The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated September 2:
In the comments section, huy notes that, while he is a social democrat, he still sings the praises of the free market system. He points out drug companies and IT as two great industries.
I disagree:
Private drug companies are crap! Have you ever seen a more horrid bunch of gangsters and criminals? Here in the US they are all just crooks.
They keep harmful drugs on the market and refuse to pull them. The only way to pull them is to sue them over and over, and even when we do that, they still keep them on the market a lot of times. These people are just flat out murderers. And when they get too pissed about being sued, they get their bought and paid for Congressswine to legislate "tort reform", which means no more suits.
Or SLAPP suits, in which you get sued for suing the POS corporation! They fake their studies, lie on their data, and buy and pay for doctors to lie for them. The whole medical field is becoming seriously corrupted by the big money behind these scum companies, and the # of doctors going corrupt as a result is really frightening. It's a serious problem as even our best medical journals are in danger of being corrupted.
Furthermore, it has been conclusively proven that we pay much higher prices for the same drugs that other nations in the West get for much cheaper. What advantage do we get from these high prices? Much higher profits for drug companies on US sales! I'm sure your average US consumer is delighted by that! Or maybe, if his mind is truly market-infected, he is delighted by that.
The IT companies? It's hard to say. Microsoft is an illegal monopoly, was one, and will be one into the foreseeable future. It's hard to imagine how much damage they have caused to computing.
Intel is a monopoly on CPU's with similar major issues for consumers, notably outrageously high prices and forced install of Intel chips by computer makers.
On the ground, there is no competition in broadband. The glorious days of dialup competition are gone forever. You have the cable monopoly or the phone DSL monopoly. They are both evil, and neither has any competition but the other.
The cable monopolies are not regulated at all, and cable is insanely overpriced.
The phone monopolies are barely regulated at all anymore, but some are better than others. The worst of all are the huge ones like ATT, which desperately needs to be regulated.
An unregulated private monopoly is pure evil and needs to be smashed or at least heavily regulated.
Capitalism in the US has created a Gramscian hegemony whereby a vast number of folks identify with the capitalists and the market. Once you do that, all regulation and control by the state is out the window. Very rightwing capitalists own all of our media and use it try to slam pro-corporate, pro-monopoly bullshit into our heads 24-7.
A lot of workers and consumers, especially once they start getting some money, "go corporate" in their minds and essentially support the whole human-hating, society-hating, worker-hating and consumer-hating agenda of the corporations.
Our lack of government involvement in broadband and cell phones has meant that we spend outrageously high prices for shit service.
Other nations have involved the state heavily in their cellular and broadband systems. They pay dramatically lower prices than we do and get dramatically faster speeds and more features.
We're just sitting here in the US getting screwed because we worship these corporate pigs who are reaming us. Why? Because the ideology of "the market" has infected every aspect of American life. Even the people who should be protesting getting screwed by these corporations are singing their praises even while they are getting reamed.
Their minds have been colonized by a virus. The market virus.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Interesting Comments on Sex Offenders
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated September 2:
From the comments section on the Child Molester Mass Hysteria post, a commenter writes:
I'd be interested to see how these laws are endangering kids and doing more harm than good.
Surely life is often Hell for these sex offenders. And you can see here that these insane laws are being used against all sorts of 18-21 year old guys messing around with 15-17 year old girls. The guys are totally normal, and now their lives are fucked forever.
They're on Sex Offender Lists, it's hard to work anywhere, they go to jail and get threatened by other inmates as "pedos" (that's weird, I figured most prison inmates would gladly fuck a 16 year old girl if they could get away with it). They can hardly live anywhere and often have to move back home.
Their career dreams are shot, and the military won't take you (I guess fucking a 16 year old girl is evil, but actually killing human beings, albeit towelheads, is cool). Lots of guys are also going down due to lying little girls telling tall tales of fake molestations and teenage bitches screaming rape.
I thank God I'm not on one of those blasted lists! I have enough problems as it is; I couldn't imagine what Hell my life would be if I was on one of those things.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Updated September 2:
From the comments section on the Child Molester Mass Hysteria post, a commenter writes:
Incest and friends of the family make up approximately 98% of all sex offenses (I think they mean child molestation and not rape, but I'm not sure). There has been estimated that 60 million individuals in this country that has experienced child sexual abuse. 50%, 30 million will go on to abuse a child. This is the crux of the problem, and we are not addressing it.I don't really know what to say to any of this stuff. I don't have much personal interest in it.
Instead, law makers are creating laws that do more harm than good. For example:
The public registries: 98% of those come from the family and friends of the family. It is a fact, that once caught, 95% of them never repeat another sex crime. And that's without therapy.
The remaining 5% are hiding in the registries. Those who did not know their victims, the violent rapists and the repeat offender.
And, approximately, 95% of all new sex offenses are committed by individuals NOT on the registries. Is it no wonder, because law makers have totally ignored the fact that Incest and friends of the family are the crux of the problem. There are 30 million abusers out there and lawmakers have done nothing to address prevention through education.
By ignoring incest and friends of the family, law makers have created a greater risk to children and society. If we do not openly discuss it, do not propose any educational models to better inform ourselves and keep ourselves afflicted with guilt and shame which washes over all concerned, perpetrators, victims, and other family members alike, we all help shield and perpetuate the crime.
These sex offender laws are being passed without advice of the experts. They are knee-jerk regulatory reaction which is just another way of saying, additional punishment is justified. Congress and the Legislatures have ignored the experts in the field.
But when it comes to light bulbs, they clamor for expert testimony. There is something very fundamentally wrong with their approach when it comes to sex offender laws.
Randy Lopp, treatment subcommittee chairman of the Oklahoma Sex Offender Management Team said, ''Most people who know anything about this are frustrated. It is just not helpful -- the laws as they are now.
I think if the general public understood the research, they would be willing to back the legislators to change the laws to make more sense and to protect children, because the laws as they are written are not protecting children," he said. "They are doing more harm than good.''
US Department of Justice, 2003
• Sample size - 9,700 sex offenders
• Length of time - 3 years
• Re-offense trigger - reconviction (Doesn't mean a new sex crime)
• Results - 5.3% sexual offense. 3.3% child molestation.
Arizona, Department of Corrections, 2006
• Length of time - Ten years
• Sample size - 2,444 sex offenders
• Results - 3.2% returned for a new felony sex offense, 1.4% returned for a new felony case of child molestation
• Reoffense trigger - new conviction (Any conviction)
And there are many more studies and they have the same results. Low recidivism rates for first time sex offenses.
Law makers pass these laws as non-controversial. Without debate and there is nothing I can think of that is more controversial.
Constitutional rights are being side stepped and it has been said that when you deny the constitution to one, you deny it to everyone. Please, look at the real problem. Incest and friends of the family and Prevent through education. Do away with these draconian laws that protect no one but endangers every child.
I'd be interested to see how these laws are endangering kids and doing more harm than good.
Surely life is often Hell for these sex offenders. And you can see here that these insane laws are being used against all sorts of 18-21 year old guys messing around with 15-17 year old girls. The guys are totally normal, and now their lives are fucked forever.
They're on Sex Offender Lists, it's hard to work anywhere, they go to jail and get threatened by other inmates as "pedos" (that's weird, I figured most prison inmates would gladly fuck a 16 year old girl if they could get away with it). They can hardly live anywhere and often have to move back home.
Their career dreams are shot, and the military won't take you (I guess fucking a 16 year old girl is evil, but actually killing human beings, albeit towelheads, is cool). Lots of guys are also going down due to lying little girls telling tall tales of fake molestations and teenage bitches screaming rape.
I thank God I'm not on one of those blasted lists! I have enough problems as it is; I couldn't imagine what Hell my life would be if I was on one of those things.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Socialism Wastes Money, Capitalism Wastes Humans
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated November 16:
There has been a lot of talk, even by socialists, of the profound "wastefulness" inherent in various Communist economic systems. As I'm not an economist, I don't really understand what they are talking about.
However, I can give you a few ideas.
In recent years, Cuba has revolutionized organic agriculture to where they probably have one of the most highly developed organic ag systems on Earth. For starters, Cuba has more agronomists per capita than anywhere else on Earth. During the Special Period, they were put to work devising organic solutions to problems that were previously solved by industrialized agriculture.
Right now, in the intensive organic farming collectives all over Havana, crop yield has reached some of the highest levels on Earth per unit of land. And that's with a 100% organic system. Now, who ever said that socialism could not produce?
However, interviews with collective farmers reveal that the system could not be replicated on a capitalist model. It is "wasteful", that is, it has to either spend too much money to get that yield, or it pays too many farmers as workers to get the yield. It's pretty much the same argument.
A similar complaint has been leveled at Cuban enterprises. In some office jobs, it seems as if there are four or five workers for every real job. They rest are screwing off or shuffling papers or engaging in make-work.
I suppose all of these examples are of "waste", right? Waste of money! Well, Cuba is a poor country dedicated to 100% employment.
In most of the Third World, college grads just don't have any jobs. The state has no jobs for them and the private sector doesn't either. So there are vastly more applicants than positions. A lot of these places have much more wealth than Cuba.
Cuba's not going to go that route. It has enough money to hire workers even for jobs that barely even exist, and it wants everyone to have a job, figuring that's better than sitting on your ass. 3rd World capitalism creates armies of over-educated young unemployed men with no income to start a family. In the Muslim World, lots of them are going in for radical Islam and blowing themselves up.
I suppose that Cuba has a similar problem, but they just dealt with it by creating make-work jobs and at least giving folks an income and something to do with their time. There's waste of humans in one case (3rd World capitalism) by lack of jobs for them, and waste of money in the other case (Cuba) for creating make-work jobs.
I would point out that the Cuban organic collectives are run by the workers themselves. They hire other workers to join on. If you don't pull your weight and slack off, you're fired. They have to sell some of their produce to the state, but there's plenty left over for farmers' markets. There are many people clamoring to get into these collectives, as it's seen as a good job with a good income.
As a collective economic form, it's also non-capitalist. Right now, only 6% of Cuban agriculture is in state farms. Most is in farming cooperatives. Much is made of the very high productivity levels of the private farms (they are limited to 150 acres), but they do this by using vastly more than their share of labor, so perhaps they are not so productive after all.
Here in the US, a lot of very smart people are just completely wasted by capitalism. I'm not talking about myself here, because I'm not healthy enough to work in a regular job, so I just live off a meager trust fund.
But I know two people with IQ's over 140 who are not doing much productive. One works at low-level jobs and the other is on disability, but could work if they wanted to. What puzzles me is why this wonderful market is not beating their doors down trying to hire our most valuable citizens (cognitive elite)?
If the stupid market can't utilize their brains in any way, why doesn't the state? The very same thing happens in 3rd World capitalism. Very bright people, with degrees and advanced degrees, have nothing to do.
If aliens landed on the Earth and saw a bunch of the smartest people around being wasted by society, wouldn't they say that was insane? The capitalists would explain to the aliens that these folks are useless for making money, so they are a waste of air, and that capitalists don't give a damn about talent or brains or anything.
I guess that's what it boils down to? Capitalism is good for creating wealth, that's it. Hell, even Marx said that. Read The Communist Manifesto. He praises this greatest wealth-creating engine to the skies.
What else is capitalism good for? Nothing. It ain't good for fuck-all else. I assure you that Cuba would find something to do with everyone in the land who had a 140-150 IQ.
I guess the market feels it can't use the smartest people in society to help it make cash, so it has no use for them. Capitalism and the market is just a fucking money-generating machine. It's in business to make money, nothing else.
That's what all this crap the market-fetishists go on about in terms of "generating wealth" is all about. Making money. "Generating wealth" means making money. Big deal. Since when is that a value worth anything of importance?
I hate capitalism and the damned market. Looking at the failure of socialist models (For example, when Albanian leader Hoxha died in 1985, there were shortages of even the most basic foodstuffs.) I'm willing to acknowledge that it may be necessary, but it sure sucks.
Have you ever noticed the contempt that capitalists have for professors in universities, our finest minds at work in various sciences and fields, advancing the knowledge of our species? They sneer and call them eggheads and talk about how their tax dollars are wasted on these guys. They brag about how they never went to college.
There's no money in a lot of these fields of study at the university (probably, or at least at the moment, or from what we can tell), so capitalists figure it's all a total waste. If there's no money in it, it's worthless. That's your glorious market.
Fuck the market.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Updated November 16:
There has been a lot of talk, even by socialists, of the profound "wastefulness" inherent in various Communist economic systems. As I'm not an economist, I don't really understand what they are talking about.
However, I can give you a few ideas.
In recent years, Cuba has revolutionized organic agriculture to where they probably have one of the most highly developed organic ag systems on Earth. For starters, Cuba has more agronomists per capita than anywhere else on Earth. During the Special Period, they were put to work devising organic solutions to problems that were previously solved by industrialized agriculture.
Right now, in the intensive organic farming collectives all over Havana, crop yield has reached some of the highest levels on Earth per unit of land. And that's with a 100% organic system. Now, who ever said that socialism could not produce?
However, interviews with collective farmers reveal that the system could not be replicated on a capitalist model. It is "wasteful", that is, it has to either spend too much money to get that yield, or it pays too many farmers as workers to get the yield. It's pretty much the same argument.
A similar complaint has been leveled at Cuban enterprises. In some office jobs, it seems as if there are four or five workers for every real job. They rest are screwing off or shuffling papers or engaging in make-work.
I suppose all of these examples are of "waste", right? Waste of money! Well, Cuba is a poor country dedicated to 100% employment.
In most of the Third World, college grads just don't have any jobs. The state has no jobs for them and the private sector doesn't either. So there are vastly more applicants than positions. A lot of these places have much more wealth than Cuba.
Cuba's not going to go that route. It has enough money to hire workers even for jobs that barely even exist, and it wants everyone to have a job, figuring that's better than sitting on your ass. 3rd World capitalism creates armies of over-educated young unemployed men with no income to start a family. In the Muslim World, lots of them are going in for radical Islam and blowing themselves up.
I suppose that Cuba has a similar problem, but they just dealt with it by creating make-work jobs and at least giving folks an income and something to do with their time. There's waste of humans in one case (3rd World capitalism) by lack of jobs for them, and waste of money in the other case (Cuba) for creating make-work jobs.
I would point out that the Cuban organic collectives are run by the workers themselves. They hire other workers to join on. If you don't pull your weight and slack off, you're fired. They have to sell some of their produce to the state, but there's plenty left over for farmers' markets. There are many people clamoring to get into these collectives, as it's seen as a good job with a good income.
As a collective economic form, it's also non-capitalist. Right now, only 6% of Cuban agriculture is in state farms. Most is in farming cooperatives. Much is made of the very high productivity levels of the private farms (they are limited to 150 acres), but they do this by using vastly more than their share of labor, so perhaps they are not so productive after all.
Here in the US, a lot of very smart people are just completely wasted by capitalism. I'm not talking about myself here, because I'm not healthy enough to work in a regular job, so I just live off a meager trust fund.
But I know two people with IQ's over 140 who are not doing much productive. One works at low-level jobs and the other is on disability, but could work if they wanted to. What puzzles me is why this wonderful market is not beating their doors down trying to hire our most valuable citizens (cognitive elite)?
If the stupid market can't utilize their brains in any way, why doesn't the state? The very same thing happens in 3rd World capitalism. Very bright people, with degrees and advanced degrees, have nothing to do.
If aliens landed on the Earth and saw a bunch of the smartest people around being wasted by society, wouldn't they say that was insane? The capitalists would explain to the aliens that these folks are useless for making money, so they are a waste of air, and that capitalists don't give a damn about talent or brains or anything.
I guess that's what it boils down to? Capitalism is good for creating wealth, that's it. Hell, even Marx said that. Read The Communist Manifesto. He praises this greatest wealth-creating engine to the skies.
What else is capitalism good for? Nothing. It ain't good for fuck-all else. I assure you that Cuba would find something to do with everyone in the land who had a 140-150 IQ.
I guess the market feels it can't use the smartest people in society to help it make cash, so it has no use for them. Capitalism and the market is just a fucking money-generating machine. It's in business to make money, nothing else.
That's what all this crap the market-fetishists go on about in terms of "generating wealth" is all about. Making money. "Generating wealth" means making money. Big deal. Since when is that a value worth anything of importance?
I hate capitalism and the damned market. Looking at the failure of socialist models (For example, when Albanian leader Hoxha died in 1985, there were shortages of even the most basic foodstuffs.) I'm willing to acknowledge that it may be necessary, but it sure sucks.
Have you ever noticed the contempt that capitalists have for professors in universities, our finest minds at work in various sciences and fields, advancing the knowledge of our species? They sneer and call them eggheads and talk about how their tax dollars are wasted on these guys. They brag about how they never went to college.
There's no money in a lot of these fields of study at the university (probably, or at least at the moment, or from what we can tell), so capitalists figure it's all a total waste. If there's no money in it, it's worthless. That's your glorious market.
Fuck the market.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
The Insanity of Unilateral Anti-Racism
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated September 2:
In the comments section, Lafayette Sennacherib, a very smart British White guy with no interest in White nationalism, notes, regarding WN, that the WN's do have a point:
I discussed this very issue with Kevin McDonald himself a while back, and he agreed with me when I said that Whites either need to go ethnocentric just like the Jews or they are going to get screwed by the ethnocentric group.
That's a problem with the Jews. Their ethnocentrism advantages them.
The only sane way to fight it, or fight any competing ethnocentric ethnic, is to go ethnocentric right back on them. I'm not saying kill em, but do to the Jews whatever they do to us (they don't kill us). Otherwise, in capitalism, an ethnocentric group will tend to win out over a less ethnocentric group.
This is what commenter James Schipper means when he says that unilateral anti-racism makes no sense. It's makes about as much sense as unilateral disarmament. As long as the opposing ethnics are racist, your group has to at least keep its guard up. You can't go around singing Kumbaya and hugging competing ethnics while they are using racism and ethnocentricity against you. You'll get screwed.
What's really happened here in the US is that US Whites have gone overboard for anti-racism, while frankly, I don't think the other ethnics have. I think other ethnics mostly just use anti-racism as a club to beat Whites with whenever they get pissed at us.
We are already hearing stories about Black city governments that preferentially hire Blacks and discriminate against White applicants. The insanity of the H-1B (Hindu 1-B) scab labor scam means that whole IT shops get flooded with crappy Indian cheap labor coders. Eventually, management is replaced by Indian management.
Indian Hindus being very ethnocentric folks, they quickly fire all of the remaining Americans (mostly Whites) and replace them with Hindu 1-B job-thieving invaders.
Jews have long practiced preferential hiring in many industries, particularly Hollywood, and it's actually one of the secrets of their success. Jewish directors have even bragged in interviews that they preferentially hire Jews and dared anyone to do anything about it.
In fact, during the civil rights struggles of the 1960's, I believe that the Jews who were very influential in this fight tried to write the laws specifically so that Jews would not get busted for discriminatory hiring.
In California, we have Hispanic employers who will openly tell you to your face that they only hire their own kind.
What's interesting about all of this is that I am not aware of any Black, Hispanic, Hindu Indian or Jewish employer who has ever run afoul of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, nor have they ever been sued. Who bears the brunt of these laws? Whites and only Whites. As long as anti-discrimination laws are just used as clubs to beat Whites with, I can almost understand, but not condone, White racists' opposition to them.
There is another kind of discrimination that is more subtle going on now, in that the utter insanity of mass legal and illegal Mesoamerican immigration, especially in the West, has resulted in entire fields, such as construction, that are now de facto Hispanic occupations.
Hispanics, almost all both legal and illegal immigrants, have been working in them for so long that when they have an opening, they just ask the other Hispanic workers, and they go get one of their Hispanic buddies. They often won't hire Whites because they're going to be like the only White guy on the crew. So a de facto "Hispanic old boys network" has been created.
Further, formerly good-paying, often unionized, often heavily-White jobs, fields and occupations have now gone permanently low-wage and immigrant.
At the slaughterhouse in Iowa that finally got raided by ICE and where 300 illegals were then hauled away, the slaughterhouse contemplated shutting down. But they quickly hauled in 300 immigrant refugee Somalis who were perfectly happy to work a very unpleasant non-union job for a crap wage and horrific treatment.
In this way, the insanity of mass immigration, legal and illegal, has destroyed high-paying, unionized, heavily-White working class jobs if not forever, then at least into the foreseeable future. What's terrifying about this is that even deporting the 12-40 million illegals in the US might not necessarily solve it.
We have a venal, traitorous, America-hating capitalist class here in the US that has become addicted to cheap, often illegal, immigrant labor that they can underpay, slide on taxes, insurance and regulation with, and treat like total shit.
Like a drug addict pulled off his drugs, they don't know how to deal with the withdrawal of the crack cocaine of cheap illegal immigrant labor. They go through withdrawals and thrash around looking for some similar substitute. Going through cold turkey altogether, going clean and hiring back mostly-White legal American workers at union jobs is not even contemplated. They're hooked on crack. Illegal alien crack.
*When I say mostly-White workforce, I am speaking from my own biases. My working class friends who got screwed by illegals are overwhelmingly White. That's not because I'm racist; it just represents the crowd I run with. I'd like to point out that the record shows that Blacks, especially Black men, make very good factory workers.
After World War 2, many Blacks moved from the South to the North to work in factories. As far as I can tell, the record shows that these Black men did a good job at their often-unionized factory jobs. Although young Black men have gotten a sense of entitlement lately, I still think that union jobs paying $20 an hour and up would appeal to many Black men nowadays, young and older.
I have noticed that Blacks tend to side with the illegals, possibly due to bonding with a another group they sense as oppressed by Whites. If you have read my post above, I suggest they do this at their peril and to the harm of their self-interests. Blacks need to start thinking about what's good for Black folks, not making common cause with fellow non-Whites.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Updated September 2:
In the comments section, Lafayette Sennacherib, a very smart British White guy with no interest in White nationalism, notes, regarding WN, that the WN's do have a point:
A White Nationalist argument that has some merit is that tribal loyalties are unfortunate but inevitable, and in the face of the organised tribal interest of at least one demographic, whites should not have their hands tied behind their backs. Could you deny that there is some merit in that?I respond: As much as I dislike the WN's for their overt racism and dislike for nearly all non-Whites, they are the only folks here in the US that have the balls to discuss certain truths that no one else with touch with a 10 foot pole and an 11 foot extension.
I discussed this very issue with Kevin McDonald himself a while back, and he agreed with me when I said that Whites either need to go ethnocentric just like the Jews or they are going to get screwed by the ethnocentric group.
That's a problem with the Jews. Their ethnocentrism advantages them.
The only sane way to fight it, or fight any competing ethnocentric ethnic, is to go ethnocentric right back on them. I'm not saying kill em, but do to the Jews whatever they do to us (they don't kill us). Otherwise, in capitalism, an ethnocentric group will tend to win out over a less ethnocentric group.
This is what commenter James Schipper means when he says that unilateral anti-racism makes no sense. It's makes about as much sense as unilateral disarmament. As long as the opposing ethnics are racist, your group has to at least keep its guard up. You can't go around singing Kumbaya and hugging competing ethnics while they are using racism and ethnocentricity against you. You'll get screwed.
What's really happened here in the US is that US Whites have gone overboard for anti-racism, while frankly, I don't think the other ethnics have. I think other ethnics mostly just use anti-racism as a club to beat Whites with whenever they get pissed at us.
We are already hearing stories about Black city governments that preferentially hire Blacks and discriminate against White applicants. The insanity of the H-1B (Hindu 1-B) scab labor scam means that whole IT shops get flooded with crappy Indian cheap labor coders. Eventually, management is replaced by Indian management.
Indian Hindus being very ethnocentric folks, they quickly fire all of the remaining Americans (mostly Whites) and replace them with Hindu 1-B job-thieving invaders.
Jews have long practiced preferential hiring in many industries, particularly Hollywood, and it's actually one of the secrets of their success. Jewish directors have even bragged in interviews that they preferentially hire Jews and dared anyone to do anything about it.
In fact, during the civil rights struggles of the 1960's, I believe that the Jews who were very influential in this fight tried to write the laws specifically so that Jews would not get busted for discriminatory hiring.
In California, we have Hispanic employers who will openly tell you to your face that they only hire their own kind.
What's interesting about all of this is that I am not aware of any Black, Hispanic, Hindu Indian or Jewish employer who has ever run afoul of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, nor have they ever been sued. Who bears the brunt of these laws? Whites and only Whites. As long as anti-discrimination laws are just used as clubs to beat Whites with, I can almost understand, but not condone, White racists' opposition to them.
There is another kind of discrimination that is more subtle going on now, in that the utter insanity of mass legal and illegal Mesoamerican immigration, especially in the West, has resulted in entire fields, such as construction, that are now de facto Hispanic occupations.
Hispanics, almost all both legal and illegal immigrants, have been working in them for so long that when they have an opening, they just ask the other Hispanic workers, and they go get one of their Hispanic buddies. They often won't hire Whites because they're going to be like the only White guy on the crew. So a de facto "Hispanic old boys network" has been created.
Further, formerly good-paying, often unionized, often heavily-White jobs, fields and occupations have now gone permanently low-wage and immigrant.
At the slaughterhouse in Iowa that finally got raided by ICE and where 300 illegals were then hauled away, the slaughterhouse contemplated shutting down. But they quickly hauled in 300 immigrant refugee Somalis who were perfectly happy to work a very unpleasant non-union job for a crap wage and horrific treatment.
In this way, the insanity of mass immigration, legal and illegal, has destroyed high-paying, unionized, heavily-White working class jobs if not forever, then at least into the foreseeable future. What's terrifying about this is that even deporting the 12-40 million illegals in the US might not necessarily solve it.
We have a venal, traitorous, America-hating capitalist class here in the US that has become addicted to cheap, often illegal, immigrant labor that they can underpay, slide on taxes, insurance and regulation with, and treat like total shit.
Like a drug addict pulled off his drugs, they don't know how to deal with the withdrawal of the crack cocaine of cheap illegal immigrant labor. They go through withdrawals and thrash around looking for some similar substitute. Going through cold turkey altogether, going clean and hiring back mostly-White legal American workers at union jobs is not even contemplated. They're hooked on crack. Illegal alien crack.
*When I say mostly-White workforce, I am speaking from my own biases. My working class friends who got screwed by illegals are overwhelmingly White. That's not because I'm racist; it just represents the crowd I run with. I'd like to point out that the record shows that Blacks, especially Black men, make very good factory workers.
After World War 2, many Blacks moved from the South to the North to work in factories. As far as I can tell, the record shows that these Black men did a good job at their often-unionized factory jobs. Although young Black men have gotten a sense of entitlement lately, I still think that union jobs paying $20 an hour and up would appeal to many Black men nowadays, young and older.
I have noticed that Blacks tend to side with the illegals, possibly due to bonding with a another group they sense as oppressed by Whites. If you have read my post above, I suggest they do this at their peril and to the harm of their self-interests. Blacks need to start thinking about what's good for Black folks, not making common cause with fellow non-Whites.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
US Adult Black-White IQ Gap Now 13.2 Points Not 15 Points
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated September 2:
I've already gone over this before, but it's worth another post, because most folks haven't heard of it.
It appears, looking at the chart below, that IQ's have been renormed in the US. That's the only way to explain the anomalous IQ scores for both Blacks and Whites.
With the renorming, on the WAIS:
US White adult IQ = 102.6 (103)*
US Black adult IQ = 89.1 (89)*
B-W gap for age 25+ = 13.5 points.
With (my) renorming, on the AFQT:
US White IQ = 103 (103)*
US Black adult IQ = 88.6 (89)*
B-W gap for 18-23 yrs old = 14.4 points
With the renorming, on the Stanford-Binet (ages 3-23):
US White IQ 3-23 yrs = 102.9 (103)*
US Black IQ 3-23 yrs = 92.1 (92)*
B-W gap for 3-23 yrs old = 10.8 points
With the renorming, on the WAIS (ages 18-24):
US White IQ 18-24 yrs = 102.6 (103)*
US Black IQ 18-24 yrs = 90.9 (91)*
B-W gap for 18-24 yrs old = 11.7 points
With the renorming, on the WISC (ages 6-16):
US White IQ 6-16 yrs = 103.2 (103)*
US Black IQ 6-16 yrs = 91.7 (92)*
B-W gap for 6-16 yrs old = 11.5 points
Averaging the three tests for adults together, we get a B-W gap of 13.2 points, not 15 points. Averaging two tests together for young Blacks from 3-23, we get a B-W gap of 11.2 points, not 15 points.
The change was that previously IQ was normed at US White IQ = 100. It's now US population IQ = 100. So both Blacks and Whites went up.
These scores are taken from this paper, and indicate varying scores for IQ tests and semi-IQ tests taken over about 30 years. As you move down in each individual row, you move into revised versions of the tests in more recent years.
As you can see, White adult IQ (age 25+) in the US is now 102.6, or 103 rounded off. Black adult IQ (age 25+) has increased in recent years to 89.1 or 89 rounded off. There remains a 13.5 point gap between Blacks and Whites. It is no longer appropriate to say that Blacks have an IQ of 85. The B-W child gap is about 11 points. On the Stanford-Binet test, which can be given to both children and adults, there is a 10.8 point gap, but it would be nice to see who the S-B was given to, kids or adults. I suspect kids.
If you notice, even the White score on the AFQT (Armed Forces Qualifying Test) is low - it's 100, when it ought to be 103. If you read the text, the AFQT was not renormed. White IQ was set at 100 by Flynn and Dickens "by convention". They're just setting 100 as average White IQ on that test. That's equivalent to the pre-renorming IQ tests that also set 100 at US White IQ.
Post renorming, we find the Black score at 88.6 and the White score at 103. This is quite close to the 89.1 Black score for the WAIS. The gap between the US White and Black scores on the AFQT is 14.4. If we average the three together, we get a 12.9 point B-W gap
The B-W adult IQ gap is now 13 points in the US for adults on the WAIS and the AFQT.
The 15 point B-W IQ gap is gone; it's been closing a bit lately, so we ought to quit saying "15 point IQ gap".
And in kids, the B-W IQ gap on the WISC is down to 11.5 points. On the Stanford-Binet, the B-W IQ gap is down to 10.8 points. It was given to persons aged 3-23.
The new figures are being criticized because they left off some tests. But those tests are not even used very much. The WISC, the WAIS and the Stanford-Binet are the gold standards for intelligence testing. The other tests are Johnson-Woodcock, Wonderlic, Differential Ability, K-ABC.
Some of these tests are "quick and dirty" IQ tests. The Wonderlic, for example, is widely used in the NFL. I never realized they tested these apes for brains. It takes only 12 minutes. In contrast, the WAIS and the Standford-Binet can take up to 1-2 hours.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Updated September 2:
I've already gone over this before, but it's worth another post, because most folks haven't heard of it.
It appears, looking at the chart below, that IQ's have been renormed in the US. That's the only way to explain the anomalous IQ scores for both Blacks and Whites.
With the renorming, on the WAIS:
US White adult IQ = 102.6 (103)*
US Black adult IQ = 89.1 (89)*
B-W gap for age 25+ = 13.5 points.
With (my) renorming, on the AFQT:
US White IQ = 103 (103)*
US Black adult IQ = 88.6 (89)*
B-W gap for 18-23 yrs old = 14.4 points
With the renorming, on the Stanford-Binet (ages 3-23):
US White IQ 3-23 yrs = 102.9 (103)*
US Black IQ 3-23 yrs = 92.1 (92)*
B-W gap for 3-23 yrs old = 10.8 points
With the renorming, on the WAIS (ages 18-24):
US White IQ 18-24 yrs = 102.6 (103)*
US Black IQ 18-24 yrs = 90.9 (91)*
B-W gap for 18-24 yrs old = 11.7 points
With the renorming, on the WISC (ages 6-16):
US White IQ 6-16 yrs = 103.2 (103)*
US Black IQ 6-16 yrs = 91.7 (92)*
B-W gap for 6-16 yrs old = 11.5 points
Averaging the three tests for adults together, we get a B-W gap of 13.2 points, not 15 points. Averaging two tests together for young Blacks from 3-23, we get a B-W gap of 11.2 points, not 15 points.
The change was that previously IQ was normed at US White IQ = 100. It's now US population IQ = 100. So both Blacks and Whites went up.
These scores are taken from this paper, and indicate varying scores for IQ tests and semi-IQ tests taken over about 30 years. As you move down in each individual row, you move into revised versions of the tests in more recent years.As you can see, White adult IQ (age 25+) in the US is now 102.6, or 103 rounded off. Black adult IQ (age 25+) has increased in recent years to 89.1 or 89 rounded off. There remains a 13.5 point gap between Blacks and Whites. It is no longer appropriate to say that Blacks have an IQ of 85. The B-W child gap is about 11 points. On the Stanford-Binet test, which can be given to both children and adults, there is a 10.8 point gap, but it would be nice to see who the S-B was given to, kids or adults. I suspect kids.
If you notice, even the White score on the AFQT (Armed Forces Qualifying Test) is low - it's 100, when it ought to be 103. If you read the text, the AFQT was not renormed. White IQ was set at 100 by Flynn and Dickens "by convention". They're just setting 100 as average White IQ on that test. That's equivalent to the pre-renorming IQ tests that also set 100 at US White IQ.
Post renorming, we find the Black score at 88.6 and the White score at 103. This is quite close to the 89.1 Black score for the WAIS. The gap between the US White and Black scores on the AFQT is 14.4. If we average the three together, we get a 12.9 point B-W gap
The B-W adult IQ gap is now 13 points in the US for adults on the WAIS and the AFQT.
The 15 point B-W IQ gap is gone; it's been closing a bit lately, so we ought to quit saying "15 point IQ gap".
And in kids, the B-W IQ gap on the WISC is down to 11.5 points. On the Stanford-Binet, the B-W IQ gap is down to 10.8 points. It was given to persons aged 3-23.
The new figures are being criticized because they left off some tests. But those tests are not even used very much. The WISC, the WAIS and the Stanford-Binet are the gold standards for intelligence testing. The other tests are Johnson-Woodcock, Wonderlic, Differential Ability, K-ABC.
Some of these tests are "quick and dirty" IQ tests. The Wonderlic, for example, is widely used in the NFL. I never realized they tested these apes for brains. It takes only 12 minutes. In contrast, the WAIS and the Standford-Binet can take up to 1-2 hours.
References
- Dickens, William T. & Flynn, James R. October 2006. Black Americans Reduce the Racial IQ Gap: Evidence from Standardization Samples. Psychological Science.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Multiculturalism and Socialism: The Odd Couple
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated September 2:
In the comments section, Scott, who is a White nationalist, discusses the disconnect between multiculturalism and socialism or social democracy.
Yes, we do allow White nationalists, even anti-Black ones, on the board, but every time a cute Black woman shows up on the board, we force them to kiss her. On the lips. On penalty of banning. None have left yet. Brown sugar, how come you taste so good?
Scott says:
Scott is right. Does the UK count as a multicultural country? If it does, it's growing a nasty White racist - fascist party of reaction to the diversity in the BNP.
Does Venezuela count? If Venezuela counts, I would say that Venezuela is a country riven with violence, tension and class war. There seems to be a racial angle, but in the upper class and upper middle class, it's really more about class than race. Nevertheless, it's clear that the oligarchy is much more light-skinned than the Underclass that supports Chavez.
Is multicultural Russia a social democracy? Maybe so, but it's riven from one end to the other with horrible racism.
Do Communist states like China and Cuba count? Maybe so, but those countries, probably due to the class warfare (in the case of both) and combined class/race warfare (in the case of Cuba) inherent in their societies, needed full, bloody Communist revolutions to institute any kind of socialist system.
Vietnam and Laos are multiethnic countries, but the Lao and the Vietnamese are the overwhelming majority. They also needed Communist revolutions to put in socialism.
I would say Sri Lanka. They have a pretty good social democracy there, and the ruling party is a member of the Socialist International. There's also a horribly vicious civil war going on, because that "socialist" party in power has never done much to help the Tamils.
Socialist parties in Chile, Argentina and Brazil haven't been able to get much done. In Chile and Argentina the problem is probably much more class than race. In Brazil, surely it's both race and class together. The socialists in Ecuador and Bolivia are trying to get something done, but Bolivia is riven with a horrific class/race division and it's almost civil war there.
I don't think that the socialist parties in Nicaragua and Guatemala will be able to get much done. Both nations had Leftist revolutions for decades, in the case of Nicaragua followed by a revolutionary government and more civil war, this time counterrevolutionary. Nicaragua was always more about class than race, but the oligarchy is light-skinned. In Guatemala, the situation is very much about both class and race riven together.
One thing becomes clear in this analysis.
The only way to peacefully vote in a socialist or social democratic government is to have a relatively homogeneous society. Typically a White society. As diversity and multiculturalism increases, even in White European countries, White racist/fascist groups rise up for various reasons and racial violence against minorities becomes common.
In multiethnic or deeply class-riven nations (Note how often the two are conflated!), socialism, social democracy or movements towards them is typically accompanied by either outright civil war, de facto civil war, tremendous open class war in terms of coups, attempted coups, lockout strikes, riots, imperialist interventions, class-based separatist movements, and much violence.
In other places, socialist governments are not able to get much done due to deep class and race-based conflicts and the threat of violence from dominant ethnics and/or classes.
In other places, long civil wars eventually installed Communist regimes in multiethnic countries and ethnic conflict subsided or stopped. Short of installing a Communist regime, multiethnic countries moving towards socialism are likely to experience a lot of internal violence and chaos.
If diversity is so bad for socialism, why do socialists in the West keep pushing it?
Good question.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Updated September 2:
In the comments section, Scott, who is a White nationalist, discusses the disconnect between multiculturalism and socialism or social democracy.
Yes, we do allow White nationalists, even anti-Black ones, on the board, but every time a cute Black woman shows up on the board, we force them to kiss her. On the lips. On penalty of banning. None have left yet. Brown sugar, how come you taste so good?
Scott says:
Look at the countries that have the highest index of egalitarianism in the West: Iceland, Norway, Sweden (used to have more). The inhabitants are all pretty closely related to one another. I'll spot my sibling $100 cash.I respond:
It's basically the same thing but in a less dramatic way in such countries, but when other nationalities come in because of the aforementioned ethnostates' welfare system, as seek to take advantage of it, the whole system gets messed up. Find me an ethnically diverse country with a social democracy.
Scott is right. Does the UK count as a multicultural country? If it does, it's growing a nasty White racist - fascist party of reaction to the diversity in the BNP.
Does Venezuela count? If Venezuela counts, I would say that Venezuela is a country riven with violence, tension and class war. There seems to be a racial angle, but in the upper class and upper middle class, it's really more about class than race. Nevertheless, it's clear that the oligarchy is much more light-skinned than the Underclass that supports Chavez.
Is multicultural Russia a social democracy? Maybe so, but it's riven from one end to the other with horrible racism.
Do Communist states like China and Cuba count? Maybe so, but those countries, probably due to the class warfare (in the case of both) and combined class/race warfare (in the case of Cuba) inherent in their societies, needed full, bloody Communist revolutions to institute any kind of socialist system.
Vietnam and Laos are multiethnic countries, but the Lao and the Vietnamese are the overwhelming majority. They also needed Communist revolutions to put in socialism.
I would say Sri Lanka. They have a pretty good social democracy there, and the ruling party is a member of the Socialist International. There's also a horribly vicious civil war going on, because that "socialist" party in power has never done much to help the Tamils.
Socialist parties in Chile, Argentina and Brazil haven't been able to get much done. In Chile and Argentina the problem is probably much more class than race. In Brazil, surely it's both race and class together. The socialists in Ecuador and Bolivia are trying to get something done, but Bolivia is riven with a horrific class/race division and it's almost civil war there.
I don't think that the socialist parties in Nicaragua and Guatemala will be able to get much done. Both nations had Leftist revolutions for decades, in the case of Nicaragua followed by a revolutionary government and more civil war, this time counterrevolutionary. Nicaragua was always more about class than race, but the oligarchy is light-skinned. In Guatemala, the situation is very much about both class and race riven together.
One thing becomes clear in this analysis.
The only way to peacefully vote in a socialist or social democratic government is to have a relatively homogeneous society. Typically a White society. As diversity and multiculturalism increases, even in White European countries, White racist/fascist groups rise up for various reasons and racial violence against minorities becomes common.
In multiethnic or deeply class-riven nations (Note how often the two are conflated!), socialism, social democracy or movements towards them is typically accompanied by either outright civil war, de facto civil war, tremendous open class war in terms of coups, attempted coups, lockout strikes, riots, imperialist interventions, class-based separatist movements, and much violence.
In other places, socialist governments are not able to get much done due to deep class and race-based conflicts and the threat of violence from dominant ethnics and/or classes.
In other places, long civil wars eventually installed Communist regimes in multiethnic countries and ethnic conflict subsided or stopped. Short of installing a Communist regime, multiethnic countries moving towards socialism are likely to experience a lot of internal violence and chaos.
If diversity is so bad for socialism, why do socialists in the West keep pushing it?
Good question.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
On the Non-persistance of Any Jewish Agenda
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated September 2:
In the comments section, Z, a very smart commenter, deals with the "Jews are bad for Whites" thing and takes on the anti-Black nastiness that pervades the whole White nationalist movement. Z's an anti-Semite, but we allow anti-Semites on the board. The only rule is that they have to eat the Matzos and drink the Manischewitz grape wine when we serve it.
He's a soft White nationalist, but he's for Blacks. I think this is healthy.
If you love yourself, surely you can love others? So, if you're ethnocentric, surely you can love other ethnics, right? I'm for me and my people. I look in the mirror and like what I see. I proud of the good things my people have done in our history, and I'm proud of my ancestors. That's normal, healthy, human thinking. Why should I hate anyone else?
Why does self-love equate to hatred of others? It doesn't necessarily work that way on the individual level, so why should it on the ethnic or tribal level?
Z writes:
My problem with the whole "Jews are the enemy of our race" thing is that a Hell of a lot of the folks singing this multiculti tune are not Jews. They're just White Gentiles. All these people writing pro-immigrant articles on our papers - White Gentiles. The Open Borders Lobby - the Whites in it are Gentiles.
I have another problem with this - if it's so obvious that the Jews are bad for White Gentiles, why don't ethnocentric White Gentiles just ignore them every time they come on TV, or start mouthing off in the press?
Turn on your Jew Filter, and set it to High Cynicism. To be completely honest, I do something like this myself. I have no illusions about the Jews. They're for the Jews, but they hardly ever come out and say so. So you have to subject their communications to a little "deconstruction".
I know a White Gentile who does this right now - he points out every time a Jew is on TV. It so happens that it seems like it's about 50% of the time! To say that he takes what they say with a huge grain of salt would be underestimating him. The guy I'm thinking of is a Communist, albeit an ethnocentric White Gentile one.
Are White Gentiles really so stupid that they let themselves be led around by the nose by some petty little self-interested tribe? I'm not sure if I have that much respect for them then. Maybe they deserve what they get. You should be attuned enough to your self-interests not to let some frankly inconsequential little pissant tribe lead you around like a mule.
It's true that the Jews pushed the 1965 Act and opposed the earlier Act in the 1920's.
The Jews hate monolithic cultures, especially White Christian cultures. Historically, these cultures have been bad for the Jews, to put it mildly. So they want to make them into multiethnic cultures that will be safer for the Jews.
Jews just promote what's good for the Jews, that's all. If monoethnic White Christian cultures were good for the Jews and multiethnic cultures were bad for them, they would be promoting White Christian monoethnic cultures and opposing multiethnic ones. You would find no greater foes of multiculturalism than the Jews, trust me on that.
No one out here in California cares about Black people. There are not enough of them around. I agree with Z that picking on Blacks is just the lowest of the low. You call that creative thinking? Come on. Talk about beating a guy when he's down. Talk about an easy target.
The Jews are relatively amoral on their project - there is no set agenda behind it. When Communism was good for the Jews, they promoted Communism. When capitalism was good for the Jews, they promoted capitalism. In general, there's no overriding Jewish agenda other than the classic, "Is it good for the Jews?".
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Updated September 2:
In the comments section, Z, a very smart commenter, deals with the "Jews are bad for Whites" thing and takes on the anti-Black nastiness that pervades the whole White nationalist movement. Z's an anti-Semite, but we allow anti-Semites on the board. The only rule is that they have to eat the Matzos and drink the Manischewitz grape wine when we serve it.
He's a soft White nationalist, but he's for Blacks. I think this is healthy.
If you love yourself, surely you can love others? So, if you're ethnocentric, surely you can love other ethnics, right? I'm for me and my people. I look in the mirror and like what I see. I proud of the good things my people have done in our history, and I'm proud of my ancestors. That's normal, healthy, human thinking. Why should I hate anyone else?
Why does self-love equate to hatred of others? It doesn't necessarily work that way on the individual level, so why should it on the ethnic or tribal level?
Z writes:
Though I read it often, I'm not a huge fan of American Renaissance because of the blatant and over-the-top anti-Black/African stance of the commenters there, and also because they totally ignore/censor articles, posts, and discussion regarding the Jewish Question.I respond: I don't think it makes sense to blame the whole slave trade on the Jews. That's not rational.
Obviously though, AmRen is fully correct when it comes to the current mass-immigration issue.
Anyhow, being anti-Black is bottom of the barrel racism in my opinion, too easy, too simple-minded...too desperate, too low.
I am from the South so perhaps I am more sympathetic to the plight of African Americans than most White Americans because I grew up amongst them, went to school with them, played sports with them, and have seen the poverty/degradation/ignorance in which many of them unfortunately live.
And just to say: a system of local agrarian socialism would be an excellent system in helping many African Americans become more communally sufficient, because many Blacks in America are still very rural and they actually own a lot of good agricultural land too in America nowadays.
In my opinion though, if one wants to understand the real cancer eating away at White/Euro cultures, one must confront the Jews. Jews have done more damage and will continue to do more damage to White/European majority societies than Blacks ever did or will do.
In fact, Jews were in many ways central to the slave trade which brought hordes of African slaves on to American shores over the centuries (I intend to eventually post about this on my blog when I become more active on there).
Damn, Jews have been promoting 'multiculturalism' for a long damn time, haven't they?
My problem with the whole "Jews are the enemy of our race" thing is that a Hell of a lot of the folks singing this multiculti tune are not Jews. They're just White Gentiles. All these people writing pro-immigrant articles on our papers - White Gentiles. The Open Borders Lobby - the Whites in it are Gentiles.
I have another problem with this - if it's so obvious that the Jews are bad for White Gentiles, why don't ethnocentric White Gentiles just ignore them every time they come on TV, or start mouthing off in the press?
Turn on your Jew Filter, and set it to High Cynicism. To be completely honest, I do something like this myself. I have no illusions about the Jews. They're for the Jews, but they hardly ever come out and say so. So you have to subject their communications to a little "deconstruction".
I know a White Gentile who does this right now - he points out every time a Jew is on TV. It so happens that it seems like it's about 50% of the time! To say that he takes what they say with a huge grain of salt would be underestimating him. The guy I'm thinking of is a Communist, albeit an ethnocentric White Gentile one.
Are White Gentiles really so stupid that they let themselves be led around by the nose by some petty little self-interested tribe? I'm not sure if I have that much respect for them then. Maybe they deserve what they get. You should be attuned enough to your self-interests not to let some frankly inconsequential little pissant tribe lead you around like a mule.
It's true that the Jews pushed the 1965 Act and opposed the earlier Act in the 1920's.
The Jews hate monolithic cultures, especially White Christian cultures. Historically, these cultures have been bad for the Jews, to put it mildly. So they want to make them into multiethnic cultures that will be safer for the Jews.
Jews just promote what's good for the Jews, that's all. If monoethnic White Christian cultures were good for the Jews and multiethnic cultures were bad for them, they would be promoting White Christian monoethnic cultures and opposing multiethnic ones. You would find no greater foes of multiculturalism than the Jews, trust me on that.
No one out here in California cares about Black people. There are not enough of them around. I agree with Z that picking on Blacks is just the lowest of the low. You call that creative thinking? Come on. Talk about beating a guy when he's down. Talk about an easy target.
The Jews are relatively amoral on their project - there is no set agenda behind it. When Communism was good for the Jews, they promoted Communism. When capitalism was good for the Jews, they promoted capitalism. In general, there's no overriding Jewish agenda other than the classic, "Is it good for the Jews?".
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
What Would a Sane Pro-White Movement Look Like?
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated September 2:
A pro-White movement (whatever that means) could go somewhere in the US. Recall my quote in an earlier post from a Time Magazine poll that found that 77% of US Whites were ethnocentric and felt that White culture was valuable and deserved to be preserved.
Now I don't know exactly where these folks stand, or what policies they would support, but I assure you that even out here in California, among liberal and even Leftist and Communist Whites, there is support for the 77% fraction of that poll.
A reasonable pro-White movement would be expected to speak for those 77% of US Whites who are "ethnocentric, and think White culture is valuable and is worth preserving", without offending them or turning them off with a bunch of racist crap.
The problem is that there is no such movement. When any group or webpage says "pro-White", prepare your gag reflex and get ready to take off running. Even if they aren't praising Adolf Hitler, they are surely praising Bull Connor. The pro-White movement in the US is not moderate - it's only extreme. Even the most moderate elements are far too extreme for even the ethnocentric Whites that I know.
Let's look at what the pro-White movement in the US supports, who they like and who they dislike:
The WN movement supports segregation, hates MLK, Obama, Nelson Mandela and Rosa Parks, loves apartheid, cheers the genocide of the American Indians and pours scorn on the Indians defending their land, loves White colonialism and praises it to the skies, supports White separatism, cheers on the South in the Civil War and Jim Crow, minimizes lynching, hates civil rights laws and anti-discrimination laws, hates Blacks and almost everyone who isn't White except for maybe some Asians, and hates interracial dating, sex and marriage as "race mixing" or "miscegenation".
Further, many even moderate WN's support throwing out all non-Whites from the US, and especially sending Blacks back to Africa. And it's standard White nationalism across the board that the only real Americans are White people.
Jesus man.
Do you have any idea how that resonates with the ethnocentric Whites I know? Like a lead balloon.
Let me tell you where they stand, who they like and who they hate:
They hate segregation, love MLK, Rosa Parks and Nelson Mandela, they're voting for Obama, hate apartheid, hate the conquest of the American Indians and support the Indians' defense of their land, hate White colonialism (in general - anyway, they don't praise it to the skies), think White separatism is idiotic and laughable, hate the South in the Civil War and side with the North even if they had relatives on both sides, hate Jim Crow, think lynching was "terrorism against Blacks", support civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, are indifferent to interracial dating and marriage, though they were initially dubious about it (because so many young Whites are doing it, including their relatives), don't hate other races or groups - even Blacks, find even primitive groups in the Third World fascinating and are sympathetic to them, and will give you a hate look and walk out of the room if you even say the words "race-mixing" or miscegenation.
If you start talking about throwing non-Whites out of the US or sending Blacks back to Africa, they will probably swear at you, may try to hit you, and might either throw you out of the house or just walk out of the room. If you tell them that only Whites are real Americans, they might try to hit you in the head with a frying pan.
And yet, they are ethnocentric, feel White culture is valuable, and feel it should be preserved. Who will speak for them? Apparently no one. Way to go, guys.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Updated September 2:
A pro-White movement (whatever that means) could go somewhere in the US. Recall my quote in an earlier post from a Time Magazine poll that found that 77% of US Whites were ethnocentric and felt that White culture was valuable and deserved to be preserved.
Now I don't know exactly where these folks stand, or what policies they would support, but I assure you that even out here in California, among liberal and even Leftist and Communist Whites, there is support for the 77% fraction of that poll.
A reasonable pro-White movement would be expected to speak for those 77% of US Whites who are "ethnocentric, and think White culture is valuable and is worth preserving", without offending them or turning them off with a bunch of racist crap.
The problem is that there is no such movement. When any group or webpage says "pro-White", prepare your gag reflex and get ready to take off running. Even if they aren't praising Adolf Hitler, they are surely praising Bull Connor. The pro-White movement in the US is not moderate - it's only extreme. Even the most moderate elements are far too extreme for even the ethnocentric Whites that I know.
Let's look at what the pro-White movement in the US supports, who they like and who they dislike:
The WN movement supports segregation, hates MLK, Obama, Nelson Mandela and Rosa Parks, loves apartheid, cheers the genocide of the American Indians and pours scorn on the Indians defending their land, loves White colonialism and praises it to the skies, supports White separatism, cheers on the South in the Civil War and Jim Crow, minimizes lynching, hates civil rights laws and anti-discrimination laws, hates Blacks and almost everyone who isn't White except for maybe some Asians, and hates interracial dating, sex and marriage as "race mixing" or "miscegenation".
Further, many even moderate WN's support throwing out all non-Whites from the US, and especially sending Blacks back to Africa. And it's standard White nationalism across the board that the only real Americans are White people.
Jesus man.
Do you have any idea how that resonates with the ethnocentric Whites I know? Like a lead balloon.
Let me tell you where they stand, who they like and who they hate:
They hate segregation, love MLK, Rosa Parks and Nelson Mandela, they're voting for Obama, hate apartheid, hate the conquest of the American Indians and support the Indians' defense of their land, hate White colonialism (in general - anyway, they don't praise it to the skies), think White separatism is idiotic and laughable, hate the South in the Civil War and side with the North even if they had relatives on both sides, hate Jim Crow, think lynching was "terrorism against Blacks", support civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, are indifferent to interracial dating and marriage, though they were initially dubious about it (because so many young Whites are doing it, including their relatives), don't hate other races or groups - even Blacks, find even primitive groups in the Third World fascinating and are sympathetic to them, and will give you a hate look and walk out of the room if you even say the words "race-mixing" or miscegenation.
If you start talking about throwing non-Whites out of the US or sending Blacks back to Africa, they will probably swear at you, may try to hit you, and might either throw you out of the house or just walk out of the room. If you tell them that only Whites are real Americans, they might try to hit you in the head with a frying pan.
And yet, they are ethnocentric, feel White culture is valuable, and feel it should be preserved. Who will speak for them? Apparently no one. Way to go, guys.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Why White Nationalists Hate Communists
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated September 2:
I'm going to use the word White Nationalist for White racist, but it's true - 98% of White nationalists are racists. On the other hand, many WN's are not neo-Nazis. The neo-Nazis are one end of the spectrum and the American Renaissance types are at the other hand. Whatever you say about the Amren guys, they're not Nazis.
I gave WN's the benefit of the doubt and studied them with an open mind for a long time, assuming the null hypothesis that they are not racists, but it's true. Most WN's don't like anyone who isn't White. A lot only like Europeans. There are some who like NE Asians, and some others who like SE Asians too.
I don't think any of them like Arabs or North Africans, Afghans, Pakistanis, or Indians. Some like Iranians, but usually only a few. All WN's really hate Black people. If there is one thing that holds WN's together, it's their hatred of Black people.
I finally realized, too, that a lot of WN's are just not really very nice people, so in that sense, the whole "hater" thing is sort of true.
But I always objected to calling them "haters", because I don't think there is anything wrong with hating per se. I'm a Leftist; we hate all kinds of stuff! But a lot of these White racists really are just mean, nasty people deep down inside.
I think that whole "hater" term was thought up by the anti-racists, and I would bet most of them were Jews, just to make these guys look way more evil than they are.
Truth is that whole huge swaths of societies all down through time have been very racist and therefore "haters". One could argue that American society up until the 1960's was a racist, and therefore a "hater" society. Does that make any sense? If you see pictures or movies of Americans from the pre-1960's era, do they look like horrible, mean, ugly, nasty, cruel, "hater" people? Well, of course not.
Probably all societies up until our modern era have been "hater" societies, since some degree of racism was probably the norm in historical human societies. Tribal societies were typically racist "haters" too, since most were locked in tribal war with, or at least despised, their neighbors. The typical Amerindian word for the tribe next door means something like, "Those no-good scumbag wife-stealing bastards over the hill".
So we ought to quit calling these people "haters", quit calling their groups "hate groups" and quit waging insane, Hollywood and ADL (Jewish) paid-for "wars on hate". The Jews should talk anyway. Israel isn't exactly a hate-free zone. It's more like the land of the KKK version of the Jews. It's a Jewish mirror of the KKK, except instead of being White supremacists, they are Jewish supremacists.
Let's just call these groups what they are - racists. Racists can seem like very nice people, and their societies can be warm, friendly and caring, towards the people they like that is. But they're still racists.
One thing I noticed after a while is that almost all these White nationalists really, really, really hate Communists.
It took me a while to figure this out. I think this is because in the US the civil rights movement was always said to be led by Communists. If you were for civil rights, you were a Commie. Period.
Also, Communists really are fairly egalitarian, and White nationalists, and racists of any kind, hate any form of equality. They are very much into inequality and hierarchy. Fascists also are very much against egalitarianism, are into hierarchy and actually worship inequality, though they do their best to lie and say they don't.
After Communists, White nationalists hate socialists and liberals. So, really, White racists just hate the whole Left. I can't see why any self-respecting leftwinger would want to defend these clowns too much. They're basically our enemies, you know?
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Updated September 2:
I'm going to use the word White Nationalist for White racist, but it's true - 98% of White nationalists are racists. On the other hand, many WN's are not neo-Nazis. The neo-Nazis are one end of the spectrum and the American Renaissance types are at the other hand. Whatever you say about the Amren guys, they're not Nazis.
I gave WN's the benefit of the doubt and studied them with an open mind for a long time, assuming the null hypothesis that they are not racists, but it's true. Most WN's don't like anyone who isn't White. A lot only like Europeans. There are some who like NE Asians, and some others who like SE Asians too.
I don't think any of them like Arabs or North Africans, Afghans, Pakistanis, or Indians. Some like Iranians, but usually only a few. All WN's really hate Black people. If there is one thing that holds WN's together, it's their hatred of Black people.
I finally realized, too, that a lot of WN's are just not really very nice people, so in that sense, the whole "hater" thing is sort of true.
But I always objected to calling them "haters", because I don't think there is anything wrong with hating per se. I'm a Leftist; we hate all kinds of stuff! But a lot of these White racists really are just mean, nasty people deep down inside.
I think that whole "hater" term was thought up by the anti-racists, and I would bet most of them were Jews, just to make these guys look way more evil than they are.
Truth is that whole huge swaths of societies all down through time have been very racist and therefore "haters". One could argue that American society up until the 1960's was a racist, and therefore a "hater" society. Does that make any sense? If you see pictures or movies of Americans from the pre-1960's era, do they look like horrible, mean, ugly, nasty, cruel, "hater" people? Well, of course not.
Probably all societies up until our modern era have been "hater" societies, since some degree of racism was probably the norm in historical human societies. Tribal societies were typically racist "haters" too, since most were locked in tribal war with, or at least despised, their neighbors. The typical Amerindian word for the tribe next door means something like, "Those no-good scumbag wife-stealing bastards over the hill".
So we ought to quit calling these people "haters", quit calling their groups "hate groups" and quit waging insane, Hollywood and ADL (Jewish) paid-for "wars on hate". The Jews should talk anyway. Israel isn't exactly a hate-free zone. It's more like the land of the KKK version of the Jews. It's a Jewish mirror of the KKK, except instead of being White supremacists, they are Jewish supremacists.
Let's just call these groups what they are - racists. Racists can seem like very nice people, and their societies can be warm, friendly and caring, towards the people they like that is. But they're still racists.
One thing I noticed after a while is that almost all these White nationalists really, really, really hate Communists.
It took me a while to figure this out. I think this is because in the US the civil rights movement was always said to be led by Communists. If you were for civil rights, you were a Commie. Period.
Also, Communists really are fairly egalitarian, and White nationalists, and racists of any kind, hate any form of equality. They are very much into inequality and hierarchy. Fascists also are very much against egalitarianism, are into hierarchy and actually worship inequality, though they do their best to lie and say they don't.
After Communists, White nationalists hate socialists and liberals. So, really, White racists just hate the whole Left. I can't see why any self-respecting leftwinger would want to defend these clowns too much. They're basically our enemies, you know?
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
What Do The "Psychos" Look Like?
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated September 2:
As I mentioned in a previous post, for about 25 years now, I've been hearing people tell me that so and so is a child molester, so and so is a psycho, so and so is a pervert, so and so is a predator, so and so looks like a rapist, so and so is a serial killer, or looks like a serial killer. Or whatever.
I've been checking these guys out the best I can for decades now, and not one of them has turned up dangerous yet. Every one I met was just a harmless neurotic, except for a couple of gangbangers. The gangbangers weren't called psychos anyway, they were called "thugs".
I find this whole exercise bizarre. I really do want to know what the Hell a child molester looks like. People keep telling me that so and so looks like a child molester, but this makes no sense to me. Can someone tell me precisely what a child molester looks like?
Let me tell you geniuses something, all you clowns who think you can "spot the pedo". Tell you what, idiots. You can't. Not only that, you can't even "spot the dangerous person". I'd wager a lot of the folks everyone insists are such a menace are probably the most harmless people out there.
Take that notion, that you can "spot the pedo" or even "spot the dangerous people", into the office of anyone who really knows what they are doing, say, a clinical psychologist, and they will laugh you right out of the office.
Mental health professionals will inform you that there is no way to "spot the pedo" or "spot the psycho" based on appearances. Furthermore, you're going to get such a tidal wave of false positives that the whole exercise is absurd.
I can honestly say that I've never met anyone who "looked like a child molester". I've seen all sorts of guys who looked "weird" in one way or another, but I if I observe them for a while, I can usually figure out somewhat what's going on with them mentally.
There's weird-looking people everywhere in this world. I just give em the benefit of the doubt and move on. I don't equate weird with "psycho", "pedo", "serial killer", "rapist". The world's full of strange-looking people, but in most cases, they're harmless. Plus I can actually read people pretty well.
I did meet one guy who "looked like a child molester", but that was due to behavior, not appearance. I was teaching school at an elementary school in Compton in 1989 when I saw a guy parked in a van at lunch. He had long hair and an extremely strange, haunted look in his eyes.
And I swear to God I thought he was looking at the kids. It freaked me out so much that I got his license plate and called the cops. That's the only "pedo" I've ever spotted, and I don't even know if he was a pedo.
I'm even more mystified by what a rapist looks like. Way back in 1980, at age 22, I was coming out of a porn theater in downtown Long Beach very late at night, like 1 AM.
Yeah, I used to go watch the porns back in the day. So fuck me, Puritans and feminazis.
Well, this movie was kind of sick. The basic premise of it was rape. It consisted of I think a main character who wore gloves and a ski mask and I think he was going around raping women. I didn't really enjoy it. I think it was called "Obsession", but I'm not sure.
I was coming out of the theater to the parking lot and there was this young White guy, tough-looking, working class. He looked very, very angry. He was seething and looked like he was ready to kill. The energy was radiating off him like heat in a desert. He was wearing shorts and had a knife in a sheath on his waist. And he was coming out of a sick rape flick.
I don't know if he "looked like a rapist", but he didn't seem like a very psychologically healthy young man, and I worried about what he might do in the future.
Other than that, "looking like a rapist" means nothing to me. There are dangerous looking characters all over the place, especially in working class White neighborhoods, Black ghettos and Hispanic barrios. I figure 50% of the Hispanic immigrant males walking around my neighborhood look like they're capable of rape. Big deal.
I know one guy in the mountains who did time for rape of a child under age 14. He's an Indian and hangs out in the library drawing pictures. He's seriously anti-social and refuses to talk to anyone. He's lived up there for 16 years and he hasn't re-offended. I knew the guy for a long time before I found out about his offense. I don't think he "looks like a rapist". I just think he's an antisocial asshole, that's all.
Even more peculiar is the notion that someone "looks like a serial killer". Wow. What does a serial killer look like anyway?
I can honestly say that I have never met anyone who "looked like a serial killer", nor have I ever known any serial killers, nor have I ever known any killers period, and I wouldn't know what they look like anyway. Do they look dangerous? The world is full of dangerous looking men, mostly younger men. Do they all "look like serial killers"?
I knew one of the local guys on the Sex Offender list here in Madera. He was on there for molesting a child under the age of 14. I don't know the details. He's kind of a sleazy-looking Mexican immigrant guy, but that describes about 50% of the Mexican guys in my neighborhood.
He worked at the local market, and I never thought there was anything wrong with him. In fact, I thought I was weird and he was normal. I would go in the store and try to act more like the child molester and less like myself. Only later did I find the guy on the list.
I knew another guy who went down on a sex offender law. He lived in Oakhurst and he was in his mid-30's. He had really long hair - hippie type - and worked in a computer store. He was absolutely normal in every sense of the word. Once again, I thought he was normal and I was weird. I used to try to "act like the child molester" when I went there (before he went down on charges).
He went down for "child molesting" - what he did was he shacked up with, I think, a 15 year old girl. He went down for 4 years or so. Now, they'd give him 10 or even 20 years. Not good judgment on his part, but whatever. They also found "child pornography" on his computer. In our Modern Bullshit World, that could very well have been naked pics of his 15 year old girlfriend.
For example, this fire inspector just got 20 years in prison (!?) for getting local 15 year old girls to pose nude for him. That's called "production of child pornography". I don't call that "producing child pornography"; I call it "getting a teenage girl to pose naked and snapping pics".
Incredibly, the judge says he's a "pedophile" and he will have to go on the stupid Sex Offender list for the rest of his life. I don't call this guy a "pedophile" for taking pictures of naked 15 and 16 year old girls. That's a perfectly healthy and normal desire for a male of any age. I do think that he broke the law and was stupid and careless.
Whether this stuff should be illegal, I'm not sure, but it ain't worth no 20 years.
Studies show that all normal males have an extremely high, though not maximal, attraction for 14-15 year old girls. They have maximal attraction for 16 year old girls.
That is, they react as strongly to 16 year old girls as to females of any age 16+. The reaction to 15 year old girls is about 90% of maximum (still very high) and to 14 year old girls, it's about 80% of maximum (still quite high. So it's absolutely normal for males of any age to get really turned on by 14-16 year old girls. It's not "pedophilia" or any of that crap. It's just...normal.
Now, in our crazy modern world, guys over 24 at least need to be real careful about girls aged 14-16. Mess around with em, and you are likely to get pounded for 10 years, or even 20. So though your desires are normal, healthy, and certainly non-pedophiliac, it's best to control yourself and not give in to temptation.
The whole crazy idea that we can "spot the sickos" is complete nonsense, but people believe it anyway. But it's comforting. The notion that we can't spot the psychos makes the world a pretty terrifying place.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Updated September 2:
As I mentioned in a previous post, for about 25 years now, I've been hearing people tell me that so and so is a child molester, so and so is a psycho, so and so is a pervert, so and so is a predator, so and so looks like a rapist, so and so is a serial killer, or looks like a serial killer. Or whatever.
I've been checking these guys out the best I can for decades now, and not one of them has turned up dangerous yet. Every one I met was just a harmless neurotic, except for a couple of gangbangers. The gangbangers weren't called psychos anyway, they were called "thugs".
I find this whole exercise bizarre. I really do want to know what the Hell a child molester looks like. People keep telling me that so and so looks like a child molester, but this makes no sense to me. Can someone tell me precisely what a child molester looks like?
Let me tell you geniuses something, all you clowns who think you can "spot the pedo". Tell you what, idiots. You can't. Not only that, you can't even "spot the dangerous person". I'd wager a lot of the folks everyone insists are such a menace are probably the most harmless people out there.
Take that notion, that you can "spot the pedo" or even "spot the dangerous people", into the office of anyone who really knows what they are doing, say, a clinical psychologist, and they will laugh you right out of the office.
Mental health professionals will inform you that there is no way to "spot the pedo" or "spot the psycho" based on appearances. Furthermore, you're going to get such a tidal wave of false positives that the whole exercise is absurd.
I can honestly say that I've never met anyone who "looked like a child molester". I've seen all sorts of guys who looked "weird" in one way or another, but I if I observe them for a while, I can usually figure out somewhat what's going on with them mentally.
There's weird-looking people everywhere in this world. I just give em the benefit of the doubt and move on. I don't equate weird with "psycho", "pedo", "serial killer", "rapist". The world's full of strange-looking people, but in most cases, they're harmless. Plus I can actually read people pretty well.
I did meet one guy who "looked like a child molester", but that was due to behavior, not appearance. I was teaching school at an elementary school in Compton in 1989 when I saw a guy parked in a van at lunch. He had long hair and an extremely strange, haunted look in his eyes.
And I swear to God I thought he was looking at the kids. It freaked me out so much that I got his license plate and called the cops. That's the only "pedo" I've ever spotted, and I don't even know if he was a pedo.
I'm even more mystified by what a rapist looks like. Way back in 1980, at age 22, I was coming out of a porn theater in downtown Long Beach very late at night, like 1 AM.
Yeah, I used to go watch the porns back in the day. So fuck me, Puritans and feminazis.
Well, this movie was kind of sick. The basic premise of it was rape. It consisted of I think a main character who wore gloves and a ski mask and I think he was going around raping women. I didn't really enjoy it. I think it was called "Obsession", but I'm not sure.
I was coming out of the theater to the parking lot and there was this young White guy, tough-looking, working class. He looked very, very angry. He was seething and looked like he was ready to kill. The energy was radiating off him like heat in a desert. He was wearing shorts and had a knife in a sheath on his waist. And he was coming out of a sick rape flick.
I don't know if he "looked like a rapist", but he didn't seem like a very psychologically healthy young man, and I worried about what he might do in the future.
Other than that, "looking like a rapist" means nothing to me. There are dangerous looking characters all over the place, especially in working class White neighborhoods, Black ghettos and Hispanic barrios. I figure 50% of the Hispanic immigrant males walking around my neighborhood look like they're capable of rape. Big deal.
I know one guy in the mountains who did time for rape of a child under age 14. He's an Indian and hangs out in the library drawing pictures. He's seriously anti-social and refuses to talk to anyone. He's lived up there for 16 years and he hasn't re-offended. I knew the guy for a long time before I found out about his offense. I don't think he "looks like a rapist". I just think he's an antisocial asshole, that's all.
Even more peculiar is the notion that someone "looks like a serial killer". Wow. What does a serial killer look like anyway?
I can honestly say that I have never met anyone who "looked like a serial killer", nor have I ever known any serial killers, nor have I ever known any killers period, and I wouldn't know what they look like anyway. Do they look dangerous? The world is full of dangerous looking men, mostly younger men. Do they all "look like serial killers"?
I knew one of the local guys on the Sex Offender list here in Madera. He was on there for molesting a child under the age of 14. I don't know the details. He's kind of a sleazy-looking Mexican immigrant guy, but that describes about 50% of the Mexican guys in my neighborhood.
He worked at the local market, and I never thought there was anything wrong with him. In fact, I thought I was weird and he was normal. I would go in the store and try to act more like the child molester and less like myself. Only later did I find the guy on the list.
I knew another guy who went down on a sex offender law. He lived in Oakhurst and he was in his mid-30's. He had really long hair - hippie type - and worked in a computer store. He was absolutely normal in every sense of the word. Once again, I thought he was normal and I was weird. I used to try to "act like the child molester" when I went there (before he went down on charges).
He went down for "child molesting" - what he did was he shacked up with, I think, a 15 year old girl. He went down for 4 years or so. Now, they'd give him 10 or even 20 years. Not good judgment on his part, but whatever. They also found "child pornography" on his computer. In our Modern Bullshit World, that could very well have been naked pics of his 15 year old girlfriend.
For example, this fire inspector just got 20 years in prison (!?) for getting local 15 year old girls to pose nude for him. That's called "production of child pornography". I don't call that "producing child pornography"; I call it "getting a teenage girl to pose naked and snapping pics".
Incredibly, the judge says he's a "pedophile" and he will have to go on the stupid Sex Offender list for the rest of his life. I don't call this guy a "pedophile" for taking pictures of naked 15 and 16 year old girls. That's a perfectly healthy and normal desire for a male of any age. I do think that he broke the law and was stupid and careless.
Whether this stuff should be illegal, I'm not sure, but it ain't worth no 20 years.
Studies show that all normal males have an extremely high, though not maximal, attraction for 14-15 year old girls. They have maximal attraction for 16 year old girls.
That is, they react as strongly to 16 year old girls as to females of any age 16+. The reaction to 15 year old girls is about 90% of maximum (still very high) and to 14 year old girls, it's about 80% of maximum (still quite high. So it's absolutely normal for males of any age to get really turned on by 14-16 year old girls. It's not "pedophilia" or any of that crap. It's just...normal.
Now, in our crazy modern world, guys over 24 at least need to be real careful about girls aged 14-16. Mess around with em, and you are likely to get pounded for 10 years, or even 20. So though your desires are normal, healthy, and certainly non-pedophiliac, it's best to control yourself and not give in to temptation.
The whole crazy idea that we can "spot the sickos" is complete nonsense, but people believe it anyway. But it's comforting. The notion that we can't spot the psychos makes the world a pretty terrifying place.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Child Molester Mass Hysteria
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated September 2:
Due to the fallout from the Groene case (see previous posts), Steve Groene is pushing a One Strike Law in Washington State, where he now resides. I don't blame him, and a lot of crime victims lash out like this.
As you can see on the page explaining the law, the law is constructed so Joseph Duncan would never have been freed to kill Steve's ex-wife and two kids and rape his daughter. So the tragic past would never have occurred.
California's 3 Strikes Law was written by Mike Reynolds in such a way that the 2-bit thugs who killed his daughter (who merely had lengthy records for petty crime) would have been imprisoned and would have been able to kill his daughter.
In this way, surviving crime victims, or usually relatives of crime victims, are able to time travel. They can go back in time, and in their imaginations, wipe out the past.
The problem is that this is all an illusion.
Mike Reynolds' crazy 3 Strikes Law didn't bring back his daughter, and the guys who did it are going down bigtime anyway. Steve's One Strike Law won't bring back Dylan or Slade, or wipe out what was done to Shasta.
Sure, it might prevent it from happening to others, but to be completely frank, I don't think that's the purpose of these laws. The purpose of these laws is to enable their enraged and vengeful authors-relatives of victims to imaginarily go back in time and prevent the past from occurring by passing a new law in the future.
It's the stuff of science fiction. It's magical thinking, but magical thinking is not just for kids and crazies. Adults do it all the time too, especially traumatized adults. Like relatives of murder victims.
First of all, I will say that this law is not as nuts as I assumed it would be. Some of my friends know Steve, and they did not think he would write a law as stupid as California's 3 Strikes Law, especially since his own son has a record as a 2-bit petty criminal. I'm not even sure about Steve's own history, but my friends say he ran with a rough crowd.
The proposed One-Strike law says that anyone guilty of child molestation (wisely put at under 12) and anyone guilty of forcible rape through the use of violence needs to go away for life. Now, most people would sit back and cheer.
To the authors' credit, the law seems to exclude the "date rape" bullshit by requiring that the rape be forcible and violent. It also rules out the "statutory rape" bullshit by requiring ruling out sex with minors aged 12 and up.
So where does that leave us? With a bunch of pedos and rapists. So why is this not a good idea?
Because right here in Madera, we have 133 people on the sex offender list. In a city of 50,000. Fresno, a city of 440,000, probably has 1,000 people on the list. They're either all or almost all men.
Nationally, with the ever-expanding definitions of sex offenders, there are now 2 million people on sex offender lists! Surely they are almost all males.
This is starting to look less like a war on "sex offenders" and more like just a war on males.
Here in Madera, most of the guys on the list are guilty of rape, child molesting under the age of 14 or even rape of a child under the age of 14. That's probably 100 out of 133. You're going to throw all 100 of these guys away for life?
In Fresno, I bet 800 out of the 1000 are on for rape or molesting a child under the age of 14. You're going to throw 800 guys away for life?
How many of the 2 million on the sex offender lists nationwide would be covered under this One Strike Law? That's an interesting bit of research.
This law isn't going to work. Implemented nationally, it will easily result in life sentences for hundreds of thousands, and possibly over 1 million, people, almost all men. Even if it's a good idea, it's not doable.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Updated September 2:
Due to the fallout from the Groene case (see previous posts), Steve Groene is pushing a One Strike Law in Washington State, where he now resides. I don't blame him, and a lot of crime victims lash out like this.
As you can see on the page explaining the law, the law is constructed so Joseph Duncan would never have been freed to kill Steve's ex-wife and two kids and rape his daughter. So the tragic past would never have occurred.
California's 3 Strikes Law was written by Mike Reynolds in such a way that the 2-bit thugs who killed his daughter (who merely had lengthy records for petty crime) would have been imprisoned and would have been able to kill his daughter.
In this way, surviving crime victims, or usually relatives of crime victims, are able to time travel. They can go back in time, and in their imaginations, wipe out the past.
The problem is that this is all an illusion.
Mike Reynolds' crazy 3 Strikes Law didn't bring back his daughter, and the guys who did it are going down bigtime anyway. Steve's One Strike Law won't bring back Dylan or Slade, or wipe out what was done to Shasta.
Sure, it might prevent it from happening to others, but to be completely frank, I don't think that's the purpose of these laws. The purpose of these laws is to enable their enraged and vengeful authors-relatives of victims to imaginarily go back in time and prevent the past from occurring by passing a new law in the future.
It's the stuff of science fiction. It's magical thinking, but magical thinking is not just for kids and crazies. Adults do it all the time too, especially traumatized adults. Like relatives of murder victims.
First of all, I will say that this law is not as nuts as I assumed it would be. Some of my friends know Steve, and they did not think he would write a law as stupid as California's 3 Strikes Law, especially since his own son has a record as a 2-bit petty criminal. I'm not even sure about Steve's own history, but my friends say he ran with a rough crowd.
The proposed One-Strike law says that anyone guilty of child molestation (wisely put at under 12) and anyone guilty of forcible rape through the use of violence needs to go away for life. Now, most people would sit back and cheer.
To the authors' credit, the law seems to exclude the "date rape" bullshit by requiring that the rape be forcible and violent. It also rules out the "statutory rape" bullshit by requiring ruling out sex with minors aged 12 and up.
So where does that leave us? With a bunch of pedos and rapists. So why is this not a good idea?
Because right here in Madera, we have 133 people on the sex offender list. In a city of 50,000. Fresno, a city of 440,000, probably has 1,000 people on the list. They're either all or almost all men.
Nationally, with the ever-expanding definitions of sex offenders, there are now 2 million people on sex offender lists! Surely they are almost all males.
This is starting to look less like a war on "sex offenders" and more like just a war on males.
Here in Madera, most of the guys on the list are guilty of rape, child molesting under the age of 14 or even rape of a child under the age of 14. That's probably 100 out of 133. You're going to throw all 100 of these guys away for life?
In Fresno, I bet 800 out of the 1000 are on for rape or molesting a child under the age of 14. You're going to throw 800 guys away for life?
How many of the 2 million on the sex offender lists nationwide would be covered under this One Strike Law? That's an interesting bit of research.
This law isn't going to work. Implemented nationally, it will easily result in life sentences for hundreds of thousands, and possibly over 1 million, people, almost all men. Even if it's a good idea, it's not doable.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Peeping Toms
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated September 2:
I was doing some research on paraphilias for the Joseph Duncan stories when I came across voyeurism. I don't think I've ever engaged in any voyeurism, certainly not the criminal kind. But one thing always bugged me about this law.
What exactly does it mean? It bothered me because the law seems to imply that there's something perverted about watching a woman take her clothes off, take a shower or walk around naked. That doesn't sound so perverted to me. That sounds like my idea of a good time!
In reading some stories about some voyeurs that got arrested, it turns out that almost all of these guys are engaged in obviously criminal behavior. They typically are on private property, and they are up against someone's bedroom or bathroom window, looking at a woman undress. Ok, that's clearly a violation and a crime.
Another case involved a guy who poked holes in the ceiling of a woman's bathroom so he could spy on the. Ok, that's a crime too.
A woman has a reasonable expectation of privacy in her own home or in windows accessible only from her own property, and in a ladies' bathroom.
But one thing has always bugged me. I've lived in plenty of apartments. Now, what if I'm sitting in my apartment on night and I look across at the apartments across the way and there's a woman in there, undressing, or walking around naked, or whatever. Ok, so do I get to look at her? Or am I a voyeur?
I don't think such a thing has ever happened to me, but I would think that would be legal. If you don't want people to look at you, draw the fucking curtains or blinds. If you're walking around in your apartment naked in front of an open window, you're an exhibitionist or a future stripper!
This article in particular bothered me. This woman thinks that all people with "paraphilias" should go on sex offender lists forever. WTH? She particularly singled out voyeurs for abuse.
Here's a couple of interesting cases. These stupid women were walking around in their apartments that had broken blinds. I don't know if they were walking around naked or what. Well, anyway, this guy was watching them walk around their apartments. They called the cops on him and said he was a peeper. He said if you don't want people watching, fix your damn blinds! The cops told the women to fix their blinds and let the guy off. Good job cops!
Here's another one. These two stupid college women, Rosanne Strott and Emily Niland were in their dorm room at Wentworth College having lesbian sex at night. With the fucking light on. With the fucking blinds up.
So, of course, some guys across the way settle in for the show. Why not? I might have settled in for the show too! Grab me a beer! Then the guys make a video out of it and put it on the damn Internet. Now, the Internet stuff may have gone too far, but these dumb bitches are just stupid. If you want to have lez sex without an audience, either turn out the lights or draw the blinds or both.
"You can't violate people's privacy like that and expect to get away with it," said one silly bitch. Jesus Christ woman! You decide to have sex with the lights on and the blinds up for the whole damn world to see and guess what? You have no privacy.
I decided to ask Sexmaniacman about this because he's an expert on all sex stuff:
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Updated September 2:
I was doing some research on paraphilias for the Joseph Duncan stories when I came across voyeurism. I don't think I've ever engaged in any voyeurism, certainly not the criminal kind. But one thing always bugged me about this law.
What exactly does it mean? It bothered me because the law seems to imply that there's something perverted about watching a woman take her clothes off, take a shower or walk around naked. That doesn't sound so perverted to me. That sounds like my idea of a good time!
In reading some stories about some voyeurs that got arrested, it turns out that almost all of these guys are engaged in obviously criminal behavior. They typically are on private property, and they are up against someone's bedroom or bathroom window, looking at a woman undress. Ok, that's clearly a violation and a crime.
Another case involved a guy who poked holes in the ceiling of a woman's bathroom so he could spy on the. Ok, that's a crime too.
A woman has a reasonable expectation of privacy in her own home or in windows accessible only from her own property, and in a ladies' bathroom.
But one thing has always bugged me. I've lived in plenty of apartments. Now, what if I'm sitting in my apartment on night and I look across at the apartments across the way and there's a woman in there, undressing, or walking around naked, or whatever. Ok, so do I get to look at her? Or am I a voyeur?
I don't think such a thing has ever happened to me, but I would think that would be legal. If you don't want people to look at you, draw the fucking curtains or blinds. If you're walking around in your apartment naked in front of an open window, you're an exhibitionist or a future stripper!
This article in particular bothered me. This woman thinks that all people with "paraphilias" should go on sex offender lists forever. WTH? She particularly singled out voyeurs for abuse.
Here's a couple of interesting cases. These stupid women were walking around in their apartments that had broken blinds. I don't know if they were walking around naked or what. Well, anyway, this guy was watching them walk around their apartments. They called the cops on him and said he was a peeper. He said if you don't want people watching, fix your damn blinds! The cops told the women to fix their blinds and let the guy off. Good job cops!
Here's another one. These two stupid college women, Rosanne Strott and Emily Niland were in their dorm room at Wentworth College having lesbian sex at night. With the fucking light on. With the fucking blinds up.
So, of course, some guys across the way settle in for the show. Why not? I might have settled in for the show too! Grab me a beer! Then the guys make a video out of it and put it on the damn Internet. Now, the Internet stuff may have gone too far, but these dumb bitches are just stupid. If you want to have lez sex without an audience, either turn out the lights or draw the blinds or both.
"You can't violate people's privacy like that and expect to get away with it," said one silly bitch. Jesus Christ woman! You decide to have sex with the lights on and the blinds up for the whole damn world to see and guess what? You have no privacy.
I decided to ask Sexmaniacman about this because he's an expert on all sex stuff:
Bob, this has been bugging me for a while too. I'm not sure if I've ever been a voyeur either! I've watched plenty of porn, and I've been to a ton of strip shows. Hell, I used to practically live in porno theaters and strip joints! I'm a pervert! Haha! Fuck you, puritans!
It was the summer of 1977 and I was working and living at Yosemite National Park. I was living on park food, marijuana, and young women! Good diet! Haha! Well, one day I was off work and I saw these two women sunbathing by the beach of the Merced River. I thought they had black bikinis, but then I figured out they were naked. You do the math! This was before the shaving era! Haha!
So I strolled down there, looking at them all the time. Ok, so am I a fucking voyeur? Yeah, I was looking at em. They're naked women, you think I won't look at em? I get down to the beach, and there's these two naked hippie chicks, both 19. I introduce myself, and say hello.
Now, according to the psycho feminist cunts from Hell, I'm sexually harassing these chicks! Women have a right to lay around fucking naked anytime they want, and if any man looks at em or God forbid walks up to them to chat or join them, he's harasser and a misogynist. Well, fuck me, feminists!
I take off my sandals and shirt but not my shorts. So I go into the river with my shorts on cuz I'm too shy to take them off. In the water, I take my shorts off and I'm naked. Now, according to feminazis, I'm a fucking rapist! You see, I need to ask permission to do this shit!
I look back at the women and the feminazis would predict they'd be throwing their clothes on and screaming rape and calling the cops on the sex offender! Well, instead, they're nudging each other and going, "Hey look, he's naked, whoo-hoo,yeah, check him out, he's hot!"
What do you know, feminist cunts! Amazing! Some women actually like naked men and don't scream pervert and call the cops every time they see one! What's bugging me is, what if they didn't want me to take my shorts off? Am I a rapist? A paraphiliac? A sex offender? An exhibitionist? A sexual harasser?
WTF? One part of me says screw these damn laws. Give em to the lunatic feminists, and they'll just use them as a sledgehammer to destroy innocent men.
Nothing happened afterward, no sex. I got out of the river, and we all put out clothes on and walked away. We met some hippie dude they knew from their travels around the country. I think they went off to smoke some dope. They promised to stop by my place at night, but they never did, of course.
Let me tell you another story. I was living in the Sierra Nevada in the early 1990's. I used to walk down the roads all the time and take hikes. I always had my binoculars with me and I was always looking at stuff with em.
After a while, I learned that some shitty rumor had gone around the whole neighborhood about me and about 100% of the fuckwads who lived up there believed it. They said I was peeping into people's houses with those binoculars! They said I was a voyeur! WTF! That hit me like a brick when I heard it.
Yeah, I was looking at stuff. I was looking at birds! I'm a birdwatcher! I even had a Petersen's Guide in my pocket the whole time. Did I ever look at any people? Dunno, maybe I saw some walking around. In their homes? Doubt it. Did I ever look at anyone's home with my binoculars? Doubt it, unless maybe there was a bird in the yard!
Did I ever look inside anyone's home with my binocs? Don't recall, don't think so, why the Hell would I do that? Was there a bird in the house? If no, I'm probably not gonna look. I'm one of those weirdo birdwatchers, remember? We're into birds, not humans. You can see humans anytime, but when do you ever get to see a really hot bird?
This is what I hate about these shitty laws. I bet a lot of innocent people go down on this stuff and then on sex offender database's for life. I could have easily gone down on them myself. I had a whole neighborhood full of retarded White middle-class American fuckheads ready to swear to the cops that I was peeping on them. WTF?
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Cool Page On Social Democracy
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated September 2:
This is a really cool page on the Social Democratic Party of America. There are several social democratic parties in the US, and no, rightwing fuckwads, they are not much like the Democratic Party at all. A lot of them don't even like the Democratic Party. Social democracy means a lot of things all over the world.
There is a Socialist International of socialist parties all over the world, and I support that organization. Even a lot of Communists don't necessarily hate it. A lot of us on the Left support all sorts of socialist models, from Communism to social democracy even all the way to the US Democratic Party.
Your average US rightwing shithead can't seem to figure that out, but then, they subscribe to a philosophy that is narrow-minded and stupid in both intent and praxis.
Truth is, as you can see by this page, there is not a lot of love lost between at least this social democratic party and Communists. To say that they are one and the same just shows that you are a stupid rightwing asshole. No serious political scientist would make such a statement.
I don't necessarily agree with this party in their critique of Cuba, Belarus and other countries ruled by Communist-type regimes, but hey, it's a big tent here on the Left.
There are all sorts of social democratic parties all over the world. As you can see, they are major parties in Slovenia, Japan, Croatia, Czechoslovakia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Romania, Ukraine, Iceland, Austria, Serbia, Poland, Paraguay, Portugal, Finland, Cameroon, Guatemala, Tajikistan, Macedonia, France, Italy, Sweden, Belarus, Denmark and all sorts of other places.
I have varying opinions on how well they are doing; I think that the ones in Europe have done a pretty good job. But I have a pretty low opinion of Lula's PT in Brazil, Bachelet's Socialist Party in Chile, the UK Labor Party (An imperialist socialist party?), and I doubt if this new Guatemalan party is going to get much done.
The Peruvian social democrats have a particularly horrible record. The Sandinistas in Nicaragua will not be able to get much done either. Cristina Merkel is having a hard time getting a lot of her agenda through in Argentina.
Social democracy seems to work best in highly developed and wealthy countries, as you can see above. In the poor Third World, they haven't been able to do much to change the reactionary and backwards nature of society, nor to alleviate poverty, nor to do much of anything.
I think in a lot of cases there may be a necessity for revolutionary change, either via the way of the gun, or possibly peacefully in a more civilized society via the Hugo Chavez model.
In Europe, the ruling classes and the Right were completely destroyed in World War 2, which left millions of rightists and fascists dead and left the whole rightwing movement scattered and discredited. Hence social democracy was able to make a lot of headway with a defeated and more or less rendered-civilized and neutered Right.
Further, society itself changed in that even the wealthy, the upper middle classes, the middle classes, and corporate executives began to support social democracy.
In part this social pact was due to massive pressure from the Left which caused the European Right and business classes to sue for peace via a Social Compact. Also, society itself changed and social democracy became the dominant model for all classes.
Something similar occurred in Japan. The Right was destroyed by the war, and those that were not dead were discredited and humiliated.
In Eastern Europe, decades of Communism may have left a distaste for Communism but not for social democracy. Once again, most of the rightists were simply slaughtered, the rest were in jail or discredited, and society itself was well-molded along socialist lines for decades.
In Latin America, faced with a much more backwards, venal, dishonest, amoral, criminal, corrupt, and murderous upper class and upper middle class intent on staying in power at all costs, social democracy has had a really hard time getting much done. It's fascinating that the US has allowed social democracy to flower in Europe, but has smashed every glimmer of it in Latin America as "Communism" or "dictatorship".
Socialist parties in India (the Congress Party) have failed for similar reasons as the ones in Latin America. Social democracy in Sri Lanka has a good record.
In most of the Arab World, there is a more or less socialist model in place, no matter what the governments call themselves. Radical free market capitalism is contrary to Arab society and to Islam itself, hence it is not likely to succeed in any Arab or Islamic society.
Cambodia is run by a socialist party. So is Burma, but most socialists want nothing to do with them.
Contrary to rightwing bullshit, socialism in the form of social democracy has not failed at all. It is not a failed or discredited model or any of that.
Social democratic parties have sadly had a really hard time getting off the ground in the United States. For the most part, this is because America is extremely rightwing for a developed country. It is no exaggeration to say that the US is the most reactionary developed country on Earth, in both its leadership and in its citizens. This is 100% the fault of US Whites, and always has been.
There's been a decades-long propaganda war against socialism in which the word "socialism" was deviously married to word "Communism". Americans being a bunch of morons, and basically very rightwing in their natures, swallowed the whole thing. But in the mid-1970's, things were different.
We had had over a decade of fairly progressive politics, even under Republicans, and leaders of major US corporations got together, agitated and worried. They said that if something is not done now, we are going to have a European-style social democracy in the US. This began a years-long project to set up and fund a series rightwing foundations and think tanks in the US.
They are still going strong, and have tremendous influence on US politics due to their ability to churn out papers, speakers and conferences on issues almost immediately. They have deep ties to the reactionary corporate media and quickly popped onto TV and the front page and kept there as long as the Right wants or needs any issue to be spotlighted.
It is true that there is a tradition of radical individualism in the US, but that's only among White people. This may have been slightly reasonable at some point if you were Davey Crockett building a cabin in the woods, but those days are long gone.
One great thing about the loss of a White majority in the US (which will be both good and bad) is that US non-Whites, in particular Hispanics and Blacks, are much more sympathetic to at least Democratic Party politics and possibly social democracy.
On the other hand, reactionary politics have such a deep hold on this country that even some younger Blacks and Hispanics, once they start making some money, adopt some form of reactionary politics, typically nowadays along the lines of the faddish but ultra-rightwing libertarianism. This is discouraging, and shows that a non-Whites in the US are not necessarily a progressive bloc.
Another thing to note is that despite the hostile rhetoric some US social democratic parties take towards the Democratic Party, we already have a lot of social democracy here in the US, brought to us actually by both political parties.
The Right, meaning White America, has been savagely slashing away at this social democracy for decades now, but even so, it's a Hell of a lot better record than the social democratic parties in Argentina, Chile, Peru, Guatemala, Jamaica and Brazil, which in my opinion have failed to varying degrees.
If Americans were anything like Europeans, social democracy ought to be an easy play here in the US. But for one thing, White Americans' opposition to high taxation is going to make this a difficult project.
White Americans' opposition to socialism and social democracy is rooted in a lot of things, but one of the main things is race. It's all about taking the hard-earned tax dollars of White Americans and giving them to worthless gangbanging, welfare-addicted, drug-abusing Hispanics and Black criminals, scumbags and lowlifes.
Truth is that this simple-minded mindset has devastated a lot of hardworking working-class lower to mid-income Whites, but White America just can't see that.
White Americans don't have much in the way of racial solidarity. If there is anything, there is solidarity based on class and that's it. Whites in the suburbs think that low-income and working class Whites, whom they refer to as White trash, can fuck off. While White American politics are indeed often rooted in race, they are also rooted in class too, and the two can be contradictory.
Life is complicated.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Updated September 2:
This is a really cool page on the Social Democratic Party of America. There are several social democratic parties in the US, and no, rightwing fuckwads, they are not much like the Democratic Party at all. A lot of them don't even like the Democratic Party. Social democracy means a lot of things all over the world.
There is a Socialist International of socialist parties all over the world, and I support that organization. Even a lot of Communists don't necessarily hate it. A lot of us on the Left support all sorts of socialist models, from Communism to social democracy even all the way to the US Democratic Party.
Your average US rightwing shithead can't seem to figure that out, but then, they subscribe to a philosophy that is narrow-minded and stupid in both intent and praxis.
Truth is, as you can see by this page, there is not a lot of love lost between at least this social democratic party and Communists. To say that they are one and the same just shows that you are a stupid rightwing asshole. No serious political scientist would make such a statement.
I don't necessarily agree with this party in their critique of Cuba, Belarus and other countries ruled by Communist-type regimes, but hey, it's a big tent here on the Left.
There are all sorts of social democratic parties all over the world. As you can see, they are major parties in Slovenia, Japan, Croatia, Czechoslovakia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Romania, Ukraine, Iceland, Austria, Serbia, Poland, Paraguay, Portugal, Finland, Cameroon, Guatemala, Tajikistan, Macedonia, France, Italy, Sweden, Belarus, Denmark and all sorts of other places.
I have varying opinions on how well they are doing; I think that the ones in Europe have done a pretty good job. But I have a pretty low opinion of Lula's PT in Brazil, Bachelet's Socialist Party in Chile, the UK Labor Party (An imperialist socialist party?), and I doubt if this new Guatemalan party is going to get much done.
The Peruvian social democrats have a particularly horrible record. The Sandinistas in Nicaragua will not be able to get much done either. Cristina Merkel is having a hard time getting a lot of her agenda through in Argentina.
Social democracy seems to work best in highly developed and wealthy countries, as you can see above. In the poor Third World, they haven't been able to do much to change the reactionary and backwards nature of society, nor to alleviate poverty, nor to do much of anything.
I think in a lot of cases there may be a necessity for revolutionary change, either via the way of the gun, or possibly peacefully in a more civilized society via the Hugo Chavez model.
In Europe, the ruling classes and the Right were completely destroyed in World War 2, which left millions of rightists and fascists dead and left the whole rightwing movement scattered and discredited. Hence social democracy was able to make a lot of headway with a defeated and more or less rendered-civilized and neutered Right.
Further, society itself changed in that even the wealthy, the upper middle classes, the middle classes, and corporate executives began to support social democracy.
In part this social pact was due to massive pressure from the Left which caused the European Right and business classes to sue for peace via a Social Compact. Also, society itself changed and social democracy became the dominant model for all classes.
Something similar occurred in Japan. The Right was destroyed by the war, and those that were not dead were discredited and humiliated.
In Eastern Europe, decades of Communism may have left a distaste for Communism but not for social democracy. Once again, most of the rightists were simply slaughtered, the rest were in jail or discredited, and society itself was well-molded along socialist lines for decades.
In Latin America, faced with a much more backwards, venal, dishonest, amoral, criminal, corrupt, and murderous upper class and upper middle class intent on staying in power at all costs, social democracy has had a really hard time getting much done. It's fascinating that the US has allowed social democracy to flower in Europe, but has smashed every glimmer of it in Latin America as "Communism" or "dictatorship".
Socialist parties in India (the Congress Party) have failed for similar reasons as the ones in Latin America. Social democracy in Sri Lanka has a good record.
In most of the Arab World, there is a more or less socialist model in place, no matter what the governments call themselves. Radical free market capitalism is contrary to Arab society and to Islam itself, hence it is not likely to succeed in any Arab or Islamic society.
Cambodia is run by a socialist party. So is Burma, but most socialists want nothing to do with them.
Contrary to rightwing bullshit, socialism in the form of social democracy has not failed at all. It is not a failed or discredited model or any of that.
Social democratic parties have sadly had a really hard time getting off the ground in the United States. For the most part, this is because America is extremely rightwing for a developed country. It is no exaggeration to say that the US is the most reactionary developed country on Earth, in both its leadership and in its citizens. This is 100% the fault of US Whites, and always has been.
There's been a decades-long propaganda war against socialism in which the word "socialism" was deviously married to word "Communism". Americans being a bunch of morons, and basically very rightwing in their natures, swallowed the whole thing. But in the mid-1970's, things were different.
We had had over a decade of fairly progressive politics, even under Republicans, and leaders of major US corporations got together, agitated and worried. They said that if something is not done now, we are going to have a European-style social democracy in the US. This began a years-long project to set up and fund a series rightwing foundations and think tanks in the US.
They are still going strong, and have tremendous influence on US politics due to their ability to churn out papers, speakers and conferences on issues almost immediately. They have deep ties to the reactionary corporate media and quickly popped onto TV and the front page and kept there as long as the Right wants or needs any issue to be spotlighted.
It is true that there is a tradition of radical individualism in the US, but that's only among White people. This may have been slightly reasonable at some point if you were Davey Crockett building a cabin in the woods, but those days are long gone.
One great thing about the loss of a White majority in the US (which will be both good and bad) is that US non-Whites, in particular Hispanics and Blacks, are much more sympathetic to at least Democratic Party politics and possibly social democracy.
On the other hand, reactionary politics have such a deep hold on this country that even some younger Blacks and Hispanics, once they start making some money, adopt some form of reactionary politics, typically nowadays along the lines of the faddish but ultra-rightwing libertarianism. This is discouraging, and shows that a non-Whites in the US are not necessarily a progressive bloc.
Another thing to note is that despite the hostile rhetoric some US social democratic parties take towards the Democratic Party, we already have a lot of social democracy here in the US, brought to us actually by both political parties.
The Right, meaning White America, has been savagely slashing away at this social democracy for decades now, but even so, it's a Hell of a lot better record than the social democratic parties in Argentina, Chile, Peru, Guatemala, Jamaica and Brazil, which in my opinion have failed to varying degrees.
If Americans were anything like Europeans, social democracy ought to be an easy play here in the US. But for one thing, White Americans' opposition to high taxation is going to make this a difficult project.
White Americans' opposition to socialism and social democracy is rooted in a lot of things, but one of the main things is race. It's all about taking the hard-earned tax dollars of White Americans and giving them to worthless gangbanging, welfare-addicted, drug-abusing Hispanics and Black criminals, scumbags and lowlifes.
Truth is that this simple-minded mindset has devastated a lot of hardworking working-class lower to mid-income Whites, but White America just can't see that.
White Americans don't have much in the way of racial solidarity. If there is anything, there is solidarity based on class and that's it. Whites in the suburbs think that low-income and working class Whites, whom they refer to as White trash, can fuck off. While White American politics are indeed often rooted in race, they are also rooted in class too, and the two can be contradictory.
Life is complicated.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi and Panmixia
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated September 2:
A commenter to the Californian Racial Neurotics post notes: "The Father of the EU" Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi was a half Japanese philo-Semitic aristocrat who advocated a mixed race Europe. He was a living, breathing Abercrombie & Fitch ad in l925 and nobody in the WN movement has ever heard of him. From Wikipedia:
"Coudenhove-Kalergi complemented his liberal views of the political role of the Jews with distinctive advocacy of race mixing. In his book Praktischer Idealismus (Practical Idealism, Wien/Leipzig 1925, pages 20, 23, 50) he wrote:
So being a proponent of Panmixia while at the same time being a philosemite is a bit of a disconnect. Nevertheless it is quite a common one.
Alon Ziv is a modern Jewish incarnation along similar lines. I wonder if is going to marry a non-White or even a non-Jewish woman and practice what he preaches, or if he do will play the usual Jewish hypocritical role in such affairs?
Not that I care who he marries or what type of babies he makes, but I can see why a lot of reasonable folks get upset at Jews promoting diversity in their own lands while promoting ethnic nationalism and racial separatism in Israel and even in their own lives, in the sense that they intend their fellow Jews to marry within the tribe.
If it's ok for Jews to only marry fellow Jews and to oppose intertribal breeding (Jewish miscegenation), why isn't ok for Whites or others to promote intraracial breeding and oppose miscegenation.
I don't have any interest in racial purity myself, as I've been dating and sleeping with non-Whites my whole life and do to this day. I'm an ethnocentric White guy who dislikes being turned into a minority by a bunch of foreigners, but I'm perfectly willing to do my part to suicide my race with a non-White female, though I don't really care either way, and I don't have kids yet anyway.
Incidentally, there are quite a few White Californians like me, including both of my brothers. That's just the way people are out here.
The world is already pretty much Panmixia anyway. As far as the future being a mixed race Europe or America, it's quite possible. It's essential to realize that many nations of the world are already mixed race for all intents and purposes.
In particular, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Polynesia, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, the Middle East, North Africa, the Sahel, Mongolia, Siberia, the Stans, etc. And of course most of the Americas except for Argentina and Uruguay, and the US and Canada.
The East Indian people are mixed between Caucasians and Asians in the North. So are the Pakistanis, Afghans, Siberians, Mongolians, Western Chinese, Nepalese, Turks and people from the Stans.
There is significant Caucasian-Black admixture in North Africa, the Middle East, the Sahel, the Horn of Africa, South Africa, and far southern Europe.
In Sri Lanka, the Tamils are mixed between Australoids and Caucasians, and there be other such Veddoid stocks in the region.
There is Black-Asian mixture in Madagascar.
The entire continent of the Americas except for the US, Canada, Argentina and Uruguay is mixed race. The mix is Amerindian and White in most of the continent. In Brazil, Venezuela, Puerto Rico, Panama, Colombia, Brazil and the Guyanas it is mixed between Whites, Blacks and Amerindians. In the Caribbean, there is significant White-Black mixture.
Indonesians, Micronesians and Polynesians are mixed between SE Asians and Melanesians.
Fiji is mixed between Polynesians and Melanesians, and French Polynesians are mixed between Whites and Polynesians. Hawaii is so mixed no one even knows how to describe it.
Far from being "mongrel races" as White nationalist racists describe them, the above are probably just more or less the norm for human societies. Races and ethnicities have been mixing all down through time, they will continue to do, and many so-called pure races are actually significant mixtures.
The entire notion of pure races is somewhat problematic. There is no scientific reason why any given "more pure" race is de facto superior or inferior to any given "less pure" race or vice versa. Existing "pure" races of dogs and cats were creating by creating "mongrelized" mixtures of existing stocks.
Panmixia is just the way it's going to be.
Probably the last places on Earth to become mixed-race will be in East Asia and in Sub Saharan Africa. Most of East Asia is relatively pure race-wise to the extent that almost everyone there is either a NE Asian or a SE Asian. Sub-Saharan Africans are relatively pure Blacks with little admixture.
There's little non-Asian immigration to Asia, and there's little non-African immigration to Africa, so things will probably remain this way into the foreseeable future.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Updated September 2:
A commenter to the Californian Racial Neurotics post notes: "The Father of the EU" Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi was a half Japanese philo-Semitic aristocrat who advocated a mixed race Europe. He was a living, breathing Abercrombie & Fitch ad in l925 and nobody in the WN movement has ever heard of him. From Wikipedia:
"Coudenhove-Kalergi complemented his liberal views of the political role of the Jews with distinctive advocacy of race mixing. In his book Praktischer Idealismus (Practical Idealism, Wien/Leipzig 1925, pages 20, 23, 50) he wrote:
The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.I respond: This guy was definitely an interesting fellow! What is odd is that he loves Jews so much, and Jews are some of the original ethnic nationalists and racial separatists. Since emancipation, they have promoted this only for themselves, while seeking to diversify the societies they reside in because a mono-ethno-religious nation is typically bad for the Jews.
Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility through spiritual grace. This happened at the moment when Europe’s feudal aristocracy became dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish emancipation.
So being a proponent of Panmixia while at the same time being a philosemite is a bit of a disconnect. Nevertheless it is quite a common one.
Alon Ziv is a modern Jewish incarnation along similar lines. I wonder if is going to marry a non-White or even a non-Jewish woman and practice what he preaches, or if he do will play the usual Jewish hypocritical role in such affairs?
Not that I care who he marries or what type of babies he makes, but I can see why a lot of reasonable folks get upset at Jews promoting diversity in their own lands while promoting ethnic nationalism and racial separatism in Israel and even in their own lives, in the sense that they intend their fellow Jews to marry within the tribe.
If it's ok for Jews to only marry fellow Jews and to oppose intertribal breeding (Jewish miscegenation), why isn't ok for Whites or others to promote intraracial breeding and oppose miscegenation.
I don't have any interest in racial purity myself, as I've been dating and sleeping with non-Whites my whole life and do to this day. I'm an ethnocentric White guy who dislikes being turned into a minority by a bunch of foreigners, but I'm perfectly willing to do my part to suicide my race with a non-White female, though I don't really care either way, and I don't have kids yet anyway.
Incidentally, there are quite a few White Californians like me, including both of my brothers. That's just the way people are out here.
The world is already pretty much Panmixia anyway. As far as the future being a mixed race Europe or America, it's quite possible. It's essential to realize that many nations of the world are already mixed race for all intents and purposes.
In particular, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Polynesia, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, the Middle East, North Africa, the Sahel, Mongolia, Siberia, the Stans, etc. And of course most of the Americas except for Argentina and Uruguay, and the US and Canada.
The East Indian people are mixed between Caucasians and Asians in the North. So are the Pakistanis, Afghans, Siberians, Mongolians, Western Chinese, Nepalese, Turks and people from the Stans.
There is significant Caucasian-Black admixture in North Africa, the Middle East, the Sahel, the Horn of Africa, South Africa, and far southern Europe.
In Sri Lanka, the Tamils are mixed between Australoids and Caucasians, and there be other such Veddoid stocks in the region.
There is Black-Asian mixture in Madagascar.
The entire continent of the Americas except for the US, Canada, Argentina and Uruguay is mixed race. The mix is Amerindian and White in most of the continent. In Brazil, Venezuela, Puerto Rico, Panama, Colombia, Brazil and the Guyanas it is mixed between Whites, Blacks and Amerindians. In the Caribbean, there is significant White-Black mixture.
Indonesians, Micronesians and Polynesians are mixed between SE Asians and Melanesians.
Fiji is mixed between Polynesians and Melanesians, and French Polynesians are mixed between Whites and Polynesians. Hawaii is so mixed no one even knows how to describe it.
Far from being "mongrel races" as White nationalist racists describe them, the above are probably just more or less the norm for human societies. Races and ethnicities have been mixing all down through time, they will continue to do, and many so-called pure races are actually significant mixtures.
The entire notion of pure races is somewhat problematic. There is no scientific reason why any given "more pure" race is de facto superior or inferior to any given "less pure" race or vice versa. Existing "pure" races of dogs and cats were creating by creating "mongrelized" mixtures of existing stocks.
Panmixia is just the way it's going to be.
Probably the last places on Earth to become mixed-race will be in East Asia and in Sub Saharan Africa. Most of East Asia is relatively pure race-wise to the extent that almost everyone there is either a NE Asian or a SE Asian. Sub-Saharan Africans are relatively pure Blacks with little admixture.
There's little non-Asian immigration to Asia, and there's little non-African immigration to Africa, so things will probably remain this way into the foreseeable future.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Californian Racial Neurotics
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated August 24:
As usual, this blog has been accused of being incoherent on race, and furthermore, I've been accused of being a racist myself, as usual. The person doing the accusing is apparently himself a White racist of the White Nationalist variety.
He says that any anti-racist would never call a Black man a "nigger" (Yes, I did this once about 15 years ago or so), and an anti-racist would not care anything about his neighborhood, city, county, metropolitan area or state being turned from 80% White into 90% Black or Korean or whatever, or the United Nations, even overnight. He also said that since I talk about race all the time, I must be a racist.
That's a pretty strange definition of anti-racism. I suppose that the typical anti-racist crazies would not care about such a thing, but your average White Californian is not too happy about replaced and displaced and turned into a minority in his state.
At the same time, he's usually not that racist himself, and he will often say that he opposes racism. He gets uncomfortable to irritated at any kind of overtly racist talk. He hates White nationalism, not to mention White Power Nazis. He hates segregation, the Indian Wars and apartheid in Africa. He's not too happy about colonialism.
He's in favor of interracial marriage and relationships often has friends or family who are in one. At the same time, he thinks that the standard PC anti-racism of the activist variety is completely insane, and he regards people who push this as radical nutcases. He has a low opinion of illegal aliens, but he may want to legalize them because he thinks it's cruel to send them all home. He hates racial slurs.
He supports all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws but is often dubious about affirmative action. He's typically pretty much indifferent to the whole topic of race and racism and finds the whole subject unpleasant and distasteful and doesn't want to talk about it. He thinks xenophobes who dislike all foreigners and want to stop all immigration are Know-Nothing Idiots.
He believes that there IQ differences between the races, but doesn't necessarily want to talk about it too much, though he regards the topic as fascinating.
He will often defend Amerindians, Filipinos, Aborigines, East Indians, Africans, Negritos, Gypsies, Blacks, Hispanics, Papuans, Melanesians, Polynesians, Micronesians and just about any other minority group that is often the subject of scorn. He will regard them as interesting people who are being oppressed and he wants to defend them.
At the same time, some of these people are racists, but only about certain people. I know some White Californians who are racist against Hispanics, especially illegal aliens. At the same time, these same people have Hispanic and even illegal alien friends and acquaintances because they believe in treating everyone as individuals.
White nationalists paint a bizarre picture of anti-racism that fails to describe how people really are. Either you're a crazed PC anti-racist radical, or else you're a racist White nationalist. You're one or the other. But people are complicated and most California Whites don't fit into either category. I suspect that many people of other races and ethnicities have similar conflicting views.
When it comes to race, as with many things, people are complicated, conflicted and all over the place. It's not just race. Humans are like this about all sorts of subjects. That's just the way people are. People don't necessarily have coherent views about many things, or about much of anything.
I admit to writing about race and racism all the time and even being obsessed with it. I'm also very interested in White nationalism for some reason, but the movement is repellent. If you go to antifa forums, you also find a lot of folks who are pretty obsessed with race. On sites like Humanbiodiversity, you find much the same thing. I doubt if this makes me a racist, but maybe it makes me a nut. Oh well.
Let me give you an example.
A friend of mine was over there the other day. Older White woman. I was showing her the website of Erectus Walks Among Us, and she thought the guy was a complete idiot. She said, "Why does he care? Why did he spend all this time writing a book on differences between the races?"
I said, "He's a White nationalist. That's all they think about all day long. That's all they care about. Black people are destroying America and the world and this is the most important issue of our time."
She shook her head and said, "Well! He's a nut!"
Then I asked her if she thought there were differences between the races of the type the guy is describing. She said I'm sure they exist. I asked her if she thought that most Whites thought there were differences between the races, and she said I think they do.
I then said that a lot of these people move to try to get away from Blacks and Hispanics. She said, "Sure? Of course they do. So? What's wrong with that?" I asked her if that's racist and she said, "Of course not!"
Later she was reading the paper and pointed to some morons who keep crashing cars into canals and drowning around here. These idiots drive with full carloads along the edges of canals and then fall in the canal and drown. I said, "They're all Hispanics." She laughed and said, "Of course they are! No one else is that stupid!"
But this woman totally hates White nationalism and all overtly White racist movements, supports all civil rights laws, supports interracial marriage (her son is married to an Asian), and hates segregationists, neo-Confederates, apartheid-lovers and supporters of the Indian Wars. She even defends illegals and wants to make them all into citizens.
She loves Obama and worries that the opposition to him is racist and that a lot of Whites voting against him are racists. She also harbors no illusions about other races. She thinks there are IQ differences by race and regards this as a fascinating though forbidden topic.
This is pretty much your average older White Californian.
Let's describe another fellow.
He's 45 years old and White. This guy will defend Blacks and the whole Black agenda, and he's voting for Obama too.
He's been known to use the word "nigger" but usually as humor. He saw Cynthia McKinney once on TV and started making monkey noises and laughing. We were talking about South Central LA once and he described it as "land of the silverbacks".
On the other hand, he thinks Whites who hate Blacks are idiots, and he's turned off by anti-Black racism. He supports reparations for Blacks, but he also says that a lot of Blacks are rapists and thieves, and Whites should be careful about getting involved with them. He often uses typical pro-Black rhetoric when describing Blacks and talks about how horribly we have treated them.
At the same time, when I was dating Black women 25 years ago, he said, "You're sick! How could you date a Black woman! You're a nigger lover!" And then he laughed.
He describes himself as a racist, but only towards Jews, Hispanics and South Indians. He thinks Whites, especially Northern European Whites, are superior to all other groups. The guy's basically a Nordicist and he's been known to read proto-Nazi literature by German authors. He has no amimosity towards anyone else.
He's furious about being made a minority in his home state and he blames Hispanics. He's mad at South Indians for "taking over all the 7-11's and gas stations." He's dated Amerindian and Japanese women. At the same time, he has Hispanic and even illegal alien friends. Nevertheless, he also openly states that Hispanics are an inferior race and that Amerindians are stupid.
Let's look at one more guy.
He's 48 years old and White. This guy who used to go on and on about the need for White people to procreate, as they are going extinct. He's also very racist against Blacks, as he used to work as a security guard and then a prison guard, and has lots of White cop friends, and White cops in California are extremely racist against Blacks, even if most others aren't.
He loves to quote statistics about Blacks and crime, and once, when I had bad experiences dating some Black women, he chided me and that's what you get for associating with Black people. At the same time, this guy dated a Black woman a while back (!) and he married a Vietnamese woman a few years ago and just fathered a Hapa kid (!). Does any of this make sense? Not really.
I'm sorry if people find these folks "incoherent on race", but that's just the way a lot of people are out here. Race is a complicated subject and it twists minds in some pretty interesting ways. That's what makes humans and life so interesting.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Updated August 24:
As usual, this blog has been accused of being incoherent on race, and furthermore, I've been accused of being a racist myself, as usual. The person doing the accusing is apparently himself a White racist of the White Nationalist variety.
He says that any anti-racist would never call a Black man a "nigger" (Yes, I did this once about 15 years ago or so), and an anti-racist would not care anything about his neighborhood, city, county, metropolitan area or state being turned from 80% White into 90% Black or Korean or whatever, or the United Nations, even overnight. He also said that since I talk about race all the time, I must be a racist.
That's a pretty strange definition of anti-racism. I suppose that the typical anti-racist crazies would not care about such a thing, but your average White Californian is not too happy about replaced and displaced and turned into a minority in his state.
At the same time, he's usually not that racist himself, and he will often say that he opposes racism. He gets uncomfortable to irritated at any kind of overtly racist talk. He hates White nationalism, not to mention White Power Nazis. He hates segregation, the Indian Wars and apartheid in Africa. He's not too happy about colonialism.
He's in favor of interracial marriage and relationships often has friends or family who are in one. At the same time, he thinks that the standard PC anti-racism of the activist variety is completely insane, and he regards people who push this as radical nutcases. He has a low opinion of illegal aliens, but he may want to legalize them because he thinks it's cruel to send them all home. He hates racial slurs.
He supports all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws but is often dubious about affirmative action. He's typically pretty much indifferent to the whole topic of race and racism and finds the whole subject unpleasant and distasteful and doesn't want to talk about it. He thinks xenophobes who dislike all foreigners and want to stop all immigration are Know-Nothing Idiots.
He believes that there IQ differences between the races, but doesn't necessarily want to talk about it too much, though he regards the topic as fascinating.
He will often defend Amerindians, Filipinos, Aborigines, East Indians, Africans, Negritos, Gypsies, Blacks, Hispanics, Papuans, Melanesians, Polynesians, Micronesians and just about any other minority group that is often the subject of scorn. He will regard them as interesting people who are being oppressed and he wants to defend them.
At the same time, some of these people are racists, but only about certain people. I know some White Californians who are racist against Hispanics, especially illegal aliens. At the same time, these same people have Hispanic and even illegal alien friends and acquaintances because they believe in treating everyone as individuals.
White nationalists paint a bizarre picture of anti-racism that fails to describe how people really are. Either you're a crazed PC anti-racist radical, or else you're a racist White nationalist. You're one or the other. But people are complicated and most California Whites don't fit into either category. I suspect that many people of other races and ethnicities have similar conflicting views.
When it comes to race, as with many things, people are complicated, conflicted and all over the place. It's not just race. Humans are like this about all sorts of subjects. That's just the way people are. People don't necessarily have coherent views about many things, or about much of anything.
I admit to writing about race and racism all the time and even being obsessed with it. I'm also very interested in White nationalism for some reason, but the movement is repellent. If you go to antifa forums, you also find a lot of folks who are pretty obsessed with race. On sites like Humanbiodiversity, you find much the same thing. I doubt if this makes me a racist, but maybe it makes me a nut. Oh well.
Let me give you an example.
A friend of mine was over there the other day. Older White woman. I was showing her the website of Erectus Walks Among Us, and she thought the guy was a complete idiot. She said, "Why does he care? Why did he spend all this time writing a book on differences between the races?"
I said, "He's a White nationalist. That's all they think about all day long. That's all they care about. Black people are destroying America and the world and this is the most important issue of our time."
She shook her head and said, "Well! He's a nut!"
Then I asked her if she thought there were differences between the races of the type the guy is describing. She said I'm sure they exist. I asked her if she thought that most Whites thought there were differences between the races, and she said I think they do.
I then said that a lot of these people move to try to get away from Blacks and Hispanics. She said, "Sure? Of course they do. So? What's wrong with that?" I asked her if that's racist and she said, "Of course not!"
Later she was reading the paper and pointed to some morons who keep crashing cars into canals and drowning around here. These idiots drive with full carloads along the edges of canals and then fall in the canal and drown. I said, "They're all Hispanics." She laughed and said, "Of course they are! No one else is that stupid!"
But this woman totally hates White nationalism and all overtly White racist movements, supports all civil rights laws, supports interracial marriage (her son is married to an Asian), and hates segregationists, neo-Confederates, apartheid-lovers and supporters of the Indian Wars. She even defends illegals and wants to make them all into citizens.
She loves Obama and worries that the opposition to him is racist and that a lot of Whites voting against him are racists. She also harbors no illusions about other races. She thinks there are IQ differences by race and regards this as a fascinating though forbidden topic.
This is pretty much your average older White Californian.
Let's describe another fellow.
He's 45 years old and White. This guy will defend Blacks and the whole Black agenda, and he's voting for Obama too.
He's been known to use the word "nigger" but usually as humor. He saw Cynthia McKinney once on TV and started making monkey noises and laughing. We were talking about South Central LA once and he described it as "land of the silverbacks".
On the other hand, he thinks Whites who hate Blacks are idiots, and he's turned off by anti-Black racism. He supports reparations for Blacks, but he also says that a lot of Blacks are rapists and thieves, and Whites should be careful about getting involved with them. He often uses typical pro-Black rhetoric when describing Blacks and talks about how horribly we have treated them.
At the same time, when I was dating Black women 25 years ago, he said, "You're sick! How could you date a Black woman! You're a nigger lover!" And then he laughed.
He describes himself as a racist, but only towards Jews, Hispanics and South Indians. He thinks Whites, especially Northern European Whites, are superior to all other groups. The guy's basically a Nordicist and he's been known to read proto-Nazi literature by German authors. He has no amimosity towards anyone else.
He's furious about being made a minority in his home state and he blames Hispanics. He's mad at South Indians for "taking over all the 7-11's and gas stations." He's dated Amerindian and Japanese women. At the same time, he has Hispanic and even illegal alien friends. Nevertheless, he also openly states that Hispanics are an inferior race and that Amerindians are stupid.
Let's look at one more guy.
He's 48 years old and White. This guy who used to go on and on about the need for White people to procreate, as they are going extinct. He's also very racist against Blacks, as he used to work as a security guard and then a prison guard, and has lots of White cop friends, and White cops in California are extremely racist against Blacks, even if most others aren't.
He loves to quote statistics about Blacks and crime, and once, when I had bad experiences dating some Black women, he chided me and that's what you get for associating with Black people. At the same time, this guy dated a Black woman a while back (!) and he married a Vietnamese woman a few years ago and just fathered a Hapa kid (!). Does any of this make sense? Not really.
I'm sorry if people find these folks "incoherent on race", but that's just the way a lot of people are out here. Race is a complicated subject and it twists minds in some pretty interesting ways. That's what makes humans and life so interesting.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.