Category Archives: Ethics

Lousy Arguments the Left Uses to Counter “Racist Facts”

Below is a list of the “racist facts” that I listed in a previous post.

Blacks Have Made Much Progress in Ameliorating Black Problems and  Discrepancies

 

Yes, Blacks have closed the achievement gap by 1/3, which shows it was not purely genetic. However, 2/3 of the gap remains. Blacks in the UK have closed the achievement gap completely according to scores on the latest high school achievement tests.

Yes, the Black crime rate can go down and has gone down dramatically in the last 25 years. But that occurred at the same time as the crime rate for everyone dropping dramatically.  It’s definitely true that you can have large swings in the Black crime rate. Black violent crime is down 40%. That wouldn’t be the case if it was all down to genes.

Nevertheless, crime reduction becomes an arms race as the White rate declines concurrently with the Black rate so the Black 8X discrepancy remains. Yes, there are Black societies in Africa with over 1 million members who have homicide rates as low as the Japanese. This shows that a high Black crime and violent crime is not a genetic inevitability. An excellent environment which does not occur naturally very often can wipe out the entire Black tendency towards crime and violence (and I believe it is a genetic tendency). The problem is that replicating these “superenvironments” seems to be quite difficult.

The Black IQ gap has closed significantly among Black children, among whom it has closed by 40%, and in places like Barbados and Bermuda, where it has closed by 50%. Nevertheless a significant gap remains. Blacks have closed the standardized test score gap in high school in the UK. Such scores can be seen as proxies for IQ.

The Black single parent rate was quite low in the 1950’s when 80% of Black children lived with a mother and father. So single parenthood is not a genetic inevitability.

There are wealthy Black areas like Baldwin Hills and Ladera Heights that reportedly have low crime rates. They are the opposite of rundown, slummy, blighted, dangerous Hellholes. Apparently if you get a lot of wealthy Blacks in one place, they can create a well-functioning metropolis.

However, in general, it seems that not a whole lot can be done to ameliorate the Black problems and discrepancies below. This is why most of the people talking about such things resort to extreme solutions such as bringing back Jim Crow and legal discrimination or forming a separate White state. They advocate such extreme solutions  because those are the only real ways to deal with the problems below.  The problem here is that the solution is immoral. Immoral solutions are not acceptable no matter the problem.

Why Bother Writing about “Racist Facts?”

If there’s no solution, and if writing about this just gets me called racist, makes Blacks and liberals hate me, and stimulates a lot of White racism, why bother to write about this stuff unless I want to use these facts as a stick to beat Black people with? See what I mean? That’s why I don’t bother to write about these things. There’s no way to fix them, and all writing about them does is cause a lot of bad vibes, exacerbate hostility and racism in society, and make even more people hate me. Why do it?

Bad Arguments Used by the Left to Counter “Racist Facts”

Nevertheless, the Left still has no arguments or very poor arguments for all of the facts below.  I would like to point out first of all that the Left gets away with calling all of the above facts racist because they say they are lies.

Even things like “Black schools tend to perform more poorly,” they will say is a lie because it’s a generalization. They will say, “Lots of Black students do very well in school, so that’s a racist lie!” I would like to point out first of all that the Left gets away with calling all of the above facts racist because they say they are lies. Even things like “Black schools tend to perform more poorly” they will say is a lie because it’s a generalization. They will say, “Lots of Black students do very well in school, so that’s a racist lie!” The rest of them, they will just say they are not true.

I will list the previously stated facts below along with the bad arguments that liberals use to try to refute them. I would like to point out that all of these liberal rejoinders are very bad arguments. All are illogical or do not even attempt to counter the original statement. And in general, they rely in a huge way on all sorts of logical fallacies.

  •    Black people are less intelligent than Whites as measured accurately by IQ tests. They will say that’s a lie.
  •     Black people impose considerable costs on society. They will say that’s a lie. White people impose costs on society too, so therefore the statement is a lie.
  •     Your average Hispanic has an IQ of 90. They will say that’s a lie.   
  •     Blacks commit 8X more crime than Whites. They will either say that’s a lie, or it’s due to poverty (which means it’s still true) or that Whites commit just as much crime except they commit corporate crime.
  •     Blacks are 13% of the population but commit over half the violent crime. They will say that’s a lie, or resort to the poverty non-argument, or talk about Whites and corporate crime, imperialism, or White historical crimes like settler-colonialism or slavery.
  •     Large cities with high percentages of Black people tend to be slummy, dangerous, rundown, blighted hellholes. They will ask you to define those terms, say there are nice areas in all of those cities, say it is due to discrimination (which means it’s still a fact), or say White cities are slummy too.
  •     Blacks tend to be more impulsive than Whites. They will say that’s a lie and demand evidence. Never mind the candy bar test originally done in the Caribbean and now replicated ~15 times.
  •     80% of Black kids are born to a single mother. They will say that’s because of racism or because Whites took all the jobs away.
  •     Many Black men do not stick around and take care of their children. Same thing. Racism makes them do it, or Whites stole all the jobs.
  •     Most prison rape is Black on White. Almost none is the other way around. They will say it’s a lie and demand proof. Or they will bring up some weird case of a White raping a Black and say it’s a lie because Whites rape Blacks too.
  •     Blacks have quite high rates of STD’s. They will say Whites get STD’s too or it’s due to poverty or racism (which means it’s still true).
  •     Heavily Black schools tend to perform poorly. First they will say it’s not true, then they will say it’s due to poverty and racism.
  •     Blacks tend to be poorer than Whites at postponing instant gratification. See the candy bar studies. Liberals reject all of these studies as flawed even though they have been replicated 15 times.
  •     One of the main reasons so many Blacks get shot by police is because they commit so much crime. They will say that Whites commit crime too.
  •     Black people tend to be louder than White people. They will say that Whites are loud too and bring up some example of loud White people.

8 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Blacks, Civil Rights, Corrections, Crime, Discrimination, Education, Ethics, Hispanics, Intelligence, Law, Law enforcement, Left, Philosophy, Police Brutality, Psychology, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Social Problems, Sociology, Whites

Defend Your People

An African immigrant attacks a Chinese beggar. It goes on for 10 seconds before a patriotic young Chinese man jumps in to defend his people.

Everyone, please, always defend your people. It’s the honorable thing to do. A people who will not defend themselves are doomed to destruction.

21 Comments

Filed under Asia, Asians, Back to Africa Candidates, Blacks, China, Chinese (Ethnic), Ethics, Immigration, Philosophy, Race/Ethnicity, Regional

The Likable Homophobe: Are You One, and What Do You Tell People When You Choose Not to Spend Time with a Someone Because of Their Homosexuality?

Answered on Quora:

I believe that almost all straight men are homophobic on a certain level – and that level is that they hate homosexuality and especially the idea of doing it themselves. Dirty little secret – most straight men are completely straight in part because they think that engaging in homosexual acts is the worst thing on Earth, and this is why they don’t engage in them.

There is a problem when you say that engaging in homosexual acts is just fine. Now the question comes up, “Well, why don’t you do it, then?” And the ugly truth is that most straight men find that idea so horrific that they would rather die than do that. A number of straight men have told me that they would rather take a bullet than engage in a homosexual act. That’s how severe the revulsion is.

Now the question becomes if we think this type of sex is the worst thing on Earth, how can we accept it in other people? This is a bind, but many straight men solve the bind by saying that gay men cannot help being gay, so it’s therefore immoral to hate them. Others somehow say that it’s the worst thing on Earth for them to do it, but it’s ok if those gay guys want to do it.

As you can see, it is difficult for straight men to reconcile their extreme revulsion for gay sex with somehow managing to accept biological gay men for what they are.

The source of a lot of homophobia is simply this rooted in this very revulsion. This seems more common than religious objections from guys I have known.

And it is a problem once you say gay sex is fine. I assure that once a lot of straight men say there’s nothing wrong with gay sex (as we are supposed to think nowadays) that you are going to see a lot more opportunistic and recreational bisexuality among basically straight men. And my anecdotal evidence is that we are seeing just that right now.

It’s a bind. On the one hand, the revulsion causes a lot of homophobia, but on the other hand, once you say there’s nothing wrong with it, I assure you that a lot more guys will start doing it. There’s bad outcomes either way in my opinion.

The likable homophobe would be someone whose homophobia is simply limited to a desire not to associate or deal with gay men. If that’s the total extent of your homophobia, I don’t see the problem. Nobody has to associate or deal with anyone. Our associations are our personal choice and in a free society, everyone has a moral right to associate with whoever they wish.

In fact, I do not associate or even deal much with gay men myself. I don’t hate what they do if they can’t help it. On the other hand, I have had a lifetime of bad experiences with gay men, and I simply do not wish to deal with them anymore. Can someone tell me why this is wrong?

However, I have supported gay rights for decades and even endured accusations of being gay for supporting gay rights. To this day, I support a lot of gay political causes, and I am on the mailing list for gay political organizations. And I do participate in a lot of their campaigns.

In summary, if the total extent of your homophobia is not wishing to associate with gay men, I would say your homophobia is basically nothing and that level of mild homophobia indeed qualifies as a “likable homophobe.”

14 Comments

Filed under Ethics, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Philosophy, Politics, Sex

Okay, So I Don’t Have a Problem with Gays—in Fact, I’m Friends with a Few—but I Think Being Gay Is Unnatural, and I Don’t Support It. After All, Why Would I Support Something That I Am Not? Is This Bad?

Answered on Queera, I mean Quora. Good God, that site is gay. That must be one of the gayest sites on the Net. Full-on SJW on steroids, support for every bit of sexual and gender weirdness, perversions, deviants or weirdness. And then fanatically pro-Israel. That’s liberalism now. Fanatically pro-SJW to the point of insanity and then pro-Israel, ultra-reactionary on foreign policy and support for settler colonialism, imperialism and one of the worst countries on Earth.

The only thing SJW’s are liberal or Left on is their SJW bullshit. They’re not necessarily Left on anything else, especially foreign policy. I sure see a lot of Humanitarian Bomber Liberals among these SJW clowns.

SJW on Culture, neoconservative on foreign policy. Good Lord that is like the worst of the Left combined with the worst of the Right.

As a straight male, I understand that you are repulsed by male homosexuality. Most straight men experience revulsion at the thought of male homosexual sex. This is a perfectly natural way to feel.

Do you realize that the vast majority of males who openly identify as gay had absolutely no choice in the matter? Do you realize that there is no cure for male homosexuality? We have tried everything in the lab, and it cannot be fixed. We can’t even move men 10% in either direction after age 15. Male sexual orientation is set in stone by age 15 at least.

Look. These guys had no choice when it comes to being gay. They had no more choice than a blue eyed person chooses their blue eyes. And no matter how much they hate being gay, they will never be able to be straight or even bisexual.

I believe most straight men are homophobic at least in the sense of strong revulsion at the idea of gay sex. That’s completely normal. On the other hand, we have to be kind. Even if we are revolted by the idea of gay sex, we straight men must realize that these men did not choose to be gay, and there is nothing on Earth that can make them straight or even bi.

How can you hate someone over something they had no choice over? It’s like hating blond haired people for being blond.

Male homosexuality is indeed unnatural. There are about zero cases of preferential male homosexuality in the animal kingdom. There is no corollary in the animal world to males who are exclusively into males and not into females at all. Occasional homosexual dabbling which occurs in many species is absolutely not the same thing as purely gay human males. No comparison.

Male homosexuality is probably caused by hormonal fluctuations in utero. Sure it’s unnatural, but so are similar things like abnormal fingerprints, left-handedness, etc. We can handle it if ~3% of men are gay. The sky won’t fall.

Even though it is unnatural, these men did not choose this orientation. Therefore, even if it is unnatural, we straights have to accept these men fully and wish for them as happy and healthy of lives that we wish for ourselves. We don’t have to associate with gay men, make friends with them, or even talk to them. But complete rejection and blatant animus seem immoral for most any perspective of moral philosophy and from the doctrine of many religions. How many religions say you should hate people for things they cannot control? We must support them, even if from a distance.

You don’t have to jump up and down and cheer for gay men. But I think you ought to grant gay men full rights, all of the rights that you wish for yourself.

Here’s hoping you read this.

6 Comments

Filed under Civil Rights, Colonialism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Ethics, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Imperialism, Israel, Liberalism, Man World, Middle East, Neoconservatism, Philosophy, Political Science, Regional, Religion, Scum, Settler-Colonialism, Sex

Newsflash: Many Surgeons are Controlled Sociopaths

A new trick among surgeons is to take one operation and chopping it up into four smaller operations and double their money. There are actually popular seminars for surgeons showing them exactly how to do this. What a sleazy ripoff!

However, many other physicians frown on this scummy behavior. A physician who does this can lose their hospital privileges and get sued. When I worked as a paralegal, most of my time there was spent working on the defense of a sociopathic lowlife physician who did exactly that, and that was exactly what was happening to him. Local hospitals had revoked his privilege, and a number of his former patients were justifiably suing his crooked ass. And I was getting paid to legally defend this guy. It was morally trying to make a living defending slugs like this, but the money was good, and I sloughed off the guilt. Doubt if I would do it again though. Some jobs actually cause moral injury, in my opinion.

This arrogant dirtbag was suing the hospitals who had revoked his privileges! And we were helping him do that, and getting paid from his unlimited money supply in the process. The arrogance. I see narcissism, and it looks like some sociopathy too.

It’s not well known, but many physicians are controlled psychopaths. The field of surgery is full of them. And you wondered why so many surgeons have the reputation of being the worst arrogant physicians of them all. These professionals have learned to channel their sociopathy into quasi-legal avenues in order to become “legal criminals.” But these folks do a lot of damage. Look at our politicians corporate executives? Just how many are not controlled psychopaths?

4 Comments

Filed under Ethics, Health, Law, Medicine, Mental Illness, Narcissism, Operations, Personality, Personality Disorders, Philosophy, Psychology, Psychopathology, Scum, Sociopathy

Do Psychologists Make Their Patients Aware of the Diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder or Sociopathy?

I recently answered this question on Quora.

Do Psychologists Make their Patients Aware of the Diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder or Sociopathy?

These personality disorders seem to carry a lot of social stigma, therefore are patients made aware of their diagnosis or does the therapist just continue behavioral therapy to treat the symptoms rather than informing them of the diagnosis?

I am not a psychologist. I am a counselor. I only work with one disorder, OCD, and I can quite accurately diagnose that condition, I assure you. Nevertheless, I am not allowed to give out legal DSM diagnoses. However, I can obviously give out my opinion on a diagnosis. I can also tell the person my opinion on what they do not have. For instance, I have gotten many clients with OCD who have been misdiagnosed with some sort of psychosis. I am an expert at telling the two apart. I simply tell them that in my opinion, they are not psychotic. Then I tell them to fire your clinician and go get a new one that will recognize the difference between OCD and psychosis (many clinicians are very poor at telling these apart).

Other than OCD/psychosis, I also have to make differential dx on OCD/sociopathy, violent thoughts, etc., OCD/pedophilia, pedophilic thoughts, etc. and OCD/homosexuality. In a limited number of cases, I told clients that in my opinion, they did not have OCD but instead had some psychotic disorder, or sociopathic traits, or pedophilia, or that they were homosexuals. Most of this differential dx is pretty straightforward.

I have never had any narcissistic clients, God forbid clients with NPD. One thing nice about working with OCD clients is that they are usually very nice people. Not all of them, mind you. But if they are not nice, there is often some other reason, for instance, Borderline Personality Disorder in an OCD client could possibly make them impossibly vicious, cruel, unstable, not to mention extremely crazy, far crazier than any OCD sufferer ever gets.

OCD by its very nature strikes nice people. The fact that they are so nice, meek and kind is actually one of the main reasons that they have the disorder in the first place! For the most part, only nice people get it, and the nicer you are, the more likely you are to get it. I will leave it at that for the moment and give you a chance to think of why that might be. I know why but it goes beyond the scope of this post at the moment.

But in general, I never even give my opinion on other anxiety disorders or on any mood disorders or personality disorders. I only rarely see clients who have psychotic disorders, and the two that I have seen were already diagnosed. I also very rarely see people with personality disorders, and the few that I have seen were all females with Borderline PD diagnoses. I did see one woman for two sessions with obvious Borderline Personality Disorder, but I had not figured it out yet in the first session, and by the second session, I declined to diagnose her. She has already been diagnosed by a psychiatrist from afar anyway. So apparently I am guilty of failing to dx a Borderline PD client.

The session was about her OCD, not her BPD and she was very nice through the whole session. It would have ruined the whole thing if I told her she had BPD, and I doubt if she would have accepted it anyway. At any rate, I am not allowed to give legal dx’s anyway, so it’s apparently proper for me not to diagnose someone!

That only comes up if there is differential diagnosis. I simply say that I not only can I not legally give these out but that I am not qualified to work with any condition other than OCD, which I can actually work very well with. If they want me to work on their depression or whatever, I tell them that I have no expertise or training in that area so I can guarantee nothing and it would be similar to talking to a friend or family member.

If I were able to give out diagnoses, I think I would simply give them out in most every case. Possibly if it might make a suicidal patient go over the edge, I might decline to give one out. But I will disagree with the clinicians below. In my opinion, physicians and other medical professionals in addition to all licensed clinicians should give out whatever diagnosis is appropriate. I feel it is a moral matter. The patient or client is simply owed a diagnosis on the part of the clinician or MD and I feel it would be remiss of the clinician or MD not to tell the patient what is wrong with them, and I mean everything that is wrong with them.

This is just my personal opinion and I believe there no ethical rules on the subject. Also I respect the clinicians below for not giving out diagnoses in cases where it would not be helpful. I simply feel that this is a case were morals or even the categorical imperative trumps pragmatics or even common sense.

2 Comments

Filed under Anxiety Disorders, Borderline, Ethics, Health, Medicine, Mental Illness, Narcissistic, OCD, Personality Disorders, Philosophy, Psychology, Psychopathology, Psychotherapy, Psychotic Disorders

Honesty Is Overrated

Let me tell you a story. For the first five years I lived here, my landlord always acted like she hated me, and I just smiled and pretended to like her back. I cannot afford to make this woman mad. I cannot afford to be sincere with her. In my case, sincerity would have gotten me thrown out of this place long ago. Sincerity, like honestly, is overrated.

For instance, in the US we have this idiot attitude that we are supposed to be honest all the time and never lie. Not only is that unrealistic, but in a lot of cases, it’s downright stupid. In many cases, the only smart thing to do is lie. Forced with lying and telling the truth, lying is clearly the smarter case in many situations. Being honest in those situations is sort of suicidal. You are deliberately causing problems in your life just to carry the torch for Sincerity. What’s the point? Is your name Jesus? Why do you have to be honest all the time?

The Japanese are very smart about this, and much of their culture is based on strategic lying. They often lie in order to be polite. You tell a Japanese man that you never lie and he will laugh right in your face and call you a fool. Because of course that is exactly what you are.

Many Americans, for some idiot reason, like to tell people that they never lie. That in itself is of course a lie.

Sometimes this lie is necessary. For instance, in dating. In heterosexual dating, women typically demand honest men. Go on dating sites. “No liars! No players! Honest men only!” If you talk to women in this context (call it pre-dating), and I have talked to countless women in that context, you are often quizzed about whether or not you are honest.

If I am honest, I will have to say, “Of course not. I’m a big fat liar and proud of it. In fact, I am an excellent liar. You will rarely meet a liar as skilled as I am. I deserve a PhD in lying.”

But if I say that, I blow the potential date. So I lie and say that I am honest even to a fault. I say that I am so honest that my honesty gets me in trouble. I am an innocent babe in the woods, ignorant of worldly ways. If she thinks I am a fool for doing that, then I just adjust the lie and admit to white lies, lies of omission and  strategic lying. A number of Americans are uncomfortable accepting of those sorts of good lies, but it’s clear that for an American, the very idea that there are good lies and bad lies opens up a huge can of worms that needs to stay sealed.

Seduction is all about lying anyway.

4 Comments

Filed under American, Asians, Culture, Ethics, Heterosexuality, Japanese, Northeast Asians, Philosophy, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Romantic Relationships, Sex

Judith Mirville On Feminism and Female Rule

Fantastic. This is the example I was thinking of talking about an African culture where women pretty much run things.

Judith Mirville: There are quite a few traditional cultures like that where all the brainy and managerial work is done by women, and the men keep content with mere physical work and a more childish, happy-go-lucky personality throughout life. That is the case with the Bamileke culture of Cameroon. But these cultures, by their own avowal, never evolve and keep content with a minimalist standard of living. These cultures, though matriarchal in a technical sense, have no use for any form of vindictive feminism or other left-wing ideology.

Women as a rule are conservative, and the societies where they have the highest real say tend to see all form of progress and experimentation as negative. Instead they idolize a mythical past without technical progress.

Women as a rule when having been in power for a few generations tend also to devalue learning in the academic sense. In the societies where they alone access it, learning is devalued except as an utilitarian means of day-to-day economic survival or of social interaction, so such societies prefer to stay backward.

If feminism is to last as a dominant ideology in the West (which supposes it jettisons all references to any resentment-based progressive thought and also to non-standard sexuality), it will turn the countries it rules into underdeveloped ones, so the Winnipeg picture of the women construction business manager with an attaché-case with a construction worker as a servant is a wholly disconnected fantasy.

What you could get instead as a picture of things to come (in the halcyon case everything goes on well for the feminist cause and their beneficiaries grow wise) is a woman open-air market manager with men acting as cowboys in the background (if the Plains of Winnipeg still exist), the only modern businessperson in the further background being a Chinese or Arab. You may also see male tourist adventurers coming to visit Manitoba as a quite primitive country. Whenever women are really at the top for good, they have no taste for construction, and they prefer to look for a greater profit to be made by existing things that require no invention.

Anyway, right now in Winnipeg, construction workers, especially when they are part of criminal organizations and part-time bouncers, make more money and enjoy higher social status than the nerdy people they despise. The bosses they obey are quite often Sicilian ones who have no use for any feminist manager.

That supposes the feminists in question rediscover a morality and also connect to a traditional spirituality approving of their approach. Maybe an Amerindian one, who knows? But that is far from their present-day perspective: these modern feminists are intent on destroying all morality which they resent against as being of male nature. They may be acting at the behest of vested interests who want to establish a dictatorship based on pure corruption.

Once every whiff of past morality is destroyed, all that remains is self-interest, and even feminism ends up waning as all collective identity causes of the past fade away once the elites have effectively succeeded in rooting out all political idealism and no longer need Identity Politics to divide the masses, a kind of late Ottoman imperial regime is installed, and there are no longer state subventions to special interest groups.

Once public ideals are all destroyed, and all what remains is materialistic self-interest, what do these would-be princesses want? Marrying princes or billionaires, preferably from One and  Thousand Nights-style patriarchal countries such as Qatar or Colombia. The fiercest feminists will be the first to revert to pure gangster-style patriarchy. This just like the fiercest Jewish Marxists were the first to turn into the neocons. Most are now before moving even further to the Right as we see in Israel. That country is growing into another Iran or Qatar with a slightly different Semitic religion.

These feminists only object to idealistic men of ordinary revenues doing the kind of non-work they envy like university tenured professors. When they meet gangsters, even of low life, revenue and status, they enjoy having regular sex with them and settle for traditional family life.

Women are also more egoistical by temperament, and feminism can last as long as there is a progressive ideology justifying the cost of their subventions.

But feminism is not as progressive as it seems since normally women don’t side with their less fortunate sisthren. Even the present-day radical feminists don’t object to FGM as practiced in other cultures.

The reality untold is that sexual pleasure itself however carefully mastered is just contrary to any moral decency and ideal. There is such a thing as carnal sin.

13 Comments

Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Cameroon, Canada, Central Africa, Cultural, Culture, Ethics, Feminism, Gender Studies, Labor, North America, Philosophy, Politics, Radical Feminists, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Women

Alt Left: Civil War? Bring It On!

Well, low level civil war in the present form of pre-civil war or civil strife anyway is just fine. It’s not ok to promote anything beyond that right now though.

Here.

A new article in Salon says that Trump has set off a civil war in America. As a supporter of the very similar Revolutionary movements of the 1960’s and 1970’s, which also erupted into a near civil war, the Alt Left supports this low- level civil war (civil strife) completely. Right now what is going on is like a pre-civil war or what is often referred to as civil strife. The civil war will pretty much only start if and when people start killing each other, and that’s not happening…yet. Hopefully it will not come to that because not only will the enemy start dying but we will too. That means you, me, our friends and loved ones. It’s generally better if civil strife does not move to a shooting civil war level barring extreme circumstances.

The only thing that is happening now is street fights between the Left and Right, similar to the Left vs. Right street thugs fighting in the streets in Germany in the 1920’s and 1930’s. It also similar to civil strife that goes on in Latin America. Particularly in Chile, left vs. right street fighting is very common. The Right is fascist and supports Pinochet. The Left is almost Communist or socialist and supports Salvador Allende and his followers. A woman from Allende’s own party is now governing the country. The Left regularly stages what can only be called pro-Allende demos, which are regularly raided by fascists who support Pinochet. Similarly, fascists regularly stage what are more or less pro-Pinochet demos which are regularly invaded by leftists. Street fighting between the two is very common.

People do not realize it but rioting is very common in Latin America. Venezuela had regular riots, often led by university students, even before Chavez came to office. After Chavez came in, the Opposition staged regular riots and demos in their neighborhoods. After a while, the Chavista police just sat back and let the Opposition trash their neighborhoods. The Chavista police must have had one of the most hands-off approaches to rioters in the world.

In Chile once again, high school students are now staging regular demos which typically turn into riots. This is because in this wealthy country, the schools are literally falling apart. These riots have been happening about once every three weeks now. The Chilean Indians are a much discriminated against population and popular racism against Indians is at a very high level.

I had a friend in Chile whose father worked for Allende and considered himself a progressive guy. He was majoring in sociology and he planned to go to the Indian regions to do fieldwork. However, this anti-Indian racism was off the charts from an American point of view. He also had wildly classist views which would be shocking in the US. Obviously any country afflicted with crazy high levels of classism and racism along with some of the worst wealth inequality on Earth is a pretty shitty place. In a shitty country, you might as well demonstrate and riot all the time because that is exactly what shitty countries deserve. If they ever clean up their act and turn into decent countries, I think the rioters in general should knock it off.

Rioting should only be for protesting truly noxious systems, not, for instance, against Swedish social democracy. It’s a very civilized and decent system and there’s nothing to riot about. But rightwing shitholes can have all the riots in the world for all I care. They asked for it by being rightwing shitholes. If they don’t want riots all the time, all they have to do is create a decent country.

Needless to say, the Chilean Indians riot on a very frequent basis. And Indian riot is almost banal down there. That’s how common it is.

I was very close to the politics of Peru for a while there and I got regular updates of the situation on the ground. Even leaving aside the fact that there was an armed and very deadly insurgency going on, besides that, on the Left in general (which did not necessarily support the insurgency at all) there were regular strikes and demonstrations.

A lot of the strikes were by people like teachers and physicians. Teachers’ unions are very militant in Latin America, they go on strike all the time, have regular demonstrations and they even riot quite a bit. Schoolteachers rioting seems odd in a US context but down there, it’s just normal. There are also almost constant demonstrations against mining and really for all manner of leftwing causes. It’s quite common for these to turn into riots. Even setting aside the insurgency, Peru struck me as a place where leftwing riots were quite common.

I don’t know much about civil strife in the rest of the continent. I saw a recent video of young people mostly in their late teens to mid twenties who appeared to be actually demonstrating in favor of the FARC guerrillas and against death squad activity directed at civilian supporters of the guerrilla. I was surprised that the FARC had that much support. The demonstration was quite violent to say the least.

I believe demonstrations are very common in Brazil and if I am not mistaken, they regularly become riots also.

This low level civil war or civil strife is a good thing in the US right now. Bottom line is we deserve it. We are turning into a true rightwing shithole along Latin American lines, and shitty countries deserve all the riots that rioters can unleash against them. Don’t like the rioting? Fine, put in a halfway decent government. Unless and until that happens, I say let the riots go on.

All of the following are important:

  • Calling or writing to your Congresspeople.
  • Attending town hall meetings of Congresspeople.
  • New laws at the state level
  • Anti-Trump lawsuits by states
  • Anti=Trump lawsuits by individuals and aggrived parties, often being taken by the ACLU right now.
  • Appearances by Congresspeople at areas of controversy, such as Congresspeople who tried to get travelers released from airports
  • Journalists writing highly critical and rabble rousing articles
  • Openly defiant and angry press organs, even such staid venues as the New York Times. There’s nothing with the NYT calling Trump a liar on the front page.
  • Letters to the editor
  • Signing petitions
  • Refusing service to Trump supporters in the workplace
  • Ending as many friendships with Trump supporters as you can handle
  • Various organizations leading peaceful demonstrations of all sorts such as the women’s march. Those demos can get pretty loud and rowdy, but without overt violence, they are still peaceful
  • Blocking highways
  • Walkout strikes
  • Wildcat strikes
  • Boycotts
  • Shopping strikes

And also nonpeaceful protest would seem to be in order. If we are truly turning into a nightmarish Latin American style rightwing shithole, then this country deserves as many riots as rioters can stage. Shitholes deserve nothing less until they clean up their act and turn into decent countries.

Among forms of nonviolent protest:

  • Looting of noxious corporate venues, especially window smashing.
  • Bonfires
  • Fireworks
  • Smoke bombs
  • Rocks, bricks and police barricades at windows of some venues, the purpose being merely to break windows at the venue.
  • Vandalism, especially of corporate property. Window smashing is just fine.
  • Arson, particularly of corporate property but especially of the property of our class enemies, such as the limousine burnt on January 20.

Violence against people.

  • Generally not recommended at this point.

This is a very tricky area and I am wrestling a lot with this one. In wars, the civilian supporters of the insurgency or state are supposed to be left alone. They seldom are in wars anymore, but they are supposed to be. This is why the fire bombings in Germany and Japan were so wrong. Even if Germans were supporting Nazis, it was not ok to set their cities aflame with the sole purpose of incinerating as many civilians as possible. Something very similar but much worse happened in Japan.

Of course the purpose of the atom bombs was to slaughter as many civilians as possible in order to end a war. The argument is typically raised that it was worth it to murder 300,000 Japanese civilians in a couple of days to end the war and that alternatives would have been more costly. Even with a goal of ending a war and supposedly saving lives by ending a war prematurely, it’s awful hard to justify mass slaughter of civilians, even if they are supporting a noxious regime. Killing thousands of civilians even for this purpose seems wrong, not to mention 10,000’s. Killing 100,000’s of civilians even for some supposedly noble goal gets very hard to justify under virtually any circumstances.

So if civilian supporters even of armed insurgencies and noxious regimes are not to be killed or even harmed for that matter, how is it ok to beat up Trump supporters. Now granted, things are much worse in hot wars. If all Assad’s army and supporters were doing was punching out rebel supporters, I doubt if anyone would care. I doubt if many would be bothered by German patriots clocking Nazi supporters during the war, assuming they could even get away with it. Likewise in Japan. The main argument in all of these cases is that state are actually mass murdering civilian supporters of insurgencies and civilian supporters of enemy states during state to state war. The argument never gets down to the level of if it’s ok to punch out guerrilla supporters or people backing a state in wartime in a state to state war.

Nevertheless, attacks on Trump supporters leave me a bit queasy. It may come down to that at some point, but for now, political violence against Opposition civilians doesn’t rub me the right way. Of course the antifa will do it anyway, we don’t have to stamp our approval on it. And it’s a thin line that separates a right hook from a group beating stomping someone to death. Single punches can turn into fatal beat downs faster than you can think.

For right now, nonpeaceful tactics should be limited to property damage, particularly of noxious corporations. Destroying the property of class enemies such as limousines is certainly acceptable. Even arson is ok against their property and that of noxious corporations, especially if you clear out the civilians just stick to burning stuff, not other people. A lot of limousines deserve to be torched and a lot of banks are asking for it too.

But I am going to butt out of attacks on people of the opposition. And surely, attacks with guns, bombs and whatnot are completely out of line at least at this stage. Now it may come down to a 1970’s revolutionary scenario where as late as 1972, 1,900 bombs went off in the US. That’s six bombs a day. Very few of them killed or even hurt other people as they were often set off late at night or preceded with warnings. Nevertheless, once you step it up to setting off bombs, it’s a whole new ballgame. We aren’t there yet, so such activities are not acceptable at the least.

6 Comments

Filed under Amerindians, Brazil, Chile, Conservatism, Economics, Education, Ethics, Fascism, Government, History, Journalism, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Peru, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Republicans, Revolution, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, South America, US Politics, USA, Venezuela, War, World War 2

Is It OK to Punch a Trump Supporter at a Political Rally or Gathering?

Discuss.

Jason Y: No offense Robert but you seem to be sympathizing with Trump supporters when before you were praising all acts of rioting and other mayhem directed at Trump. Note, these anti-fas are just playing by your playbook and, of course, it is to be expected cause Trump is so infiltrated with WN’s that it all seems like fair game.

Riots are just fine. I do have some issues when it comes to people getting hurt, and these Trump supporters, let’s face it, they boil down to the definition of innocent civilians. I didn’t like the fire bombings of Germany or Japan either. You can’t kill civilians just for supporting a regime.

Well I have nothing against some property damage, but it does rather bother me to see even these Trumpsters getting beat up or even punched out. I have some real mixed feelings about it. I say they deserve it, but when I see it happens, it bothers me. Also if we see it’s ok to assault them at their gigs and if they show up at ours, they get to come to our demos or see us at their demos and assault us on sight too. I don’t really want to get beat up or even punched. If it’s ok for us to hit them, it’s going to be ok for them to hit us.

I am currently having an ethical dilemma about this stuff. Sure, I say I don’t care about them, but then I see them getting beat up and I want to run over there and shield them to keep them from getting hit anymore. Part of me says it’s ok for them to get clocked once or twice but I definitely do not want to see them get suffer long-term or permanent damage. A little temporary damage might be ok, but I am not sure about that either.

I don’t care if they clock Richard Spencer. If anyone is asking for it, it is him. But I also don’t care if they never hit him again. I disagree with the antifa that guys like Spencer are the problem. I mean Bannon, Pence, Price, De Vos, Sessions, those guys deserve a punch in the face 1,000 times worse than Spencer does. Or worse. They are actually doing some very serious damage and harm to lots of human beings. A lot of people are going to die and a lot more are going to get hurt, and it’s all going to be done by these people.

These supporters are just cheering on the attackers and killers, which I am unsure is such a serious offense.

Compared to those names I listed, what damage is Richard Spencer doing? Shooting off his mouth. If you are going to assault someone, hit someone who is actually doing some sort of concrete damage, not just flapping his gums.

20 Comments

Filed under Ethics, Left, Philosophy, Politics, Racism, Republicans, US Politics, White Nationalism