Charles Murray is a foundational influence on all my thinking. He brings to bear irrefutable evidence on the most important subjects in life, and inevitably it implies exactly the opposite of what the press, academia and politicians claim.
Facing Reality does the job it intended to do, get out more irrefutable facts about the relative gap in IQ and criminality between the races. He goes on to prove that the criminal records are not biased, they're in line with what the victims of the crime say the race of their perpetrators was. He also proves that IQ scores (and associated scores like the AFQT, SAT, NAEP, etc.) accurately predict future academic and job performance so they can't be biased either. On both measures he found they were actually biased in favor of blacks -- i.e., not enough blacks were being arrested and black SAT scores predicted better results than we actually found once they were at college or on the job.
All of this is old news. It isn't news to anyone who follows the relevant websites and data. So basically I paid $11 to hear the same old news I've known for decades. It's always nice to have a go-to source that explains the most up-to-date data, so that I can quote it accurately going forward, but that's an exiguous benefit.
After repeating what surely everyone in the world knows by now with mainstream evidence like New York City's own crime bureau releasing its own database of crimes and arrests, he comes to the same old conclusion as ever -- we should be a colorblind nation that does not favor or harm anyone on the basis of race. We should arrest criminals whatever their race might be, we should hire whoever is most effective at the job, academically qualified people should be the ones going to college, etc. And we should all, as a nation, expect to see differences in outcome between races because there are differences in initial inputs that cannot and will not ever be rectified. It wouldn't be unusual for companies with high cognitive demands to hire zero blacks or promote zero blacks to senior positions because there are only 900 blacks per year with 1500+ SAT scores. We just have to accept there aren't enough smart blacks to go around and no one is discriminating against them. In fact, every smart black in the USA lives the life of a country baron they're so fawned over.
Of course Charles Murray's dream would be a huge improvement over our current situation, where blacks are running basically rampant, burning, looting and killing with a 20% clearance rate, because everyone is too afraid to look bad by contributing to a 'disproportion.' But I see no reason why the data should lead to a colorblind world. It seems to me the data implies something completely different -- that a nation built only for whites and Asians would be a crime-free, poverty-free, high worker productivity utopia, and therefore we should quickly carve out such a new nation for ourselves immediately.
Why simply tolerate the overweight perennially weighing us down? If we know blacks and Hispanics will forever only be a burden on the rest of us, with their out of control crime and high taxpayer expenses and bad workplace behavior, why not get rid of them? Wouldn't that make a lot more sense than to simply tolerate it forever with a shrug and a creed of colorblindness? But, but, if we're a colorblind society they won't be such a burden anymore -- nonsense. The blacks will still be killing and raping random innocent whites every day. The police may be more willing to arrest them but the blood tax would still have to be paid, since we have to wait until after they impulsively kill us to punish them and can't do anything beforehand. They'll still be a huge weight on our finances, mired in poverty, receiving tons of taxpayer funds but never paying any. And worst of all, of course, they'll still vote Democrat and be constantly attempting to overthrow this enlightened colorblind creed with BLACK POWER, BLACKS GET EVERYTHING, KILL THE BOER, KILL THE FARMER. Since we're colorblind, our immigration policy must be open border with a quickly blackening world, so they'll be the majority of the vote soon enough under this wonderful American civic nationalist ideal. And then we'll be right back into the cannibal's pot.
I wouldn't mind a white-Asian nation much like Hong Kong was under British rule. I think Asian women are beautiful and have higher family stability rates than whites, so marrying them would be a plus. But even this seems suspect. Why burden ourselves with a biracial nation still at odds with each other over stupid meaningless differences? Just look at Canada with their French and English halves, always bickering and quarreling over nothing. White/Asian differences are of course much larger than Scots-Irish and Irish-Irish. Why deliberately create a dividing line that can create bad feelings and civil unrest from the start? Wouldn't it be better to have a nation entirely to ourselves where everyone can feel at home with everyone else in the nation?
Even if there is no technical reason why whites and Asians can't get along, the fact is Asians vote hugely in favor of the Democratic party so their soul is aligned with the demonic blacks, not the angelic whites. I don't know why this is, in every way Asians would benefit from Republican policies as opposed to Democratic policies, but it is what it is. Asians hate white America so much that they're willing to sabotage their own wellbeing just to hurt us. Why on earth would you want to share a nation with people like them?
Asians living in Asian countries live perfectly great lives. Japan is heaven on Earth, and Taiwan and the like isn't far behind. Telling Asians to go live among themselves is hardly consigning them to perdition. I have nothing but good wishes for all of them, as they go find their own separate peaceful rich abode. But what I want for myself is a place of peace and prosperity (just like Japan!), but without anyone calling my race evil, my history evil, my borders evil, etc. And that means Democratic leaning Asians have to go just as much as Democratic leaning Hispanics. (Jews too, for that matter.)
Honestly I feel betrayed by Asians. They are so conservative in their homelands, and yet demand so much progressive nonsense once they reach America, it's clear they are doing it solely to hurt us and know full well the policies they endorse for us they would never choose for themselves. They vote for infinity refugees here and about ten for East Asia. The hypocrisy is so overwhelming.
A colorblind country would, at best, be a place with eternally high crime and high taxes, with huge poverty and unemployment and constant political bickering as whites (who enforce the colorblind system) are still blamed for everything by nonwhites, including even elite overachieving nonwhites like Asians. Does that sound like a utopia we should be aspiring towards? Why on earth settle for that?
The moment the truth is understood that we owe non-whites nothing, that we've been giving and giving and giving unilaterally for centuries now of our wealth, technology and philosophy while they've only been murdering us, raping us and insulting us, the solution isn't to 'return to colorblindness.' It's to for the first time in centuries put our own welfare first and start rewarding ourselves with the fruit of our goodness. To enjoy ourselves among ourselves with the products we ourselves earned. To love ourselves. After all we've suffered for others, the least we could do is put ourselves first for once.
Whether Charles Murray likes it or not, the logical implications of his irrefutable, well-known facts are white nationalism and white supremacism. The moment you accept the irrefutable data you must logically accept the utopian political order that would reflect the admission of those truths. Anyone who knows these facts and stops at colorblindness is giving away the farm. In fifty years your colorblindness won't matter because non-whites, who aren't interested in fairness but solely in grabbing whatever they can, which includes your blonde daughters, will be the majority and in a democracy that means they get whatever they want.
It's preposterous to 'aspire towards colorblindness' in a timeline like that. What is it with these cucks? It's like they want to be raped. From Sweden to the USA it's the same story every time.
I wish Charles Murray would Face Reality and admit an all-white, no-immigrant nation is preferable for a white to live in over any other mix, and that therefore there is no reason for a white American to give two shits about America or their 'fellow Americans' anymore, who are always and only impediments to a good life.
And before anyone mentions Moldova or whatever -- there are huge differences between Balkan whites and Nordic whites, and America is descended from Nordic whites, so our all-white nation would be heaven on Earth, like every other all-white Nordic nation is (Denmark, Norway, etc.) Like America, Britain, Germany, Australia and France used to be.
And before anyone mentions shitlib whites in Vermont or California or whatever, yes of course a new nation would exclude them too. They wouldn't even want to come -- the moment you said, 'this is a new country for white nationalists and white supremacists where non-whites are banned,' how many shitlibs do you think would even be knocking on the door? If it helps relieve your fears that the nation won't be sorted enough we'll check the facebook and twitter history of every white applicant and make sure they never flew a rainbow flag icon or whatever. But 99.99% of the people who would want to secede into this nation in the first place would be the most hardcore republicans you could ever dream of, so I'm really not worried.
For a new all-white nation to form, respectable, rich, powerful people will have to back it. The same way the American revolution, the Texas Revolution and the Southern Secession started, the same way every revolution or national founding begins. People like Charles Murray need to stop chanting obvious false bromides like 'can't we all get along?' (No, not if blacks are genetically inclined to a murder rate 10 times as high as ours, no, we can't get along, and since you're the one reporting this fact, why the hell do you not get this?) Respected, rich, powerful people need to dedicate their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to a white homeland, the only way this ever works and the only time it worked in the first place.
When serious people put serious money with serious coalitions behind them, the willing numbers will flock to their banner. All Donald Trump had to do is tweet 'all loyal patriots rise up and stop the coup!' and he could've started a civil war. Why is it, at the last moment, all our 'betters' retreat to obviously false bromides and fiddle while Rome burns? Do they really want whites to be a permanently enslaved underclass? Do they really expect any other future? How can they with the demographic reality of birth rates and immigration staring them in the face every day? Have they taken a look at South Africa or Zimbabwe recently? How about Haiti? Detroit?
I've been at this for 15 years, requesting a white Vinland for 15 years, and all the while these cucks keep repeating Martin Luther King's "content of their character" speech. We know the content of their character. They voted for mass murderer Hillary Clinton and serial rapist Bill Clinton. That's their character. Can we now move on to the revolution? Please?
How much irrefutable data will it take for one famous, rich, or powerful person to endorse a white homeland? Hello, Elon Musk? You're a freaking South African. Surely this can't have escaped your notice? Could you at least make sure the Mars pioneers are all white? Just slip it in there all sideways and secretive-like? Oops, pure accident, by pure coincidence, they happened to be the only adventurous geeks up for the job?
No comments:
Post a Comment