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.
Lutfur Rahman, a Bangladeshi Muslim, was recently elected as Mayor of the Tower Hamlets, or east-end London. What makes it all the more interesting:
"...His victory was all the more galling for Labour as it sacked him as its candidate last month, over his alleged dealings with the Islamic Forum of Europe [extremist group], and concerns over alleged vote-rigging. He denies the claims...."
And here's a picture of the man, with a Mohammedan, white-robed, sand-Gandalf, his top advisor, in toe.
All the more disturbing is sand-Gandalf's views on Christians, Sharia, and integration:
Very scary times for Britain, indeed. It just goes to show that democracy is only an ally of white kaffir English while they are still in the majority. And by the look of it, those times are quickly coming to an abrupt end.
I forgot to mention this earlier, but I have joined the team at the prestigious Aussie blog M4Monologue, recently. I'll mostly be re-posting new pieces I put on here, but it's definitely worth a look for the posters and comment contributions.
I was sitting in a class at my university, a fairly talkative bunch, about the low cost of goods at supermarkets, then the conversation shifted a little, the lecturer harped in: "...You can always tell if you see an Indian buying a bulk-load of soft drinks at the supermarket, that they're buying them to sell in their dairy." A guy in the class, around 20, a drug-using pseudo-punk musician, had to harp in: "Woooah! That's a little racist, isn't it!?" The sheer anxious indignation at the comment inspired little hope to that contrary that a sizable portion of Gen-Y has been pathologically embedded with a PC doctrine, that inspires an affective response of fear, discomfort and distress to any un-PC approved content. Contrastingly, I chuckled at the original comment in acknowledgment, and an older woman and I had to correct him.
The ironic thing was that my lecturer is far from white, in any stretch of the imagination. It seems that the R-word is no longer limited to your typical white person in normal language (though I doubt it is as effective for non-whites as it is for whites). Indeed, any public admittance of an extrapolation of a common feature of race is a source of anxiety for some of my fellow generation.
It seems that the Political Correctness beast produces neurosis in its target population, upon which it seizes in an eternal feedback loop, by redirecting the anxiety borne of its control, towards any conversation that might give way to something that is not mindless Multiculti Approved (tm) subject matter, feeding a cycle of further anxiety and further self-censorship.
You have effeminate tossers like this telling you what culture to celebrate and when to celebrate it. Only one night a year, if its anything he deems not part of the multi-culti. Can you imagine making this kind of advertisement in his ancestral land?
For those of you who have been living under a rock in recent times, popularly politically incorrect TV morning show host Paul Henry got under fire in the recent weeks for a couple of 'racist' comments. Here he asks the prime minister if we'll get a Governor General who looks and sounds like a Kiwi (current one is an Indian), and here, he has a laugh about an Indian top-dog called "Sheila Dikshit." No big deal, right? Oh no, very wrong. Big hoopla. He succumbed to the pressure of his elites and quit during his two-week stand-down.
I've been tracking the snowstorm these comments have produced, and it's not pretty (or consistent). The butt-hurt is strong with this one.
Apparently, if you're Indian, and if a large proportion of the Indian-named Youtube comments/plus an Indian TV shows debating whether Paul Henry should be sacked, are to be consistent with the feelings of mainstream Indians (only 30% possess toilets, mind you, hence the great irony of the name), the anti-white sentiment is being imbibed freely, with gems including comparing the comments to how WWI started, how the white race is coming to an end, and general threats against Paul and his mother.
Of course, our Kiwi and our Western liberal comrades came to the pathetic rescue, apologising profusely, distancing themselves as representatives of the "people", and scorning the man, while simultaneously doing the metaphorical equivalent of kneeling down and licking up spittle of their would-be foreign appease-ees. Thanks for jumping on board, fellas.
But the real icing on the cake is the sheer irony that India thinks it can bestow and condemn any other nation for racism, when it practices its own ancient, supposedly "modernised" discrimination in its own home, with the caste system. More closer to home, a white looking girl joined a Miss India NZ beauty contest, and was given abuse by a crowd for "...not looking Indian enough." Overall, it seems the whites are meant to take on collective guilt, and Indians are to take on collective amnesia, for the past and present.
We have taken on a collective Western identity culture, where we hold ourselves up to the highest level of critique, and bestow upon our enemies the encouragement and sponsorship to hone in and exploit that self-flagellation, like ravenous, rabies-ridden canines. And the individualist corporatist elites incharge, the ones who ultimately control people like Henry's pay cheque, they make the call to sell us down the river and singularly focus on profit: Don't rock the boat, it's full of money. Of course, New Zealand is still in the early stages, the fact like people like Henry can even exist without being assaulted by far-left thugs is a strong indication of that.
This problem is a twin-headed beast of: Cultivation of a foreign entitlement-complex, self-flagellating enabling of a multiculturalist dream, and that we focus on stupid, non-issues like this in our media. A mass-made vehicle for bread and circuses to keep the mind off of the issues of importance. The failure of the New Delhi Commonwealth games, for one.
How far we have come in the 21st century in the realm of Western politics. We have a center-right political party making decisions based on "encouraging good habits". Inherently, this is nanny state social policy wrapped in a sandwich of thin-crusted, pseudo-fiscal conservatism.
As a former smoker, I have a certain amount of comradeship with those wheezing bastards. And one thing you can't help but notice, is a relentless campaign of demonising smokers disproportionately in society. Indeed, I would not be surprised to see an advert cursing the evils of smoking, followed a few adverts later glorifying the taste of Steinlager.
Probable hyperbole aside, I have found a lot of shared attributes of the most vocal and ardent non-smokers, for instance, a strong desire to be "healthy", with the over-inflated, media-enforced, alleged serious negative effects of second-hand smoke, and usually possessing an overweight or underweight build, unhealthy drinking habits, or some kind of psychological chip-on-the-shoulder, or a state-sponsored smug sense of moral-superiority, transmitted by socially sponsored anti-smoker sentiment.
Many anti-smokers will decry the costs that smokers inflict on society with their self-inflicted diseases, and that the public shouldn't have to foot the bill. After all, they're smokers.
But what benefit does the government derive from dissuading people from smoking? Obviously less tax revenue from cigarette sales, is an obvious one. One might argue, "But that is dismal compared to the cost smokers cost our health system!" Not so. Another issue few factor in, when balancing the costs and benefits of smoking, is the fact we have an aging population. This aging population, currently sitting at around 78 for men, and 82 for women as seen below, is a massive drain on the economy via pensions, especially consider that women nowadays aren't having enough kids to replace our own population and the coming pensioner-ship Baby Boom exasperating the issue further.
Source: Statistics New Zealand: http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/health/life-expectancy.html
According to mainstream medical numbers, smokers die 10 years earlier, which, if this is the case, will cause a windfall for society via dying earlier, as the Czechs have found. A morbid benefit from a bad habit? Maybe. But statistics don't lie. Not to mention the fact that tobacco smoking is non intoxicating substance, making it suitable for smokers to work and function as a normal, productive member of society, at least in the vast majority of cases.
The Myth of Life Eternal:
Anti-Smoker's attitude: "People don't even want to smoke, because of seeing all of the terrible things and diseases that happen to smokers. People have become more health conscious and aware of what can harm them, and they want to avoid being old and decrepit."
I'll let Bill Hicks answer that.
"...I'm gonna tell you non-smokers right now, that I know for a fact that you don't know. And I delight in telling my brothers things they don't know, particularity when they're true... Which this is. Ready? Drum roll......
Non-smokers die.. Every day. Sleep tight!
You see I know you entertain some type of eternal life fantasy because you choose not to smoke, let me be the first to POP that bubble, and send you hurdling back to reality... You're dead too..."
Inspired by this blog post here, encouraging all bloggers who support Geert Wilders to write a post about it.
For those of you who don't know, Geert Wilders, the classical liberalist Dutch politician, is going through trial currently for alledged hate speech, presented in his film Fitna, which essentially showed some Islamic verses and quotes aligned to some video of violent/fundamental Muslim speeches and actions. The Netherlands has turned into a place where even speaking the truth is now illegal, if its offends the sensibilities of Mohammedans and their leftist apologists.
The bigger threat to the Dutch intelligentsia Geert presents is the challenging of the culturally relativist ideology spewed by mainstream society, and a rejection of the notion that Islam is a religion of peace, when in reality, it is an ideology of Submission.
Opposing Islam openly and directly has mean't that not only Geert Wilders faces criminal charges, but he has to live with constant police protection due to the constant threats of death he faces to avoid becoming another Theo Van Gogh.
I'd actually be shocked if there was an article about Muslims in the West not demanding something.
Here are the jokes (cracked me up):
1.
“What is the difference between Muslims and Kiwis? Muslims get to commit adultery and get stoned, Kiwis get stoned and commit adultery!”
2.
Mr. Williamson also quipped about the weather being “Shi’ite in the morning and Sunni in the afternoon.”
Muslims demand apology for New Zealand minister's joke
(AFP) – 2 days ago
WELLINGTON — New Zealand's Islamic community has written to Prime Minister John Key demanding an apology for a joke one of his ministers made about Muslims, the Dominion Post newspaper reported Saturday.
The president of the Federation of Islamic Associations New Zealand, Anwar Ghani, said Muslims were "very upset" about the remarks made in a speech by Building Minister Maurice Williamson.
"We brought it to the notice of the PM saying that what was said was highly inappropriate and the minister should be reprimanded and apologise," Ghani told the newspaper.
Williamson cracked a joke about Muslims and the practice of stoning while giving a speech at a building industry awards ceremony last month.
Ghani said he did not think comments centred on religious intolerance were commonplace in New Zealand, but this issue was "a big problem because it was uttered by someone who is regarded as being responsible and a public figure".
A spokesman for the prime minister confirmed the letter had arrived and was being considered.
A British boy has been banned from America for life after he sent an email to the White House calling Barack Obama "a prick". Seventeen-year-old Luke Angel, from Silsoe in Bedfordshire, sent the expletive-laden message to the White House after watching a TV programme about the 9/11 attacks.
Unfortunately for Angel, the FBI intercepted the email and contacted police in the UK. No criminal action will be taken against the teenager, but he has been placed on a list of people banned from entering the United States.
Bedfordshire police spokeswoman Sarah Wilkinson said the email "was full of abusive and threatening language" but added that the incident was basically a case of a boy "being silly".
"We were informed by the Metropolitan Police and so we went round to see him," she added. "He said 'oh dear, it was me'."
This very PC article shows the strange reasoning of the leftist NZ perspective, as the creator of the article in question assumes the burden of fixing the economic issues of Maori and Pacific Islanders lies solely in the hands of current tax-payer. But one of the interesting points, bolded below, is their high birth rates contrasted with European NZ. What the author failed to take into account was that indeed, the high birth rates aligned with Maori and P. Islander is mostly to their own and the country's own economic detriment. When you have more kids than you can afford and you have no qualms about taking welfare payments for it, you're sticking yourself in a financial hole, and you're draining the state's tax coffers, additionally.
The idea portrayed in this article is to throw money and education to the current Maori and Pacific Islanders, and hope they're good to our aging white NZ population in our later years.
What I see is that a push for more educated and financially stable couples to have more kids is more preferably, easier and realistic, and an encouragement of those less stables to not have as many kids, as ultimately, throwing money at a problem that can be at least mostly placed at the feet of culture (not valuing education highly, but valuing big families) is no fix at all.
However, I do agree a more educated Maori and Pacific Islander (and NZ in general) population would be to our benefit, as it would potentially lower unemployment, reduce crime, push us into a more knowledge-based niche of the global market, and lower their birth rates to comparable levels to white NZ, as more educated people tend to have less kids and focus on a more urban lifestyle where cost of living is more important than having a family.
New Zealand as a whole is around its population carrying-capacity at around 5-5.5 million, and considering our Clean Green image and agricultural/horticultural/virticultural based economy, we should aim to try and keep as much land as possible for those purposes, as this brings in the money, and not focus on some kind of big NZ policy, through birth rates or immigration, which would eat up the land resources without the benefit of an independent revenue source.
But this is the problem: Is the long-term benefits of an overhauled education system worth the short-term costs (in the eyes of the public), and do we have a culture that will make the most out of this kind of push for education?
Plea to help young Maori and secure our economic future
By Simon Collins
5:30 AM Monday Sep 13, 2010
Former Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro has made an impassioned plea to invest more in Maori children - for the sake of New Zealand's economy.
She told a conference on welfare reform that Maori were "the canary in the coalmine", losing their jobs and being thrown on to welfare benefits before others when the economy was hit by recession.
The Maori unemployment rate leapt from 10.1 per cent in March 2008 to 16.4 per cent this June, while the national average unemployment rose from 3.9 per cent to 6.8 per cent.
The total of working-aged Maori on benefits rose 5.4 percentage points, from 23 per cent to 28.4 per cent, while the number of working-age non-Maori beneficiaries rose from 7.7 per cent to 9.3 per cent.
Dr Kiro, now an associate professor at Massey University's School of Public Health, said these differences were driven by a wider increase in inequality in New Zealand since the late 1980s.
"Maori and Pacific families and individuals are among the most deprived and this is part of the macroeconomic environment that we need to address," she said.
Income inequality grew steeply when unemployment last peaked in the late 1980s and early 90s.
Social Development Ministry figures showed it peaked in 2001, came down slightly with rising employment and Working for Families tax credits up to 2007, then worsened again with the recession.
Incomes were now as unequal again as they were in 1998, and among the most unequal in the developed world, although still slightly more equal than in 2001.
Professor Kiro said the ageing non-Maori population, combined with relatively high Maori and Pacific birth rates, meant the future NZ economy would depend on today's Maori and Pacific children.
"Quite apart from the moral imperative, we have an undeniable self-interest in making sure they grow up well-educated and well-adjusted. They must, to look after us oldies when it comes time.
For those of you who are not familiar with Enoch Powell, he was an English politician who emerged at a cross-roads in the English political system. A member of the Conservative party during the 1960s, he was most famous for his "Rivers of Blood" speech, predicting that the policy of mass immigration of non-Western immigration to England would first result in segregation, then massive violence. He was certainly right about riversofblood.
He soon left the Conservative party on principle in 1974, alledgely due to their taking England into the EEC (later the EU). One can gather from him, in my opinion, a more modern version of Nietzsche with the influences of classical Greek thinking about Statesmanship and nationalism.
I feel like Enoch represented the working class during the debacle on mass-immigration regardless of whether he was just taking a populous stance or not, and inherently, his opposition used his frank language as a prototypical tool to instigate the widespread political abuse of the 'race card' to stifle any criticism of mass immigration and facilitate far-left radical groups to combat it on the streets. Inherently, he was used to push a socialist agenda by the elites, of isolating and supplanting the native britons' traditionally conservative viewpoint.
Non-smokers die.. Every day. Sleep tight!
You see I know you entertain some type of eternal life fantasy because you choose not to smoke, let me be the first to POP that bubble, and send you hurdling back to reality... You're dead too..."