My Political Resume

A commenter, Scott, has wisely summed up my views about a lot of stuff with this list:
– Socialism
– Maoism
– Pro-miscegenation
– Race realism
– Protectionist trade
– Pro-union
– Anti-immigration
– Anti-freedom of association
– Paleoconservative on issues of war
– Pro gay & women’s rights
– Strong dislike of the White power structure
– Pro Palestinian/anti-Israel
– Skeptical of Jews and their plots
I have to cringe a bit reading that stuff, but I guess the truth hurts sometimes. It’s hard to sum up someone’s views, but that’s about as good as any – not perfect, but nice.
I only support Maoists in some 3rd World ratholes like Nepal, Philippines and India. I don’t support any Maoist project in the US or the West.
I’m a big fan of Hugo Chavez and I don’t mind modern Chinese Communism (I even think it’s sort of Maoism!).
For the US, any movement towards a more interventionist state or social democracy would be great. Fully funded social programs, mass transit, government buying land for parks and wildlife, setting up free wi-fi for the people, nationalizing some banks and insurance companies in the latest mess, saving the economy with stimulus programs, etc.
I love to slam capitalism, but I admit I don’t have much good to outright replace it with. I just wish everyone would quit worshipping it like a God. It’s seriously flawed to say the least.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

9 thoughts on “My Political Resume”

  1. Yeah but a resume like that isn’t going to get you a job working for any of the big ten. Anyway I hope all’s well.

  2. We don’t engage in eugenics, so it’s irrelevant.
    Actually, I sort of think it’s ok on a less formal level. I think Whites should breed with superior NE Asians in order to improve the stock. Does that make me a eugenicist? I also think low IQ types should be discouraged from having so many kids, but I don’t know how you go about doing so. I certainly won’t support govt programs to discourage low IQ types from having lots of kids or encourage high IQ types to have kids.

  3. I don’t necessarily see anything wrong w/ positive eugenics, i.e. having programs to encourage high IQ or otherwise gifted people to have kids. I think Singapore does this. There are government programs for old people, poor people, etc. Why not govt. programs for smart people? Personally I think it would improve quality of life all around, and perhaps make some of the other expenditures less burdensome. How would it work? Simplicity itself. Take an IQ test, get a score that qualifies you for the benefits, get benefits.
    Disclaimer: I’m not so sure I’m comfortable with making IQ sole criterion. A lot of athletes and artists, for example, are not necessarily intellectually gifted as most of us would think of it, and I don’t think I’d want to live in a world w/o them, even if they sometimes have poor impulse control and terrible judgment.

  4. We don’t engage in eugenics, so it’s irrelevant.

    Non-responses like this are why I enjoy peppering your blog with nigger this and nigger that. I’m not even remotely the hateful monster you might imagine, but if I can’t get you to make the smallest concessions to reality or fully engage you in discussion, at least I might piss you off.

    I also think low IQ types should be discouraged from having so many kids, but I don’t know how you go about doing so. I certainly won’t support govt programs to discourage low IQ types from having lots of kids or encourage high IQ types to have kids.

    Because it’s all so damnably “offensive,” right?
    I’m not so sure about that. Without going over the details of my past, I can assure you that I was about the least likely person imaginable to ever entertain the sorts of views I now encourage. And you’re right, the biggest reason was they were so incredibly “offensive” and commonly stated in a manner almost calculated to be as offensive as possible. But the truth is they’re not inherently offensive. Indeed, if anything, I consider the facts of heredity reasons to be cheerful. These facts have allowed us to identify the causes behind human outcomes and they afford us the opportunity to improve those outcomes.
    A man’s happiness relies much more on him being treated fairly than it does being treated equally. As far as a society’s effects on a man’s happiness go, the better that society’s rules about what constitutes fair treatment and the better it adheres to those rules — ie the fairer that society — the happier the people of that society will be. An important aspect of fairness is, or should be, that necessary impositions warrant satisfactory compensation; the fairer the compensation, the fairer the imposition. A society intent on becoming fairer and happier could responsibly decide to make impositions on some of its members and reward them for their co-operation, ie compensate some for foregoing breeding or for raising better children not biologically their own.
    I don’t believe any individual should have to justify his existence nor should he have to suffer the indignity of a social system or set of values that singles out his particular existence for contempt. Pragmatically, no one individual’s existence, of itself, matters sufficiently — makes sufficient negative impact — to justify such contempt; it’s entirely a question of numbers. The issue thus perhaps hinges on whether “undesirable” individuals can come to understand that it is their number that is at issue, that it is their number that will lower or, with co-operation, raise the level of society.
    Personally, I consider the issue so vitally important that I would eagerly seek to co-opt, say, 75% of society to coerce the bottom 25% (or 90/10) to sacrifice reproductive rights or supplant them with eugenically selected embryos. If this was achieved, in terms of their value to society, never would zeroes so quickly become heroes.
    Whether you furiously object to such a plan, or to any other like it, or not you know — however dimly, you must be aware — that either some such thing will be done, or we, and our progeny and theirs, will all suffer consequences quite plain to calculate.
    My great hope is to engage the left in such ideas. You’ve gotten so much right…er correct: tossed out religious dogmatism; reduced discrimination and improved attitudes towards “otherness”; highlighted inherent economic inequalities and sought to redress them; improved almost beyond belief the lot of females; adopted an appropriately militant skepticism towards war propaganda; done wonders for environmental awareness; and much more. So it’s just so infuriating to see you cling to such ferocious faux-ignorance of the importance of race and heredity (Marg Sanger must be turning in her grave). Such glaring stupidity can really only hope to turn to the right anyone who makes his way to racial reality on his own.
    You may be under some impression that I only advance these views because I believe they privilege me personally. Dead wrong. What on earth do I stand to gain by raising white racial consciousness? Nothing, unless you give credence to crackpot/mendacious stormfront/AmRen WNerie, which sees some near-uniform “white race” magically encompassing all of Europe, from the Iceland to Rhodes, but not a centimeter farther. (Let them come here and ask any of my cousins or their Italian and Maltese friends who grew up in the 60s and 70s what they think about that.) Third generation Greeks and Italians (I’m 3rd gen on the Greek side) who grew up outside the major cities are extremely well assimilated, so too are some Asians I know. None of my friends are pleased at the cultural changes (even simply in terms of daily interactions) we’re witnessing, and even more disturbed by the unhappy realization that such changes for the worse are basically permanent. (Of course, if we feel that way, I can only imagine what sentient Anglos are thinking.)
    Lindsay, if you miss the sort of California you grew up in, it’s not immoral to seek to recreate it, or a society somewhat like it. The traits you admit to valuing in people, they’re white traits — Nordic traits. They’re the sort of traits that make for easygoing communication, social trust, community co-operation, openness, fairness, inquisitiveness.. meh, I don’t need to tell you. Those traits occasionally surface in others, most likely others raised in nordic-created environments, and I suspect they can be taught to sufficiently intelligent others, but why risk their preservation by handing over the reins to those others? One possible answer is “it’s too late.” To that I say it’s never too late to do the right thing. The whole exercise need not have been in vain; people have learned a lot about what they do and don’t appreciate about one another. Reversing the processes at work will cement those lessons for generations to come.

  5. I think the question is more along the lines of, do we want to be taken over by China and other countries that are practicing eugenics? Rather than, should we or should we not practice eugenics. And, should we make a preemptive strike on them now (kidding)? In a few generations they will likely overtake us economically (and thus militarily) because they are practicing eugenics, unless countermeasures are adopted.
    I too support positive eugenics. Embryo selection is really the best way to achieve the best eugenics results nowadays. Evolution is accelerating like never before. With embryo selection, a number of embryos can be developed and tested for genes associated with IQ and other desirable traits–also, genetic defects that make one’s life miserable can be detected to. The embryo with the appropriate genetic markers can then be implanted in the woman.
    Singularity is a topic that needs to be talked about more, and yes, it is tied to eugenics. Once we get to a point where computers are smarter than humans, they can design computers themselves. This creates an exponential reaction as described in Ray Kurzweil’s (yes, he is Jewish) Singularity book. Theoretically, more and more intelligent computers may develop a way to even reverse the aging process.

  6. Most commenters were answered in a new post.
    Olive, we just had a conversation about this tonite. I would favor paying women who have serious genetic diseases not to have kids, but supposedly it is not that big of a problem. What you discuss, encouraging the abortions of the severely problematic, it already goes on, believe me! And of course I support it.
    I’m going to be dead before any of this singularity BS or eugenics BS gets to be a significant factor on this planet, so I don’t care anything about it. Seems like the only people who care about this singularity stuff are, like the eugenics crowd, a bunch of savage racists. Why should I listen to them?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *