Posts Tagged ‘compromise’

Towards Removing The Diversity That Is Destroying Oregon

Thursday, June 22nd, 2017

So why would anyone immigrate from abroad and come to The Great State of Oregon? Umm, it ain’t for the piney woods.

In a report that has national implications, almost half of the illegal immigrants held in Oregon jails in May faced serious sex crimes including rape, abuse and sodomy. Of 969 illegals held in jail for that one month, 461 have been charged with the three sex crimes. A majority are being held in Portland and Salem area jails, according to the report from immigration expert David Olen Cross, whose report is based on statistics from Oregon’s Department Corrections and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers. Most, over 83 percent, were from Mexico….

This, of course, is nothing new. In any nation with open borders and a higher standard of living than the neighbors, a certain proportion of those who flood in will be human detritus that would never make it under a truly Darwinistic set of conditions. Offer a generous welfare state, and the flood can drown you. At that point the prison system becomes a high-pass filter that takes out the worst of the diaspora.

The issue has become so serious that President Trump is proposing the following legislation to stop it in its tracks.

President Donald Trump said in a speech here Wednesday night he would soon introduce legislation that immigrants to America should not receive welfare benefits for at least five years. The new measure will stipulate that “those seeking admission into our country must be able to support themselves financially and should not use welfare for a period of at least five years,” Trump said as the crowd of thousands at the campaign-style rally exploded into extended applause.

In response, our “Conservative media” does the predictable tergivorate cuck-dance on the end of its Black Dragon Dildo. We first get reminded of the severeness of the author’s hard-ass, Dirty Harry Conservatism.

I’ve been called an “immigration hawk” on more than one occasion and far worse by liberal detractors. I support building the wall, want tougher vetting of new arrivals and I believe that every single person who is in this country illegally is a criminal and merits deportation if they are identified and apprehended, even if they’re “not doing anything else wrong.”


But if someone has come here legally with noble intentions and aspirations and they are following the rules, they may need some temporary assistance from time to time just as regular citizens do.

In other words, posture like you’re all gangsta and hard. Show us your severe Conservatism. Then, after establishing that you’ve not only opposed Leftism, but have even hurt their feelings, you stab a real Conservative, offering a real-world proposal right in the frikking back. Everybody is a Severe Conservative until its actually time to pack down in the scrum against real-world problems caused by utopian socialism.

You see, back in the 1950s, in addition to having to be from Western Europe, no immigrant could legally come to the United States who would constitute a public charge. This verbiage still remains in the current USC. The government explains below:

Public charge has been part of U.S. immigration law for more than 100 years as a ground of inadmissibility and deportation. An individual who is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible to the United States and ineligible to become a legal permanent resident.

But…we then get the following raft of gibberish designed to reopen the borders and bring in the flood.

In determining inadmissibility, USCIS defines “public charge”as an individual who is likely to become “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance, or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” See “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). In determining whether an alien meets this definition for public charge inadmissibility, a number of factors are considered, including age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education, and skills. No single factor, other than the lack of an affidavit of support, if required, will determine whether an individual is a public charge.

In fact, here’s a list of welfare that doesn’t really count as welfare.

•Medicaid and other health insurance and health services (including public assistance for immunizations and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases, use of health clinics, short-term rehabilitation services, prenatal care and emergency medical services) other than support for long-term institutional care
•Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
•Nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)- commonly referred to as Food Stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, and other supplementary and emergency food assistance programs
•Housing benefits
•Child care services
•Energy assistance, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
•Emergency disaster relief
•Foster care and adoption assistance
•Educational assistance (such as attending public school), including benefits under the Head Start Act and aid for elementary, secondary or higher education
•Job training programs
•In-kind, community-based programs, services or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter)
•Non-cash benefits under TANF such as subsidized child care or transit subsidies
•Cash payments that have been earned, such as Title II Social Security benefits, government pensions, and veterans’ benefits, and other forms of earned benefits
•Unemployment compensation

To understand why this is an unmitigated fail, compare the fortunes and contributions of immigrant groups who come here as guest workers rather than partake in our dysfunctional version. To understand how US immigration should work, compare Nigerians that come to the US to Nigerians that stay in Nigeria (See countries with lowest average IQ).

Nigerian immigrants have the highest levels of education in this city and the nation, surpassing whites and Asians, according to Census data bolstered by an analysis of 13 annual Houston-area surveys conducted by Rice University. Although they make up a tiny portion of the U.S. population, a whopping 17 percent of all Nigerians in this country held master’s degrees while 4 percent had a doctorate, according to the 2006 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. In addition, 37 percent had bachelor’s degrees. In comparison To put those numbers in perspective, 8 percent of the white population in the U.S. had master’s degrees, according to the Census survey. And 1 percent held doctorates. About 19 percent of white residents had bachelor’s degrees. Asians come closer to the Nigerians with 12 percent holding master’s degrees and 3 percent having doctorates.

This means that Nigerians who emigrate are among the most motivated of their people. They avoid ever qualifying as a “Public Charge.” They’d go road rage on your ass if you accused them of ever wanting to be one. That Uber or the taxi you may have caught this morning was quite possibly driven by a 1st generation Nigerian immigrant.

His kids, meanwhile are getting straight A’s or else they won’t be happy little second generation Nigerian Americans when Daddy parks the cab for the night. Intelligence, you see, is the smallest part of education once you hit an age where the amount of homework you perform every night starts making a statistical difference.

Meanwhile, the newer diasporas are told Amerikans are just racist white people that owe them a living. What do you do with these racists? In Oregon, you apparently fvck ’em and tear out their eye sockets. At least that’s what the crime stats would leave me to believe. So what do?

You go full Trump this problem and build the wall. Not just physically, but metaphorically as well. The US does well with immigrants who come here to earn a living and then go back home. These are too busy busting sod to yell “Allah Ackbar!” and stab the airport cops in Flint, MI. The people who come here as guests will be glad to take their wealth and new skills back to their homelands as those stabilize.

If we want to stop playing the stupid diversity game, we need to move from a mentality of inviting people to come stay here forever as guests of our welfare system, and instead adopt a policy of having guest workers. This is more politically competent, and allows us to take little baby steps toward ending diversity entirely. You will always get what you tolerate. Oregon is tolerating too darn much. The results of this tolerance show us the future of the diversity cult.

Stop playing DR3 and the Magic Dirt/Proposition Nation game. The cucks won’t ever miss their Public Charges if we stop letting them in to begin with. At that point, President Trump or one of his successors will have a much easier time ending diversity, which threatens our existential survival, than he would by attempting to stop immigration entirely at this very moment.

Intelligent Words About Marriage

Wednesday, December 28th, 2016

From somewhere on the internets:

I don’t think compromise is the right word. A marriage is a union of interests, not a blending or averaging of them. The couple doesn’t ask “what’s good for me?” and “what’s good for you?” and then try to find something that half-pleases both, but instead just asks “what’s good for us?” Usually works best with the man taking input, maybe discussing, then deciding. Each individual might not get what they want, but they can both be happy knowing that they’re doing what’s best for them.

It’s probably not what you meant, but compromise to me sounds like trying to “equalize” what each gives up in some kind of directionless micro-communism. Better to have a mentality of being on the same team, and just doing what’s best for the team (family).

In life, there are two fundamental forms of organization: control, or forcing everyone to use the same methods for an objective serving a single party, or cooperation, where people work together to achieve a goal, which in complex organizations requires a purpose and principles used to achieve it. Cooperation works toward an idea that may be partially extant, but will never be fully realized, so it can always be improved in its qualitative dimension.

Marriage and family, or even organic ecosystem-like groups like nations, require this abstract but realistic goal such as is provided by the cooperative idea. They fall apart under control because authority creates a backlash and by its nature as one-dimensional, fails to gain feedback from the people at lower levels, and thus makes the top of the hierarchy blind.

The Benefit Of Organizations

Wednesday, December 7th, 2016


The enormous benefit of organizations is ignored (full stop). However, globalists get it, so why don’t the rest of us simpletons?

Here is an example of organizational benefit as demonstrated by Siemens AG, in Germany. A casual evaluation of the Company’s website reveals that the organization produces engineering equipment and is the biggest of its kind in Europe.

What the man in the street may notice (from time to time) is the name “Siemens” labeled on road construction equipment or even medical equipment. But what this poor creature will not see, is all the other things Siemens managers keep themselves busy with.

According to the website, Siemens are actively busy producing a wide variety of machinery for a wide variety of markets. But what is less visible is the following list of activities:

  • Press. The company is about to celebrate its founding 200 years ago, with a Gala event that includes Angela Merkel and 100 (prominent) guests, to be opened by the President and CEO of Siemens Joe Kaeser.
  • Employment. The company recruits on a full-time basis with promises of a meaningful life by making a difference, improving lives and protecting the environment.
  • Innovation. The company constantly looks ahead by acknowledging its designers, identifying research topics, determining strategy for the future and presenting pictures of the future.
  • Magazine. The company produces its own hardcopy for distribution to employees and clients alike, containing fascinating articles on possible applications in almost any market.
  • Events. The company currently participates in three trade fairs, one career event and one webinar.
  • Future. The company proposes a sustainable future by supporting “ingenuity for life,” “Intelligent Infrastructure,” “Sustainable Energy,” “Future of Manufacturing,” “Digitalization” and “Financial Services.”
  • Growth. The company is as follows: “As of September 30, 2016, we had around 351,000 employees in more than 200 countries. In fiscal 2016, they generated revenues of €79.6 billion.”

The above activities consume insurmountable resources for small to medium size companies, but are only a small indication of the force-multiplier effect of a multi-national organization. An in-depth investigation will reveal much more power to maneuver where financial experts will detect gob-smacking financial channeling only called wasteful expenditure if it was detected, which would only happen when politically expedient for another board member or senior manager.

But it is more than money because this particular CEO is planning on sitting next to Angela Merkel at the gala event, where they will not talk about engineering products, but the cozy reduction of cross-border impediments such as exchange rates and border control, i.e. the perpetuation of the “sustainable”(sic) Globalist World Order.

Imagine, knowing the extent of added capacity organizations possess, that instead of applying it in a negative, manipulative way, that same organization could apply it in a constructive way towards cooperative nationalism i.e. Germany First (not EU First).

Imagine, knowing the extent of added capacity Siemens possesses, that it was applied towards improving Real Politik in support of the resurgence of conservatism. For example, with a standard overhead of 10%, Siemens would be able to spend about $10 billion on conserving the future of civilization. Trump only spent about $100 million to get elected.

That would put Hillary’s donors to shame, not because they donated less, but because they donated to a single person. The person on its own is useless as was shown in the 2016 election.

On the other hand, Trump did not win the election because of himself; he cooperated with a “movement” as he affirmed in his speeches. But now there is a good probability that he is going to destroy this movement by forcefully “uniting” with mentally ill individuals in the name of compromise with the existing system, which is an organization of vast power.

This insistence on “individual” unity will destroy the force-multiplier effect generated within the organizational movement. Even Trump does not realize that the strength of the organization has surpassed his own.

While Trump focuses on trade deals with other countries, he should also look at on internal coordination between his “movement” and other “organizations” in America. That would have made America great because its own civilization would improve, creating an organization to multiply the force of his insight far beyond one man.

Snapshot: Female Suffrage

Sunday, October 30th, 2016


As mentioned before, there is a problem with allowing women to vote (but scroll to the end for the punchline).

Harvard University President Larry Summers got in hot water for asserting that differences existed between male and female intelligence, and was later vindicated by scientific study (see also: Smart and SeXy) although the mainstream media ignored or counter-spun this information. However, that is not the problem with having women vote.

Women are not geared toward politics. Politics is the process of thinking toward the future in broad, irrational terms like principles and aesthetics. It requires people to take a strong stand because any idea will face a torrent of entropic forces trying to tear it apart, dumb it down or invert its meaning. Unlike in school, where the “right” answer counts, in politics the right vector or general direction counts. The details get settled later and cannot be anticipated in advance.

Nature has shaped women instead toward gaining social consensus. Their job in any situation, like in the archetype specific to them in the home, is to make everyone feel calm and accepted. Then they work out the details. For them, all is detail; there is no hierarchy or outline, but an unchanging goal of stability and peace, and from that they negotiate everything else. They are super-effective in social situations, unparalleled in family care and nursing, but devastatingly wrong in political situations.

Looking at American and European politics, we can see this in action. American women were the crucial group that elected Bill Clinton, generally on the basis that he was “good for race relations” and would establish pacifism between racial groups. American women also participated in electing Barack Obama for the same reason. In Europe, women dominate governments because they are perceived as safer and less warlike than men, with the female vote constituting a bloc they can count on to keep them in office.

We can see the evolutionary role of women playing out through these decisions: first, they pacify; then, they negotiate through details for what they think is a good compromise. The result is an inability to take any direction and then, as a result, a default to whatever the dominant direction is. Under female suffrage, the West has slide further down a path that will obviously not resolve well, simply through the process of compromise.

But for the punchline: while female suffrage is a terrible idea, so is the process of democracy in general.

Democracy disconnects actions from results. Votes are a lottery in which people hope their team wins, but then if not, conclude that the gods must be crazy and disconnect their brains until the next election. Even among high-intelligence males, the process of voting encourages a compromise mentality; working with the system is more important than working toward a result, especially if one wishes to stay in power.

Even further, democracy encourages the worst of human behavior by encouraging people to use the popular vote to take revenge on other groups. People can anonymous spend their neighbor’s fortune or sabotage his business, or simply approve for themselves handsome benefits at the expense of the rest of the citizens. Those with nothing to lose get the same vote as those who will be devastated, and the vote of an idiot is equal to that of a genius.

People like democracy because of its inherent pacifism. By its reliance on compromise, it prevents clear direction, which in the muddled simple-headed monkey thinking that is the default of humanity, means that it will offend no one and therefore give no one a cause for conflict. This ignores the fact that conflict is inherent because different groups and individuals have self-interest based on who they are, including what they can understand, and therefore are perpetually in conflict. Democracy just forces this conflict behind the scenes.

As we approach the eulogy for liberal democracy (1789-2016) occasioned by the simultaneous failure of every liberal policy yet created in the West, it is important to think the unthinkable, or “think outside the box” as we were encouraged in the 1990s. Our assumptions limit us to thinking along the same path we have been on, but because the results are so bad, it is time for new assumptions or no assumptions. Democracy has failed but there is no reason we must go down with that ship.

More than cuckservative: the passive mentality

Monday, March 14th, 2016

Most of us at this point, if we were paying attention, know that our “elected leaders” are not just surprisingly weak but incompetent. This is the nature of parasites, who once they get elected view their job as an entitlement where they succeed by making happy feelings in other people in the way of salesmen, and actually getting anything done is secondary.

But what unnerves us is how comfortable the whole situation is. Government seems to work like an episode of The Office: people show up every day to pretend to hate on each other, make a lot of drama and accomplish very little. That one half of them claim to be “the Opposition” means very little because to them, it is a job. They show up to do job-things, act out the roles in which they stand, and make others like them. The consequences of this? Accountability? Responsibility? Those are not even on the menu.

I wanted to point out three parallel areas in which this process can be observed: cuck, the merchant mentality and the band-aid.

  1. Cuck: This simply means what happens when “regulatory capture” takes over on the level of personality. Guys and gals who go to Washington enjoy their coworkers and so they start a comfy little society where no one really rocks the boat. They also do not want to violate the moral pretense involved, to flatter the voters, that “equality” is anything more than the words of a salesman.
  2. The Merchant Mentality: When customers get used to being customers, they fall into a permanent passive role because (1) the attention flatters them and (2) someone else is responsible. The best of both worlds, right? You buy something because the nice salesman said such pleasing things, and then if it is not what you needed, you take it back and get something else. This is the mentality not just of voters, but of politicians to entrenched interests like minorities, foreign powers and big business. The goal of white politicians and voters is to keep signing the checks to buy off these entrenched interests, and if we step outside of that role, there will be hell to pay… or maybe not.
  3. The Band-Aid: You will notice as you go through life that any failing enterprise will have the same general tendency, which is to apply band-aids to broken things so it can avoid thinking about the process as a whole. If the pump keeps breaking, get a repair contract. Do not think about why the pump keeps breaking. When the repair contractor is not fast enough, get another contractor to compete with them. There, that’ll show ’em! If that doesn’t work, hire an intern… on and on it goes, never ending. At the bottom is the truth: something is out of place which keeps breaking pipes. The direct solution probably means a lot of pain right now, and then no pain after… but in the tried and true manner of humans, we will instead opt for the delayed monthly pain plan and avoid fixing the problem, and instead fix the public image.

When you wonder why government is dysfunction, in addition to to obvious appearance-over-reality failings of democracy, look for the above. They are all the same basic mentality, which is to compromise what one knows is true for the sake of what is socially popular, but they take such interesting forms.

The Elizabeth Warren attraction

Thursday, July 17th, 2014


“Insanity in individuals is something rare — but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” With these words F.W. Nietzsche described the situation we find ourselves in with modern politics: insanity which punishes those who speak out against it, like a perverse take on The Emperor’s New Clothes.

Voters tend toward the worst of these behaviors. They clump together in groups around ideas that seem uncontroversial, panic at the unknown, and lunge at illusions that promise to allay fears with even greater insanity. Those who study voters find themselves in the position of catering to this mentality and because it is so chaotic, the only middle ground they can find tends to be the compromise position.

The crusade for the “bipartisan” or “moderate” compromise candidate drowns whole parties in its insistence on paradoxical logic. Conservatives and liberals want different things; political orientation is more of a choice of ideal lifestyle and type of civilization than it is a discrete mathematical phenomenon. For this reason the bipartisan candidate constitutes a unicorn or chimera, but voters chase it nonetheless, hoping that by purchasing time from the beast life will just continue as normal. Most people form a mass that is concerned more with its individual challenges and pursuits than any kind of direction for the group as a whole, thus they fall prey to the fanatics and revolutionaries who upset the order. Instead of confronting these people with the deranged nature of their positions, they attempt compromise and figure they have at least staved off the beast.

On the frontlines of the search for the great neither-liberal-nor-conservative candidate, Elizabeth Warren looms large as a possibility. She represents the liberal establishment through public support but gives nods to a conservative and libertarian leaning electorate by looking harshly at big government and its recent failings. For people awash in doubt who have lost the will to act decisively, she appears to be the ideal non-position: a compromise between left and right that gives a little bit of something to everyone.

If you recall the last election, Republicans made themselves desperate to find a “bipartisan” candidate. They thought this might appeal to Democrats and “moderates”; as it turns out, those groups simply went with the liberal candidate because he asked less of them and promised more. In the process, Republicans alienated their base who wanted to see not just a workable candidate, but an increasing momentum for change to put this country in a conservative direction. With the next election, the bipartisans will switch from trying to find a compromise Republican to settling for a Democrat who has a few conservative-flavored ideas.

Much as the 2012 elections ended poorly for conservatives, any participation in the search for a bipartisan candidate — and any fondness toward Elizabeth Warren — will end similarly in disaster. Moderates inevitably shift leftward because without a strong direction toward conservatism, leftism provides the path of least resistance by affirming popular illusions and pretending to banish fears. A Warren on the campaign trail will become a different animal once elected, and she will use her “Republican”-ish ideas to patch up the leaky boat Obama has created, making liberals look yet again like saviors of the common voter.

For centuries, the only salvation for right-wing parties has been to appeal to their base. These are practical people. They do not need to be ideologues or intensely religious to realize that a small-government, family-oriented, traditional values and strength-oriented party will create the best results not just now but in the distant future. They also sense but can rarely articulate that for them, our country either takes a strong rightward direction or it inevitably drifts back toward the leftist morass.

As conservative commentators waffle toward Warren to the delight of their liberal media overseers, who basically clap knowing how fatal of an error their adversaries are making, the interests of American people are overlooked. Another bipartisan moderate compromise candidate with strengthen the left and reduce our hope of reversing the decline. Despite the popularity of Elizabeth Warren, those who want conservatives to do more than pick up after liberals should realize that her strengths are our weakness, and no amount of papering over that with words like “bipartisan” will change it.

Recommended Reading