The Employment Demographics Of Socialism

I would like to further develop something I said in a comment at Mangan's. I have been thinking about this for awhile, and there are a couple of intertwined ideas here, that also relate back. I will have to carefully split these apart and write more on this, but I'll start with the following observations.

The HBD, immigration, reactionary and "white people that SWPLs' don't like" blogs have gone on at great lengths on the contribution of racial politics and immigration to the political and economic situation. As I have said, socialism is an entirely white concept and does not require any minorities at all for its implementation, although they obviously help.

Changes in employment have have affected the makeup of society for decades. The racial/ethnic part of the demographic has been discussed at length; the employment part has hardly been mentioned, but I think it is just as important.

It used to be everybody was a farmer; farming became more efficient and now hardly anybody is, although there is plenty of food. Then many people were factory workers; manufacturing became more efficient (or was moved overseas) and now hardly anybody works in a factory although there is more stuff than ever. Even distribution and services have leaned way down; ever tried to find a helpful, friendly employee in a store? Good luck!

So where do all those people work now? I don't have the numbers but I would say the growth sectors for several decades have been legal and compliance (including HR and other such administrative functions involved in following government regulations), education, and health care (why medical treatment is called health care is an Orwellian story of language distortion but I'll leave that aside.)

Education is obviously a government function; all those new education workers are thus dependent on the government. Health care, too, is largely government financed so those new workers are government dependent. Legal and compliance? It's not so obvious but all these people are effectively government employees, even though they may be paid by a private entity. Their livelihood depends on government regulation so they are government dependent as well.

So we have vast numbers of new workers who by the nature of what they do are not just liberals, but Obama liberals. The recession has only accelerated this trend.

These new members of the socialist regime fall into two basic categories- control, for legal and compliance; and amelioration, for education and healthcare. (Notice how "health care" often becomes "healthcare", an entirely new word has been invented. Truly Orwellian!) This has its own significance but I'm not entirely sure what it means.

"What White People Should Do"

I read various human bio-diversity and pro-white blogs and they often talk about what white people ought to do. In terms of government policy to be pursued, culture, behavior, et cetera.

Well I have news for you people- there is no "white people." There never has been and the subgroups of white people often hate each other more than they hate non-whites.

Socialism is a European concept. Its existence doesn't presuppose any non-whites. Non-whites are mostly socialist but are only relevant (in terms of politics in European or European settled countries anyway) because they ally with socialist whites.

Henry Louis Gates and the Mini-Riot

I was watching something called "Police Women of Broward County" the other night. The cops were busting a group of black drug dealers in a house. They were not surrendering easily, each one shouting and complaining as the were cuffed, and keeping up the chorus as they were sitting outside. The chief complaint seems to have been that one of the officers stepped on the foot of one of the arrestees, and this was intolerable police brutality. Mean while a crowd of (black) neighbors had gathered and were also shouting at the police about this awful violation of human rights.

It occurred to me this is simply a black tactic for dealing with police. It is hardly unique to blacks; I have heard of Lebanese in Australia and Kurds in Sweden doing the same thing, as well as Gypsies. I have read teachers saying a classroom of black students will simply erupt with shouting.

I suppose the hope is to discourage the police from making the arrest, or confuse and slow down the situation in the hope the police will change their mind. I think it is most likely to work just as the police arrive on scene, before they have actually seen any criminal activity.they may then decide the thing to do is calm and disperse the crowd and leave. Once they have actually seen something that requires an arrest or a citation, I doubt they are going to let it go.

If you come from a raw power culture- the culture of ghetto blacks and third World people- it makes sense to try to intimidate the police. In these cultures a cop is just another guy, and most likely sees himself as just another guy, who does not want too much trouble with his paycheck. In a principle culture though the officer must do his job, and is going to be offended at the attempt to interfere.

Still, to the extent it discourages cops from investigating or patrolling aggressively it has the intended effect. The same people then complain the police don't do enough for their neighborhoods, but nobody said it was rational.

This type of "chimp out" was apparently what Henry Louis Gates was attempting when the police came to his house. If you're a Harvard professor who summers on Nantucket and rides an adult tricycle there the opportunity to engage in real ghetto black behavior must seem like a dream come true- sort of like the "Frasier" episode where he starts to hang out and the pub with all the English blokes. Unfortunately for Prof. Gates he never stopped to think that for this to work well, you need a whole crowd of large, angry, foul-mouthed homies who have probably seen the inside of a cruiser or two, and probably the county jail. One small, "seasoned", frail Ivy League professor is not going to scare a hall monitor, much less a police sergeant.

The other element of the Gates "chimp out" was his accusation of racism. Superficially, this is always a good move for a black arrestee. It puts the arresting officer on guard and reminds him of the risk he's taking by arresting a black person. Filing a complaint later, no matter how groundless, is good too because it will harrass the cop and consume lots of police resources which might otherwise be used to enforce the law.

Had Gates been lucky, this complaint would have landed against an officer who had been investigated, and completely cleared, at least once for an allegation of racism. Again how utterly baseless this allegation or allegation might have been it would have still served the purpose of smearing the officer's record for future reference. Gates was not lucky, as the arresting officer was so politically correct as to be an instructor on the subject of racial profiling.

This leads into another issue, whether Gates should have been arrested at all. some people who believe his behavior was foolish and reprehensible believe the officer overreacted. I say no, for this reason. Due to his special status as a racial profiling instructor he was at much more risk than a regular officer. A regular officer might just say, "Just answering a 911 call sir. I'm glad to see you're OK, have a nice day." Cops have to be able to read people and as long as he thinks this is the end of it, he is probably inclined to take a donut break rather than do a couple hours of paperwork. I live in a politically correct northern city where the cops don't arrest anybody for anything short of murder, and only rather reluctantly for that.

This one (I don't remember his name and I'm too lazy to lok it up- some Irish mug named James, we all look alike to you people anyway so what do you care?) had much more need to maintain his unblemished record of racial bona fides. Let's say a passenger accuses a pilot of having been drinking just before a flight. What does he do? He cancels the flight, calls his company and demands an alcohol test. He has no choice, if he takes the flight he does so with some suspicion he was under the influence. He will never be able to prove otherwise without the test. The officer had to arrest Gates to prove he was doing his job properly and that Gates' interference was unjustified.

Lesson for blacks- one, always go for the racial complaint. It probably won't do you much good but it will help out another brother down the road. Oh, I forgot, black people don't give a shit about other black people which is why they do each other so much harm. Two, if you are a drug dealer or other criminal, when the cops show up the game is just beginning. Keep your mouth shut and let your attorney go to work. Three, if you are a middle class person who might benefit from the protection of the state, cooperate with the police even when it is unpleasant. Their job is tedious and difficult. The best way to get them out of your hair is to politely tell them what they need to know so they can leave.

Who Killed Che Guevara?

The answer is generally the CIA, although in my dim recollection a local pulled the trigger. Preppies don't shoot anything but birds.

I was reading another blog and apparently this is the anniversary of his death. I recently watched a documentary (available through Netflix! Now cut the pop ups and enroll me in the affiliate program you bastards! Just kidding! No not really) entitled "Nobody Listened" or in Spanish "Nadie escuchaba." I can only recommend it for hard-core anti-communists for two reasons. One is they use white subtitles against a background that is frequently white, so you can read maybe 80% of them. My Spanish is weak so I really would have liked to read it all.

My second criticism is more to the point. Almost every one of the plaintive interviewees, so distressed by their maltreatment by the Cuban Communist revolution, was a former member of it. A few were close aides of Castro who went to prison within days of his victory. Many more were functionaries who ran afoul of him a few years later. Well, what did you morons think was going to happen? Please understand this- if you believe something that is obviously not true, the untruthfulness of which is easily established by readily available sources, you are stupid, regardless of your IQ, SAT score, or GPA is. If intelligence is not a tool to cope with the world then it is nothing. Simply aping things you have read in books or heard in lectures will get you nowhere, not even in a Communist or other socialist regime. I'm sure every day some young idealist in government or education gets eaten alive by "dumber" people who know the office politics of the outfit.

Somebody said a revolutionary regime needs many supporters, but few activists. So once it achieves victory it immediately has a surplus of activists who must be dealt with. Apparently in Cuba this was done immediately, while in the Soviet Union it took some years before it got started. Had Communists learned from the mistakes there? Did Soviet advisors tell Castro he needed to take care of right-sizing the organization quickly? The study of history is endlessly fascinating.

"Che" would have been a special case. I'm guessing that he and Fidel were as good friends as such people can be, and yet Fidel could hardly stand to have a charismatic hero around. On the other hand jailing and shooting him as a fascist saboteur was out of the question, even allowing for sentiment.

Sending him out of the country to murder people elsewhere was the most convenient solution. Still I can't help but think Che knew he was being set up as soon as he got the assignment. Travel is quite dangerous for a high profile terrorist. The only place he would have had safe haven was Cuba, or traveling on a diplomatic passport as a Cuban government official. I doubt the romance of being out in the bush supervising operations had any charm left for him. It's a job for a young man, of much lower status looking to prove something. It's dangerous and having seen what happened in Cuba, the fascists were likely to be on guard, and keenly motivated to avoid the same fate.

My speculation aside, Guevara met with little success and a grim end after a relatively brief time. I don't think appearing on millions of T-shirts would have held much consolation for him, however valuable of a propaganda symbol he is.

Che Guevara was killed by Fidel Castro just as surely as any of the unlucky victims shot by Che himself in Cuba. But how is that novel or surprising? The top of a revolution is a place quite as dangerous as the bottom, as the French and Bolshevik revolutions proved. Guevara, like so many others, though it was different for him. Being turned on by something you believe in is a bewildering fate- Orwell was an insightful, discerning man and it even surprised him. At least Che was spared the humiliating end of Yezhov and others.

Maybe he maintained much of his illusion in the last moments- I doubt he maintained it all, but he was not an introspective man so he must have kept some. We all treasure our delusions, but for a revolutionary they are a little more precious.

Self Criticism in America!

Bus attack in Belleville- you've seen the story elsewhere, but not with my razor exegesis.

First, more black people behaving badly. I fear this is going to be a daily occurence for a long time. Black people would like to believe their dominance has been established by the election of Obama. In reality it has been established socially and culturally many places, but not politically over the whole country. There is a lot of resistance to Obama, and while the left elite loves to attribute this to racism the groundswell of popular discontent started with Bush II's massive domestic deficit spending, reached critical mass with Bush II and Paulson's bailout, and so was well established by the time of Obama's stimulus.

Speaking of established dominance, I'm guessing the white kid knew who was boss and tried to avoid annoying his betters but they will attack anyway on an unpredictable schedule to maintain dominance, and the bus is the worst place to be cooped up with bullies.

Here's the link-



What's interesting to me is not the retraction of belief in a racial motive. That is easily predictable. Public spokespeople backtrack all the time when they have said something a little inconvenient.

However Capt. Sax said it was "a personal and emotional comment" which goes to a deeper level. The problem is not the professional judgement of the police department, it's Capt. Sax's latent racism, or whatever.

Black People Behaving Badly

First, Henry Louis Gates..... now Serena Williams and Kanye West.

I think this estabishes a pattern. Black people since the mid 60's have been arrogant and unwilling to cooperate with legitimate authority, but these kind of big public outbursts generally involved traffic stops by thugs or athletes.

I believe black people are giddy from the election of Barack Obama and feeling inclined to throw their weight around.

The Fire Support Plan

Say what you will about the Marines- I'll say plenty, but I'll save it for later- they produce some good speakers. The only speaker I have seen who could compare was G. Gordon Liddy in his pre-born again phase. (I saw him at USC around 1980, I don't know what is like now.)

In particular I remember an instructor at OCS, Captain Hernandez. He could turn a half-dead class of candidates into a howling mob. I guess charisma can't be discounted as a leadership quality- throughout the ages soldiers have been tired, hungry, bored, agitated, and of course frightened. I would not rank fear high as a factor in soldiering though- I always thought that after a few months at Camp Lejeune any war would seem like a welcome relief. Eugene Sledge and his comrades actually believed boredom was a tool used by the military establishment to motivate them. Trust me, nobody over the rank of lieutenant in the Marines is that smart. But I can see where they got the idea.

Anyway, back to Capt. Hernandez. He once lectured on fire support. His thesis was that fire support, as outlined in the fire support plan, was the most important factor in combat. "Remember the fire support plan! It's not your karate lessons or your Fairburn-Banks fighting knife that's going to save you, it's the fire support plan! When you're on your deathbed, surrounded by your family, with your last breath you're going to pull your young grandson to you and tell him 'Remember the fire support plan!'If, before an assault, the objective has received a large quantity of well aimed fire, you will only need to walk across the smoking ruins, collecting souvenirs."

Standoff firepower- where we can hit them, but they can't hit us- is the way of war for Western democracy in the modern era. We place a high value on the lives of our soldiers. (The WWII bombing of Germany involved horrendous casualties, and whether the same military effort in another form would have resulted in less Allied deaths is a good question, but I will leave that for someone else.)

Our enemies of course know this. The bombing of Germany was controversial in Britain as it was conducted, and I have to believe this came in part from the friends that Germany had there. The cry of "evil/civilian casualties" was constant in the Vietnam War.

The capability of doing this has improved incredibly with modern electronics. Accuracy allows the reduction of collateral casualties, but can't eliminate them- if the target is in the same building as civilians you can't avoid them. This is of course using human shields, and the onus is on those using the human shields, not those attacking a legitimate military target.

Politics override the law of war, always of course against the side of humanity and for the side of evil. The rules of engagement have been changed in Afghanistan. Indirect fire must be approved by higher ups- who will not approve it if they think there is any chance of civilian casualties. Since there is no greater coward on the planet than a man with an oak leaf on his collar who wants an eagle, or an eagle and wants a star, so it will be denied often.

Here's a wire service story on denial of artillery support in an ambush-

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/75036.html

Realistically, this policy will not change. Artillery is not irrelevant now. Air support is accurate but it is expensive, limited in quantity and limited by weather. GPS guided shells are now available- not cheap but far cheaper than the same munition delivered by an aircraft. I think aircraft are preferred because there is a second set of eyes, and a second scapegoat, involved.

This doesn't look good. When the enemy gets to define the rules they win.