Blindness to peril helps one move around in the world.
Doing dangerous things without knowledge of their danger is not necessarily brave or valiant, because the actions are done out of simple ignorance. This would describe the actions of Mr. Magoo, the cartoon character who does daredevil things mistaking them to be every day actions due to his nearsightedness. Luckily for him, he always gets by without suffering any serious harm.
Perhaps the key to life--or one of the keys to it--is being ignorant enough to get out and do potentially dangerous things, like Mr. Magoo does, but to be lucky enough to survive them without significant loss. Some live, some die, and some stay home, but in a sense you can't live without leaving home and being like Mr. Magoo to one degree or another. Maybe this is the sense of altruism that entrepreneurs, explorers and mountain climbers take into consideration when they take risks. They might bear in mind that even if they fail, as long as there are many people trying making it possible for one person to succeed, then all of humanity will succeed.
Increasingly, it seems that blindness of social status, class, etc., can be necessary for people to move around in the world and to make their lives interesting. Blindness of static status may be necessary for both improvement and, potentially, loss.
But, if asked, many of those who've died or suffered because of taking a risk--however great it may be--would probably say that they should have stayed home, at least to the extent that they wouldn't have ended up in their present, sad condition. Maybe being like Mr. Magoo isn't all that great.
Mark Twain wrestled with this idea as he wrote of his leisurly steamboat trip down the Mississippi River as a newcomer to the mighty river. Later, after he became a steamboat captain, he learned of all the perils of guiding a steamboat, including signs of shallow water below which lay jagged rocks that would sink the boat and leave stranded those on board. How stupid he thought of himself to have once been ignorant of the danger in the river and to have even regarded signs of shallow water as elegant expressions of nature. His eyes now manically scoured the water signs of danger, but in a sense, he longed for the ignorance..and hapiness... he once had.
Shakespeare was right that all's well that ends well, and whether one goes about life with caution and refrain or happy Magoo-like rambling, the present consequences of the actions taken seem to shed either shadow or illumination on past actions.
If any conclusion can be drawn, those who've have fortune enough to take risks and live should be humble and remember all those who strived similarly but were not so lucky.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Summoning Boyz II Men, a Good Move for Putin
A lot of people are making fun of Russian President Vladimir Putin for bringing in the R&B group Boyz II Men to Russia to encourage Russians to have more children. It is indeed and odd gesture, as the "sophisticates" mocking it allege. But overall, it was good because it brought publicity to the Russian people's birth rate which is clining toward their ethnic extinction.
Russia's fertility rate is said to be 1.6, which is below the 2.11 necessary for replacement. By no means is this as low as some other areas of Europe, such as Italy, where it is 1.4 and even lower than that in Northern Italy.
Russia is also not in danger of becoming a cold weather Saudi Arabia, like Germany, Denmark, and Holland. It is not losing entire areas to Mohammedan immigrants like France and Sweden are. There are no ghettos where non-Moslems are not safe to venture, like there are in Paris.
However, 1.6 is still a cline toward extinction. At this rate, there will be half as many Russians in sooner than three generations. With terrorists like Pussy Riot publicizing a poisonous ideology of feminism, which is demographically self-refuting, Putin must go on the ideological warpath to save Russia from extinction. His first challange is to get publicity, and he has succeeded in doing that.
Russia's fertility rate is said to be 1.6, which is below the 2.11 necessary for replacement. By no means is this as low as some other areas of Europe, such as Italy, where it is 1.4 and even lower than that in Northern Italy.
Russia is also not in danger of becoming a cold weather Saudi Arabia, like Germany, Denmark, and Holland. It is not losing entire areas to Mohammedan immigrants like France and Sweden are. There are no ghettos where non-Moslems are not safe to venture, like there are in Paris.
However, 1.6 is still a cline toward extinction. At this rate, there will be half as many Russians in sooner than three generations. With terrorists like Pussy Riot publicizing a poisonous ideology of feminism, which is demographically self-refuting, Putin must go on the ideological warpath to save Russia from extinction. His first challange is to get publicity, and he has succeeded in doing that.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Marxists Against Affirmative Action?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
Most people forget about the first part of the saying. But its meaning is rather hard to misconstrue. Abilities are the criteria by which people should produce things in a Marxist society. We plan to show that insofar as affirmative action displaces people with ability in favor of those with less, it may be anti-Marxist.
Before we continue, we must illustrate that affirmative action can result in less qualified people being promoted over more qualified ones.
Suppose there are black and white people in a given area, and a black and a white person apply for a job in that area. Suppose also that there is a quota for a black employee and one job open. Suppose there is a test which correlates 100% with job performance. The black person scores an 80 on the test, and the white scores 90. In this case, the white person does not meet the demand of the quota, so the less qualified black person is given a job above him. The precept of "from each according to his abilities" is ipso facto violated.
(Henceforth we'll call the ability line "the ability precept" and the needs line the "needs precept".)
However, by violating the ability precept, the needs precept may be affected. Suppose the test scores indicate how many units of utility a person would produce on the job in a year. Following the example above, the black person gets the job and produces 80 units. Redistribution of wealth is a fixed cost in a Marxist society, and thus is not covered by this thought experiment. Assume that the black and white person have identical needs. So in the end. the black is given 40 of the 80 units produced, and the white is given 40 as well.
Now suppose the ability precept is followed and affirmative action takes a backseat to ability. Then, the white person is hired, produces 90 units, and the units are redistributed, 45 to the white and 45 to the black. Are not both parties better off?
Of course, for the black person, the prestige of having a job may outweigh receiving 45 instead of 40 units of utility. For example, having the job may be worth, say, 6 units utility, so that 40+6=46 outweighs not having the job but receiving 45.
Depending on how much more productive the white person is than the black person, and how much more wealth he is able to generate, the black person may or may not be better off if the white person gets the job in accordance with his abilities.
The task of the utility-maximizing Marxist is to weigh higher overall production versus the need among blacks for the prestige of having a job. In any case, if one population shows significantly greater ability, there should not be a 50-50 distribution of jobs because the ability precept would be woefully violated, and the capacity to meet the needs precept would also be reduced.
Suppose, in another example, all conditions remain the same except for that the black person scores 90 and the white scores 90 with black people having fewer jobs and being in need of affirmative action. In that case, the marginal benefit of a black getting the job would clearly be the deciding factor because the black man would derive comparatively more utility and the ability precept would not be violated because the black person is equally qualified.
In sum, affirmative action does not require as a goal the equal per-capita representation of races in high-income jobs to be fully Marxist unless the abilities precept is ignored.
Most people forget about the first part of the saying. But its meaning is rather hard to misconstrue. Abilities are the criteria by which people should produce things in a Marxist society. We plan to show that insofar as affirmative action displaces people with ability in favor of those with less, it may be anti-Marxist.
Before we continue, we must illustrate that affirmative action can result in less qualified people being promoted over more qualified ones.
Suppose there are black and white people in a given area, and a black and a white person apply for a job in that area. Suppose also that there is a quota for a black employee and one job open. Suppose there is a test which correlates 100% with job performance. The black person scores an 80 on the test, and the white scores 90. In this case, the white person does not meet the demand of the quota, so the less qualified black person is given a job above him. The precept of "from each according to his abilities" is ipso facto violated.
(Henceforth we'll call the ability line "the ability precept" and the needs line the "needs precept".)
However, by violating the ability precept, the needs precept may be affected. Suppose the test scores indicate how many units of utility a person would produce on the job in a year. Following the example above, the black person gets the job and produces 80 units. Redistribution of wealth is a fixed cost in a Marxist society, and thus is not covered by this thought experiment. Assume that the black and white person have identical needs. So in the end. the black is given 40 of the 80 units produced, and the white is given 40 as well.
Now suppose the ability precept is followed and affirmative action takes a backseat to ability. Then, the white person is hired, produces 90 units, and the units are redistributed, 45 to the white and 45 to the black. Are not both parties better off?
Of course, for the black person, the prestige of having a job may outweigh receiving 45 instead of 40 units of utility. For example, having the job may be worth, say, 6 units utility, so that 40+6=46 outweighs not having the job but receiving 45.
Depending on how much more productive the white person is than the black person, and how much more wealth he is able to generate, the black person may or may not be better off if the white person gets the job in accordance with his abilities.
The task of the utility-maximizing Marxist is to weigh higher overall production versus the need among blacks for the prestige of having a job. In any case, if one population shows significantly greater ability, there should not be a 50-50 distribution of jobs because the ability precept would be woefully violated, and the capacity to meet the needs precept would also be reduced.
Suppose, in another example, all conditions remain the same except for that the black person scores 90 and the white scores 90 with black people having fewer jobs and being in need of affirmative action. In that case, the marginal benefit of a black getting the job would clearly be the deciding factor because the black man would derive comparatively more utility and the ability precept would not be violated because the black person is equally qualified.
In sum, affirmative action does not require as a goal the equal per-capita representation of races in high-income jobs to be fully Marxist unless the abilities precept is ignored.
Friday, February 1, 2013
How to Invade a Country that has Nukes
It is impossible for a nation to conquer nation that is armed with nukes. Even if the would-be invading nation has nukes, it will not attack because it is in both nations' interest to avoid the devastation of a nuclear war. This is the basis for the Stability-Instability Paradox that reigns in modern times.
However, there is a much simpler way to invade a country with nukes, but it cannot be done by a nation, and it takes longer than even the (so far) 11 year old US Afghanistan war. Indeed, it takes generations, but it is more efficient than any military campaign. It boils down to immigration, miscegenation, and multiplication.
Immigration
Obviously, getting foreign nationals into a country can be difficult. Also, they'll be coming from many different nations which may not get along. However, in places like the England and France, Muslims will constitute a majority within a matter of decades (unless immigration is curbed). If they create a new Islamic Republic via democracy, it may become a member of the Arab League. It likely would not be ruled by an established Moslem nation, so the invasion would not be an imperialistic venture. But it would be almost guaranteed to re-carve the invaded nation into one more friendly to the nations whence the immigrants came.
Multiplication
If immigrants multiply fast enough, then they can ally with similar immigrants to displace native peoples. They might use government to open up immigration more, once they gain a 51% majority. They may not need a majority if they can get some native sell-outs to go along with them. This coalition would push for either more overall immigration or more immigration from specified nations, which would presumably be Islamic nations in the case of England and France. In the case of the United States, they may vote for increased quotas for Latin American countries. But first they'll need some generational gestation before they can spawn a takeover of the native population.
Protestants in 20th century America worried about being displaced by Catholic immigrants from nations like Italy, Ireland, Germany, and Poland along with other Catholic European countries. These immigrants, particularly the Irish, had huge families, as was encouraged by Catholic Doctrine and priests. Eventually, Catholics began to practice birth control, and some started marrying Protestants. In fact, today modern Catholics of European descent probably have much lower birth rates than protestant southerners. Moreover, the heart of Catholicism, Rome, nestles in the nation of Italy which has one of the lowest birthrates world-wide.
However, Latino Catholics still have very high birth rates. The question is whether they will end up like the European Catholics or whether they will continue to have a lot of children. In the case of Europe, the Muslims are a more sequestered group, and may be immune from the cultural influences of feminists and materialists, so they will likely retain high birth rates with only a few of them spinning off into a life of childless European modernity.
Miscegenation
Miscegenation, or sexual race-mixing, is the fait accompli of conquering a nation. The descendants of mixed couples usually identify with the one they look like most. Because Moslems come from stock bearing genes that are phenotypically dominant over European genes, the child will look more like the Muslim parent and thus will identify more with him. As an American example, Barack Obama looks more like his black Islamic father than his white atheist mother. He did not become Muslim, but he did identify more with his father's race because he looks more like his father. So, even if the products of miscegenal unions do not identify as Muslims religiously, they will identify as middle-easterners, Africans, Asians, etc. In all modern cases of immigrant invasion, miscegenation is far more of a subtraction of the native population than of the immigrating one, not to mention the fact that the natives would already be shrinking due to birth rates below replacement rate.
As a matter of anthropological fact, the immigrant population will also endeavor to miscegenate with the native population for several reasons. For one, the immigrant population may consist more of men than of women, and because men are usually the initiators of a relationship, the men will resort to coupling with native women. This will seem easy because the native women will look better than immigrant women for a number of reasons. The native country will be European and most of the immigrants will not be. Surveys in anthropology reveal that all races consider the nordic female to be the most attractive type of woman. Women of European countries obviously tend to be more nordic-looking than non-European immigrant women, and they would presumably be more available since there will be relatively more of them compared with the immigrant population which would consist more of men.
Also, there is greater use of plastics in England and France, and these have estrogrenaical effects on women, making them look more feminine and attractive. As proof of this, look at any highschool yearbook of white women from 1935 or earlier and you'll notice that the young women look far more masculine than they do today. Poor, immigrant-generating countries have little to no exposure to plastics, so their women do not tend to be as estrogenaicly-pumped. Estrogen from plastics affects native males by blocking their testosterone, so they will seem less pheromonally attractive to native females than immigrant males, despite on the net being more physically and socioeconomically attractive.
Native males also come from areas that have more Internet access and are thus more likely to see a lot of high-speed Internet pornography. Excessive viewing of high speed porn causes people to experience a decrease in dopamine levels which leads them to be less interested in real girls because dopamine is the hormone which helps men have drive to chase after girls they like. Furthermore, pornography may take the place of real women in native men's minds or may raise the bar in terms of beauty so that native men ignore native women they would otherwise find attractive if their standards hadn't been artificially been raised by porn stars or females in movies and print.
In some cases, immigrant males may practice more sexual license with native women if they view them as part of an inferior, immoral culture or an "infidel" religion. This phenomenon has been observed in the rape epidemic in Sweden being perpetrated by third world Mohammedan immigrants. This mentality would not provoke miscegenal unions, but it may result in pregnancies from one-night stands.
As a final note, European women are terrified of being called racist, so many of them will be unable to think of a moral justification for refusing the advances of immigrant men. If a frustrated immigrant calls a native woman a racist for refusing him, she may relent to his appeals to prove her non-racistness. Once he makes sexual advances, she becomes physiologically linked with him and may stay with him despite having other ideals in mind. There's also the syndrome whereby an immigrant may tell endless sop stories to a native woman, leading her to take him in out of sympathy.
For the reasons mentioned in the prior two paragraphs, miscegenation is inevitable given present biological and sociological conditions.
Conclusion
The three-pronged attack of immigration, multiplication, and miscegenation takes generations to complete, but it is the only way to successfully invade a nation with nukes.
However, there is a much simpler way to invade a country with nukes, but it cannot be done by a nation, and it takes longer than even the (so far) 11 year old US Afghanistan war. Indeed, it takes generations, but it is more efficient than any military campaign. It boils down to immigration, miscegenation, and multiplication.
Immigration
Obviously, getting foreign nationals into a country can be difficult. Also, they'll be coming from many different nations which may not get along. However, in places like the England and France, Muslims will constitute a majority within a matter of decades (unless immigration is curbed). If they create a new Islamic Republic via democracy, it may become a member of the Arab League. It likely would not be ruled by an established Moslem nation, so the invasion would not be an imperialistic venture. But it would be almost guaranteed to re-carve the invaded nation into one more friendly to the nations whence the immigrants came.
Multiplication
If immigrants multiply fast enough, then they can ally with similar immigrants to displace native peoples. They might use government to open up immigration more, once they gain a 51% majority. They may not need a majority if they can get some native sell-outs to go along with them. This coalition would push for either more overall immigration or more immigration from specified nations, which would presumably be Islamic nations in the case of England and France. In the case of the United States, they may vote for increased quotas for Latin American countries. But first they'll need some generational gestation before they can spawn a takeover of the native population.
Protestants in 20th century America worried about being displaced by Catholic immigrants from nations like Italy, Ireland, Germany, and Poland along with other Catholic European countries. These immigrants, particularly the Irish, had huge families, as was encouraged by Catholic Doctrine and priests. Eventually, Catholics began to practice birth control, and some started marrying Protestants. In fact, today modern Catholics of European descent probably have much lower birth rates than protestant southerners. Moreover, the heart of Catholicism, Rome, nestles in the nation of Italy which has one of the lowest birthrates world-wide.
However, Latino Catholics still have very high birth rates. The question is whether they will end up like the European Catholics or whether they will continue to have a lot of children. In the case of Europe, the Muslims are a more sequestered group, and may be immune from the cultural influences of feminists and materialists, so they will likely retain high birth rates with only a few of them spinning off into a life of childless European modernity.
Miscegenation
Miscegenation, or sexual race-mixing, is the fait accompli of conquering a nation. The descendants of mixed couples usually identify with the one they look like most. Because Moslems come from stock bearing genes that are phenotypically dominant over European genes, the child will look more like the Muslim parent and thus will identify more with him. As an American example, Barack Obama looks more like his black Islamic father than his white atheist mother. He did not become Muslim, but he did identify more with his father's race because he looks more like his father. So, even if the products of miscegenal unions do not identify as Muslims religiously, they will identify as middle-easterners, Africans, Asians, etc. In all modern cases of immigrant invasion, miscegenation is far more of a subtraction of the native population than of the immigrating one, not to mention the fact that the natives would already be shrinking due to birth rates below replacement rate.
As a matter of anthropological fact, the immigrant population will also endeavor to miscegenate with the native population for several reasons. For one, the immigrant population may consist more of men than of women, and because men are usually the initiators of a relationship, the men will resort to coupling with native women. This will seem easy because the native women will look better than immigrant women for a number of reasons. The native country will be European and most of the immigrants will not be. Surveys in anthropology reveal that all races consider the nordic female to be the most attractive type of woman. Women of European countries obviously tend to be more nordic-looking than non-European immigrant women, and they would presumably be more available since there will be relatively more of them compared with the immigrant population which would consist more of men.
Also, there is greater use of plastics in England and France, and these have estrogrenaical effects on women, making them look more feminine and attractive. As proof of this, look at any highschool yearbook of white women from 1935 or earlier and you'll notice that the young women look far more masculine than they do today. Poor, immigrant-generating countries have little to no exposure to plastics, so their women do not tend to be as estrogenaicly-pumped. Estrogen from plastics affects native males by blocking their testosterone, so they will seem less pheromonally attractive to native females than immigrant males, despite on the net being more physically and socioeconomically attractive.
Native males also come from areas that have more Internet access and are thus more likely to see a lot of high-speed Internet pornography. Excessive viewing of high speed porn causes people to experience a decrease in dopamine levels which leads them to be less interested in real girls because dopamine is the hormone which helps men have drive to chase after girls they like. Furthermore, pornography may take the place of real women in native men's minds or may raise the bar in terms of beauty so that native men ignore native women they would otherwise find attractive if their standards hadn't been artificially been raised by porn stars or females in movies and print.
In some cases, immigrant males may practice more sexual license with native women if they view them as part of an inferior, immoral culture or an "infidel" religion. This phenomenon has been observed in the rape epidemic in Sweden being perpetrated by third world Mohammedan immigrants. This mentality would not provoke miscegenal unions, but it may result in pregnancies from one-night stands.
As a final note, European women are terrified of being called racist, so many of them will be unable to think of a moral justification for refusing the advances of immigrant men. If a frustrated immigrant calls a native woman a racist for refusing him, she may relent to his appeals to prove her non-racistness. Once he makes sexual advances, she becomes physiologically linked with him and may stay with him despite having other ideals in mind. There's also the syndrome whereby an immigrant may tell endless sop stories to a native woman, leading her to take him in out of sympathy.
For the reasons mentioned in the prior two paragraphs, miscegenation is inevitable given present biological and sociological conditions.
Conclusion
The three-pronged attack of immigration, multiplication, and miscegenation takes generations to complete, but it is the only way to successfully invade a nation with nukes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)