Archives for category: political incorrectness (i like it)

comedian and former wedding deejay patton oswalt was trolling the life out of twitter/the internet yesterday and making making many a pc-nazi’s head explode. (h/t john durant! – see also isegoria.) oswalt kept apologizing for offensive tweets — racist or sexist tweets, for instance — which he had never in fact made. it was pretty funny to watch all of the shocked and horrified and OUTRAGED reactions. (~_^)

.
moar, moar, moar, moar, and moar.

why am i bothering to post about this? well, we know from before that oswalt seems to be annoyed at political correctness…and is willing to stand up against it…

.
…i like that in a person!

it must be pretty annoying for many of today’s comedians — whose heroes are no doubt people like lenny bruce and george carlin — to find that while the old “censorship” rules are gone, there are a whoooole load of new self-censoring ones now.

.

see also Patton Oswalt: “Political correctness is a war on noticing.” from steve sailer.

(note: comments do not require an email. patton oswalt – my weakness is strong!)

i like this:

“I realize that one can identify the four primary political-‘phenotypes’ that are aware of, alarmed by, and trying to stop the impending demographic disaster(s) in European-derived societies. One sees the problem, one can react to it or ignore it. If one reacts, one can express his/her reaction in one of four ways:

“(1) Religion: Islamocentrists, ala Gates-of-Vienna. This group sees the problems facing European-Mankind as emanating from Islam, and tends to support Israel’s right to its ethnostate with a fervor they would never dream of applying to their own nations.

“(2) Race: White-Racialists, ala Hunter Wallace at Occidental Dissent. The ‘voelkisch’ position, that was mainstream just a few decades ago. Today, of course, this group is forever demonized, and attracts much clownery both for and clownery against (see background in photo), but ultimately it identifies the problem correctly.

“(3) Culture: ‘If only they would assimilate!’ is the common battle-cry here. The aracial wing of the Paleoconservatives (racialized Paleoconservatives would be #2 by default) and the less-rabidly-Zionist wing of the Neoconservatives (I assume such a thing exists, or could exist). This is the group that is deeply concerned about illegal immigration, but as often as not tends to favor(!) legal immigration. Ultimately foolish and cowardly. Derided as ‘fail-eocons’ with justification. Paul Craig Roberts, in his more-recent writings, is the epitome of this, to my eyes.

“(4) Tribe: In honor of HBDC’s work in this field, one could attribute this label to a single-word description of the HBD movement. It is notable, in part, for including many more Jews than #1, #2, or #3 (another good reason for using the word ‘tribe’). HBDers are ostensibly apolitical. It’s unclear what, if any, political program HBDists have in common: While many gentile-HBDers are clearly sympathizers with group #2, Others, like Charles Murrary and John Derbyshire, have mixed-race children. Another subgrouping of #4 tends towards misanthropy, and there is overlap there with the sexual-oriented degenerates (‘game’) that are usually completely nihilistic on civilizational questions.
_____

“#3 is the default respectable position, including right-wing US-Republicans. Some of the more marginal Republicans draw from the #1 ‘well’ a bit, e.g. Bachmann. Pretty much no one in the mainstream touches #4, and anyone who does not violently-attack #2 as Evil (capital-e) tends to be attacked themselves.”

i don’t agree fully with hail’s categories here, but it’s definitely a very good summation on the whole. one point where i disagree is that i think that there might be a bit of overlap between groups 2 and 4 — at least there is in the case of moi.

my p.o.v. on this is that, yes, which race(s) is/are present in a society is obviously an important question to be answered when trying to figure out why said society works or doesn’t; but more important is simply to realize that different individuals/populations (based on gene frequencies, etc., etc.) will naturally have slightly to very differing self-interests (not to mention capabilities) and, therefore, will often be in conflict with one another. this can range from individual nuclear family members to entire races. it’s just biology, that’s all. in many respects, group 2 should just be a part of group 4.

i know that there are many group 2 reactionaries that focus solely on race, and that’s ok. personally, i think they’re a bit misguided, but they’re much more grounded in reality than reactionary groups 1 or 3! those people are simply lost-in-space ’cause they either haven’t thought about, or are in complete denial about, the biological underpinnings of human behavior. without trying to work out those, you’ll just be completely lost.

i’m not sure that hail’s assessment that there are more jews involved in the hbd-o-sphere than the other groups is correct, either. my impression is that there are a lot of jews involved in the anti-jihad movement (group #1), for instance — but i’ve never done a count of the number of jews in any of these groups, so — i dunno.

i think hbders tend to be broadly conservative, donchathink? it’s awfully hard to believe in some sort of whacky socialism or libertarianism if you “get” human biodiversity. i mean, how could you? i, myself, am (if you haven’t already guessed) very conservative when it comes to things like immigration and economics and sh*t. but i’m pretty liberal when it comes to some social things — like i don’t care if people are gay and i, personally, wouldn’t care if gays married, although i think it’s not a good idea for society. otoh, i’m tired of all-gay-all-the-time wherever i turn. can’t you just be gay and shut up about it? i also don’t care if people marry other people from other races. however, i think everyone ought to be properly informed about human biodiversity before they do decide to marry someone not from their own group (race, ethnicity, you name it).

i’m not a nihilist — mostly. on some days i do admit that i want to throw up my hands in despair and give up. only on some days. on most days i am quite misanthropic, tho — my charming, light-hearted online personality is just a front. (~_^)

previously: the four horsemen

(note: comments do not require an email. in the navy!)

even JOURNALISTS are starting to get it! wow. from the uk’s telegraph:

It’s not just the Labour Party – the Left is in meltdown all over Europe
By Toby Young
May 10th, 2011

“On the face of it, mass immigration has been the undoing of leftwing political parties across Europe since it erodes the shared values that are an essential prerequisite of a well-funded welfare state. Why should indigenous, working populations support the high levels of taxation necessary to sustain generous welfare payments if the beneficiaries are people unlike themselves? If they can’t look at a benefit recipient and think, ‘There, but for the grace of God, go I’, why should they continue to pay such high taxes? This problem was spelt out by David Willetts a few years ago:

“‘The basis on which you can extract large sums of money in tax and pay it out in benefits is that most people think the recipients are people like themselves, facing difficulties that they themselves could face. If values become more diverse, if lifestyles become more differentiated, [should read: if the gene pools of the populations are too diverse - hbdchick] then it becomes more difficult to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state. People ask: ‘Why should I pay for them when they are doing things that I wouldn’t do?’ This is America versus Sweden. You can have a Swedish welfare state provided that you are a homogeneous society with intensely shared values. In the United States you have a very diverse, individualistic society where people feel fewer obligations to fellow citizens. Progressives want diversity, but they thereby undermine part of the moral consensus on which a large welfare state rests.’

“In Britain, as in other European states, traditional working class voters no longer trust the Left-wing party to put their interests above those of recent immigrants….

“Ethnicity in Europe is beginning to trump more abstract sources of collective identity….”

well, whaddyaknow?!

(note: comments do not require an email.)

…KICKS ASS!!


_____


_____

her webpage.

oops! hbd starts to hit the msm:

Why is there no looting in Japan?

whoa. just ASKING the question is sooooooo politically incorrect! (i love it!)

and, as the guy in the telegraph pointed out, he’s not the only one asking:

gee. i wonder why no looting in japan? why, why why? what could possibly be the difference between japan and, say, new orleans? i dunno. i’m stumped.

p.s. – i’ll always remember a pakistani man i saw interviewed on television after the 2005 kashmir earthquake. he was irate that help hadn’t gotten to him and his family sooner. i mean, he was livid! natural enough to be angry, i suppose. but he said that when the government trucks got there with supplies, he and the men of his village were going to DESTROY all the trucks (allah be praised!). in retaliation, i guess. i remember thinking at the time: and how is that going to help the situation?

see also: Japan: High IQ, Low Diversity from dennis

(note: comments do not require an email)

course, everybody was back then, weren’t they?:

“Richard Nixon’s scorn for Jews, blacks, Irish and Italians revealed in new tapes”

(scorn? what scorn? i don’t see any scorn. ??)

“‘In an exchange in Feb 1973, Mr Nixon told a senior adviser that he was not prejudiced, but ‘I’ve just recognised that, you know, all people have certain traits,’ according to a New York Times coverage of the recordings.

“‘The Jews have certain traits,” he said. ‘The Irish have certain – for example, the Irish can’t drink. What you always have to remember with the Irish is they get mean. Virtually every Irish I’ve known gets mean when he drinks. Particularly the real Irish.’

“He then turned to Italian-Americans.

“‘The Italians, of course, those people course don’t have their heads screwed on tight,’ he said. ‘They are wonderful people, but …’

“As his voice trailed off, he turned to Jews: ‘The Jews are just a very aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious personality….’

“The paperwork reveals that Mr Nixon’s concerns about Jews spread to Mr Kissinger, as he ordered all Jewish-Americans be excluded from work on the Middle East.

“‘Get K. out of the play,’ he said, according to notes taken by chief of staff HR Haldeman in 1971. ‘No Jew can handle the Israeli thing….’

“And in a separate conversation with Rose Mary Woods, his personal secretary, he said that a colleague has ‘sort of a blind spot on the black thing because he’s been in New York … He says well, “They are coming along, and that after all they are going to strengthen our country in the end because they are strong physically and some of them are smart.” So forth and so on.’

“The president continued: ‘My own view is I think he’s right if you’re talking in terms of 500 years,’ he said.

“‘I think it’s wrong if you’re talking in terms of 50 years. What has to happen is they have be, frankly, inbred. And, you just, that’s the only thing that’s going to do it, Rose.'”

half sigma called nixon the smartest republican president.

(note: comments do not require an email.)

middle earth the middle kingdom?

via the asian of reason (you’ve prolly seen this already):

i can’t help thinking, though, that stephen spruiell has got a good point. are the chinese really in that good of a position in all this mess?:

“Allow me to offer a third view: Neither the Chinese government nor our own is committed to the right policies, and both are headed for the dustbin if those policies don’t change. Overspending and economic micromanagement are fatal — that’s the fundamental truth that the ad gets right. China is an economy built on an unsustainable addiction to government-supported exports sitting atop a powder keg of bubblicious dollar-denominated assets. America is a crazed debtor nation behind on its McMansion payments. The whole thing is a co-dependent mess.

i mean, to whom are the chinese going to sell all that plastic sh*t that they produce if (when) the west goes under? india? the middle east? themselves? or are they ready to move beyond making ikea|walmart|target junk?

i really enjoyed some of the asian of reason’s comments. i <3 honesty and frankness!:

“Yellow peril is not a racist idea, rather, it is an acknowledgement of the very real possibility that yellow people are in fact, or possess the capability to be, superior, both in mind, character, and achievement. Yellow people, especially Chinese, in the United States should not shriek in protest at this ad, but should take in stride, and recognize their future position as rulers of the world. Be proud, don’t be ashamed. The chilling laughter at the end of the video was the best part for me. I laugh with. HAHHAHAHAA. ^_^

“I wish the creators of the ad would have shown Americans working for Chinese people. That would have been a great piece of imagery. Too bad I just had to fantasize about it in the confines of my Asian sized brain. Yes, you guessed it, those images were in anime. :)

“Gordon Chang has an excellent analysis over at Forbes. I don’t know what he is talking about when he refers to ‘us'; he should consider himself Chinese first, American second.”

heh!

all i have to say though is – get the f*ck outta my country. other than that, i’m sure i’d love to hang with u dawg! besos. (^3^)

also more @infoproc.

p.s. – chinese people can be pretty d*mn funny!:

The Red Army Orchestra

(note: comments do not require an email.)

liu xiaobo, chinese human rights activist who has just won the nobel peace prize (what human rights has to do with peace i’m not sure but … whatever), when asked what it would take for “china to realize a true historical transformation” replied:

“(It would take) 300 years of colonialism. In 100 years of colonialism, Hong Kong has changed to what we see today. With China being so big, of course it would take 300 years of colonialism for it to be able to change to how Hong Kong is today. I have my doubts as to whether 300 years would be enough.”

update 10/08: here’s a google translation of an article written by liu in which he refers to/explains his “300 years of colonialism” comment.

(note: comments do not require an email.)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 305 other followers