Many of our north American and European readers probably wouldn't have had much exposure to the relatively recent Pike River tragedy, where several explosions rocked a coal mine, north of Grey Mouth, and sealed the fates of the 29 unlucky miners trapped within.
But the real tragedy is not the loss of peoples' lives, no. The real tragedy is not that 29 families are now without a breadwinner, definitely not. The real tragedy is the disgusting lack of diversity in the victims.
Something is Wrong Here...
How dare these white, colonialist descended (probably racists, lets face it) men monopolise the death lists!
What is worse is the disturbing lack of exposure to this very fact by so-called "Equal opportunists". Shouldn't famous Maori advocates, like Hone Harawiri, be filing grandiose lawsuits to right this obviously racially motivated display of workplace favouritism? Shouldn't Sikhs and Hindus be rattling the halls of parliament with their demands of proportionate fatality representation in the so-called multi-"cultural" New Zealand? And most of all, shouldn't feminists be marching in the streets, screeching like harpies from Hell to have a 50% death rate for women in the workplace?
To commemorate this horrible miscarriage of justice, diversity, and affirmative action, I will be setting up a charity organisation to right this wrong. The organisation will be called Proportionate Representation in Accidents Taskforce, or P.R.A.T for short.We will be accepting donations of new born baby girls or non-white males via freight (we will provide waterproof mail bags if required) until we have hit our national targets.
Recently, these two unlikely figures became poster boys for the latest SWPL display of misplaced altruis-I mean a summit on saving the tiger.
Of course, what better place to focus your misplaced leftist universalist loyalty, than a carnivorous beast who would not hesitate to eat you given half a chance? I can understand Putin's angle, the perpetual Bond villian trying for some good 'ol fashioned Western liberal publicity. What better way to demonstrate to your covert enemies' "elites" that you're like them than showing you care for the same irrelevant causes?
The elitist Hollywood liberal angle is something different entirely. For, to demonstrate you're one of them, you have to show that you have the same level of nihilistic contempt for your fellow man's struggle (unless it is as far removed as possible from your own demographic) while cheerleading for some irrelevant cause. This seems like the case with Dicaprio, he has to pay the piper in terms of showing he's part of the "The Hollywood Club".
In a healthy and upwardly mobile society, a demonstration of altruism would extend typically to one's own group, or, ingroup altruism, as Kevin Macdonald would call it. With all the racially motivated killings against whites in South Africa, the non-SWPL equivalent of attending a tiger conservation summit might be attending a SA Boer conservation summit, as their collective life expectancy doesn't look too hot, either. But in this highly individualist Western psychological climate, whites are less inclined to have any kind of group loyalty based on cultural or racial tradition, especially in the United States, the mecca of cultural Marxism.
In some ways, this couples itself with a more benign and less viscerally masochistic version of the Amy Biehl case. An upper class white girl goes out to South Africa to campaign against apartheid, and then is indiscriminately murdered by the very people she wants to free, which can only be worsened by her parents campaigning to have their daughter's killers excluded from the death penalty, and shaking their hands. Irony at its finest, or is it? If the Amy Biehl case is a cautionary tale of extreme liberal outgroup loyalty, this is a less severe version of the same affliction, coated in a glaze of self-satisfied apathy.
An inane cause like protecting an animal you will possibly only ever encounter only in zoos, which is lucky, because meeting it anywhere else will result in you becoming its dinner is a good example of how far removed SWPL interests are to the common man, and to common sense. For the SPWL crowd, the much coveted display of extreme outgroup loyalty doesn't have to even extend to culturally/ethnically alien people. Indeed, in this case, the only similiarity and common identity being that they both are a mammalian class of vertebrate.
Well, I'm back. My humblest apologies for the departure during exams. Anyway, straight into it.
Here's an interesting article. It essentially draws the conclusion that men in a relationship with a spouse that earns more than than them will cheat more, and tries to correlate that with a sense of "...[the woman] threatening the man's gender identity...", and this makes the guy cheat more, according to the writer.
But this very feminist conclusion neglects to mention other, more important factors, like the focus a career dispossesses a person of other aspects of their live (i.e, their partner), or the fact that more desirable woman tend to seek out men who earn more (note: rich old guys with young hotties), and also the fact that men don't tend to care if their spouse earns more. When applied, all these factors combine and pose a new hypothesis: Do women who out earn their male partners tend to be less sexually attracted or psychologically devoted to them?
Women do seem to go for men who have a drive and ability to succeed (and confidence, naturally), and what better indicator of that than money? The notion that having a society where women out earn men with no negatively associated consequences is a poorly drawn up one, at best. We can see a microsm of migration of higher-earning women from their group of men to others (or none) in the black community. Perhaps that, combined with soaring illegitimacy rates, is what the mainstream white population has to look forward to (or is already experiencing record numbers from 18%-30% in mainstream America from 1980-2000), though there is undeniable Human Bio-Diversity discrepancies between the white and black communities at play here.
The promotion of the career lifestyle in women in the feminist West had an unintended effect, (excluding the reduction of wage rates): The masculinisation of women, both mentally, and physically, reducing the presence of the idealised hour-glass figure of old as womens bodies change to accommodate the laborious and hormonal change (Hat tip to Reginald for the link.) will further hammer the into nail the coffin of Western society and speed up our inevitable decline, trading off stable traditionalism for pseudo-individualist nihilism.
One thing I have noticed on the world wide web, especially on the hands-on mainstream internet communities, like Youtube, is the proliferation of two things: Narcissistic nerds, and virulent political correctness in discussions of "taboo issues". You have people like The Amazing Atheist who resorts to lowest common denominator bullshit, and others who revel in attention whoring tactics, and then your mangina leftists who draws retarded conclusions (namely, that if we give money to Pakistani flood victims, so they won't turn to terrorism... Right, and that's if the money even gets to them).
I should first define my terms. A nerd is a person, who essentially smart and studious in the context of the system. This system may be school, university, or whatever institute of higher education they find this in. But the difference is with these types of intellects is, they may indeed demonstrate a higher IQ than average, but there is a lacking of an revolutionary spirit, replaced more with a will to conformity (maybe offsetting by a need not met in social lives?). The major problem with guys like these, is that these nerds, like the type you get on Youtube, have a stronger tendency towards: intellectually dishonest or leftist pseudo-intellects. When you mix together:
High IQ + Engendered pressure to be politically correct + A lust for attention (and to fit in) = Intellectual cowardice.
That cowardice manifests, not just in a fear to speak one's mind, but even merely questioning that norm is enough to induce a nervous reaction.
Now, Leftist "intellectuals". There's an undeniable leftist bias in a lot of American university institutions, and that can explain some of the exhibited group-think and parroting of professors (nowadays, most US universities don't really teach you to think independently, but to express the ideas you're taught to by your agenda-driven professor in a way that makes you sound smart to laymen, essentially), but also, that addition of a diminished ability to shrug off the tendency towards "appealing to authority" to create your case, creates some kind of arrogant complex that is very rigid in its thinking. Of course, narcissism has to play into it, too.
Not just on the internet, mind you. But the top dogs in any public marketplace of pseudo-ideas generally demonstrate the type of politically correct views that should come to no real surprise to any of us, especially when its moderated as Youtube is. Though, you have a few exceptions creeping in, every now and again. Thunderf00t is an example of such, a famous Youtube atheist who began to attack Islam, to the opposition of some of his ardent fans, and even a stalking Muslim trying to discredit his professional life, with the assistance of a few bitter Youtube atheists.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to paint all nerds with the same brush, but it seems that rise to the attention of many tend to have these things in common with one another. I would just argue that in this Western climate, the combination of a higher-than-average IQ, with the tendency to parrot authorities, self-censorship as a go-to, they are more likely to play the politically correct game. Indeed, societies that socially criminalise challenging norms will result in much mindless parroting and fear of overstepping ideological boundaries.
Now, I am an atheist myself, yet I know that inherently, atheism is not a system of beliefs, it offers no moral superiority to christian values or traditions, and its adherents sometimes have a strong tendency to be steeped in modern liberalism, as do most of Gen-Y. The cowardice which most mainstream Youtube atheists display in regard to Islam, but the "brave" fetishistic inclination towards focusing solely on debunking nutty Christians or Christian theology is akin to a fox who only attacks eldery or weak prey who are lagging behind the herd, to ensure little or no fight.
Indeed, it seems to be a meme to ardently and proudly demonstrate this in action, while even going so far as to triumphantly defend Islam's right to erect a mosque overlooking the site of ground zero, as if this was a shining example of neo-modernist excellence in morality, when most of us with half a brain cell to fire up can judge... It's nothing but. Arrogant politically correct postering is all this is. A lot of nerds' intellects go to waste, as they fall under the spell of PC and worship at the altar of masochistic multiculti.
