The country is reacting strangely irrationally to the loss of its importance -- it is a reaction characterized primarily by rage. Significant portions of America simply want to return to a supposedly idyllic past. They devote almost no effort to reflection, and they condemn cleverness and intellect as elitist and un-American, as if people who hunt bears could seriously be expected to lead a world power.Who is hunting bears? The only bear-hunter I know of is Brezhnev. Is Der Spiegel saying that America will collapse like the late Soviet Union? I think the joy is premature.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
German Joy
The Germans cannot hide their joy at America's difficulties. Der Spiegel writes:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Der Spiegel is not representative of the majority of Germans, who I think would not celebrate the decline of influence of the USA.
Der Spiegel is a propagandist Left-Liberal mouthpiece, which itself actually devotes no real effort to "reflection". This is unfortunate, since "reflection" is what a "spiegel" is meant to do.
But this wouldn't be the first time Europeans were deceived by their MSM.
Anon.
The bear hunting quip refers to Sarah Palin. She is allegedly a bear hunter.
Thanks Mark Whetman for the correction. I didnt know she was into hunting bears. Aren't bears protected in the US?
Regarding Der Spiegel, it is obvious that reflects the imbecile left point of view and not the solid conservative German majority. The German public is suffering with its European partners, so it is human to look over the Atlantic to see that neither the Americans are enjoying the crisis.
> Aren't bears protected in the US?
Negatory, sir. They do very well for themselves, and are not at all threatened. There is a vast amount of wilderness in our land. The tall-grass prairie is almost all gone, because it has fantastic soil and is easy to plow. It has been truly abused in the past, but what's left of it (what's left wild) is well-preserved. The part of it under agriculture is arguably being abused in terms of topsoil, but that's an environmental problem for us, not for the other animals. Every other habitat is moderately plentiful to extremely abundant.
What's funny is how everyone from JPPPI to NYT increasingly accepts the coming troubles of America; they sound a lot like Steve Sailer on that point. But no one will ever say why they are coming - except in articles on education where it is pointed out that we are doomed unless we can teach the Latins engineering. The quote from Spiegel takes this to a new level or irony.
I do think collapse is almost inevitable, but it may not happen for some decades. The task of avoiding governmental collapse is of course to assemble vast power while nominally maintaining democracy. This is absolutely essential. Right now they all vote for whomever they are told to vote for - but that will no longer be so, if conditions worsen. Which they probably will. Remember, when half of us is Mexican paesanos - whom I used to work with, and personally like - we will be half-Mexified in IQ and conscientiousness (in the sense of hard and careful work). La Griffe's models account for this, and show only a very slow economic decline (about 10% per half-century).
Great as far as it goes. But what about trust? It is much less additive. When our IQ is half-Mexified, our trust levels may be almost fully Mexified.
Does it matter? Hard to know. Look at Russia: her economy doesn't look /so/ bad, but one needs to factor in her vast amount of natural resources. The problem may not be just loss of efficiency in activities that aren't well-supervised, and in bribes. There may be valuable economic activities that simply /don't get done at all/ because they are too little supervisible, and therefore unprofitable - however the fact that they can be done profitably here in this country may not only add value additively, but synergistically.
wanting to.
Unfortunately, it is hard to evaluate the importance of trust from looking at Russia, because there are probably other variables making them different from this country, not just trust.
Anyway, if the economy goes down more than slowly - like, almost even approaching a Brazil level! - there's gonna be real trouble.
Even if not, it is necessary, as I was saying, to fully de-democratise, because people are just going to vote for transfers of money to themselves, whether the money exists or not. Even at the GDP we are at now, socialism (Medicare above all) needs to be reduced drastically, not increased!
So, this democratic/'democratic' regime will end unless trust is not as economically valuable as I think, /and/ truly radical de-democratization is accomplished. Even if it doesn't end, some would not consider the necessary changes to be continuity of government. The 'education'-and-mass-media-based system of making people vote the way they 'should' is coming to an end - we are only supposed to vote for the right kind of people, not for Palin - not that she is a good candidate... but Pat Buchanan, a great candidate, would get the same reaction if he were as popular as she.
There's not such a thing as democracy, period. There's democracy where people's votes are determined by set-of-determinants A, and there's democracy where it's determined by set-of-determinants B. Sub-regimes A and B are actually different, whereas the Dems vs GOP is mostly just entertainment.
Now, I don't expect to like the new regime when it comes. I'll probably hate it, since it's probably not going to do much to preserve my people or permit them to recognize themselves as a people. But, it might accomplish those things without meaning to.
I know you will disagree but the incorporation of a large mass of IQ 85 people (Mexicans) will not depress the living standards of White Americans. On the contrary. It may even make the country more governable, with a mass of easily manipulated voters. Neither Brazil nor Mexico are a mass of undifferentiated mestizos/mulattoes, but societies with large economic, cultural, social differences. White people monopolize political and economical power all over Latin America. Even genetic mingling is a one-way up-down flow. Having lived many years in Latin America, I dont feel that it is so terrible. Blond boys (like I was) and blonde girls do well in Latin countries.
In my head, the writer's voice sounds like Mike Myers' character from Sprockets.
Re: J's comment on whites in Latin America, Griffe de Lion talks about "smarter fraction" theory - that as long as a certain % of the population is intelligent then the rest can be of lower IQ. To run a factory you need just one super-sharp (Jewish) owner, a few medium smart engineers and computer guys (Chinese, Indian), a handful of administrative types and foremen (white Christian) and then the hundreds of guys out on the factory floor can be black and hispanic.
Sometimes this works up to a point (S.Africa, Bermuda) and sometimes it doesn't (Zimbabwe). The trick is to convince the "have nots" that it is in their interest to keep the smarter people around and not just throw them out and take all that nice stuff that they have. This is awfully tempting to do. I'm not sure this is sustainable in the long run. Mexicon has had a number of revolutions. See also Cuba, Venezuela, etc. Not to mention Hungary, Uganda, etc. - all places where eventually the "dumber fraction" decided to just get rid of the "smarter fraction" even if it was against their long term interest.
K
Re: the comment on education, generally I find that the popular discussions on education totally ignore the racial/genetic elephant in the room. It is viewed as a failure of teaching or of society or a consequence of racism or (especially) failure to spend enough money or something that graduates of City College in NY can now barely read or write while in the past City College was a mill for the production of Nobel Prize winners. The obvious answer is that their old student body was mostly 115 and up (sometimes way up) IQ Jewish students and their current student body is mostly 85 and down blacks and Hispanics and that no amount of teaching,spending, early intervention, after school programs, extra tutoring, blah, blah, blah will turn sow's ears into silk purses. This kind of discussion is strictly verboten so while the elephant tramples the room everyone politely (or fearfully - if you say one word about this your job is at risk) pretends to ignore it and talks about how to get rid of those annoying mice. As we all know, it is precisely when confidence in a prevailing orthodoxy is most in doubt that the proponents redouble their efforts to not publicly permit any dissent or discussion, until one day the whole shaky house of lies collapses.
K
Sometimes this works up to a point (S.Africa, Bermuda) and sometimes it doesn't (Zimbabwe).
Latin American underclass for the most part is dark-Mestizo/Amerindian, not mulatto/African. Amerindian bricklayer easier for Latin American Spaniard and Anglo-Saxon American to control than black ghetto.
> White people monopolize political and economical power all over Latin America.
That's part of the problem, though. No one here, of any race is accustomed to that, and everyone says it's evil, or at least keeps his opinion to himself. The left still wants to go much farther in the other direction - mandate equal pay 4 chix, etc. Those who don't care about being SWPL, though, are going to want to go toward the Latin way of mostly-White control (ie meritocracy).
Basically, the more non-Euros present here, the more SWPLs want to go SWPLward, and the more our nominal 'rightists' have to cave in. We Whites were horrible enough monsters when only 15% of us were non-white, but now that 50% are, we are ruining the lives of 3x as many people with our daily racist behavior as we were back then! At the 60% non-White mark, we'll be constantly dehumanizing and degrading some 250 million people, year by year!
Meanwhile, optimizing our economic fate, such as it is, means meritocracy... and something in the collective mind knows very well that that means control mostly by privileged white men (and some women, but not 50%).
In brief, both the leftward impulse and the rightward impulse are going to get ever stronger. So what happens when men pull on my left arm and others on my right arm? At minimum, I cry out. I think what you'll get here is a left or right soft-authoritarian coup. Soft, just because we are so accustomed to playing nice here (General Sherman did not actually kill and rape in the Confederacy, though many mistakenly think he did). But an anti-democratic left coup won't last. You need to threaten people, and make examples of people, in order to maintain that.
I don't think Latin America is bad, but it doesn't make $42,000 a year per head. And, its ~25 countries, taken collectively, have seen about a coup a year for the last 150 years. We're not used to that sort of stuff in the US.
Even though smarter fraction theory has a good deal of truth to it, I think it still matters who you have working, if there is any complexity to it whatsoever. Plus, there's trust and supervision: two guys might do equal work when there's supervision, but not when there isn't. I've worked in a sandwich shop a good bit. Not exactly rocket science, and the worst error I ever saw there was made by me. But some people slacked it a lot more than others, when our privileged male capitalist labor-exploiter was not around. Indeed, some smoked grass out in the dumpster enclosure and came back on the job, doing more giggling than anything.
K, another place is Malaysia - lot of Chinese in there, it makes 3.6x more per person than than Indonesia, at PPP. And the Chinese have sustained some violent attacks.
Post a Comment