Wednesday, December 23, 2009

The Emerging Mechanism to Exploit White Americans

I read it first in Mangan's Blog: In America, a permanent class is being created that takes out more from the State than puts in. This new class is well organized, has conquered the Government and is tirelessly creating new mechanisms to transfer resources from the working and producing class to the parasite class. If the parasites become majority and theState is ruled by democratic voting, the situation may be irreversible. Marx never imagined such a social setting.

An anonymous commenter down here writes:
White Democrat voters are either comfortably rich (and it will take a long time to erode their wealth) or in professions that benefit directly or indirectly from government largesse (teachers, trial lawyers, college faculty, etc.) If you combine them with minorities and those who pay no income tax (overlapping categories) you are getting perilously close to having a permanent majority in favor of taxing the "rich" to pay for all the goodies, as long as there still are any rich left. The ultra rich are unconcerned - they can afford advisors to design elaborate tax shelters, so "rich" in this context means anyone who actually works for a living.
A second Anonymous writes:
What went on in Copenhagen was what Tom Wolfe memorably called "mau mauing the flack catchers". As Ronduck said, Obama comes from the breed of "community organizers" who are used to extorting the Man, so he is entirely comfortable with this procedure (the operation known as the whiteman'smoneyectomy), even though there is some role reversal (the fox is guarding the hen house). Since Obama has already given away trillions to all and sundry, what are a few trillions more? Where Obama is from, money is something white people have in unlimited quantities but are unwilling to share with the darker peoples, so boring details like inflation and deficits and so on can be left to his Jew advisors - they know how to deal with such details. Obama is now the Big Man that his father wished to be and never was.
There are at least 10,000 papers in Social Sciences and Economy published per year in America, yet I never saw any reference to this development. The State, in 2010, expropiates about half of the country's resources through direct and indirect taxes, and channels these resources toward maintaining the State mechanism, toward maintaining vital institutions such as the Army, schools, hospitals, but most of the money is paid back to the public (not to the ones taxed, of course) as transfer payments. It would be relevant to see a study what proportion of the resources are vacuumed from the taxpayers's pockets and channeled to feeding the parasites. The American State is the most complex organism in existence and it can be assumed that the channeling is carried out by indirect and mixed means, making it difficult to identify and quantify the net flow. It would be interesting to discover how this mechanism is behaving lately.

On the other hand (I always have many hands), it is not self-evident that the inherently less capable majority is able to manage a complex monster as the American State in its own interest. It is easier to believe that they would be the exploited ones. I dare to go one step ahead and say that it is easier to believe that the extremely capable minority (let's call them "The Jews" for short, although real Jews make up only about ten to twenty percent of this elite) is manipulating the State in its interest. I would think that this second situation is the natural one, yet in a democracy (the rule of the majority) as America, the first situation may be the existing one. Or something in the middle, which would mean that the American State is being operated against "The Rich", as defined by Anonymous: people that works for a living.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

This expounds a thesis to which I have long subscribed, namely that it is all to do with the ratio of wealth creators to wealth consumers; and this ratio is now becoming unfavorable in the USA.

The Marxist ringleaders, who are amongst the few who really know what is happening, have an immense task: to deceive and generally intimidate the wealth producers into submission, despite the fact that these producers are generally more intelligent than average.

What is needed now is a discussion which itemizes and exposes exactly how this is achieved. Fundamentally, it is to do with the correlation between intelligence, work ethic and morality; medium-smart people generally believe in obeying the law, fairness, decency and generosity.

So the task of the Marxists is made all the easier; for such emotions can easily be exploited and abused, and they are. Witness mass immigration, and how easily ordinary people are scared out of criticism of this insanity by the fear of being labled a racist, intolerant, etc.

Hey, presto and Western Civilization disappears in a puff of smoke.

Anon.

Eshenberg said...

Sveiki!
Anon. "Hey, presto and Western Civilization disappears in a puff of smoke."
Oswald Arnold Gottfried Spengler,
"The Decline of the West"

"...in a puff of smoke..."
Samson option;)

J said...

"Hey, presto and Western Civilization disappears in a puff of smoke."

Eshenberg, it was not Oswald Spengler who said that. It is an East England idiom, probably by a middle-aged person from an African former colony.

J said...

Sorry if I am wrong.

Anonymous said...

The second Anonymous is the same as the first Anonymous is the same as this Anonymous. I see there is a disadvantage to being anonymous, even though it frees me to write in a way that is far beyond the bounds of what is considered "racist" and therefore unutterable in America today. Perhaps I shall henceforth sign my posts "K", which is one more than "J".

I think you have to distinguish between the truly productive and wealth creating sectors of the economy (in which some Jews are to be found) and parasitic sectors (e.g. trial lawyers) in which Jews are also amply represented.

It is in the interest of a parasite to weaken but not kill its host - once the host is dead there can be no more blood sucking. But the parasites sometime overplay their hand and kill their host unintentionally.

Democracy is a rather crude tool and it remains to be seen whether democratically modulated blood sucking can be regulated to such a fine degree, especially in a world where the progress of other countries (China) is not slowed down by such parasitic losses (nor as Copenhagen showed do the Chinese have the slightest interest in signing up for same).

- K

Anonymous said...

J, you are right.

Anon.

J said...

I cant believe it, I am right! Language is such a marvelous marker, it allows to identify a person by his accent and the words he uses to the resolution of say a street in London, elementary school, social class, age and so on.

It is not only in the interest of parasites to avoid killing their host, but they have a vital investment in their hosts and it is in their interest that "their" host is stronger and more competitive than its rivals. Thus parasites develope mechanisms to make their hosts fitter, and mechanisms to combat their hosts's competitors. Ultimately the relationship benefits both organisms and sometimes they even merge into one. The problem with human-on-human parasitism, if it exists as a social-biological phenomenon, is that it is always very recent, that is, they had no time to develope some kind of equilibrium.

Anonymous said...

The major problem with less intelligent parasites is that they don't actually consider the future. In fact, for them, the future doesn't actually exist. Therefore, they don't care a hoot if the host is weakened or dies. This is only one of the reasons why we cannot entrust the interests of the broader human race to them.

Anon.

Anon.

J said...

The relation between parasite and host is biological, and what they may think (if they do) is completely irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

I have to say that we have to be careful using the "parasite" term - this gets us perilously close to Nazi-like thinking. After all, don't humans apply pesticides to exterminate parasites? People who we might consider "parasites" respond to incentives - they are like the bears in parks who find it easier to scavenge human campgrounds rather than hunt in the forest as they are intended to by nature. It is the humans' fault for leaving the goodies out, not the bears. Who does not want free goodies without work for himself? The US Founding Fathers, who were a group of exceptionally wise men, understood this and created a system of weak government and strong property rights, so that the majority could not simply vote themselves into the property of others. This unfortunately has been undermined in the last 80 yrs or so. Like a building that is undermined, it does not topple immediately - at first it begins to list and wobble a bit (where we are now) and gives warning that the foundations must be restored. If we ignore the warnings, then the collapse comes. The question is whether we can restore the original foundations once they have been eroded, when so many benefit from the erosion itself?

K

Anonymous said...

J, here I must respectfully disagree with you, since the human/human host/parasite relationship is a little different from the mindless ones that occur in Nature.

Human hosts, having an element of free will, can decide to pull out of a situation way before they are forced to by overwhelming parasitism. This is what happened in Zimbabwe and most of the rest of sub-Saharan Africa; whites just said, to hell with it, we just won't take the risk; so they left, en masse, before things got really bad. This is currently happening in South Africa; most who leave are leaving pre-emptively.

The human parasites, however, do not exercise this foresight at all; they just succumb to instant gratification, worse than animals, and so not only do they unnecessarily eliminate their hosts (one way or the other), they also ruin the opportunities for all future parasites, including (stupidly) their own opportunities in the future.

So there is a massive asymmetry built in to this human/human relationship, in which the one party can plan for the future and the other one cannot. This is not the situation in Nature,where neither party can, and so unlike in Nature, the normal feedback mechanisms fail to operate and it becomes inevitable that once the situation deteriorates beyond a certaion point, the whole country is lost and essentially lost forever.

This is the real outcome of the "human rights" revolution of the 1960's: the defeat not only of Western Civilzation, but of any civilization at all. You can see this all over, not only in Africa, but increasingly in Europe itself and the USA.

Anon.

J said...

The West is very far from being defeated. The phenomenon of the strong, winning party abandoning the field to the weaker party is unnatural, it cannot last, it will necessarily be reversed. It may take a few generations till things become balanced once more.

Anonymous said...

I hope so.

However, it will not be easy and might involve a quasi-civil war in a major western territory. Some think the USA; but I think it will be avoided there, perhaps happen there in a different way. Personally, I think it will occur in Europe once the immigrant population reaches a certain threshold (ie very soon).

It will start, by the way, with a major airline atrocity, coupled with anti-Semitic "incidents" which, as always, are the canary in the mineshaft. At that point the European Jews will wake up, stop trying to re-fight the Second World War, realise where the existential threat is now coming from, and start pulling strings. Then us timid goyim puppets will feel morally enabled to defend Europe and the West. But any serious defense of the West has to include massive pro-natalist programs by the governments.

I am sad to have to put it like this, and I wish it were otherwise, and I do not want it to happen like this; but I see little else in the future.

Anon.