhood, whites are required to move out of their current houses and buy new ones in whiter districts. Since realtors know whites will pay any price to get their children out of hellish schools and high crime neighborhoods where they're liable to get raped or murdered, they can jack up the price of housing while not actually making any better houses. Simply the location of the house, away from the mud people who they intentionally moved in to be your neighbors, to create this exact scenario and reaction, is enough to sell their new houses for mega bucks.
Of course, with housing mortgages doubling in price, everyone is competing with each other not with their salaries (which haven't risen since 1970, and can't possibly buy a house), but by how far they are willing to go into debt. Then, with the entire country in debt, they have to pay another bogus, unearned, unfair amount of money to various bankers with 'adjustable rate mortgage loans' that start at 1% then shoot up to 20% whenever they choose. First they force you to go into debt by artificially creating a housing shortage and driving up prices, then they attach enormous interest rates to them there's no way anyone can repay. And everyone simply has to grin and bear it, because your alternative is to be raped and murdered by the Capitalist's hired thugs, the blacks and browns. It's like a protection racket. Pay interest on your debts, or we'll throw you to the wolves of Detroit and LA, and we wouldn't want that to happen, now would we?
In an all white country, it wouldn't matter where you lived. You could buy a humble house for a few thousand dollars, and it would still be peaceful, clean, quiet, and have a good public school nearby, full of kids that your kids can make friends and fall in love with. It will still be near a good job because business thrives amid industrious, peaceful, clean, smart white people. But capitalists weren't content with that, they wanted us to pay more for a basic good like a roof over our head, and they just couldn't find any other way than genocidal immigration rates. So they decided to genocide us. Now that's a system we can all rally behind. Capitalism is just so slick, so smooth, and its bottom lines are just so fat, what could possibly be the problem?
Next data point: "To cope, millions of families put a second parent into the workforce. But higher housing and medical costs combined with new expenses for child care, the costs of a second car to get to work and higher taxes combined to squeeze families even harder. Even with two incomes, they tightened their belts. Families today spend less than they did a generation ago on food, clothing, furniture, appliances, and other flexible purchases -- but it hasn't been enough to save them. Today's families have spent all their income, have spent all their savings, and have gone into debt to pay for college, to cover serious medical problems, and just to stay afloat a little while longer."
Putting a second parent into the workforce is like Sparta fielding its women to hold their city for one last stand (They did stand, and they defend their city, God bless them, but Sparta's decline was unstoppable by then, and it didn't save them for long). It means you are at the end of your rope. Making women work to afford your bills is not a sign of economic health, it's a sign of economic catastrophe. It used to be that the man of the house could earn plenty for his entire family, and the woman could concentrate on church, charity, kids, gardening, chores, or simply networking and communities. It's not like women sat around doing nothing all day prior to 1970. Everything they were doing has been displaced by their need to work instead. As a result, we have soaring adultery rates (women have never had so much access to men), plummeting birth rates (women have never had so little time to raise kids), soaring divorce rates (women have never had so little reason to stay married, now that they make more than their husbands), and still nothing real to show for it. The economy is no better off, and families still can't pay their bills. The idea that debt could somehow make up for all the things people can't afford is about as sensible as drinking salt water to make up for the fact that you're in a lifeboat and out of water in the middle of the Pacific. Sure, it might taste good for the first few seconds, it might even solve your thirst for the ten minutes or so before the salt strips all its value away from your body -- but in the end you're just poorer than when you started, and in need of even more debt, even more salt water, to reach 'tranquility' again, which will soon revert to an even higher debt, and even higher drink of salt water, for the next round, until you bottom out and the game ends.
Think of it this way. Women are our reserves. If we don't have to commit our reserves to a battle, we shouldn't. The economy should, 90% of the time, hum along under the power of just our men. In the case of a national emergency, like WWII, we can then plug the hole with all of our women. But otherwise, they should be involved in non-economic activities, that help raise our quality of life, while not competing for limited job opportunities and lowering men's wages. These involve festivals, children, housekeeping, family gatherings, tending to aged grannies, whatever. Women were imaginative in the past, they can be imaginative in the future. If you commit your reserves to a battle and then just leave them there, fighting endlessly but incapable of actually overcoming the emergency, you have entered WWI. You are simply hurling troops at unstormable trench lines, losing hundreds of thousands of men a day, and producing absolutely no impact on the larger situation. An economy that sacrifices all the wonderful things women used to do, like, say, have and raise children, so that we'll have another generation of mankind after this one, while producing no gains in family income, is an insane cost-benefit ratio. It is an insane economy. The only people who benefit from it are the employers, the people who get twice the employees at one half the cost, and therefore get yet richer, yet again. Why should the rest of us put up with this? Why are we so eager to fall for this trap? For the same reason sharing a home with your family has become shameful, the media has made the role of housewife and mother shameful. They have spent decades brainwashing women with the utterly ludicrous idea that a woman's honor is in her productivity, career, degrees, etc. That women have breasts and wombs for no reason, and that God put them down on this earth to sell houses and make lipstick commercials.
Capitalism uses the media as a tool to shape society towards things that benefit capitalism. They make glamorous people, people with good looks and are well respected by everyone else in the TV shows/movies/commercials, people you want to emulate because of their obvious high status, endorse capitalism. And in turn, everyone thinks a good life, to be a glamorous person like in the magazines in movies, is to go down the capitalist path. For women, it means living for career instead of family. For consumers, it means buying gadgets they don't need and will never use. For cars, it means buying style over substance. For clothing, it means chasing the seasonal fashions instead of simply owning enough pairs of clothes to go from laundry day to laundry day. ((Oh for the good old days when people had two sets of clothes, sunday clothes and work clothes, and looked better in either of them than the slobs and sluts of today. . .)) The power of television is simply overwhelming to these highly suggestible nincompoops. If something is high status on TV, it must be high status in real life too. So here we are, all drudging away, for the illusion of high status, when high status in the past was free of charge -- a man got it by keeping his word, a woman got it by preserving her virginity and being faithful in marriage, and neither of them had to spend a dime to do it.
Now of course, before anyone will look or think twice about you, you'll need hundreds of thousands of dollars of spectacular consumption -- the house, the car, the furniture, the clothing, the jewelry, blah blah blah. All of it simply to show off to your friends, none of it of any real practical use for yourself. All of it lining the pockets of the capitalists who changed the rules of the game for what status would now be. What fools we were to let them define it! What fools we were to allow a weapon like the TV, that spends more hours with our kids than their own parents, that has more lessons to teach than all our schools, churches, and books combined. . . God what fools we were to let corporations decide the content of our shows! What did we think would happen? We all complain about state controlled media using all of their time simply to promote the State -- but no one ever thought that maybe, just maybe, a corporate controlled media might just use the media to promote consumerism? Is that just too wild a theory? Can only the government ever abuse power? According to libertarians and republicans, yes. According to common sense, which says humans are humans no matter what hat they are currently wearing - no. Stupid, stupid, stupid preachers of freedom. If you want freedom, first kick a hole in your television and never watch another show. Until then, no one should care a whit what you have to say.
Now, it's obvious where socialism has gone wrong. A) It thought that people could somehow better themselves when that is impossible -- only eugenics can better people, people are helpless slaves to their genes, and will only perform at the levels they were born to perform at. All of LBJ's great society programs operate under this flaw. Combining eugenics, ie, control of who gives birth to whom, and who is allowed to immigrate into this country, with measures to help the poor and raise the quality of life for the unfortunate, is necessary to make any headway against our problems. In the 1920's this was understood, but sadly we threw that knowledge away with the advent of jewish Boazian liberalism. We must have it back, and return to the enlightened socialism we had before that stupid detour.
B) Opportunists have turned socialism into their own milk cows, instead of actual aid to the worse off. They divert most of the funding to their own pay checks and barely any of it trickles down to the actual intended recipients. The answer to this is to abolish all current programs, and all social worker jobs, and replace it with a direct citizen's dividend that no one can divert.
C) Socialism was not combined with the idea of virtue. Instead, it was championed by the proponents of vice. In a bizarre turn of events, the people who most wanted to help the poor, thought it would be brilliant and great if the poor all became drunks, druggees, abusive, divorced, illegitimate, criminals, sluts, HIV-positive, gay, transvestite, and so on. Why these socialists thought giving people money, while destroying their quality of life in all other fields, was some great boon to the poor, is beyond my grasp. As a result, poor people are far worse off today than they were in the Middle Ages. Maybe the poor back then didn't get meat except once a year, but at least they had their pride. At least they had their families. At least they had their souls. Today, we have fed the weak and the foolish so many lies, so many delusions, such bad advice, that they are simply self-immolating themselves from the start of their life to the finish, writhing in pain and declaring it ecstasy and freedom. We must restore basic values, basic virtue, to the high and the low. Hypocritically, our richest and smartest members of society are the biggest proponents of sin, and the least likely to indulge in it. That has to stop. There can be nothing more hateful towards our poor, than telling them free love and heroine is the path to success and contentment in life. I don't know who came up with that, I don't know why hippies latched onto it, but it's evil and it must be stopped.
Communism did not control drunkenness, it had a planned economy and rationing instead of a citizen's dividend, and it did not practice eugenics. It is not a good example of socialism. Neither is Nazism, which spent most of its money mobilizing for war and invading other countries. The socialism I'm speaking about has never been implemented. It deserves a shot. It especially deserves a shot, now that capitalism has so obviously failed. If not now, when? How much worse does our current system have to make things, before we try something else? Honestly.
Consider:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/05/world-happiest-places-lifestyle-travel-world-happiest.html
Over in Europe, there are countries working fewer hours than Americans, with a much lower unemployment rate, and a much higher per capita GDP. They also have universal health care, longer length of life, and are measurably happier than us! It is ridiculous. Oh, and they've also managed to avoid any wars for the last 50 years, whereas we have been in wars non-stop, always telling ourselves that they were 'necessary' and 'world security' was at risk and 'New York City was about to become a mushroom cloud.' Somehow peace works for Europe, it's only America that's ever under attack. We may as well point out Europe has lower crime than America too.
Of course, this is apples and oranges, right? If America were 100% white like Denmark and Finland, maybe we could compete, right? WRONG. The capitalist system requires we import cheap labor immigrants from abroad. It requires that we live in a diverse society of worker-bee like unintelligent, criminal underclasses. It requires that our borders be open. Directly due to our capitalist economy, our society has always been more diverse than Europe. Starting with our enslavement and importation of blacks, for the sake of cheap labor, and moving all the way to the 1980's when Reagan gave an amnesty to illegal alien hispanics, announcing to latin america that we had an 'olly olly entrance free' policy from here on, Capitalism has directly and necessarily led to a majority minority country.
It's also likely that capitalism has directly led to our invade the world policy. If not for all sorts of corporations that profit off of war, how likely is it that America would always be at war? The rest of the world spends next to nothing on their militaries, but none of them have been invaded or nuked. We, meanwhile, spend over 400 billion dollars a year, and have nothing to show for it accept the smiling faces of military contractors.
Here's a great article on the complete failure of capitalism in America:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-warren/america-without-a-middle_b_377829.html
I'm not really interested in their solutions, I think they're dumb. But I am very interested in the data they provide about how bad things have gotten:
"Today, one in five Americans is unemployed, underemployed or just plain out of work."
IE: I continue to say we have a 20% unemployment rate, not the 10% unemployment rate the government is reporting. Meanwhile Denmark has a 2% unemployment rate. Why does capitalism have ten times as high an unemployment rate as socialism? I thought capitalism was the best engine for jobs and socialism discouraged work? So much for that sack of lies. The truth is capitalism makes higher profits the more people it can lay off, so in a perfect capitalist system we would have 100% unemployment. Socialism provides job security and therefore Europe has a much lower unemployment rate.
"One in nine families can't make the minimum payment on their credit cards."
Anyone who is in debt to a credit card is insane. The interest rates are usurious and the late fees just keep piling up. The fact that 1/9 of our people are now basically debt slaves, working every month just to pay off interest on their debts, without ever making a dent in their principle, is inhuman. In fact, it means we now have as high a slavery rate, as we had before slavery was banned in 1865.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/population1860.htm
As you can see, at the time of the civil war, 12.5% of America's population were slaves. 1/9 families 'not able to make their minimum credit card payments,' = 11.1%
The slavers never quit. If they can't enslave blacks, they import Mexicans. If they have to pay a minimum wage, they simply fire everyone. If usury is banned, they just introduce credit cards. When will we learn that the capitalists do not have our best interests in mind? When will we discover that the common good and the bottom line have nothing to do with each other?
Okay, next data point: "One in eight mortgages is in default or foreclosure."
So basically, if not for people simply living in houses and not making any payments on them, America would currently have a 1/8 homeless rate. I'm not sure what homeless rates usually are, but I have a feeling that even in the dark ages they were higher than 7/8. In fact, I've never really heard of a 'homeless crisis' until the modern age, where families no longer housed everyone in said family regardless of age. By randomly making it shameful for the same family to live in the same house, even though there is still plenty of room, and even though most of the world in no way shares this sense of shame and still does share a roof with their family, we now have 1/8 of our country unable to afford a roof over their heads, and, like usual, in massive debts they can never repay. Where will all these people go? To parents who don't welcome them and don't want them? What parents, anyway? Most families are broken homes, or remarried long ago. Will you really want to move in with a step-dad, a step-mom, and a bunch of step-brothers and step-sisters also fleeing to their parent, because the very idea of parents is long dead in this country?
Next fact: "One in eight Americans is on food stamps."
So basically, if not for the government feeding people directly, 1 in 8 Americans would be starving to death. This from a country that has the most farmland on Earth, and exports billions of dollars of crops all over the world. In fact, we have so much access to food, our government pays dairy farms to slaughter their cows, and pays farmers to leave their fields fallow. We also pay farmers billions to take all of their corn and turn it into expensive, unusably bad oil called 'ethanol' that even the environmentalists despise. So the government is using its left hand to get our country to produce as little food as possible, driving up the cost of food, and using its right hand to give food stamps to all the people who can no longer afford food. What sense does this make? In what world does this make sense? In the capitalist world of course. Because in the capitalist world, it isn't about production, it's about supply vs. demand. Profit comes from marginal return. IE, if you can make more money by producing less of a good and selling it at a higher price, that's what you will do. Only in the capitalist system could America have a food crisis, but of course we've managed it expertly. Just like in the Great Depression, we had starving people right alongside massive crop harvests guarded by people with machine guns to make sure no one stole food they could no longer afford.
"More than 120,000 families are filing for bankruptcy every month." Good luck. Recent rules passed by George W. Bush have made it virtually impossible to declare bankruptcy and get out of your debts. Of course, if you have the proper connections, whenever your company goes bankrupt you can just get billions of taxpayer dollars from the Government -- like AIG, or GM. For the rest of the 'hoi polloi,' you're just sunk. And of course, supposing people do escape their current debts with a bankrupty, they face the same problems as when they entered bankruptcy. They're probably unemployed, their house foreclosed, with some health cost that far exceeds anything they can pay, and some insurance company determined not to pay for said health problem. It's not like bankruptcy solves the underlying causes of a person's poverty, it's just a symptom of how bad their poverty has become. Capitalism has discovered that the best possible system is where they can get taxpayer bailouts, but none of their customers can ever escape from the insatiable debt collectors on all of their products -- health care, housing, cars, education, and every other basic necessity to simply live in America by.
Next data point: "In the boom of the 1960s, for example, median family income jumped by 33% (adjusted for inflation). But the boom of the 2000s resulted in an almost-imperceptible 1.6% increase for the typical family."
Whatever gains we made in the entire decade of the 00's is now wiped out. We still have not reached the same economic health we had under Clinton in the 90's. For all we know, we never will again. Perhaps this is the start of a permanent decline. How can it be otherwise when Capitalism has bankrupted the entire country while giving trillions of dollars away to the few super-rich?
Next data point: "The crisis facing the middle class started more than a generation ago. Even as productivity rose, the wages of the average fully-employed male have been flat since the 1970s."
And we aren't talking about some minuscule gain in productivity:
How is it that for decades productivity and wages rose in perfect sychrony, as though an honest day's work netted an honest day's wage? How is it that in the past, people understood that if you made more money per hour for your company, you should also be paid more money per hour by your company? This fascinating logic has ceased to exist in the modern economy. Instead you must work harder for less. And the reason, of course, is our population continues to rise at a staggering speed while our job opportunities have remained flat. If one hundred million people are steamrolled into the country on various H1-B visas and an open borders policy, then companies can demand more from their workers and pay less, or simply show said workers the door. With a 20% unemployment rate, who is going to complain that their wages aren't as high as they are worth? Who is going to demand that they are compensated commensurately to their productivity, when they are fortunate just to have any job at all? Even as this country has been losing jobs all year, another million hispanics have entered our country looking for work. How are you going to stand up to that kind of tidal wave? Of course it's impossible. And so of course, ever since the floodgates opened in 1965, we see these diverging lines that get wider every year. Isn't capitalism grand?
Next data point: "But core expenses kept going up. By the early 2000s, families were spending twice as much (adjusted for inflation) on mortgages than they did a generation ago -- for a house that was, on average, only ten percent bigger and 25 years older. They also had to pay twice as much to hang on to their health insurance."
Why are people paying twice as much for houses that are no better than the houses of a generation ago? I can think of a few reasons: The extra hundred million Americans forcefully shoved down our throats these last few decades has created a housing crunch compared to the number of people needing to be housed. Furthermore, every time mud people immigrate into your neighborhood, whites are required to move out of their current houses and buy new ones in whiter districts. Since realtors know whites will pay any price to get their children out of hellish schools and high crime neighborhoods where they're liable to get raped or murdered, they can jack up the price of housing while not actually making any better houses. Simply the location of the house, away from the mud people who they intentionally moved in to be your neighbors, to create this exact scenario and reaction, is enough to sell their new houses for mega bucks.
Of course, with housing mortgages doubling in price, everyone is competing with each other not with their salaries (which haven't risen since 1970, and can't possibly buy a house), but by how far they are willing to go into debt. Then, with the entire country in debt, they have to pay another bogus, unearned, unfair amount of money to various bankers with 'adjustable rate mortgage loans' that start at 1% then shoot up to 20% whenever they choose. First they force you to go into debt by artificially creating a housing shortage and driving up prices, then they attach enormous interest rates to them there's no way anyone can repay. And everyone simply has to grin and bear it, because your alternative is to be raped and murdered by the Capitalist's hired thugs, the blacks and browns. It's like a protection racket. Pay interest on your debts, or we'll throw you to the wolves of Detroit and LA, and we wouldn't want that to happen, now would we?
In an all white country, it wouldn't matter where you lived. You could buy a humble house for a few thousand dollars, and it would still be peaceful, clean, quiet, and have a good public school nearby, full of kids that your kids can make friends and fall in love with. It will still be near a good job because business thrives amid industrious, peaceful, clean, smart white people. But capitalists weren't content with that, they wanted us to pay more for a basic good like a roof over our head, and they just couldn't find any other way than genocidal immigration rates. So they decided to genocide us. Now that's a system we can all rally behind. Capitalism is just so slick, so smooth, and its bottom lines are just so fat, what could possibly be the problem?
Next data point: "To cope, millions of families put a second parent into the workforce. But higher housing and medical costs combined with new expenses for child care, the costs of a second car to get to work and higher taxes combined to squeeze families even harder. Even with two incomes, they tightened their belts. Families today spend less than they did a generation ago on food, clothing, furniture, appliances, and other flexible purchases -- but it hasn't been enough to save them. Today's families have spent all their income, have spent all their savings, and have gone into debt to pay for college, to cover serious medical problems, and just to stay afloat a little while longer."
Putting a second parent into the workforce is like Sparta fielding its women to hold their city for one last stand (They did stand, and they defend their city, God bless them, but Sparta's decline was unstoppable by then, and it didn't save them for long). It means you are at the end of your rope. Making women work to afford your bills is not a sign of economic health, it's a sign of economic catastrophe. It used to be that the man of the house could earn plenty for his entire family, and the woman could concentrate on church, charity, kids, gardening, chores, or simply networking and communities. It's not like women sat around doing nothing all day prior to 1970. Everything they were doing has been displaced by their need to work instead. As a result, we have soaring adultery rates (women have never had so much access to men), plummeting birth rates (women have never had so little time to raise kids), soaring divorce rates (women have never had so little reason to stay married, now that they make more than their husbands), and still nothing real to show for it. The economy is no better off, and families still can't pay their bills. The idea that debt could somehow make up for all the things people can't afford is about as sensible as drinking salt water to make up for the fact that you're in a lifeboat and out of water in the middle of the Pacific. Sure, it might taste good for the first few seconds, it might even solve your thirst for the ten minutes or so before the salt strips all its value away from your body -- but in the end you're just poorer than when you started, and in need of even more debt, even more salt water, to reach 'tranquility' again, which will soon revert to an even higher debt, and even higher drink of salt water, for the next round, until you bottom out and the game ends.
Think of it this way. Women are our reserves. If we don't have to commit our reserves to a battle, we shouldn't. The economy should, 90% of the time, hum along under the power of just our men. In the case of a national emergency, like WWII, we can then plug the hole with all of our women. But otherwise, they should be involved in non-economic activities, that help raise our quality of life, while not competing for limited job opportunities and lowering men's wages. These involve festivals, children, housekeeping, family gatherings, tending to aged grannies, whatever. Women were imaginative in the past, they can be imaginative in the future. If you commit your reserves to a battle and then just leave them there, fighting endlessly but incapable of actually overcoming the emergency, you have entered WWI. You are simply hurling troops at unstormable trench lines, losing hundreds of thousands of men a day, and producing absolutely no impact on the larger situation. An economy that sacrifices all the wonderful things women used to do, like, say, have and raise children, so that we'll have another generation of mankind after this one, while producing no gains in family income, is an insane cost-benefit ratio. It is an insane economy. The only people who benefit from it are the employers, the people who get twice the employees at one half the cost, and therefore get yet richer, yet again. Why should the rest of us put up with this? Why are we so eager to fall for this trap? For the same reason sharing a home with your family has become shameful, the media has made the role of housewife and mother shameful. They have spent decades brainwashing women with the utterly ludicrous idea that a woman's honor is in her productivity, career, degrees, etc. That women have breasts and wombs for no reason, and that God put them down on this earth to sell houses and make lipstick commercials.
Capitalism uses the media as a tool to shape society towards things that benefit capitalism. They make glamorous people, people with good looks and are well respected by everyone else in the TV shows/movies/commercials, people you want to emulate because of their obvious high status, endorse capitalism. And in turn, everyone thinks a good life, to be a glamorous person like in the magazines in movies, is to go down the capitalist path. For women, it means living for career instead of family. For consumers, it means buying gadgets they don't need and will never use. For cars, it means buying style over substance. For clothing, it means chasing the seasonal fashions instead of simply owning enough pairs of clothes to go from laundry day to laundry day. ((Oh for the good old days when people had two sets of clothes, sunday clothes and work clothes, and looked better in either of them than the slobs and sluts of today. . .)) The power of television is simply overwhelming to these highly suggestible nincompoops. If something is high status on TV, it must be high status in real life too. So here we are, all drudging away, for the illusion of high status, when high status in the past was free of charge -- a man got it by keeping his word, a woman got it by preserving her virginity and being faithful in marriage, and neither of them had to spend a dime to do it.
Now of course, before anyone will look or think twice about you, you'll need hundreds of thousands of dollars of spectacular consumption -- the house, the car, the furniture, the clothing, the jewelry, blah blah blah. All of it simply to show off to your friends, none of it of any real practical use for yourself. All of it lining the pockets of the capitalists who changed the rules of the game for what status would now be. What fools we were to let them define it! What fools we were to allow a weapon like the TV, that spends more hours with our kids than their own parents, that has more lessons to teach than all our schools, churches, and books combined. . . God what fools we were to let corporations decide the content of our shows! What did we think would happen? We all complain about state controlled media using all of their time simply to promote the State -- but no one ever thought that maybe, just maybe, a corporate controlled media might just use the media to promote consumerism? Is that just too wild a theory? Can only the government ever abuse power? According to libertarians and republicans, yes. According to common sense, which says humans are humans no matter what hat they are currently wearing - no. Stupid, stupid, stupid preachers of freedom. If you want freedom, first kick a hole in your television and never watch another show. Until then, no one should care a whit what you have to say.
Now, it's obvious where socialism has gone wrong. A) It thought that people could somehow better themselves when that is impossible -- only eugenics can better people, people are helpless slaves to their genes, and will only perform at the levels they were born to perform at. All of LBJ's great society programs operate under this flaw. Combining eugenics, ie, control of who gives birth to whom, and who is allowed to immigrate into this country, with measures to help the poor and raise the quality of life for the unfortunate, is necessary to make any headway against our problems. In the 1920's this was understood, but sadly we threw that knowledge away with the advent of jewish Boazian liberalism. We must have it back, and return to the enlightened socialism we had before that stupid detour.
B) Opportunists have turned socialism into their own milk cows, instead of actual aid to the worse off. They divert most of the funding to their own pay checks and barely any of it trickles down to the actual intended recipients. The answer to this is to abolish all current programs, and all social worker jobs, and replace it with a direct citizen's dividend that no one can divert.
C) Socialism was not combined with the idea of virtue. Instead, it was championed by the proponents of vice. In a bizarre turn of events, the people who most wanted to help the poor, thought it would be brilliant and great if the poor all became drunks, druggees, abusive, divorced, illegitimate, criminals, sluts, HIV-positive, gay, transvestite, and so on. Why these socialists thought giving people money, while destroying their quality of life in all other fields, was some great boon to the poor, is beyond my grasp. As a result, poor people are far worse off today than they were in the Middle Ages. Maybe the poor back then didn't get meat except once a year, but at least they had their pride. At least they had their families. At least they had their souls. Today, we have fed the weak and the foolish so many lies, so many delusions, such bad advice, that they are simply self-immolating themselves from the start of their life to the finish, writhing in pain and declaring it ecstasy and freedom. We must restore basic values, basic virtue, to the high and the low. Hypocritically, our richest and smartest members of society are the biggest proponents of sin, and the least likely to indulge in it. That has to stop. There can be nothing more hateful towards our poor, than telling them free love and heroine is the path to success and contentment in life. I don't know who came up with that, I don't know why hippies latched onto it, but it's evil and it must be stopped.
Communism did not control drunkenness, it had a planned economy and rationing instead of a citizen's dividend, and it did not practice eugenics. It is not a good example of socialism. Neither is Nazism, which spent most of its money mobilizing for war and invading other countries. The socialism I'm speaking about has never been implemented. It deserves a shot. It especially deserves a shot, now that capitalism has so obviously failed. If not now, when? How much worse does our current system have to make things, before we try something else? Honestly.
Friday, December 4, 2009
It's That Time Again. . .
Tomorrow, #1 Florida plays #2 Alabama in the SEC Championship game. It is basically an early national championship. The winner of this game is, most likely, the best team in college football. The match is incredibly exciting, as both teams are unbeaten, and both have played incredibly good football to get where they are.
#3 Texas has done what it takes to play the winner of this game for the National Championship, but first it will have to win its own championship against Nebraska. This will also be determined tomorrow. Texas is also undefeated and it would be fun for my home state to take home the national championship trophy once again. ((Last time it was under Vince Young in what was probably the greatest game in football history, against Matt Leinart and USC. Trust me, watch it, you'll see my praise isn't exaggerating.))
Meanwhile, today the World Cup drew the various groups and matchups that will be played in South Africa this summer. USA got a wonderful draw, in Group C with Slovenia, Algeria, and England. The first two are no big deal, and even England is only ranked 9th compared to our 14th, in the FIFA rankings. The USA could go deep into the world cup this time, but of course they aren't the only story. Holland is at the top of its game and also in a group it should handle easily. If you have never watched Holland play, watch it this summer. They are like visual music. There is only one World Cup every 4 years. Only a few countries have ever won a world cup. It is the most popular event in the world, and the highest award given in Sportdom.
With bowl season in football, and the playoffs around the corner, we can't forget the Vancouver Winter Olympics. In just a couple months, the world will gather yet again under the Olympic Torch ((after an incredible Beijing Olympics that went flawlessly and left everyone feeling good, the USA and the Chinese hosts.)), and fight over skiing, skating, hockey, and the all important curling.
2010 is a good year for sports. Heck, it may be the best year for sports in a long time. But my point is this -- sports are wonderful. Athletes are wonderful. Their performances are wonderful.
Sports does three things that nothing else can -- it brings the world together in peaceful competition -- it unites each individual nation (or state, or city) in patriotic support of their team -- and it lets people glimpse the highest heights of mankind's greatness. The beauty of an athlete performing well in his game is the same as the beauty of any dancer, singer, or any other skilled craftsmen. To denigrate athletes as somehow being inferior to other art forms is ridiculous. What they do is incredible, it is popular because people understand that it is incredible, and there is no reason to resent what few accomplishments other races have when we already have plenty ourselves. Not that blacks are necessarily better than whites in football, soccer, or the Olympics -- in many cases it's just the opposite. But to resent anyone who likes sports, and to mock anyone who is good at sports, simply because they are not white -- is churlish. It's stingy. And most of all, it's intellectually dishonest. We can give credit where credit is due. We can admire the beauty of a skilled player playing well. And we can do all of this while still wanting a country of our own.
One of the most inspiring scenes on earth is the Olympic March of Nations, where all the athletes walk around the stadium with their flags waving, even poor countries, even countries at war, even countries in total diplomatic isolation, and all of them being applauded with friendly encouragement by the crowd. People who have little to cheer for in their normal lives, people who don't even know where their next meal is coming from, can look up and take pride in their nation marching alongside all the others, a legitimate contender for medals that has put forward their very best to show the whole world what their people are made of. It's wonderful that like the ancient Greeks, we can put all of our differences aside and just celebrate humanity's skill and strength together as one for a month of games. Even while Georgia and Russia were at war with each other, their athletes faced each other with politeness, goodwill, and fair play, across the whole range of Olympic events. Who can't be inspired by their example?
For the next year, we are going to watch just what mankind is capable of, when they take their very finest physical specimens, and dedicate their entire lives into training their bodies and minds into doing something well. We can't possibly compete on their level, nor would we want to -- not everyone is born for athletics, and we can't all afford to spend every day concentrating on them. But what we can do, is marvel that we belong to the same species as these people, and that the human body and brain really can pull off the stunts we see in front of us. Walking through the Louvre is one way to become spellbound at the works of man, but another is to simply sit down in front of the television and watch these events. The miraculous performances some of these people put on, is every bit as beautiful. I still remember Carly Patterson on the Balance Beam, and Nastia Liuken on the floormat, the two all around gold medalists, both Americans, of the last two Olympics. Not only am I incredibly proud that these two girls are Americans, and that they are white, but simply that they are human beings. That within the human race there exists liars, deceivers, criminals, fools, assholes, and hypocrites -- but also these two gymnasts who wipe the entire slate clean. These people redeem the whole human race. They show what we can be -- and what more and more of us will be -- in the future. If any one person can do it, it is physically possible to replicate. This is why investigating the limits of human ability is a story of hope and joy for us all. Once a limit is broken -- a tiny bit faster 100 meter dash, a tiny bit higher high jump, a tiny bit more intricate synchronized dive -- we can all smile and think, "Someday our children will be all this and more."
But also, we don't need to perform at the same level as our best. We just need to support them, so that they can be their best. God knows the Olympics couldn't happen without billions of dollars of sponsors, fans, viewers, equipment providers, coaches, and so on. The same is true of our inventors, scientists, artists, and so on. It's a lot harder to write a twilight saga, or a harry potter series, if the authors had had to invent the very concept of magic, witches, vampires, werewolves, and so on. The fact is we all participated in the writing of these stories, because we all shared a basic cultural heritage with the writers, who could easily tap into our shared folk stories. You could say everything written for the last century has just been Tolkein, Tolkein, Tolkein. But then you must recall that even Tolkein got his ideas from more ancient myths and folk tales, dating all the way back to the dawntime of our heritage. Tolkein had the support he needed, and in turn he provided support for even more ambitious works -- like The Wheel of Time -- which were even better and more popular than the original. So it is that each generation's best is slightly better than the previous generation's best. And so it is that the best are because of the masses ((what is a scientist without the LHC to perform tests with?)), and the masses all benefit from our best (( What is the LHC without a scientist to interpret the results?)). If this isn't symbiosis, if this isn't a hive brain, if this isn't an interconnected whole, what is?
Instead of worrying about who precisely is winning the gold medal, it is more accurate to say that humanity has produced yet another gold medal winning performance. If aliens were watching us from space, they wouldn't be impressed by our soldiers, our businessmen, or our firefighters. They would relegate all of this to the same activities as ants and other animals who all ceaselessly and mindlessly engage in the same things. But they would be amazed to see Florida vs. Alabama being cheered on by hundreds of thousands of people on all sides. They would marvel at the figure skaters in Vancouver. They would be completely floored at the frenzy surrounding the World Cup. Why? Because it produces nothing but excellence. And that is a concept animals can't even understand. It is a product they have never made, and never will. And alongside the excellent people, are the excellent fans -- all likewise establishing their unique humanity, by the fact that they value excellence themselves. Aliens could come up with dozens of theories about how humans instinctively learned how to fashion skyscrapers and cars just like birds make nests or badgers make dams -- but there would be no way for them to explain why humans make ski jumps except one -- Man lives in two worlds, the natural and the transcendental -- and every weekend we take time off to sojourn from one to the other.
#3 Texas has done what it takes to play the winner of this game for the National Championship, but first it will have to win its own championship against Nebraska. This will also be determined tomorrow. Texas is also undefeated and it would be fun for my home state to take home the national championship trophy once again. ((Last time it was under Vince Young in what was probably the greatest game in football history, against Matt Leinart and USC. Trust me, watch it, you'll see my praise isn't exaggerating.))
Meanwhile, today the World Cup drew the various groups and matchups that will be played in South Africa this summer. USA got a wonderful draw, in Group C with Slovenia, Algeria, and England. The first two are no big deal, and even England is only ranked 9th compared to our 14th, in the FIFA rankings. The USA could go deep into the world cup this time, but of course they aren't the only story. Holland is at the top of its game and also in a group it should handle easily. If you have never watched Holland play, watch it this summer. They are like visual music. There is only one World Cup every 4 years. Only a few countries have ever won a world cup. It is the most popular event in the world, and the highest award given in Sportdom.
With bowl season in football, and the playoffs around the corner, we can't forget the Vancouver Winter Olympics. In just a couple months, the world will gather yet again under the Olympic Torch ((after an incredible Beijing Olympics that went flawlessly and left everyone feeling good, the USA and the Chinese hosts.)), and fight over skiing, skating, hockey, and the all important curling.
2010 is a good year for sports. Heck, it may be the best year for sports in a long time. But my point is this -- sports are wonderful. Athletes are wonderful. Their performances are wonderful.
Sports does three things that nothing else can -- it brings the world together in peaceful competition -- it unites each individual nation (or state, or city) in patriotic support of their team -- and it lets people glimpse the highest heights of mankind's greatness. The beauty of an athlete performing well in his game is the same as the beauty of any dancer, singer, or any other skilled craftsmen. To denigrate athletes as somehow being inferior to other art forms is ridiculous. What they do is incredible, it is popular because people understand that it is incredible, and there is no reason to resent what few accomplishments other races have when we already have plenty ourselves. Not that blacks are necessarily better than whites in football, soccer, or the Olympics -- in many cases it's just the opposite. But to resent anyone who likes sports, and to mock anyone who is good at sports, simply because they are not white -- is churlish. It's stingy. And most of all, it's intellectually dishonest. We can give credit where credit is due. We can admire the beauty of a skilled player playing well. And we can do all of this while still wanting a country of our own.
One of the most inspiring scenes on earth is the Olympic March of Nations, where all the athletes walk around the stadium with their flags waving, even poor countries, even countries at war, even countries in total diplomatic isolation, and all of them being applauded with friendly encouragement by the crowd. People who have little to cheer for in their normal lives, people who don't even know where their next meal is coming from, can look up and take pride in their nation marching alongside all the others, a legitimate contender for medals that has put forward their very best to show the whole world what their people are made of. It's wonderful that like the ancient Greeks, we can put all of our differences aside and just celebrate humanity's skill and strength together as one for a month of games. Even while Georgia and Russia were at war with each other, their athletes faced each other with politeness, goodwill, and fair play, across the whole range of Olympic events. Who can't be inspired by their example?
For the next year, we are going to watch just what mankind is capable of, when they take their very finest physical specimens, and dedicate their entire lives into training their bodies and minds into doing something well. We can't possibly compete on their level, nor would we want to -- not everyone is born for athletics, and we can't all afford to spend every day concentrating on them. But what we can do, is marvel that we belong to the same species as these people, and that the human body and brain really can pull off the stunts we see in front of us. Walking through the Louvre is one way to become spellbound at the works of man, but another is to simply sit down in front of the television and watch these events. The miraculous performances some of these people put on, is every bit as beautiful. I still remember Carly Patterson on the Balance Beam, and Nastia Liuken on the floormat, the two all around gold medalists, both Americans, of the last two Olympics. Not only am I incredibly proud that these two girls are Americans, and that they are white, but simply that they are human beings. That within the human race there exists liars, deceivers, criminals, fools, assholes, and hypocrites -- but also these two gymnasts who wipe the entire slate clean. These people redeem the whole human race. They show what we can be -- and what more and more of us will be -- in the future. If any one person can do it, it is physically possible to replicate. This is why investigating the limits of human ability is a story of hope and joy for us all. Once a limit is broken -- a tiny bit faster 100 meter dash, a tiny bit higher high jump, a tiny bit more intricate synchronized dive -- we can all smile and think, "Someday our children will be all this and more."
But also, we don't need to perform at the same level as our best. We just need to support them, so that they can be their best. God knows the Olympics couldn't happen without billions of dollars of sponsors, fans, viewers, equipment providers, coaches, and so on. The same is true of our inventors, scientists, artists, and so on. It's a lot harder to write a twilight saga, or a harry potter series, if the authors had had to invent the very concept of magic, witches, vampires, werewolves, and so on. The fact is we all participated in the writing of these stories, because we all shared a basic cultural heritage with the writers, who could easily tap into our shared folk stories. You could say everything written for the last century has just been Tolkein, Tolkein, Tolkein. But then you must recall that even Tolkein got his ideas from more ancient myths and folk tales, dating all the way back to the dawntime of our heritage. Tolkein had the support he needed, and in turn he provided support for even more ambitious works -- like The Wheel of Time -- which were even better and more popular than the original. So it is that each generation's best is slightly better than the previous generation's best. And so it is that the best are because of the masses ((what is a scientist without the LHC to perform tests with?)), and the masses all benefit from our best (( What is the LHC without a scientist to interpret the results?)). If this isn't symbiosis, if this isn't a hive brain, if this isn't an interconnected whole, what is?
Instead of worrying about who precisely is winning the gold medal, it is more accurate to say that humanity has produced yet another gold medal winning performance. If aliens were watching us from space, they wouldn't be impressed by our soldiers, our businessmen, or our firefighters. They would relegate all of this to the same activities as ants and other animals who all ceaselessly and mindlessly engage in the same things. But they would be amazed to see Florida vs. Alabama being cheered on by hundreds of thousands of people on all sides. They would marvel at the figure skaters in Vancouver. They would be completely floored at the frenzy surrounding the World Cup. Why? Because it produces nothing but excellence. And that is a concept animals can't even understand. It is a product they have never made, and never will. And alongside the excellent people, are the excellent fans -- all likewise establishing their unique humanity, by the fact that they value excellence themselves. Aliens could come up with dozens of theories about how humans instinctively learned how to fashion skyscrapers and cars just like birds make nests or badgers make dams -- but there would be no way for them to explain why humans make ski jumps except one -- Man lives in two worlds, the natural and the transcendental -- and every weekend we take time off to sojourn from one to the other.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Collective Pride Exists (And so Does Collective Guilt)
It is absolutely moral and right to take pride in your race. Just as it is moral and right to take pride in your family. People are NOT atomized individuals, they are parts of a much vaster, and much more sublime, whole. If people could only take pride in themselves, then they would never get past Robinson Crusoe level survival. EVERYONE RELIES ON OTHERS TO ACHIEVE WHAT THEY DO.
Can a worker take pride in a product no one buys? Can a soldier take pride in protecting nothing? Can a doctor take pride in curing no one? The existence of other people is a precondition for 99% of the good we do in the world. Without them, what are we proud about? If you are a businessman you rely on your workers, your customers, and thousands of other businesses up and down the supply chain. To claim that you produce, single-handedly, a car, or an airplane, is absurd. You can only take pride in .0001% of the finished product.
However, if you consider yourself, (correctly) a part of a group, you can identify with said group, and take pride in its collective accomplishments. As a corporation, you can take pride in your product. As a parent, you can take pride in your child. As a white, you can take pride in your race.
What did you do to deserve the borrowed light of your group? Simple, you loved and supported said group. By loving it, you made it happier. By supporting it, you made it stronger. In both cases, you made it more able to achieve what it did.
Furthermore, collective pride is fair for another reason: We are all baskets of probability. For one Newton to be born, tens of millions of whites must bear children and raise them well in the hopes of producing a Newton. Why should Newton get the entire credit for the efforts of millions of families, across thousands of generations, trying over and over again to hit the jackpot of genes that is Newton? Obviously everyone who participated in the effort of Newton creation, deserves as much credit as Newton, who was simply the lucky winner. Newton exists only in the context of a white culture he didn't produce, and a white genome he didn't produce. Every single person who ever contributed to, or was part of, that cultural and genetic matrix, should take pride in Newton's existence, because they are as much a part of Newton's achievement as he is. He could not have done it without everyone else. If you realize that every generation carries with it a sacred trust to preserve and enrich our cultural and genetic heritage, passing it on to the next generation being our primary duty and greatest achievement possible in life, why can't you take pride in the fact that you have done so? That newton's genes and newton's discoveries live on in you, and in your kids, and in your grandkids, is the only reason Newton achieved anything. Without us, what was Newton worth? Just a flash in the pan, 50 years come and gone. But in us, he can be immortal. Isn't that worth something?
To be honest, I have no idea why you would even post on Amren, if you don't take pride in your race. If you have no pride in your race, if you feel no attachment to your race, if you think you, and your race, have nothing to do with each other -- then why would you possibly care what happens to it?
Can a worker take pride in a product no one buys? Can a soldier take pride in protecting nothing? Can a doctor take pride in curing no one? The existence of other people is a precondition for 99% of the good we do in the world. Without them, what are we proud about? If you are a businessman you rely on your workers, your customers, and thousands of other businesses up and down the supply chain. To claim that you produce, single-handedly, a car, or an airplane, is absurd. You can only take pride in .0001% of the finished product.
However, if you consider yourself, (correctly) a part of a group, you can identify with said group, and take pride in its collective accomplishments. As a corporation, you can take pride in your product. As a parent, you can take pride in your child. As a white, you can take pride in your race.
What did you do to deserve the borrowed light of your group? Simple, you loved and supported said group. By loving it, you made it happier. By supporting it, you made it stronger. In both cases, you made it more able to achieve what it did.
Furthermore, collective pride is fair for another reason: We are all baskets of probability. For one Newton to be born, tens of millions of whites must bear children and raise them well in the hopes of producing a Newton. Why should Newton get the entire credit for the efforts of millions of families, across thousands of generations, trying over and over again to hit the jackpot of genes that is Newton? Obviously everyone who participated in the effort of Newton creation, deserves as much credit as Newton, who was simply the lucky winner. Newton exists only in the context of a white culture he didn't produce, and a white genome he didn't produce. Every single person who ever contributed to, or was part of, that cultural and genetic matrix, should take pride in Newton's existence, because they are as much a part of Newton's achievement as he is. He could not have done it without everyone else. If you realize that every generation carries with it a sacred trust to preserve and enrich our cultural and genetic heritage, passing it on to the next generation being our primary duty and greatest achievement possible in life, why can't you take pride in the fact that you have done so? That newton's genes and newton's discoveries live on in you, and in your kids, and in your grandkids, is the only reason Newton achieved anything. Without us, what was Newton worth? Just a flash in the pan, 50 years come and gone. But in us, he can be immortal. Isn't that worth something?
To be honest, I have no idea why you would even post on Amren, if you don't take pride in your race. If you have no pride in your race, if you feel no attachment to your race, if you think you, and your race, have nothing to do with each other -- then why would you possibly care what happens to it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)