Category Archives: Culture

The Rich Only Support Democracy when the Elected State Serves their Class Interests, Otherwise They Try to Overthrow It

Zamfir: Thanks Robert. I appreciate the site, and it’s nice to feel welcome.

Obviously one problem in discussing this is that terms like ‘left’ and ‘right’ or ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ have been given all kinds of different meanings. If economic conservatism is identified with free market ideology then I’m pretty ambivalent about that, at best. And if it’s identified with support for whatever this internationalist economic system is that we have now, I’m against it.

I find it very weird that people who are conservative about social and cultural issues often support “economic conservatism” of that kind. It’s so clear that these things are incompatible! Anyway I certainly have no problem with socialism per se. I would only disagree with certain versions, or cases where I believe socialism ends up being destructive of healthy families and cultures (in much the same way that capitalism can be).

As for democracy I’m not sure what I think about it. I think I’m a reactionary to the extent that I don’t believe that democracy, or any other specific system or procedure, is always good or always essential to a good society. My sense is that some democracies or kinds of democracy are fine, while others are really bad. It all depends on some many factors aside from the system or procedure itself.

I do want a society where the interests of most people, including the poor, are taken into account fairly. But I don’t see any reason why that could never happen in a non-democratic state. Or, more precisely, for anything that’s good about some democracies, I don’t see why certain non-democratic regimes couldn’t also have those good things; it would all depend on other factors such as the culture and history of the people, their typical behavior and beliefs, etc.

So I guess I’d support coups against democratic regimes in some cases–though things would have to be pretty bad–and also against non-democratic regimes in some cases. I don’t think coups are always bad. (In fact, that’s one thing that seems silly about a lot of rigid ‘conservative’ ideology–the wish to preserve order and the status quo no matter how terrible it’s become…)

You say the rich don’t support democracy. I wonder if that’s true. Maybe they don’t support the ideal of democracy, for the reasons you mentioned. But, again, bearing in mind the looseness of terminology here, they sure do seem to support systems that we normally call “democratic”. Is the US a democracy in your view?

Are England or Ireland or Canada democracies? If so, then I don’t agree that the rich never want democracy. My sense is that they long ago figured out how to manipulate these kinds of systems to get the results they want. They manage the perceptions and values of the masses so that they always end up “freely choosing” the same garbage that the elites wanted all along.

A good question is whether this is an inevitable feature of democracy. (I don’t know the answer.) It could be that in any feasible form of democracy, no matter how close it gets to the ideal, you end up with powerful interests rigging the process to maximize their own wealth and power. And I don’t like that, because I want the interests of ordinary people to be taken into account. Ironically, then, I’m skeptical about many forms of democracy because I think the masses deserve to have a say.

So I’d be against democracy in cases where ‘democratic’ systems are hijacked by elites and used against the people. That’s what’s happening in most of the western world, I’d say. Not to say I’d support a coup in this situation–and certainly not if the point of the coup was to install an even more extreme form of exploitation. But I’m not entirely sure what to say about democracy. I think the reactionary critique has merit. (But then, don’t communists also criticize democracy for roughly similar reasons?)

The Communist view is that seeking power peacefully would be a great idea except the ruling classes will never allow it to happen. They say that power never gives up without a fight, and I believe that they are correct. Nevertheless, most Communists support Venezuela, Nicaragua and only leftwing democratic countries. But the Communists would say, “Look what happens why you try to take power peacefully. You get Nicaragua, Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, Paraguay, Honduras, Haiti, and even Argentina.”

The ruling class will just overthrow the democratic Left state any way they can, always using anti-democratic means to do so. That’s why Lenin called people who supported the peaceful road to socialism “parliamentary cretins.” He thought it was a great idea but it would never work because the rich would never allow the Left to take power peacefully.

The Communist view is also that you never have democracy under capitalism anyway, as the capitalists and the rich always ending ruling the state one way or another through all sorts of means. And yes, the rich and the capitalists always take over all the media in any capitalist country as you said, they use it to shape the view of the people to support the class politics of the rich. Such support being called false consciousness.

Gramsci said that the ruling class took over the entire culture in capitalist countries and brainwashed the masses into supporting the project of the rich. They did this via cultural hegemony. Marx said that the culture of the rich is always the popular culture in any capitalist country. So the ruling class turns all of us into “little rich people” or “little capitalists” to support their project. They brainwash us into thinking we are the same class as the rich and that we are all capitalists ourselves, so we should support Capital. These are lies, but most Americans are easily fooled.

Ralph Nader called this “going corporate” or “thinking corporate.” He says that in the US, most people adopt the mindset of the corporations and think of themselves are part of the corporate structure whether they are or not. If everyone is part of the corporate structure, then what’s good for corporations is good for all of us, which is the project of the Republican Party, neoliberalism everywhere, the Latin American rich, etc. It’s a big fat lie, but people want to be rich and a lot of workers want to think of themselves are busy little capitalist money-making, go-getter, can-do, Bossterist entrepreneurs because it seems to cool to own your own business.

And the Communists would call this false consciousness and their argument would be that under capitalism, most people adopt false consciousness.

I think in the US, the rich see the tide coming and the rule of the rich is going to end so they want to lock in as much of the state as possible by stacking the courts, gutting the safety net, massive tax cuts that will be impossible to get rid of, and that Constitutional Convention they are two states away from getting where they want to rewrite the whole US Constitution to lock in rule by the rich for as long as possible. The rich see the writing on the wall. That’s why they came up with the computerized elections scam, so they could steal elections as long as people kept voting against the rich.

The gerrymandering of districts now makes it almost impossible to get rid of Republican majorities on state representatives in the House and in Senators and Assemblymen in the states. It’s all locked in.

So as the rich saw the tide turning and demographics moving against them, they instituted a full court press to do all sorts of extremely anti-democratic stuff to stay in power. If the people would just vote for them anyway, they would not have to do that, but apparently most Americans have now turned away from the politics of the rich, so the rich will have to lie, cheat, and steal to stay in power from now on.

Also they elected Donald Trump, by far the most corrupt, authoritarian and even outright fascist leader this country has ever had. And this follows too. Whenever there is a popular movement against the rich and the capitalists, the rich and the capitalists always, always, always resort of fascism to stay in power. This has been proven endlessly over time, even in Europe. Trotsky had some great things to say about this. Check out “Thermidor.” Trotsky truly understood what fascism was all about. It is a desperate last ditch move by the ruling class to seize power in the face of an uprising from the Left.

The rich and the capitalists are determined to stay in power, by hook or by crook, by any means necessary, and they will lie, cheat, steal and kill as many people as they have to just to keep the Left out of power. They simply will not allow the Left to rule. They must rule and if they are out of  power, they will use any antidemocratic means to get power back.

Which is the story of the CIA, the Pentagon and 100% of US foreign policy since 1945 and even before then. Read Samuel Butler.

I mean, we on the Left generally allow the Right to take power if they do so democratically. Sure they destroy everything like they always do, but most of us are committed to the democratic means of seeking power. Even most Communist parties will not take up arms against any rightwing government, saying they prefer to seek power by peaceful means. Typically, the CP will issue a statement that the nation is not in a revolutionary situation right now. There are objective conditions under which a nation is said to be in a revolutionary situation. I’m sure you can recall a few. It is then and only then that most CP’s will go underground and issue a call to take up arms.

Frankly, almost all Left insurgencies postwar were defensive. The Left allowed the Right to take power and then the Right started running around killing people. Usually the Left sat there for a while and let themselves get killed before taking up power. I know the Viet Cong just sat there from 1954-1960 while the rightwing Vietnamese government ran amok in the countryside, murdering 80,000 Communists in six years. They kept asking the North Vietnamese for permission to take up arms, but the North kept denying it.

The Colombian, Salvadoran and Guatemalan guerrillas only took up guns after the state had been running about murdering them unarmed for years. The Salvadoran guerrillas said they got tired of sitting in their homes waiting for the rightwing state to come kill them, and they decided that if the state was going to come kill them anyway, they might as well pick up a gun and defend themselves. They also took up arms because the Right kept stealing elections by fraud.

The Right had cut off all methods of seeking power peacefully, so the Left picked up guns. The message is if you elect a leftwing government, sooner or later the Right will overthrow it and then there will be a reign of terror where many Leftists will be murdered. Knowing that, if you were a Leftist in some country, would you not be afraid to put the Left in power knowing you stood a good chance of being murdered once the inevitable rightwing coup took place?

The Colombian and Honduran governments only stay in power by killing people. Lots of people. The Greek Communists only took up arms after the government had been killing them for some time.

Also once a Left government is overthrown by the rich and the capitalists, the new Rightist government institutes a reign of terror where they slaughter the defeated Left for many years. This went on for decades after 1954 in Guatemala, and it goes on still today. After Aristide was overthrown, the rightwing government murdered 3,000 of his supporters.

After Allende was overthrown, Pinochet murdered 15,000 people over a decade and a half. A threat from the Left prompted the Indonesian government to fake a Left coup and murder 1 million Communists in a couple of months. Even before the Korean War broke out, from 1948-1950, the South Korean government killed hundreds of thousands of Communists in the South.

As they withdrew when the North attacked, the South Koreans killed South Korean Communists everywhere they went. After the fascist coup in Argentina, the government decimated the Left, murdering 30,000 mostly unarmed supporters of the Left. The same thing happened in Bolivia with the Banzer Plan when Hugo Banzer took power after the tin miners briefly sought power. The new rightwing government in Brazil is already starting to murder members of the former Left ruling party. They’re not going to stop.

After the fascist coup in Ukraine, the Communist Party was outlawed and many of its members were murdered. War was declared on labor unions. Workers in one union were chained to a heater inside the building and the building was set on fire.

The party supported by half the population (the Russian speakers and their supporters) the Party of Regions, was outlawed, a number of its deputies were murdered and there were attempts to murder the leader of the party, lastly by setting his house on fire which set his neighbor’s house on fire instead. He fled to Russia. Now half the population and all of the Russian speakers had not party to represent them, which is why they took up arms. They were locked out of power.

Leave a comment

Filed under American, Americas, Argentina, Asia, Brazil, Capitalism, Capitalists, Caribbean, Central America, Chile, Colombia, Conservatism, Culture, Economics, El Salvador, Eurasia, Europe, Fascism, Geopolitics, Government, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, History, Honduras, Indonesia, Journalism, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Marxism, Modern, NE Asia, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Revolution, Russia, Scum, SE Asia, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, South America, South Korea, Ukraine, US, US Politics, USA, Vietnam, Vietnam War, War

Pajeet My Son

511

How Internet memes are born. Designated. Designated. Designated.

2030. India superpower! Poo is in the loo! Designated shitting streets now designated shitting highways!

Shining India! Jai bharat! Bharat mata, we bow down before you.

6 Comments

Filed under Asia, Culture, India, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, South Asia

Designated Shitting Streets

6f6

Designated shitting streets. Designated. Designated. Designated.

How Internet memes are born.

4 Comments

Filed under Asia, Culture, India, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, South Asia

America, Moral Beacon of Humanity

27994297_10106209950860617_735700233_n

Thank God for the Cultural Left! It’s not leading to the degeneration of society or anything like that. It’s just a collection of extremely healthy alternative lifestyles, sexual orientations and gender identities. Don’t kink shame! Let everyone do what they want! What could possibly go wrong if we do that?

It sure is comforting knowing that we in the West have the moral upper hand against those scummy Muzzies and Russkies and Greeks. American exceptionalism makes sense because we are better. We are the shining city on the hill, the one all of humanity looks up to for progress and moral guidance.

Can you believe those Arab men make their women wear bags over their bodies? How puritanical. Wouldn’t it be so much better if those Arab chicks just strolled around naked in the hot sun. I’m sure that wouldn’t cause any problems or anything like that.

Face it folks, morality is passe! Three cheers for the Cultural Left!

2 Comments

Filed under American, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Left, Scum, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Women

The Intelligence of Hispanics

The Hispanic IQ is 90. I am sure you want to say that’s low, but the IQ of the average human is 89. So if you think 90 IQ people are stupid, then you have to think your average human on Earth is a complete idiot. And I suppose some might like to make that case.

Having lived around these people, the first thing I will say about them is they are not stupid at all. But even though they are not dumb, on the other hand, they are not real smart either. It’s a very average type of human, even on the low side of average. The main thing about them is their ignorance. Hispanics are frighteningly, terrifyingly ignorant. Why this is, I have no idea.

Around here your average Black person knows more about history, sociology, even psychology, and especially politics than the Hispanics do.  They Hispanics don’t know, and it seems like they don’t want to learn.

It is also interesting to note that the ignorance comes largely though not exclusively from Mexicans. A lot of them have told me that they only had 2-5 years of education. A 40 year old woman told me her kids only had 5 years of education. The second generation who are born here act worse than the immigrants, and they are just as ignorant, if not more. At least the Mexicans seem to have some desire to learn. The 2nd Generation doesn’t even want to learn anything. They are very happy with empty heads.

The Mesoamerican immigrants know a lot more about politics than the Mexicans do. In particular the ones who went through revolutions such as Nicaragua and El Salvador know quite a bit about politics.

One strange thing is that the people you meet from South America seem a lot smarter and especially less ignorant that the Mesoamericans. I’m not sure why that is, but the culture of Spain is still very prominent down there, and that culture revered learning, men of letters, etc. The women down there actually love intellectual men because it is a sign that you are upper class or have an upper class mindset.

They’re certainly intelligent enough to function and more or less run a metropolis. It will work so much better if there are a few Whites around to keep the lights on and whatnot. We have had a couple of towns around here that have gone 100% Hispanic, no Whites anymore, and it is not a good thing. It’s not even a decline. It’s more of a complete collapse.

Does this mean they are stupid? I’m not sure about that.

A better argument is that when the Whites all leave, and you have a city that’s 100% Hispanic, Mexico takes over. It just becomes another town in Mexico. Ever been to Mexico? If you have you will understand what I am talking about. If you want to know the particulars, there’s no money anymore, local government collapses, nothing works and there’s no money to fix stuff, gangs take over very badly, and in particular, some heavy-duty Mexican style corruption rears its head.

When Mexicans come to the US, which is fine by me, they really need to leave Mexico behind. Bringing Mexico with them doesn’t work.

5 Comments

Filed under Americas, Culture, Education, Hispanics, Immigration, Intelligence, Latin America, Mexicans, Mexico, North America, Politics, Psychology, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sociology, South America, Urban Decay, Urban Studies, USA, Whites

Paranoia, Aggression, Victimhood, and Assimilation: The Dilemma of the Jews

If you want to find out if someone is an anti-Semite, the last person you should ask is a Jew. This is because Jews see probably 10X more antisemites than actually exist. In other words, they’re paranoid.

One wonders why one would want to think that people who like you actually hate you or go about worrying all the time that many people in your day to day life surreptitiously hate you. If you go to a therapist with symptoms like that, you get diagnosed with a mental disorder. It’s called paranoia. When it gets very bad, it becomes Paranoid Personality Disorder and it gets even worse in a lot of psychoses, especially Paranoid Schizophrenia, Manic Psychosis, and Delusional Disorder.

If paranoia is a mental illness, does that mean that most Jews are nuts? Maybe. I’d much rather call Jews crazy than evil. Besides, it’s a lot more accurate.

But one wonders why the need for the paranoia? It’s simple. The Jews are a tribe, a human tribe. Judaism and Jewishness is simple a manifestation of human ethnocentrism found in every tribe. All tribes are paranoid about all the other tribes and have an extremely elevated view of themselves that implies that they are either the best people on Earth, the only people on Earth, or the first people on Earth. Paranoia tends to go hand in hand with grandiosity. After all, if you are a measly nothing of a man, why would all of these powerful entities be plotting against you all the time. The only way you could have all these people out to get you is if you were pretty damned important!

People with low self-esteem are not usually paranoid. They assume people don’t like them, often correctly. At any rate “people don’t like me” is an anxiety process related to low self-self esteem, anxiety, guilt and high inhibition. The classic process is Social Phobia. Social phobics often feel that people don’t like them because they are inferior. But that’s not paranoia!

Paranoids, instead, go far beyond the notion that people don’t like them. It’s so much worse than that. Paranoids believe that the people who don’t like you are actual enemies and they are plotting against you! And it’s associated with high self-esteem, not low self-esteem, and low levels of anxiety as opposed to high levels. Instead of anxiety and depression, the paranoid feels grandiosity and anger.

Now here we tie into the Jews.

Look a the description I just wrote of how paranoids act and feel and tell me that doesn’t sound exactly like some of the negative stereotypes of Jews.

Why be paranoid?

The Jews are paranoid because paranoia is the only thing that keeps them going. In the Middle Ages, they actually built some of those ghettos themselves in order to keep their people away from the Gentiles. In 1800, a proper Orthodox Jew would not only not dine with a Gentile. He would not even take tea with one! The Yemeni Jews are like this to this very day.

For centuries in the ghetto, the rabbis preached how the Gentiles hated them and how the Jews had to keep away from the Gentiles. In Medieval Spain, if a Jewish woman had sex with a Gentile, her community would punish her by cutting off her nose!

The Jews are remarkably inbred. They have existed for 2,000 years in the Diaspora and they are still remarkably pure. A good way to keep your tribe pure is to preach that all of the outsiders are evil people who hate you. Of course you don’t want to mingle with them, much less have sex with them.

So the Jews actually owe their very existence to centuries of paranoia along with all the attendant emotions that go along with it – grandiosity towards themselves, anger and hostility (not anxiety) towards non- Jews and basically aggressive, belligerent, chip on the shoulder mindset, which clinical paranoids also have.

All paranoids are victims. Not only that, but they are innocent victims. Innocent victimhood is a necessary state for the paranoia to develop in the first place. The Jews also are perennial victims. They are supposedly victims of centuries of oppression everywhere they  have gone and the future only holds the same if not worse. And of course the Jews are always innocent. They got thrown out of all those countries through no fault of their own. They dindu nuffin. Those Gentiles were just being irrational or insane and downright evil. Pure evil. Pure evil for no reason at all, the worst sort of evil of them all.

Hence it follows that Jews have a need to be victims. Hang around Jews long enough and it will become apparent that they actually desire and cherish their victimhood. In fact, in my opinion, victimhood is the most precious thing a Jew has. One thing you don’t do is take away a Jews sense of victimhood. It seems they will almost kill to keep that.

So what happens if you take away the paranoia and sense of victimhood from the Jews? Simple. The Jews go extinct. The only reason they persisted all this time was due to their hatred for non-Jews. The day the Jews stop hating non-Jews and seeing themselves as victims of all-encompassing anti-Semitism is the day the Jews start going out. Because once that happens, the Jews will have no reason not to assimilate and marry non-Jews.

And this is the Catch-22 of Jewish assimilation. And in fact some of these very arguments have been used by Jews themselves in the centuries-old debate about assimilation.

3 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Culture, Jews, Mental Illness, Personality Disorders, Psychology, Psychopathology, Psychotic Disorders, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, The Jewish Question

How Many Blacks Are Part of Ghetto Culture?

Jm8: It could perhaps be, in part, that Black (and South Asian) children’s scores rise as they get older and thus become more assimilated into mainstream British culture. In the US, many Blacks never really or fully assimilate into the mainstream culture, but remain ghettoized/maintain a ghettoized culture, culturally if not geographically/physically.

~50% of Blacks Seem To Be Part of Ghetto / Rap Culture

Yep. A lot of Blacks are part of ghetto / rap type culture. Looking at the ones on Hi5, I would say that 50% of the Black women of all ages on there are caught up in ghetto/rap culture.

And some of the ones who seem like they are not are actually deep into it. A young woman and I clicked like on each other. She gave me her #. I called it and some ghetto guy answered and gave her the phone. She lived in Inglewatts, I mean Inglewood. She was a whore. She wanted to charge me $100 to fuck her.

Her photo was the most charming, sweet, darling, little Miss Princess photo with those Snapchat dog ears on it. I could have sworn she was completely outside of that bullshit culture. Instead she was dead in the middle of it.

Ghetto Culture Is Not the Only Black Culture

Alpha said that ghetto culture is not the only Black culture. The thing is that’s the only Black culture that I know of.

But then I met a woman from the South on Hi5, a Black woman. She was from a small town in North Carolina. She had a lot of photos. Every person in her photos was Black. It’s hard to tell by photos, but everyone in the photos seemed like a pretty good person.

But this was not ghetto culture. I’m not sure what it was, but it was definitely a Black culture. I am not sure I would want to be a part of it because everyone was Black. It had a heavy dose of Protestant religion. The woman was a very good person, happy and optimistic. I’ve never really seen a Black culture like this, but I have heard that there is a culture like this in small towns in the South. It’s actually not a bad culture at all, and it’s Black as night.

One wonders if the Black professionals who went to Obama’s church (Reverend Wright) in Chicago would be part of a Black culture? Do they really act that much different from White people though? Do they really have a separate culture? I can see how it would be different in some respects, but not greatly.

Are the wealthy Blacks in Baldwin Hills, Ladera Heights, etc. part of a Black culture? Do they mostly associate with other Blacks? I think some of them might be part of a Black culture.

I met a woman on a dating site recently. She was a Black businesswoman / singer / entertainer from LA who had some money. She seemed to be part of a Black culture. She was very involved with Tina Turner going back decades and apparently used to tour with her, including to Europe. It seemed like most of the people around Turner were Black. I suppose you could call that a Black culture. It was not a lot different from White culture, but it was different in some ways.

If Black people mostly hang out with other Blacks, is that a Black culture de facto?

8 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Culture, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sociology, USA

The Truth is Racist: John Kelly Attacked as a Racist for Telling the Truth

The SJW Culture (face it, SJW’s control our entire culture now) is ripping General John Kelley to pieces for telling the truth about immigrants in an interview with NPR. When asked about Jeff Sessions’ hard-line anti-immigrant policy by NPR, Kelly said:

“Many illegal immigrants are not bad people…but they’re also not people that would easily assimilate into the United States. They’re overwhelmingly rural people. In the countries they come from, fourth-, fifth-, sixth-grade educations are kind of the norm. They don’t speak English, obviously that’s a big thing. They don’t integrate well; they don’t have skills.”

Let’s take this apart one by one here:

“Illegal immigrants are not the type of people who would easily assimilate into the US.”

That is simply flat out true. At the very least, it is perfectly rational opinion. The other opinion, that they are the type of people who easily integrate into the US, is the one that needs to prove their point as there seems to be little evidence that this is true. I live with these people. They are all around me. They brought Mexico here with them. They never left home. Their children are a lot more Americanized, but the immigrants themselves are not assimilated at all and have no desire to assimilate. They live in communities where everyone speaks Spanish and follows a Mexican culture little different from Mexico’s, so there’s no need to assimilate anyway.

They’re overwhelmingly rural people. In the countries they come from, fourth-, fifth-, sixth-grade educations are kind of the norm.

100% fact. That’s a factual statement. How can a factual statement be racist?

We are importing vast numbers of essentially uneducated peasants from the 3rd World. Why anyone thinks this is a good idea or how these people will be a net benefit to our country to any way is simply beyond me. A 1st World country has no sensible reason to import vast numbers of rural 3rd World peasants with a 5th grade education into their country. Why the vast majority of the media culture in the US think this is a good idea is beyond me.

 

4 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Culture, Education, Hispanics, Illegal, Immigration, Left, Mexicans, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Ridiculousness, Scum, Social Problems, Sociology, USA

Mexicans, a Portrait of a Depoliticized People

Mexicans in their own country and in the US are profoundly depoliticized and do not know their ass from a hole in the ground politically, for which I blame that awful fake revolutionary party in power for decades. It is true that the party preserved many good progressive structures, but they didn’t go further from that.

It’s hard to call yourselves a revolutionary party in a land where many people complete only 2nd-5th grade education.

I meet Mexicans like this all the time aged 20-40. Some told me that their kids never went to school past 5th grade. It costs money to go to school down there, and many people cannot afford it, so their kids only get a few years’ schooling. This is happening to this very day. Many rural schools are defunded and have no money to pay teachers, so many students drop out in the 2nd grade or so to go work out in the fields.

Sound like a revolutionary party?

Yes, there is free medical care and it is decent enough. You might have to wait in line all day, but you will still get in, and they will treat you. As with everything else, it is horribly defunded.

Sound like a revolutionary party?

28% of Mexican sewage flows into rivers untreated.

Sound like a revolutionary party?

The ejido system brought by the Mexican Revolution is great and has prevented another revolution, but it was never properly funded. Most land in Mexico is owned by the state and divided into ejidos. Anyone who cannot make a living in the cities can always go to some ejido and join as a worker and work the land. At least you will end up with enough food to eat. However, some recent administrations have started to privatize the ejido system, which will be catastrophic for Mexicans.

The oil company remains nationalized, a source of pride for most Mexicans. I remember gas was damn cheap down there. There was only one type of gas station, but they sure sold gas cheap. However, there have been recent moves to privatize the oil company, which have run in to a lot of opposition. I believe it was privatized under Benito Juarez.

 

Because I am a provocateur, I like to mess around with the local Mexicans and tell them I am a radical. I flat out tell them that I am a Communist and a revolutionary. They often look a bit puzzled, but they are not angry. They often seem curious and seem to think that I am on their side. Then I make a fist and say “Revolution! Benito Juarez! Pancho Villa! Emilio Zapata!”

Everyone is very happy and cheers me on. These are the heroes of the Mexican Revolution and afterwards and frankly, all of them were out and out Leftists. So the heroes of the Mexican working class for almost a century have been full blown Leftists. I would say there is a lot of underground and unconscious support for Leftism among working class Mexicans and of course Salvadorans. Mexicans simply had their revolutionary spirit co-opted by that fake revolutionary party which started out with great motives but got very corrupted and bureaucratized over time

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture, Education, Government, Health, Hispanics, Labor, Left, Marxism, Mexicans, Mexico, North America, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Revolution, Social Problems, Sociology, USA

Why Do So Many Successful and Wise People Believe an IQ Test Doesn’t Mean Anything?

Answered on Quora.

It’s an Americanism. Americans hate the idea of intelligence in general. Supposedly everything is down to dumb luck or especially hard work. We believe that anyone can do anything if they only try. It is part of a mindset called “boosterism.” Want to get a college degree? You can get one if you work very hard! How about a Masters? If you work even harder, you can get a Masters!

Americans simply do not wish to believe that anyone is innately more intelligent than anyone else.

Of course that is an insane idea, and it is rooted in the ferocious anti-intellectualism in American life. It’s been here from the start. Check out De Tocqueville in Democracy in America. He said the same thing in 1850. Richard Hofstadter said the same thing in a seminal book, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life a century later. In between there was H. L. Mencken saying the same thing.

Our anti-intellectualism is actually quite pitiful, but we pride ourselves on it. Why we are proud of being stupid is beyond me!

So an “Americanism” has developed that success is all down to grit and hard work, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, Horatio Algerism, etc.

You don’t need a high IQ to be successful in America. Many successful businessmen have average IQ’s. Oglivy, the most famous ad-man who ever lived, had a 93 IQ. No one could believe it, so he kept taking the tests over and over, and he kept getting the same score.

A lot of high IQ people do dumb stuff, are social clods, and ruin their lives with idiotic behavior. Here we see the confusion of IQ and wisdom. These high IQ people who do this lack wisdom. But IQ tests don’t test for wisdom at all! It’s an intelligence test, not a wisdom test, and the two things are not the same.

In addition, we all know many average IQ people who are immanently sensible and have great common sense, street smarts, and social and people skills and seem to breeze through life this way. Many average IQ people are very wise.

Other than hatred for intelligence (which is IQ-hating is all about), another reason is liberalism. Unfortunately, different races score differently on IQ tests. For instance, Whites score 15 points higher than Blacks on IQ tests. Liberals believe in equality, so this result can’t be correct. It comes up with the wrong answer.

Instead we had a huge move by liberals to say that IQ tests didn’t matter, they don’t test intelligence, they only measure test-taking schools or book smarts (which is bullshit, but everyone believes it). It was also feared that if this got out, it could increase racism against Blacks. Also, people would not want to spend money to help Blacks on social programs if it was believed they were innately dumber. If they’re born dumb, why bother educating them? Waste of money.

To an extent, the liberals are correct to worry about how this information will be used. Most White racists are strong believers in IQ tests and differential intelligence among the races, and they use this to justify their racism all the way down to saying Blacks are too stupid to live alongside Whites, so Whites need a separate country. Almost all White racists are Libertarians because they think Blacks are innately stupid, so any money spent on them is wasted.

Due to all of this, a proven scientific fact, that Whites are smarter than Blacks on average, is disparaged and said to be a vicious racist lie. Merely stating this fact is sufficient to get one pilloried as a racist. You can have your career destroyed. James Watson’s career was ruined because he stated the truth about IQ and race.

This is quite pitiful because it shows that liberals in some cases have the same hatred of science that conservatives do. When you can be called a racist and have your career destroyed for stating a proven scientific fact, you are living in a pretty pitiful and truth-hating society.

Leave a comment

Filed under American, Anti-Racism, Blacks, Civil Rights, Culture, Intelligence, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Political Science, Psychology, Race Realism, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Science, Social Problems, Sociology, USA, White Racism, Whites