Tuesday, July 13, 2021

The Transcendent Irresponsibility of the American Peasant

"This is a horror of the 20th century and the criminals who perpetrated it have never been held to account."

Peasants with no agency do not deserve property. Secure your shit. If you're not willing to fight for it, it was never yours in the first place. 

"If you read that thread and don't feel enraged there is something wrong with you."

Right-wing hall monitors are even more disgusting than left-wing hall monitors. Criminals gonna crim. Accept it. On the contrary: be outraged by the flaccid non-response of the alleged victims, if anything. They obviously didn't want their communities enough to, you know, do anything for them. Why should I want them to have their communities more than they themselves wanted to have them? I'm not a busybody. I don't. 

Blacks did want their neighbourhoods, clearly. Transferring stuff from someone who doesn't want it to someone who does is just a Pareto improvement. 

Secondarily, these were the folk who allowed criminals to rule them, in an alleged democracy. Really the moral here is not to stand next to naive idiots. A stupid ally is worse than an enemy, and having a stupid ally is always 100% your own damn fault. When someone tries to ethnically cleanse these hapless morons, don't be near enough to catch the splash damage.


Alrenous said...

I understand that a minority of Jews in Germany fought back.
This may be a Prussian school thing again. Maybe pre-1880 Americans weren't entirely hamstrung, lobotomized, and anaesthetized. Anyone have any examples of violent resistance to government overreach dating from that time?

Though come to think they were already well-lobotomized by Christianity, apparently. There should have been violent resistance to compulsory schooling...and there almost, sort of, was.

Alrenous said...

By the way, genuine racism as in racial spite alert. (Not that it matters, for at least two reasons.)

The problem with Africa is 15% biology and 85% the UN, which means the USA. It really is colonialism - except the problem really is post-colonialism. Fascism is even worse for them than for us.

When the UN was kicked out of Somalia due to fucking up so bad they functionally kicked themselves out, Somalia immediately entered a phase of dramatic wealthening and modernization. E.g. they changed from importing cattle from Ethiopia to exporting. Cell phone and TV ownership did things like double and triple.

Except, as Moldbug is fond of pointing out, Mogadishu. Which, in his schizophrenic fever dreams, means 'anarchy.' In reality, the international airport is there, so journalists and UN storm troopers (but I repeat myself) could continually re-insert themselves, naturally causing tremendous chaos and strife.

Chent said...

Intriguing your depiction of the UN role in Africa. I would like to know more. Do you know any books, links, etc?

Alrenous said...

Sadly I only have links for how much Somalia improved once the "international community" was ejected by "anarchy." You can have them if you like, though only on request since I have to dig them up a little. I think that's enough, though.

The race gap in America is like 15% biology and 85% regressive Fascism. Blacks were far better behaved than current whites in 1910, before NAACP and Civil Rights. Not perfect by any means - but better than current whites is clearly good enough. (2% bastardy vs. 10% in 1910. Current more like 75-80%. All social dysfunction indicators moved in near-perfect correlation with this easy-to-measure indicator.)

But search my blog for the envy engine. Racial envy: now you're cooking with gas. The bigger the gap, the better. Power gets what it wants.

In the same way, the one country that lost UN influence immediately became several times richer. You can safely assume the UN is the problem. The UN is USA, which means white, which means, if they're meddling in Africa, it's neocolonialist.
Which should have been the default assumption anyway. The virtue signaller is the most guilty of the thing they're signalling against.

Then this:

Point 1: corruption should be assumed unless there's proof to the contrary.

Point 2: there's proof to the affirmative.

"Amazingly, Bachelet was interviewed by the same AP that, just four years ago, ran a piece titled “UN peacekeepers in Congo hold record for rape, sex abuse.” Yet the intrepid AP reporters failed to ask Bachelet follow-up questions like “How can you make blanket condemnations of an entire nation for the death of one black person when the organization you lead literally ‘holds the record’ for raping black women?”"

You can just assume that UN AIDS doctors are the primary vector for HIV in Africa. They use dirty needles and so on. Generally UN 'aid' becomes Strongman Welfare. Goodwill clothes primarily suppress the local textile industry, forcing them to wear foreign duds. Etc etc.

CovfefeAnon said...

"The criminals" referred to in the tweet aren't the feral blacks who were used as weapons.

I figured that was clear enough that it didn't need to be directly stated.

Alrenous said...

No, I got it.

You still don't get it. Which is one way of describing why I haven't bothered to resurrect my twitter account.

CovfefeAnon said...

All wars are conflicts of elite factions but fighting is done by the more numerous classes.

You want these people to be your allies because they're the best allies out there - they're brave and can cooperate. What they need is to know who their actual enemies are and who their friends are - not to be scorned because they didn't immediately know what took time and mental effort to figure out through layers of progressive obfuscation.

Chent said...

Thank you, Alrenous, for your explanation

Alrenous said...

Ask and ye shall earn.