by Tom Rhodes, 3/27/2017
I read this at Voxday today, “Libertarianism and pure classical liberal economics are elegant and seductive systems; but they did not stand up to the test of empirical evidence.” That sums up the failure of libertarianism.
Libertarianism works for a people willing to self-govern who share a culture, with common values. Libertarianism like our constitution is a reflection of a specific culture with a specific set of values. Any society that embraces libertarianism but does not have a shared culture by an overwhelming majority will fall apart and cease to function as a cohesive society.
Our forefathers were clear, and our constitution based on libertarian(classical liberal) ideas, functioned and created a society where more people prospered than any other in the history of the world. Until 1965 the USA protected it’s cultural heritage, it did so by not accepting large numbers of people from dissimilar cultures and worked at having those cultures assimilate and adopt American culture. The root of that culture is from Northern Europe primarily the English with some Dutch and German. There is/was one unifying cultural root of those Northern European Cultures - Protestant Christianity.
Significant numbers of most other cultures cannot be readily absorbed, and will cause strife and separation and disharmony in a society if allowed to immigrate in large numbers. Because Catholicism is closely related to Protestantism small but significant amounts of immigrants from Catholic cultures have be absorbed in the USA.
History is clear, any society is invaded by force or allows invasion of large numbers of people from other cultures dies. Opening our doors to the third world as resulted not in those immigrants assimilating and becoming Americans. Rather than diversity being uniting and uplifting phenomenon, it has resulted in strife, and the breakdown of our culture. Such invasion inevitably leads to war. Be it the Hispanics and Blacks in Compton, American colonists and Native Americans in the USA, the Moors and Christians in Spain, or the Mongols and where ever they moved, cultures don’t survive large numbers of a different culture invading. The tactic of moving in, building up a significant but culturally separate population, then taking over and eliminating the native culture is how both the Quran and history showed as the method for Islam to expand. The clash of cultures results in War. The mime “Diversity + Proximity = War” is proven by history. Right now there appears to be one exception, but it isn’t over and may yet come to war, that is Brexit. England may be able to salvage it’s culture and remain England without war, but the jury is still out.
History has shown that man is tribal and does not generally trust, tolerate, and live well with other tribes. God separated man into various tribes at Babul. Weather you believe this is an allegory to the evolutionary divergence of man, or to explain tribalism, or the literal truth, is irrelevant. Unless artificially forced, man will choose to live with people of his tribe. You have to be blind not to see that people live and mingle in groups of others who are like them. Almost every big city in the USA has a “China Town” or “Little Italy” within its borders. When I was a kid, the kid’s from our block were a distinct group from those “others” who didn’t live on our block. This is not forced it is natural and part of our evolutionary design. Gated communities exist because people don’t want to live in close proximity to “others.”
One group, tribe, culture, race, whatever is neither superior or inferior to another. They however are not the same. Being different is neither bad nor good it is just different. Utopian thinking libertarians, liberals, conservatives, socialists or whoever, that believe “if everybody would just blah blah blah, then everything would be great and everybody would be happy” are all wrong. Be it a society without government where everybody respected and valued the property of others or a society where government owned and controlled all property with no individual having ownership and all receive a share of the total, or whatever, they are all utopian ideas that history has shown will not work.
What history shows is that pure libertarianism, or anarchy, or socialism, or capitalism, or communism, or Islam, or any other “system” of governance don’t work for all people everywhere. The reason is clear, not every person is the same, not all tribes are the same, not all cultures are the same, and what one person or group values is not the same as what the other group values. History is clear when one group tries to force or otherwise condemns the values of another group, either the other group surrenders and allows its culture to die or they fight.
The people of many cultures say stuff like, “My culture will not surrender to yours, and will fight to the death rather than abandon our values and beliefs.” In the USA that is shortened to “Live Free or Die” or “Give me Liberty or Give me Death,” but it would just as easily be believed if said from a Japanese samurai; all variations on a theme of “Death before Dishonor.” So when cultural values clash, the result will be WAR! Islam is great in recognizing and capitalizing on this historic human trait that exists in all cultures, an evolutionary means of protecting culture. Islam clearly and boldly claims, you will surrender to Islam, or we will fight to the death. Other cultures will do the same, they cannot and never will live peacefully together. Ignoring this human trait that exists in every culture will lead to nothing but sorrow and violence. Keeping cultures separate is civilized, to do otherwise is to invite barbarism.
There is not, nor ever will be, one set of values and customs that everybody agrees. God separated the people, when man tries to undo what God did it never works out for the betterment of Man. When God separated men and created the different languages, it wasn’t only other language that men couldn’t understand, the very thinking and values of those “others” are so foreign that different tribes cannot understand (hence appreciate) the values of other tribes. The Alt-Right has a bull’s-eye on this point. All cultures have the right to protect themselves and keep other cultures from taking them over. As such, all cultures have the right to keep other cultures out, and institute a government, laying their government’s foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
When looking at languages, how do you reconcile people who don’t have a different word in their language to differentiate earning and winning. They equate earning money through hard work as the same as winning the lottery. You have money weather you earn it or win it is not relevant. The idea that actions, work to earn, or gambling, are the same when it comes to how you gain property. Who has more, is luck based, not based on the consequences of actions. This means that in some cultures, the idea that you must work to earn riches just doesn’t compute. You gain wealth because of who you are, who you know, and how lucky you are, what you do doesn’t relate to what you have. In the USA, what you do, is more important, than who you are. That is almost unique to American culture, where what your dad did or who he was is kind of irrelevant, a place where a black kid out of Chicago can be elected president one election cycle after an industrial robber baron’s family was president. A Chinese labor immigrant’s kids will never be president in Saudi Arabia, it’s just not culturally possible.
If a people choose they may institute a theocracy that they think will likely provide for their safety and happiness, or a commune, or a republic, or a democracy, or a King, or a Pope, or whatever. But no culture has the right to institute a government on another and all cultures have the right to protect themselves. The nation state appears to be the best method man has devised to divide diverse cultures avoid wars, and provide the means in which those societies can institute governments on principles that seems each separate and distinct society can best prosper. Forced unification, as seen last century by the USSR, fails and cannot be sustained.
When our founding fathers formed the USA, declaring our independence they summed up the idea that all not all cultures can get along and stay as one unified group of mankind. They declared that all men (meaning mankind and each culture) were created equally, but recognized they are different. As such declared “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
The forced unification in Iraq of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites has resulted in a constant war, some arbitrary outside group like the UN cannot force divergent cultures to live under one roof and not war. It has never happened and will never happen.
The EU is falling apart, the English are not the French who are not the Germans, who are not the Swiss or Dutch. The English have shown that they cannot and will not tolerate “others” dictating to them how they must live, Brexit is the best we can hope for, as English left the EU without violence. Great Britain has had to war to maintain unity because the Scotts, Irish, Welsh, and Brits, although nominally unified in being a Christian nation, as separate cultures have a lot of trouble staying together, much less staying bound to EU. The history of Great Britain is one of trying to force different cultures to unify and those different cultures warring to maintain their independence.
The USA will fall apart, the states used to have a set of shared values and culture, that is no longer true, the separation of the USA into smaller nation states is as inevitable as the breakup of the USSR. Hopefully we won’t repeat our past as when Americans war against each other the losses and devastation are more massive than any other warring tribes in history. If the USA has another civil war, it will end when one or the other group will be destroyed, ask the native Americans when we’ll stop, and how much of their culture and way of life can be maintained. The civil war resulted in the utter destruction of the South, it’s no longer the same, there is some “southern” culture but the facts are clear the Union invaded and forced cultural and societal change on the South in the War Between the States, some states still aren’t allowed to create their own voting laws.
If you believe “we can all get along” you’re an idiot. We can’t, never have, never will. Each culture should for the betterment of their own people learn to live with themselves, and nurture and institute what form of government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Globalism and one-worlders ideas have in the past, are now, and will always lead to war. Libertarianism is not functional except for a group of people who share the same values and culture. As a system it has proven to work for such a group whose values and culture are rooted in Protestant Christianity, but libertarianism is not a functional political system on a world wide scale where the same values and traditions of Christianity are not shared.
Diversity and libertarian ideas don’t work together. If they did the LP would be the strongest political party in the USA. The libertarian party theoretically embraces diversity, but it cannot and does not attract a diverse cross section of the population. The LP is made up of protestant white males of northern European heritage, and although not technically Christian, as a group and philosophy libertarians embrace the culture of the “protestant work ethic” a product of Reformation Theology. At its heart, libertarianism is the political manifestation of a subset of Protestantism, Calvinism. Cultures not of northern European origin, reject Protestantism, and disdain Calvinism and thus don’t accept libertarianism. The USA started changing at the beginning of the 20th century with a large influx of Catholics (Irish and Italian), this changed the culture and diluted the Calvinist influence. As such even though the LP, which as a political philosophy is clearly non-racist, and embraces acceptance of diverse people and ideas in principle, the LP is rejected by most of the USA.
The Libertarian Party (LP) rejected the Christian roots to libertarianism, and is the party is a combination of the libertine with Calvinism which makes the party inherently illogical and unacceptable to most people. The historic fact that libertarianism, allowing people liberty to succeed or fail and do what they want so long as they don’t harm others, resulted in the most prosperous society for more people doesn’t carry much weight. The reason is cultural. The idea that people are not duty bound, nor should they be forced to support others who fuck up is not acceptable to most other cultures, and as such libertarianism is rejected by most people.
Diversity is Strength is a lie. There is strength in unity not diversity. The USA is a prime example, since 1965 when we abandoned protection of our culture and unity as people and embraced diversity, the USA’s strength politically, economically, educationally, has diminished. Libertarianism worked for a while for a culturally unified Protestant population. On a larger world-wide scale it is and will remain a failure. Libertarianism will only function for a culture that is willing to protect itself. Libertarians for open borders, who embrace diversity, and reject the idea that a culture has the right to protect itself from others is virtual suicide. The 16 points of the Alt-right are currently the most advance and practical reality based political ideology where libertarianism can function. Read what Alt-Right says, not how they make you feel, the Alt-Right is coming together of great philosophy with realism and human nature. You can ignore the Alt-Right, but like ignoring the ideas of radical Islamists, the reality of what they represent will change your life and eventually world view.
Showing posts with label diversity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label diversity. Show all posts
Friday, March 24, 2017
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Freedom of Speech in the USA is Dead
By Tom Rhodes, 4/30/2014
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” regularly attributed to Voltaire, but first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre. Talk to any Libertarian, and they will whole heartedly support that position. Outside of libertarians not only would others not say that, they would advocate taking away your fundamental property rights based on what you say in private. The sentiments concerning freedom of speech are dead in the USA.
In 1977 the ACLU came to the defense of National Socialist Party of America in the Skokie Affair. What the Illinois Nazi’s were saying and the reasons behind their assembly in Skokie were reprehensible, but in the USA the entire culture worked under the belief that Freedom of Speech was more important than sissified people having their feelings hurt. Where is the ACLU and what is its position concerning Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling?
His public actions and words concerning race relations are laudable enough that Sterling was about to be acknowledged and rewarded by none other than the NAACP. Now because of the criminal actions of his ex-mistress, Miss V. Stiviano, illegally recording a clearly private conversation, Sterling is being deprived of property rights. Other than in the court of public opinion, the tape recording of Sterling’s racist rant is clearly not admissible, and V. Stiviano’s actions are criminal. Why isn’t she being prosecuted for her crime?
It appears that in the USA “expressing unpopular views in private” is now justification to take away private property rights, be banned from exercising your rights to use your property, or even go to public facilities. It would be nice to see the clause in the NBA Constitution that says the owners can force an owner to sell his team based on illegally obtained recordings of private conversations expressing unpopular views.
Considering what the press, and NBA are doing when a private conversation expressing racist views is illegally recorded and then made public, what are they going to do about Larry Johnson publically calling for the formation of a segregated all negro basketball league? Will he too be banned? His comments were equally racist and unlike Sterling’s were very public. In reality this is probably a power play by big money corporatists to use Miss Stiviano was a honey trap, to sway public opinion in order to provide a politically correct excuse to allow the NBA to give a major media market to the Guggenheim Partners and Michael Milken, but the ramifications for our culture, freedoms, and rights are vast.
Sterling is an obscenely rich bastard, I hope he fights tooth and nail to keep his property, and takes down the entire NBA with him. His public actions and words, not the illegally recorded, inadmissible, private comments to his ex-mistress, should be the only thing the NBA or press or possibly the courts be allowed to consider. Have we really come to the point where property rights can legally be taken away for what you say in private? Do we really want a world where you must assume everything you say in one-on-one private conversations is being recorded and can and will be used against you?
If the NBA owners vote to force him to sell the Clippers and Sterling takes them to court, it would force public exposure of the NBA constitution, which, unlike his illegally recorded private comments, are not currently publically available. It would be interesting to see what contractual rationale there is to force the sale of private property. The NBA probably has a case for forcing him out because of poor moral character, his public affair as evidenced by the public suit his wife is bringing against Miss V. Stiviano, clearly demonstrates Sterling’s poor moral character. Unless being an adulterous lecher in breach of his legally binding marriage contract is now considered a positive moral trait. Unlike his illegally obtained private comments these may be substantial grounds for forcing the sale of the Clippers, but I’m pretty sure that isn’t a line of either inquiry or thinking the NBA wants to explore.
Make no doubt about it, Sterling’s private remarks were deplorable racism, but they were private. Have we really come to a place where we accept the contents of illegal surveillance, which only revealed, clearly protected, even if unpopular, racist opinion and no criminal act as the justification to deprive an individual private property rights? Especially when all his public deeds and words concerning race are so laudable that the NAACP would reward a white guy?
It appears that is no sports personality, no major press organization, and no elected official willing to say “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Why? Unless there is a huge outcry from the press, and elected officials for the prosecution V. Stiviano’s obvious crime we can safely assume that this silence in both calling for justice and support of free speech, is evidence that the First Amendment is dead in the USA, and that there is in fact no right to privacy. The actions of the government and the compliant main stream media make it clear that freedom in the USA today is more like Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR than the country which back in 1976 declared that although the Illinois Nazi’s speech is deplorable, you cannot stop such speech nor deprive such speakers of life, liberty or property, for merely exercising their right to free speech. Today we routinely deprive people of property based on mere exercising their right to free speech.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” regularly attributed to Voltaire, but first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre. Talk to any Libertarian, and they will whole heartedly support that position. Outside of libertarians not only would others not say that, they would advocate taking away your fundamental property rights based on what you say in private. The sentiments concerning freedom of speech are dead in the USA.
In 1977 the ACLU came to the defense of National Socialist Party of America in the Skokie Affair. What the Illinois Nazi’s were saying and the reasons behind their assembly in Skokie were reprehensible, but in the USA the entire culture worked under the belief that Freedom of Speech was more important than sissified people having their feelings hurt. Where is the ACLU and what is its position concerning Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling?
His public actions and words concerning race relations are laudable enough that Sterling was about to be acknowledged and rewarded by none other than the NAACP. Now because of the criminal actions of his ex-mistress, Miss V. Stiviano, illegally recording a clearly private conversation, Sterling is being deprived of property rights. Other than in the court of public opinion, the tape recording of Sterling’s racist rant is clearly not admissible, and V. Stiviano’s actions are criminal. Why isn’t she being prosecuted for her crime?
It appears that in the USA “expressing unpopular views in private” is now justification to take away private property rights, be banned from exercising your rights to use your property, or even go to public facilities. It would be nice to see the clause in the NBA Constitution that says the owners can force an owner to sell his team based on illegally obtained recordings of private conversations expressing unpopular views.
Considering what the press, and NBA are doing when a private conversation expressing racist views is illegally recorded and then made public, what are they going to do about Larry Johnson publically calling for the formation of a segregated all negro basketball league? Will he too be banned? His comments were equally racist and unlike Sterling’s were very public. In reality this is probably a power play by big money corporatists to use Miss Stiviano was a honey trap, to sway public opinion in order to provide a politically correct excuse to allow the NBA to give a major media market to the Guggenheim Partners and Michael Milken, but the ramifications for our culture, freedoms, and rights are vast.
Sterling is an obscenely rich bastard, I hope he fights tooth and nail to keep his property, and takes down the entire NBA with him. His public actions and words, not the illegally recorded, inadmissible, private comments to his ex-mistress, should be the only thing the NBA or press or possibly the courts be allowed to consider. Have we really come to the point where property rights can legally be taken away for what you say in private? Do we really want a world where you must assume everything you say in one-on-one private conversations is being recorded and can and will be used against you?
If the NBA owners vote to force him to sell the Clippers and Sterling takes them to court, it would force public exposure of the NBA constitution, which, unlike his illegally recorded private comments, are not currently publically available. It would be interesting to see what contractual rationale there is to force the sale of private property. The NBA probably has a case for forcing him out because of poor moral character, his public affair as evidenced by the public suit his wife is bringing against Miss V. Stiviano, clearly demonstrates Sterling’s poor moral character. Unless being an adulterous lecher in breach of his legally binding marriage contract is now considered a positive moral trait. Unlike his illegally obtained private comments these may be substantial grounds for forcing the sale of the Clippers, but I’m pretty sure that isn’t a line of either inquiry or thinking the NBA wants to explore.
Make no doubt about it, Sterling’s private remarks were deplorable racism, but they were private. Have we really come to a place where we accept the contents of illegal surveillance, which only revealed, clearly protected, even if unpopular, racist opinion and no criminal act as the justification to deprive an individual private property rights? Especially when all his public deeds and words concerning race are so laudable that the NAACP would reward a white guy?
It appears that is no sports personality, no major press organization, and no elected official willing to say “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Why? Unless there is a huge outcry from the press, and elected officials for the prosecution V. Stiviano’s obvious crime we can safely assume that this silence in both calling for justice and support of free speech, is evidence that the First Amendment is dead in the USA, and that there is in fact no right to privacy. The actions of the government and the compliant main stream media make it clear that freedom in the USA today is more like Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR than the country which back in 1976 declared that although the Illinois Nazi’s speech is deplorable, you cannot stop such speech nor deprive such speakers of life, liberty or property, for merely exercising their right to free speech. Today we routinely deprive people of property based on mere exercising their right to free speech.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Press Ignores Brutal Hate Crime, Killer Yells “I Hate Black People”
By Tom Rhodes, 8/9/13 11:00am
In a clearly race based hate crime the national media has completely ignored. It seems at Union Square in NYC, a man allegedly went on a rampage in Union Square on Wednesday afternoon and left a complete stranger brain-dead in the process. Jeffrey Babbitt, 62, was minding his own business as he walked through the crowd near the chess boards in Union Square when a man made a hateful announcement and began his rampage, witnesses said.
One woman claimed, “He said ‘the next black person who walks by I’m going to [expletive].” Babbit was the next person, and according to a witness “His fist went in and the man’s head bobbed and he hit the ground and you could hear his skull hitting the ground.”
The National Media have completely ignored what could have been a great headline “NY Man Left Brain Dead By Attacker Shouting 'I Hate Black People'”. It’s bad enough that Martin’s killer got away with murder now another black is murdered by a white guy and the press ignores it.
Why is the press so disinterested?
Correction 8/9/2013 12:00pm: It was a black guy yelling “I Hate White People” so the entire story is irrelevant; violence crimes where white people are the victims of race based hate crimes committed by blacks are not news, it is politically incorrect to report hate crimes initiated by minorities, and doing so would violate the AP guidelines. CBS New York covers story here
In a clearly race based hate crime the national media has completely ignored. It seems at Union Square in NYC, a man allegedly went on a rampage in Union Square on Wednesday afternoon and left a complete stranger brain-dead in the process. Jeffrey Babbitt, 62, was minding his own business as he walked through the crowd near the chess boards in Union Square when a man made a hateful announcement and began his rampage, witnesses said.
One woman claimed, “He said ‘the next black person who walks by I’m going to [expletive].” Babbit was the next person, and according to a witness “His fist went in and the man’s head bobbed and he hit the ground and you could hear his skull hitting the ground.”
The National Media have completely ignored what could have been a great headline “NY Man Left Brain Dead By Attacker Shouting 'I Hate Black People'”. It’s bad enough that Martin’s killer got away with murder now another black is murdered by a white guy and the press ignores it.
Why is the press so disinterested?
Correction 8/9/2013 12:00pm: It was a black guy yelling “I Hate White People” so the entire story is irrelevant; violence crimes where white people are the victims of race based hate crimes committed by blacks are not news, it is politically incorrect to report hate crimes initiated by minorities, and doing so would violate the AP guidelines. CBS New York covers story here
Thursday, May 9, 2013
The Diversity Principle - a Lie
By Tom Rhodes, 5/9/2013
"The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department." ~ Thomas Sowell
If you dared to ask if "diversity" as an institutional goal has worked and delivered the benefits promised, you will be denounced and declared a heretic. Diversity is the religion of the left, but if you dare compare it to reality, you are regarded as a bad person. If you dare to cite hard provable evidence noting that places with more racial diversity have worse race relations will get you labeled a racist. Failing to have uniformly accepted thought on the benefits of "diversity" is verboten.
Look at education; in the USA over the past 50 years we have allowed an increase in our population of about 20% from diverse third world countries. Compare the results of our education system, now seeped in diversity, to countries that are more homogenous, like Japan, the Netherlands, etc. The plain truth is that we are now routinely out performed from many nations, all with far less "diverse" populations. Japan, is a very racially homogenous country which doesn't allow Muslims into their society at all, and makes acceptance of any non-Japanese into their society very difficult. How does Japan achieve such high quality education without the strength of diversity, for which there is a "compelling" need, according to the leftist academics of our nation?
Leftists often try to compare the US's health care, education, and other systems to the Dutch. The Dutch have a high standard of living, excellent state run health care and education, etc. In trying to implement similar programs in the USA leftists ignore one very important fact. The Netherlands is 96% Dutch, not just white, not just northern European, but Dutch. They have a very small very homogenous population with a unified and homogenous culture. What they don't have is diversity. The French have allowed massive immigration from Muslim Countries, not to denounce Muslim culture, but Muslim Culture isn't French culture and is not compatible with traditional French Culture, so what their embracing of diversity has brought them is violence, instability, and are bordering financial ruin.
Look at violence; It is hard to argue that India isn't one of the most diverse nations on earth. Its various groups of people are so intolerant that its violence is worse than the US during the days of Jim Crow. Why do the diverse religious beliefs in Arab nations continuously keep them at war?
If you dare ask these questions, leftists, especially leftist academics will attack your motives and not answer the question. Even thinking that diversity may not be all it's cracked up to be cannot be tolerated. Don't point to the research.
What you aren't allowed to reference is the simple fact in the last 50 years the USA has allowed a nearly 20% increase in our population from third world countries and thus we are looking more like a third world country. Accepting "Diversity" as a "Compelling National Interest" means we are willingly abandoning the homogenous culture and values that created the freest country in the world with the formerly highest standard of living the world ever saw, and embraced diverse third world attitudes, cultural norms, and values.
Diversity isn't just racial; compare Northern European Protestant culture, values, and success, to Southern European Catholic culture, values, and success. Look at the expansion of the Western hemisphere and compare those colonized by Northern Europeans to Southern Europeans. Now don't think about the stereotypical phrase that is no longer acceptable to utter, "Protestant Work Ethic." There is no corresponding term "Catholic Work Ethic" or "Orthodox Work Ethic." Other countries decry the fact that Americans work more and play less, ignoring the fact that it is that unifying shared "ethic" that created a country where even the poor have an obesity problem.
Researchers examined whether protestant societies and individuals are more adversely affected by unemployment than others. Countries identified as being historically Protestant included the UK, Australia, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Switzerland and the US. Researchers allowed for a number of factors that could have skewed their results including age, gender, income, education, health, and marital status.
The results show that unemployment reduces happiness and well-being regardless of religious denomination, but that it has a 40 per cent additional negative effect for Protestants. "The negative effect of unemployment on self-reported happiness was twice as strong for Protestants compared with non-Protestants."
Dutch economist Dr André van Hoorn, who led the study said, "We found that the work ethic does exist, and that individual Protestants and historically Protestant societies appear to value work much more than others. At the individual level, unemployment hurts Protestants much more than it does non-Protestants."
Diversity will result in diluting the core values and beliefs that built this country, it already has. It can be seen in our slow march towards socialism and dismissal of the values that we once held uniformly as a nation. Diversity will lead to more violence here as it has in other parts of the world. The truth and hard evidence do not support the liberal mantra "diversity is strength."
"The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department." ~ Thomas Sowell
If you dared to ask if "diversity" as an institutional goal has worked and delivered the benefits promised, you will be denounced and declared a heretic. Diversity is the religion of the left, but if you dare compare it to reality, you are regarded as a bad person. If you dare to cite hard provable evidence noting that places with more racial diversity have worse race relations will get you labeled a racist. Failing to have uniformly accepted thought on the benefits of "diversity" is verboten.
Look at education; in the USA over the past 50 years we have allowed an increase in our population of about 20% from diverse third world countries. Compare the results of our education system, now seeped in diversity, to countries that are more homogenous, like Japan, the Netherlands, etc. The plain truth is that we are now routinely out performed from many nations, all with far less "diverse" populations. Japan, is a very racially homogenous country which doesn't allow Muslims into their society at all, and makes acceptance of any non-Japanese into their society very difficult. How does Japan achieve such high quality education without the strength of diversity, for which there is a "compelling" need, according to the leftist academics of our nation?
Leftists often try to compare the US's health care, education, and other systems to the Dutch. The Dutch have a high standard of living, excellent state run health care and education, etc. In trying to implement similar programs in the USA leftists ignore one very important fact. The Netherlands is 96% Dutch, not just white, not just northern European, but Dutch. They have a very small very homogenous population with a unified and homogenous culture. What they don't have is diversity. The French have allowed massive immigration from Muslim Countries, not to denounce Muslim culture, but Muslim Culture isn't French culture and is not compatible with traditional French Culture, so what their embracing of diversity has brought them is violence, instability, and are bordering financial ruin.
Look at violence; It is hard to argue that India isn't one of the most diverse nations on earth. Its various groups of people are so intolerant that its violence is worse than the US during the days of Jim Crow. Why do the diverse religious beliefs in Arab nations continuously keep them at war?
If you dare ask these questions, leftists, especially leftist academics will attack your motives and not answer the question. Even thinking that diversity may not be all it's cracked up to be cannot be tolerated. Don't point to the research.
In recent years, Putnam has been engaged in a comprehensive study of the relationship between trust within communities and their ethnic diversity. His conclusion based on over 40 cases and 30 000 people within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community is associated with less trust both between and within ethnic groups. Although limited to American data, it puts into question both the contact hypothesis and conflict theory in inter-ethnic relations. According to conflict theory, distrust between the ethnic groups will rise with diversity, but not within a group. In contrast, contact theory proposes that distrust will decline as members of different ethnic groups get to know and interact with each other. Putnam describes people of all races, sex, socioeconomic statuses, and ages as "hunkering down," avoiding engagement with their local community-both among different ethnic groups and within their own ethnic group. Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates, two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining inter-ethnic group trust, more diversity is still associated with less communal trust.Demographics are measurable; when you see some meme on Facebook or other internet source decrying how these "red states" are some kind of evil compared to these "blue states". Go compare the Demographics makeup of those states. After you do the comparison, don't note it unless you are prepared to be labeled a racist. When you see some meme on Facebook or other internet source noting how much better XXXX is in other countries compared to the USA, compare the demographics. Note that most comparisons will exclude third world nations, and exclude more diverse nations.
Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:
Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
Lower political efficacy - that is, confidence in one's own influence.
Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.
Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).
Less likelihood of working on a community project.
Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.
Fewer close friends and confidants.
Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.
More time spent watching television and more agreement that "television is my most important form of entertainment".
What you aren't allowed to reference is the simple fact in the last 50 years the USA has allowed a nearly 20% increase in our population from third world countries and thus we are looking more like a third world country. Accepting "Diversity" as a "Compelling National Interest" means we are willingly abandoning the homogenous culture and values that created the freest country in the world with the formerly highest standard of living the world ever saw, and embraced diverse third world attitudes, cultural norms, and values.
Diversity isn't just racial; compare Northern European Protestant culture, values, and success, to Southern European Catholic culture, values, and success. Look at the expansion of the Western hemisphere and compare those colonized by Northern Europeans to Southern Europeans. Now don't think about the stereotypical phrase that is no longer acceptable to utter, "Protestant Work Ethic." There is no corresponding term "Catholic Work Ethic" or "Orthodox Work Ethic." Other countries decry the fact that Americans work more and play less, ignoring the fact that it is that unifying shared "ethic" that created a country where even the poor have an obesity problem.
Researchers examined whether protestant societies and individuals are more adversely affected by unemployment than others. Countries identified as being historically Protestant included the UK, Australia, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Switzerland and the US. Researchers allowed for a number of factors that could have skewed their results including age, gender, income, education, health, and marital status.
The results show that unemployment reduces happiness and well-being regardless of religious denomination, but that it has a 40 per cent additional negative effect for Protestants. "The negative effect of unemployment on self-reported happiness was twice as strong for Protestants compared with non-Protestants."
Dutch economist Dr André van Hoorn, who led the study said, "We found that the work ethic does exist, and that individual Protestants and historically Protestant societies appear to value work much more than others. At the individual level, unemployment hurts Protestants much more than it does non-Protestants."
Diversity will result in diluting the core values and beliefs that built this country, it already has. It can be seen in our slow march towards socialism and dismissal of the values that we once held uniformly as a nation. Diversity will lead to more violence here as it has in other parts of the world. The truth and hard evidence do not support the liberal mantra "diversity is strength."
Friday, November 16, 2012
Third World View of Government
By Tom Rhodes, 11/16/2012
America has become the largest third world country in the world and will cease to be a super power in about a generation. Think about how third world people treat and use their government. Government is a group of ruling elite who tax them and nominally supply some resources. Voting for more guys who promise to pay more to people from taxes makes sense. Bribing government officials to avoid taxes and get favored status is common. The third world person uses government trying to get all he can from government while paying as little as he can to government, even resorting to bribes etc. Laws are avoided or ignored as they are not applied equally, and a bribe to avoid punishment is cheaper than the taxes. So buy low, sell high, and pay off the government goon to stay in business. This is how the third world works. This is how many of our big cities work, can you say "drug war."
I was an advocate for all individuals being responsible for themselves, and the government not providing "charity." That's a principled but failed position. Since you will not get out of absurdly high taxes, find a way to milk the government for all you can, so that you at least get a portion of those taxes back. Get a legal divorce, your wife may be eligible for food stamps, and other federal aid. Bribe a doctor to say she's disabled. Work for cash wherever you can, etc. If you play it right you spouse could get upwards of $30K in benefits. So what if you're paying alimony, it's a tax right off, and your spouse pays a lower tax rate being that is her only income. It may be possible to play the system and get all your tax dollars back.
Normally this would be a morally reprehensible position, but since our government has removed God from everything else, and no longer considers the Creator the source of our rights, and no longer considers equal treatment under the law to be righteous, you are no longer under a moral obligation to play by the old rules. To survive you must milk the system. Corporations have been doing it for years, it's now time for every other individual to find a way to milk the system for all he can. 47% of us receive more from the government than they pay in. It's time for the rest of us to figure out how to get some of that free money.
Let's face it tens of millions of people who used to work are no longer "employed." The number of people receiving government disability payments has skyrocketed. I don't believe the percentage of disabled people has increased relative to population, just the percentage of people scamming the system to get disability payments from the government. Since we have allowed massive amounts of third world immigration to the USA, we are seeing Third World Treatment of government, "Scam it for all you can as the government is not your friend." Elect those who will give you the most, and find a way to avoid paying taxes. Work for cash if you're at the low end, hide your money off shore if you're at the high end. It's time for the Middle Class to start dipping it's paws into the government coffers. Find a way to scam the government, they are taking through a variety of taxes nearly half of what you make, don't feel guilty about cheating Uncle Sam, he's been fleecing you for years, and has promised to fleece you more.
Obviously voting and "democracy" are not the way to limit and maintain a limited government. We do have a way and the third world immigrants to the USA have shown us the way. The way to limit our government is to cripple it, let's face it; you're "entitled."
America has become the largest third world country in the world and will cease to be a super power in about a generation. Think about how third world people treat and use their government. Government is a group of ruling elite who tax them and nominally supply some resources. Voting for more guys who promise to pay more to people from taxes makes sense. Bribing government officials to avoid taxes and get favored status is common. The third world person uses government trying to get all he can from government while paying as little as he can to government, even resorting to bribes etc. Laws are avoided or ignored as they are not applied equally, and a bribe to avoid punishment is cheaper than the taxes. So buy low, sell high, and pay off the government goon to stay in business. This is how the third world works. This is how many of our big cities work, can you say "drug war."
I was an advocate for all individuals being responsible for themselves, and the government not providing "charity." That's a principled but failed position. Since you will not get out of absurdly high taxes, find a way to milk the government for all you can, so that you at least get a portion of those taxes back. Get a legal divorce, your wife may be eligible for food stamps, and other federal aid. Bribe a doctor to say she's disabled. Work for cash wherever you can, etc. If you play it right you spouse could get upwards of $30K in benefits. So what if you're paying alimony, it's a tax right off, and your spouse pays a lower tax rate being that is her only income. It may be possible to play the system and get all your tax dollars back.
Normally this would be a morally reprehensible position, but since our government has removed God from everything else, and no longer considers the Creator the source of our rights, and no longer considers equal treatment under the law to be righteous, you are no longer under a moral obligation to play by the old rules. To survive you must milk the system. Corporations have been doing it for years, it's now time for every other individual to find a way to milk the system for all he can. 47% of us receive more from the government than they pay in. It's time for the rest of us to figure out how to get some of that free money.
Let's face it tens of millions of people who used to work are no longer "employed." The number of people receiving government disability payments has skyrocketed. I don't believe the percentage of disabled people has increased relative to population, just the percentage of people scamming the system to get disability payments from the government. Since we have allowed massive amounts of third world immigration to the USA, we are seeing Third World Treatment of government, "Scam it for all you can as the government is not your friend." Elect those who will give you the most, and find a way to avoid paying taxes. Work for cash if you're at the low end, hide your money off shore if you're at the high end. It's time for the Middle Class to start dipping it's paws into the government coffers. Find a way to scam the government, they are taking through a variety of taxes nearly half of what you make, don't feel guilty about cheating Uncle Sam, he's been fleecing you for years, and has promised to fleece you more.
Obviously voting and "democracy" are not the way to limit and maintain a limited government. We do have a way and the third world immigrants to the USA have shown us the way. The way to limit our government is to cripple it, let's face it; you're "entitled."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
