Repost: Anti-Unionism

I'm too tired to write much tonight, so I've decided to repost something that I posted several months ago when I first started the blog (and had fewer readers).

Most libertarians and conservatives, with the exception some paleocons and left-libertarians, are staunch opponents of trade unions. Warner Todd Huston, a rather eccentric "conservative" (and from his picture, evidently a donut-eating contest winner) has said "unions are inherently unAmerican", a belief not uncommon on the mainstream right. Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist Lew Rockwell even titled a UAW-related blogpost "Another Criminal Strike". Indeed, the LewRockwell.com writers in general frequently refer to unions as criminal gangs.

As a libertarian, I oppose the privileges granted to unions by the federal government, but nor do I like the privileges granted to corporations and groups of corporations by all levels of government, including eminent domain takings, tax increment financing, subsidies, and insane copyright laws such as the DMCA (which in no way "promote(s) the Progress of Science and useful Arts", but that's a topic for another day). Corporations themselves are government creations and receive special protections and privileges from governments. Now, I realize that libertarians criticize corporate welfare and Big Business, but it is ludicrous that conservatives and Chamber of Commerce libertarians will call Big Labor criminals and anti-American while at the same time verbally fellating Big Business, which can be pretty criminal and anti-American itself (i.e. hiring illegal immigrants).

Sure, the SEIU is probably close to being a criminal organization, but I doubt anyone could honestly call the bricklayers union a group of thugs. In some trades, joining the union means higher wages and better benefit, so it makes sense for the workers to join unions, just as it makes sense for different corporations of certain fields to form trade associations to protect their interests and for white-collar workers to join professional organizations (for example, the IEEE).

The union most frequently targeted by conservatives is the National Education Assocation (NEA). The conservative hatred of the NEA is comparable to the liberal hatred of Wal-Mart. Yes, the NEA is dominated by liberals and feminists, but whenever a conservative bashes the NEA, inevitably they bring up its policies that affect "urban students." These commentators correctly note the fact that urban schools, well, suck.

However, the fact that urban schools suck has nothing to do with the NEA. Suburban students are taught by NEA members and they have decent test scores. The fact is, urban schools suck because they are predominantly black and Hispanic, while suburban schools are attended by whites and Asians. Blacks have a mean IQ of 85, Hispanics 89, Whites 103, and Asians 106. Lower IQ students will simply do worse in school than higher IQ students. Neither the liberal solution, spending more gigadollars on urban schools, nor the conservative solution, abolishing the NEA (and giving the black kids vouchers), will solve this.

Yes, this post was supposed to be about anti-unionism, but I wanted to point out how far conservatives will go just to prove that they are not racist to liberals who will hate them anyways and blacks who will never vote for them.

Originally posted here on February 10.

Video Games and Intelligence

It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between intelligence and preferences for certain video game genres, as well as between intelligence and preference for console vs. computer gaming.

It would make sense that on average, computer gamers are more intelligent than console gamers. Being a PC gamer requires knowledge of video cards, RAM, hard disks, and computer maintenence, plus an intermediate or higher level of experience with computers. Console gamers just need to plug an audio/video cable into their TV, a power cable into an outlet, and press the power button. If something fails, they don't have to figure out which component of their computer is malfunctioning, they just call the Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony tech support number.

As for genres and intelligence, my guess is that first-person shooters, sports games, and racing games would tend to attract people with lower IQs. Strategy games and role-playing games seem to attract smarter players. You don't find very many blacks or low-class whites playing World of Warcraft, for example, but instead it is played by hordes of intelligent whites and Asians.

I've been looking for detailed statistics regarding video game player demographics, but most of the studies I've found do not say much about race, just age and gender (usually with the intent of promoting the female gamer myth, something I will address in a future post), and I haven't been able to find anything on the demographics of players by genre.

"Looter" is a Racist Word

In yesterday's New York Times, Paul Krugman wrote a column headlined "Looters in Loafers." Joshua Holland (who appears to be the result of a dyke having a sex change operation) calls this "hopelessly naive" and implies that looters is a racist word because only black people are called "looters." To support his claim, he resurrects the set of pictures taken in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina in which the caption says that a black kid "looted" food, but the caption for another picture claims that two white people "found" food. Of course, he doesn't mention the plainly visible fact that the pictures were taken by two different photographers working for two different companies.

Everything is racist to liberals. It is impossible for white people to do, say, or write anything that liberals will not find some way to turn into racism.

"They're Just a Bunch of Old White Men"

In the last few days, with the Tax Day Tea Party protests in the news, I've often heard variations of that statement used to describe the Tea Partiers. Leaving aside the fact that families, young people, and middle-aged people attended the protests and the fact that women are about as equally represented as men, this statement shows just how much liberals hate whites, America, and basically western civilization. It implies that soon, these old white men will be gone and a new era of DIVERSITY can reign.

Whites created America and have sustained it. When whites are a minority, America will turn into a Brasil del Norte, with all of the problems inherent to a country populated and run by blacks and mestizos. These "old white men" are the reason why America is America.

Tea Partiers and the Half of Americans Who Don't Pay Taxes

At Feministe, Jill Filipovic remarks on the fact that nearly half of US households pay no federal income tax, as if taxes really aren't that bad because many people don't even pay them and so maybe "anti-tax conservatives" and Tea Partiers should just shut up and go home.

The fact is, many of the Tea Partiers are well aware of this fact and are angry about it (conservative anti-tax organizations have been reporting it for years). They are upset that the money they work hard for is redistributed to "poor" people through the many government welfare programs (it's funny how these "poor" people who can somehow afford alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, electronics, "urban" clothing, and expensive rims, but that's a topic for another post). If you go to a Tea Party protest you will find that the people are working-class, middle-class, upper-middle-class, and even some wealthy people. Virtually all of them are white. And not only do they have to live in expensive neighborhoods and commute long distances to avoid NAMs, but they have to subsidize NAMs' (and lumpen whites') lifestyles, as they are the ones paying the taxes. The Tea Partiers are too afraid to say it, but most of them are probably aware of the racial composition of their group versus that of the people whose existence they pay for.

Each year when they put away money to pay for their young child's future college education, they pay for part of others' in the form of Pell Grants. When they work every day to feed their families, they pay for fat ghetto queens and their broods to consume junk food with food stamps. When they work to pay the mortgages on their houses in nice, expensive white flight suburbs, they pay for Mexican immigrants to pour into the apartments of those neighborhoods with Section 8. When they spend thousands of dollars each year for daycare due to requiring two incomes to support the high cost of a modern suburban lifestyle, they pay for ghetto sluts to nest their myriad children in virtually free child care. While they work because they were raised to believe that's what adults do, they pay for the lumpen to be motivated to do so with tax credits and refunds such as the "Making Work Pay" credit and the EITC (which, by the way, basically cancels out the FICA taxes that the lumpen pay).

Yes, I realize my language in the last paragraph was probably inflammatory, racist, classist, and insensitive. But I don't care. If anyone doubts me, then drive through a white suburb during the day where you will find everyone either at school or studying for it, staying at home with children, working at local businesses, or out of the area due to a long commute. Then drive through a black inner city and look at all of the people driving around playing loud rap music, sitting around drinking, and standing around on street corners doing nothing.

It's ironic that blacks continue to whine about slavery that ended 145 years ago, since in the present-day whites have to work from January 1 to April 9 to pay for them to live.

"It's safer than the United States."

One idea I've found commonly espoused on websites and TV shows related to travel and geography is that many countries in the world are safer to travel to than the United States. I've heard or read most European countries, Canada, Australia, Japan, China, Turkey, Israel, Syria, Iran, and even Mexico described as such. Many liberals have picked up on this and use these countries as evidence as to why America needs gun control or better social services.

Of course, the real reason why those countries are safer to travel in than the United States is that none of those countries have large urban black populations. When people travel they often visit cities, which in America are filled with blacks. If you go to Tokyo you will find Japanese; if you go to Aleppo you will find Arabs; if you go to Berlin you will find Germans. If you go to a large American city, you will find nice, white enclaves with shopping districts, museums, parks, and tourist attractions surrounded by black ghettos. Note that you'll never hear anyone talking about a non-Arab African country as being safer to travel to than the United States.

As with most things in modern America, the key to understanding why it is less safe to travel in America than it is in many other countries is race.

Martin Luther King Sainthood

I don't think my motherboard has a slot for DERAM...


Every January we are treated to the spectacle of white Americans of every political alignment, social class, and geographic region trying to outdo each other in praising "Dr." Martin Luther King, Jr. I put "Dr." in quotation marks because Martin Luther King plagiarized his doctoral dissertation. In addition to being a plagiarist, MLK was also a communist and an adulterer, although you'll never hear this from the lamestream conservatives telling you MLK was a conservative due to his "content of their character" remark.

I wonder why Martin Luther King has not been canonized yet. It would make sense in this Age of Obama. The only question is: which church will be the first to do so?

Tea Party Demographics

Over at Alternut, Tana Ganeva has a post entitled "Shocking: Tea Partiers Mostly Rich, White, Christian Guys." The data can be found here (PDF).

Much like all the founding fathers and most of the Republican party, a whole lot of the Tea Partiers are rich, white, Christian men. According to a new CNN poll (via TPM), a majority of respondents who had donated to a Tea Party group or participated in a Tea Party event were male, white, and identified as Protestant/Other Christian groups.

2010 is well before 2042, so whites are still a majority of the American population. Thus it should not be surprising that most Tea Partiers are white. Also, while women outnumber men in the United States, the gender gap is small enough that it would fall within the margin of error. The fact that most fall into the "Protestant/Other Christain (sic) groups" category is interesting but unsurprising. Jews are overwhelmingly liberal (but that's okay) and many American Catholics are either Democrat-supporting Hispanics or members of white ethnic groups that lean Democrat.

Keep in mind that "most," "mostly," and "majority" are vague terms meaning "greater than 50%." She never cites the exact statistics for those categories in her post, so those words are basically meaningless.

Regardless, it makes sense that whites make up most of the Tea Party movement. Whites pay most of the federal income taxes and blacks and Hispanics take a disproportionate amount in government services. True, poor blacks and Hispanics, like everyone else, pay payroll taxes, but they are basically refunded this through the EIC. Even in this era of multiculturalism, white self-hatred, and political correctness, the observation that whites pay more in taxes than NAMs is not lost on whites.

According to the data, the racial breakdown of the Tea Party activists was 80% white, 2% black, and 10% Hispanic. The percentages of all respondents was 71% white, 2% black, and 11% Hispanic. The margin of error was 3 percentage points. So it looks like the whiteness of the Tea Party movement is not due to the lack of Hispanic participation, but rather due to the fact that blacks want free stuff from Obama. The relatively high percentage of Hispanics in the movement compared to the overall population is probably due to the fact that only registered voters were polled, excluding illegal and non-citizen legal immigrants.

As for the fact that most of the Tea Partiers are men, it makes sense. After all, women can't exactly teabag liberals. Seriously, if you look at the data Ganeva linked to, 60% of the Tea Party Activists are male, which is a pretty substantial majority. This is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be supporting a family on their income, so they want to be able to keep more of their money, whereas a single career woman is only supporting herself and her cats and single mothers are essentially wedded to Big Government - they use it as a second source of income. Plus, women in general are more likely to support larger government.

It gets even better:

Also, most went to college. 40 percent are college grads, compared to just 28 percent of total poll respondents, and 34 percent have some college.

So much for the liberal myth that conservative voters are bunch of dumb rednecks. It's funny that liberals frequently accuse conservatives of being "anti-intellectual" and "anti-education," yet Tana uses this as evidence of how out of touch the Tea Partiers are. I thought being college educated was supposed to be a good thing.

They make a ton more money than the other people interviewed for the study: 34 percent make over $75,000, while 32 make between $50,000 and $75,000. That’s way more than half pulling in over $50,000. So real, genuine Americans seem to be doing pretty well for themselves(.)

I agree with the headline that this is "shocking." It is shocking that liberals are so out of touch with reality.

Here we have the liberal definition of "rich": someone making more than $50,000 a year. That's funny. I'm willing to bet that most of the white New Englanders and Left Coasters make more than $50,000 a year. So do most of the young, suburban Obamanites.

Actually, the people she considers rich make much less than $50,000 when you consider the fact that they have to feed the Leviathan with FICA, federal income tax, state income tax, property tax, sales tax, use tax, and myriad other taxes. (Aside: a good resource on taxes
in the USSA is the National Taxpayers Union.)
Where I come from, we have a term for someone making between $50,000 and $75,000: middle-class. Of course, I'm just from Jesusland. What would I know about anything.

None of this should be especially surprising. Most poor people scraping by in terrible, lowpaying (sic) jobs — or with no jobs — probably don’t have the time to don three-cornered hats and scream about communism."

Here we have some poor-worshiping. I don't think a liberal is capable of writing anything without a poor-worshiping paragraph. Yes, there are some poor people who are impoverished through no fault of their own and spend most of their time working. But most of these "poor people" are poor because they are drug-addicts, had kids at a young age, have low IQs, are criminals, or are just lazy. They have time to go to da club, smoke crack and weed, get drunk, and breed bastard children, so they have plenty of time. They choose not to go to Tea Parties because they disagree with the goals - they want more money from the government. Karl Marx called these people the "lumpenproletariat," while the current PC term is "underclass."

The rest of the "poor people" of whom she writes are either the kind of people Thomas Frank dislikes, working-class (proletariat) or rural whites who vote Republican, or they are people who had well-paying jobs until the Bush-Obama tag team (yes, I am oversimplifying) screwed everything up.

But there has been an MSM tendency to trumpet the movement as an eruption of populist rage by those crushed in the financial crisis. “Populism” liberals just don’t grasp, of course, because they’re all elitist and stuff

No, you don't grasp because you are too out of touch with reality and your ideology is defined by cognitive dissonance. You think global warming is bad, but nuclear power plants need to be shut down. Wind power is necessary, but you don't want wind farms in your back yard. We need to help the poor, but you don't donate any money to charities. The Iraq War is bad, but bombing white Christian Serbs is good. Bill Ayers is a good man, but Glenn Beck promotes sedition. I've gone a little off topic, but I think I've made my point about liberals' cognition and why it should be of no concern if they don't understand Tea Party populism.

Maybe, just maybe, it’s time to reconsider our associations of the word “elite” so it at least slightly correlates with things like money and privilage (sic).

When liberals refer to "privilege" they refer to their belief that every white, no matter their social class, is born with privilege that every black (even, say, Clarence Thomas) lacks. It's like the secular liberal version of original sin.

The fact is, someone who makes $65,000 a year (closer to $45,000 or so after taxes), is not "elite." The elites make more money than Tana could comprehend with her little mind (after all, anyone who thinks $50,000 is rich probably can't count too high). And guess what? In the 2008 election, people with incomes over $200,000 and people with master's and doctoral degrees favored Obama. Those are the elites. Accountants, truck drivers, small business owners, engineers, and retired factory workers are not.

Given demographic trends (PDF), this is definitely the movement the GOP should hitch their wagon to.

Her sarcastic remark is actually correct. More and more, white people are starting to realize what Obama and the Democrats really are and that no matter how hard you try, you can't please blacks. You'll just be called a racist.

The fact is, as America gets blacker and browner, more whites will begin to realize that the multicultural paradise is not arriving. They will notice the high crime rates, the failed schools, the roving, wilding gangs of black and Hispanic "youths," and the growing number of welfare parasites leeching off the 35% of their income they feed to the Leviathan. White Democrats who are exposed to this morph into Republicans. Now, the Republican Party as it currently exists is only slightly better than the Democratic Party, but the Tea Party movement has the potential to turn it into a true vanguard of liberty and sanity.

Anti-Unionism

Most libertarians and conservatives, with the exception some paleocons and left-libertarians, are staunch opponents of trade unions. Warner Todd Huston, a rather eccentric "conservative" (and from his picture, evidently a donut-eating contest winner) has said "unions are inherently unAmerican", a belief not uncommon on the mainstream right. Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist Lew Rockwell even titled a UAW-related blogpost "Another Criminal Strike". Indeed, the LewRockwell.com writers in general frequently refer to unions as criminal gangs.

As a libertarian, I oppose the privileges granted to unions by the federal government, but nor do I like the privileges granted to corporations and groups of corporations by all levels of government, including eminent domain takings, tax increment financing, subsidies, and insane copyright laws such as the DMCA (which in no way "promote(s) the Progress of Science and useful Arts", but that's a topic for another day). Corporations themselves are government creations and receive special protections and privileges from governments. Now, I realize that libertarians criticize corporate welfare and Big Business, but it is ludicrous that conservatives and Chamber of Commerce libertarians will call Big Labor criminals and anti-American while at the same time verbally fellating Big Business, which can be pretty criminal and anti-American itself (i.e. hiring illegal immigrants).

Sure, the SEIU is probably close to being a criminal organization, but I doubt anyone could honestly call the bricklayers union a group of thugs. In some trades, joining the union means higher wages and better benefit, so it makes sense for the workers to join unions, just as it makes sense for different corporations of certain fields to form trade associations to protect their interests and for white-collar workers to join professional organizations (for example, the IEEE).

The union most frequently targeted by conservatives is the National Education Assocation (NEA). The conservative hatred of the NEA is comparable to the liberal hatred of Wal-Mart. Yes, the NEA is dominated by liberals and feminists, but whenever a conservative bashes the NEA, inevitably they bring up its policies that affect "urban students." These commentators correctly note the fact that urban schools, well, suck.

However, the fact that urban schools suck has nothing to do with the NEA. Suburban students are taught by NEA members and they have decent test scores. The fact is, urban schools suck because they are predominantly black and Hispanic, while suburban schools are attended by whites and Asians. Blacks have a mean IQ of 85, Hispanics 89, Whites 103, and Asians 106. Lower IQ students will simply do worse in school than higher IQ students. Neither the liberal solution, spending more gigadollars on urban schools, nor the conservative solution, abolishing the NEA (and giving the black kids vouchers), will solve this.

Yes, this post was supposed to be about anti-unionism, but I wanted to point out how far conservatives will go just to prove that they are not racist to liberals who will hate them anyways and blacks who will never vote for them.