Vox Day has recently published a post where he explains how some SJW morons managed to completely get everything wrong about him, defaming him in a number of ways and so on.
Let me first of all explain that I have published this post BEFORE I had any kind of conversation with Vox about this or anything else. No one, especially not him, has asked me to write this. And in fact I believe if I told him I was doing so, he would advise me to not do so and ignore the incompetents that attack him.
Vox has always behaved in nothing but a perfectly civilised, gentlemanly and friendly manner towards me, as has his family.
Does he write in a way that at first glance can appear “controversial”? Sure. I too thought he was a “racist” “bigoted” typical “puritanical American” when I first came across his blog. But I kept reading it for a while and then I realised that my first impression was wrong. And it was wrong based on a fault I truly quite dislike in others, yet I had apparently, at first anyway, fallen for myself. The offence of the skim reader.
You know who suffers from tragic skim-reading malady? Lawyers. Every damnable one of them. They simply skim read, make wild assumptions about what they THINK they read and then go with a legal strategy that more often than not is between 150 and 210 degrees away from the correct one to take. They hit 180 degrees quite often.
Well, the thing with Vox is that you need to pay attention to two things when reading his work (if you care to even have read mine this far):
- Read what he actually writes, not what you THINK he is writing.
- Very, very, very often, Vox merely reports on his observations. It is much rarer that he specifies his personal opinion, although this can sometimes be inferred by his invariably extremely dry humour.
This curious mix results in statements that can often sound oh just so pearl clutchingly terrible. Positively fainting on the couch stuff. But… that if you examine them in the cold light of rationality and logic, are almost always unassailable as mere observations or logical conclusions.
Let me make an example here that I am not aware Vox has ever used, but I have. Let’s take General Augusto Pinochet.
Bad guy right? He took over Chile in a military coup and killed or “disappeared” thousand of poor innocent Chileans who just wanted a better life for themselves and their families.
Let’s take the numbers from the leftist of lefty sources, Wankipedia. According to them:
According to the Commission of Truth and Reconciliation (Rettig Commission) and the National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture (Valech Commission), the number of direct victims of human rights violations in Chile accounts for around 30,000 people: 27,255 tortured and 2,279 executed. In addition, some 200,000 people suffered exile and an unknown number went through clandestine centers and illegal detention.
In 1973, when Augusto took over, the Population of Chile was 10.2 million. and in 1990 when he was no longer around, it was about 13.2 million. So, taking the wikipedia numbers, we are looking at some 230,000 people affected directly and under 3,000 killed.
Using basic math (a lost and archaic skill-set unknown to anyone in the journalistic profession for at the very least half a century), we can see that:
A grand total of 2.25 % of the population of Chile was directly affected.
Of which 0.027 % were killed.
Terrible, terrible, bad, evil stuff. If only one innocent died and all that. Tragic.
Now let’s look at Venezuela.
After Chavez died, at the end of 2013 (it was covered up until January 2014) from a population of just over 30 million, there was an exodus due to the total economic collapse of the country, which Chavez’s Marxist policies had created from when he took power in 1999. By 2020, only 28.4 million people were left. And keep in mind people still made babies even under the usual hardships encountered in such situations.
So… for comparable countries in a relatively similar area of the planet, Venezuela had at a MINIMUM 1.6 million people directly affected by the communist regime, which, again, using basic math, is equivalent to 5.3 % of the population. Of course, we are being totally unfair to Chile since I used the lower number of 10.2 million as the denominator (Instead of the 13.2 million that existed when Augusto was no longer the leader) and I have also only counted the number of people that physically LEFT Venezuela. You can be certain that at the most optimistic at least double that number were directly affected inside the country, and a more realistic number would be ten times the number. God alone knows how many died since the statistics in a collapsed nation are not exactly anyone’s top priority, but we can be sure it was more than 3,000 in the six years we are looking at.
But percentages hide things still. You may be sitting there saying oh well…ok, so communism is about twice as bad as hardcore right wing military regimes, because 2.25 % is a bit less than half of 5.3 %… right?
Except that given the disparity in population sizes, when you look at actual human beings affected, Chile’s 230,000 has to be measured against the extremely conservative and obviously very much smaller than whatever the real number is of 1,600,000 people for Venezuela’s regime.
If we assume a very generous same ratio for the dead, we can assume that at minimum, some 20,000 people lost their lives as a result of the Marxist policies of Venezuela. I can tell you from experience of some 20 years of living in South Africa, that this number is certainly lower than whatever the real one is. I conclude that because South Africa had a far better situation economically than Venezuela did and yet there have been some 23,000 deaths from violent crime there for some twenty years in a row after the ANC took over.
But in fact it’s even worse than that. Because we are measuring Chile’s 17 year rule, against Venezuela’s mere 6 years. So to be mathematically “fair” or at least take into consideration proportionality to some degree, you really need to almost triple the Venezuelan numbers to have something that begins to be apples and oranges at least instead of apples and donkeys.
These are cold, hard facts.
You don’t have to like them. I sure don’t. But they are objective reality all the same.
In short, dropping some almost 3,000 people out of helicopters, torturing some 27,000 and exiling some 200,000 is infinitely preferable to killing probably 60,000 people (remember we have to multiply by 3 to account for the time) torturing who knows how many and exiling 4.8 million people.
In fact, if you care, you can literally do the math and say that dropping 3,000 commies out of helicopters is 20 TIMES better than the Venezuelan alternative.
And yet… some people will ignore all the math of Chile and Venezuela and accuse me of being “racist” because I noticed that the ANC-run South Africa had spectacularly higher levels of death, crime and suffering for the average black person than it did under apartheid.
Did I agree with apartheid when I first encountered it? Absolutely not. Do I agree with it now, no, not really, but, I don’t necessarily think that the so-called “puppet-states” that South Africa had created, like the now non-existent Bophuthaswana, were a bad thing. In them, the black majority population was effectively in charge and yet economically supported by the racist South African government which nevertheless allowed the black people who lived there to live under laws and rules that were democratic and did not discriminate by race. I visited Bop, as it was called in vernacular, several times and the contrast from South Africa while under apartheid was immediately noticeable. Yet Bop was still no more prone to violent crime than South Africa. In fact, probably less so as the feeling was one of a relaxed and better off people (of all races). Yet there was the shadowy hand of the apartheid government behind it all making sure that no unrest took place. I know for a fact that a large number of black Africans in South Africa that did NOT directly benefit from the change in government, because they were not connected or part of the few political kleptocrats that came into power, would give a couple of fingers, literally, to be able to live in something like what Bop was back in the late 1980s or early 1990s.
You’re also going to have a hard time accusing me of “racism”, given my history, but go ahead and try if you want.
Why mention all this?
Well, because Vox is not the only one that would prefer Pinochet helicopter tours over Commie transgender pedophiles reading to preschoolers dressed as demonic sex perverts. If our choice is being presented as either the generic homoglobo clown-world shitfest currently emanating like cancer from the USA and poisoning most of Europe with its falsity, and downright demonic “ideologies” OR a hardcore actually Catholic Inquisition setup, (instead of Satanic Bergoglioan Freemasonry), well then sign me up as head inquisitor.
I’d light all those fires myself if need be to get rid of literal pedophiles that are getting a pass by law enforcement, the media and judges all around Europe. Like the level of MPs and BBC people implicated in the Jimmy Saville long running sexual abuse of children that in many cases were sick and dying of leukaemia. Or most of the Belgian government that was implicated in a pedophile ring in the 1990s and nothing happened. Or the fact that the literal Queen of England, that old reptile, and her deceased reptile Greek husband were directly involved in the disappearance of some dozen orphans from Canada and again, nothing has happened to date.
Why? Why has nothing happened about these horrific crimes?
Because you don’t have Inquisitors.
And before you go on to say the “Catholic Church” was always filled with pedophiles, let’s be very, very, very clear that a bunch of commie homosexuals were injected into the Catholic Church in the 1920s and 1930s as part of a long running effort to destroy it. Let’s be very clear that Pope Pius the X was aware of the level of corruption already present way back in 1904 and earlier, and ordered the compilation of the forever present Code of Canon Law of 1917, precisely to ensure that no later sleight of hand could hide what Catholicism actually was. And yes, there has been no legitimate Pope since 1958, nor am I saying every Catholic or even every Pope before 1958 was a saint. We have plenty of evidence there have been bad men in every organisation since time immemorial, but Catholicism as it really is, is a very different thing from what the average person thinks Catholicism is today.
Now, all my asides aside, the fact remains that uncomfortable truths are still true.
Vox simply points them out and makes people very uncomfortable about some of them.
Women are far less capable of using logic and reason than men are. This too is a biological fact. You may not like it, you may call me a misogynist pig, whatever. Anyone who has spent half a century on this Earth and had sufficient dealings with women and men from all sorts of cultures, will know that what I wrote above is perfectly true. You know who also agrees with me on that? A LOT of women. Usually the prettier ones that have no trouble attracting whatever man they may set their eyes on. Now, I wonder why that would be, eh?
Do I think women should vote? If votes mattered at all anymore, that is. As a general rule, no, I don’t. GASP! Sexism! My-My-My Misogyny!
Now ask me if I think most men should vote.
Yeah… that’s a no too. If it were up to me, the number of people who could actually vote, would be a tiny fraction of what it is now. And the number of people who could actually have political offices would be REALLY TINY, and I guarantee you that NONE of the current occupants would have chosen the profession of politician if my Grand Inquisitor rules of politics were applied. In fact, only a tiny number of people would even be able to be qualified to be a politician, because you bet there would be qualifications.
So, based on the above I assume I will be defined as a racist, a misogynist, and despite the fact I specifically wrote pieces against even associating with anyone that calls themselves Alt-right, I will probably be lumped into that category as well. Not to mention Nazi. I mean, I wrote books of fiction about Nazis! I obviously must be a sympathiser! And I wrote more than one book about them, so maybe I am a Waffen SS myself. Never mind what it actually says in those books. Never mind facts. Never mind actual history!
But I will accept one of the labels they may throw at me. I too, am a Christian Nationalist.
I happen to be Catholic though —which means Sedevacantist today, as those are the only Catholics left— and Vox is some complicated form of Protestant-friendly type of Christian, so you know, after we rid the world of pedophiles, force all women into a sexually oppressed misery that wakes every day in the bedroom passes its day chained to a stove in the kitchen and ends it back in the bedroom (unless they have to give birth to one of our children in which case they may be on the kitchen floor for a bit longer), teach our male children the arts of war, reading in Classical Latin and Greek, and the skill of preparing a proper auto-da-fe for heretics, well, after all that, I suppose Vox and I may have to cause yet ANOTHER religious war between our two factions.
But you know, until then, I’ll keep thinking of him as my friend and I plan to visit his Castle at some point, where we will drink some fine prosecco, maybe a touch of good cognac, and, of course, plan world domination. Our wives will, no doubt, being the shy, quiet, oppressed and retiring types they are, quietly sit by the sidelines ready to serve us food and drink, and keeping the continually increasing prole I at least, like a good Catholic, continue to produce, in relative silence as Vox and I discuss deeply important things.
The problem of “racism”, genetics, math, and justice and how it all relates to the current WW3
This will be initially a little slow, but I trust increasingly interesting, and I think useful, for those who have attention spans past the current “fruitfly on crack” level.
The problem of “racism” is only “complex” because people do not:
1. Understand the interplay between the above mentioned varaibles.
2. Use words correctly or define them properly when there is any ambiguity.
In the case of the boogeyman of “racism” the problem stems first of all from the non-definition of the word. Historically it wasn’t a negative, it was a descriptive term. But let’s see how it is defined today in the woke online dictionaries. Here are the top three results screenshotted from the search term “racism definition”.
Let’s go with the Wikipedia entry then since it is the most commonly understood meaning of the word. And let’s see what reality has to say about it.
First: are there separate groups of humans? Of course there are. It is a very simple thing to define as many sets by as many parameters as we like. We can divide groups of humans by multiple defining characteristics, height, eye colour, skin tone, place of birth, genetic haplogroups, or whatever else we want. Depending on the level of detail of your set descriptors, the borders of your set will be more or less “fuzzy”. For example, if you define all humans as belonging to 4 groups, say, white, black, red and yellow, in “traditional” simplistic skin “colour” your borders would be very fuzzy indeed. If however you were to define them into still broad but somewhat better defined groups, such as, say:
• Caucasoids with a genetic component of Oriental or Negroid below a certain threshold.
• Negroids with a genetic component of Oriental or Caucasoid below a certain threshold
• Orientals with a generic component of Caucasoid or Negroid below a certain threshold
• Whatever human doesn’t fit into one of the above three categories
You would now have three more or less coherent groups that are statistically going to be generically quite similar and a fourth group of what we might term “the leftovers”. And please note, if you are getting upset about any of the terms I use as descriptors, you are in the generic subset of humans knows as “morons”.
None of this is about feelings. It doesn’t matter if I call them crakers, niggers, and chinks.
Now, based on the above 4 definitions, can we see broad statistically significant trends?
Yes, we do.
The Caucasians are generally higher IQ than the Negroids and the Orientals higher IQ (by a smaller margin) than the Caucasoids when they are East Orientals, (Japanese, Chinese, Koreans) but not so much when they are West Oriental or Asian (Pakistani, Hindu).
So, objectively speaking, we can see that at a certain level of granularity the differences not only exist, but are obvious to anyone of normal intelligence that spends a little rime observing different groups.
Of course, these very broad terms can be further refined. While Nigerians, Xhosa, Zulu and Tsonga are all African Negroids, their culture is quite different and different enough that I personally prefer the Tsonga over the others, the Zulus marginally over the Nigerians and the Xhosa in last place. Similarly, in general terms I’d rather hang out with Russians than Polacks or Germans, and like hanging out with Italians, supposedly my own group, not particularly more than other Europeans like the Latvians or Portuguese.
Again, the differences in culture, ethnicity and religion are obvious to anyone of normal intelligence.
Are there individual exceptions? Sure. Always. Even large in number depending on how you define your groups, but statistically the realities are what they are.
Then we add in genetics and we find that these too have a now utterly undeniable impact on behaviour too. Specifically the propensity to violence or long term timeline preference or dietary tolerances, likelihood of incidence of certain diseases and so on. Once again, nature has stamped its reality on us in many, many, many ways, and the statistical realities of these things are objectively undeniable.
So, in short, the differences exist. Howsoever you wish to define humans into different groups, differences do, and always will, exist.
That’s just an objective fact and the Universe (reality itself) does not care at all how you feel about it. If you are 5’10” you will never be 6’2” and trying to pretend you are, getting “surgery” to lengthen your legs, or wearing really high heels will only make your life harder and more unpleasant than simply accepting, and working with, the specifics of your situation. Reality invariably rewards those who respect it and punishes those who try to ignore it. If you have any objections to this undeniable fact run full speed into a wall or walk off the second story balcony of your apartment and if you survive let me know how you suddenly changed your mind.
The issue then is not reality.
The issue is perception, definitions and justice.
Let’s now look at that word: superiority.
We can define this simply as “better than” but in the context of “racism” we need to add a few words, so it becomes:
“Better than X at Y” where X and Y are the defining set and activity respectively.
At this point we can now make objective statements that are statistically relevant again, and factual. Just as we can factually say that under normal conditions, Joe can run faster than Bob, or Alan is taller than Will.
We can then say that in general terms, Caucasoids will have higher IQ than Negroids and lower ones than East Orientals. Similarly for mathematical ability.
We can also say that in general Negroids will have better aptitude for certain physical activities than either Caucasoids or Orientals, for example boxing, sprinting, certain types of endurance activities and so on.
Again, these are indisputable facts.
But it is also an indisputable fact that every group will tend to be better than the other groups at something.
What that something is differs from group to group and how you define them, and society may give different somethings different values in general or within specific circumstances.
For example, while a white physics professor is more likely to know how to calculate the forces required to uphold a temporary bridge over a stream, if I am trying to find water to survive in the Kalahari desert, I would very much prefer to have a Khoi-San with me even if they don’t even have a word for physics and he doesn’t speak a word of any language I know. So the “superiority” of any group over another is relative to the time, circumstance, characteristic being looked at and so on.
Philosophically then, this brings us to a point of justice. And ultimately this boils down to a few simple questions. The main one being:
Should we treat apparent members of a specific group differently from apparent members of different groups?
The obvious answer is, YES. The initial evaluation is going to be based on the statistical significance that you have personal experience with. And it really doesn’t matter if you really, really, really, don’t want to notice such differences. Your brain does it automatically. It’s literally how brains work. If your brain could not make value judgements, on the order of many of them a second, you literally would not be able to function. Incidentally, this is why Artificial Intelligences (well, what passes for them these days) if left to their own devices, invariably become extremely racist. Since computers don’t care about feelings, and don’t have any, large accumulation of data sets tends to make them become extremely statistically aware of various tendencies various sets of humans have and act accordingly.
This very logical and objective way of doing things, which, by the way, is intrinsically fair from a purely mechanistic/mathematical perspective, generally really upsets humans though.
The slightly more in depth answer is that you probably should make allowances for those fuzzy borders and the outliers that don’t fit within a certain set so well, but only insofar as it affects you personally on a one-to one or one to a few scale at most. In other words, the genius mathematician that is also a world-class swimmer that happens to be a Zulu, is an outlier and may be a great guy, but you know very well, he is not representative of the average Zulu.
As I have mentioned before, the average Caucasian, when compared to the average Japanese in Japan, behaves, dresses, acts and reacts in a more generally uncivilised and rude manner compared to the Japanese and especially so from the Japanese cultural perspective. It is therefore natural that the average Japanese would initially eye me with a certain level of disdain, suspicion, or reserve. Should he then bother to get to know me a little he might decide that this particular round-eyed, badly-dressed, barbarian is alright after all, but I certainly would not expect Japan to make it’s policy against Caucasians in Japan suit me personally. And if I were the Japanese emperor I would certainly make it so that round-eyed, white barbarians are punished harshly if they do not behave according to the norms of my Japanese culture.
Do I have problem with any of this? No. None at all.
Have I personally been subjected to what most people would call “racist abuse”? Certainly. 25 years in Africa with a white skin will do that to you. or even just a few weeks in Japan, or even just in a different nation from your own. That, is simply how the cookie crumbles. Is it always fair? No, it isn’t but again, you might as well complain about the rain, or the height you were born with or the colour of your eyes or your skin. It is how it is.
But what about the humanity?!
Well, what about it? If you treat me well, at an individual level, I’ll treat you well right back. And if you know how to carry yourself, you can generally get by in most places. I have found myself more than once in situations that could have turned very ugly very fast, and I was lucky in how they resolved, because I had the “wrong” skin colour, or cultural expression, or whatever. I have also been in situations where it would have been legitimate to expect trouble because of my skin and/or culture, and instead been received very kindly and graciously.
In real life, shit happens. I met a Tsonga (Sub-Saharan African) that was a genius at math and could do integration in his head. I have met Khoi San that I would never be able to match at tracking animals in the bush if I spent the next ten years trying to learn from them, and I have met wealthy and very expensively educate people that are dumber than rocks. But the point is that statistically, certain trends are going to be as they are.
Cliches are cliches for a reason, after all.
And generalisations, as generalisations, can still be factual.
Of course, philosophically, you may say that the soul of an illiterate African is just as worthy of life as that of a Japanese master of Calligraphy. And in principle, I would not disagree with you, however, in how I go about ordering my life, choosing my neighbours and enforcing or following the laws of the land, I absolutely will take note of statistical realities concerning other humans. And so do you, so does everyone. No matter how hard you might try to deny it or reject the idea. The fact is you too do not want to move your home and family next to a campground of thieving gypsies with a history of violent criminality and playing loud music at all hours.
The only “difficulty” is in how to deal with the specifics of a single case when faced with the outlier. In normal human nature, more prevalently in certain human groups than others, one does not want to be arbitrarily unfair to a specific individual as a result of a perceived characteristic that ultimately may not be indicative of his ability.
But the only way to avoid doing this is to provide equal opportunity of access, but let the results determine the outcome. A meritocracy is the fairest system of all.
Even then there will be natural imbalances due to all sorts of factors, many out of anyone’s control, but in principles a meritocracy is the way things should work. And such a state of affairs has been historically created most closely in:
None are perfect, but personally I find the Catholic one the best of the lot. The Protestant version tends to mechanise human beings and treat them like robots, and the pagan one tends to need to be draconian in order to control the lowest common denominator. The Catholic one has enough flexibility to be adaptable and yet strict rules you are not to break.
So, once again, I find that historically, Catholic nations were far more pleasant to live in than any other place. Certainly there are notable comparable cultures, but what is not in question is that all of these had become homogenous before they achieved their peak civilisation.
In conclusion then, while one must never lose their humanity at an individual level, the best system for human beings is to, in general terms (and pretty closely defined general terms at that) stick to their own groups, composed of people similar to them in physical, intellectual, cultural and religious appearance and custom.
And ultimately, this is why the mystery meat globohomo clown world will inevitably lose to the Multipolar World that Russia and China talk about, and others are rapidly getting on board of. Ultimately, you can’t deny nature, just as you can’t fight the Ocean with a paddle or a boat or even a wall. Sooner or later, chickens come home to roost or they die.
Conclusion
Once such simple and basic concepts as are described here are accepted by a majority, things will rapidly return to normal. That is, to a sane, multipolar world. And if those people who become aware of these simple facts, should also happen to notice that a particular group of humans has intentionally, consciously, and with malice aforethought, directed things to be the way we are finding them now, it could very well be possible that such a change back to a very Multipolar World happens very fast, and possibly also with a short, quick, but extremely brutal removal of groups perceived to have created the current conditions, howsoever such groups might be defined, and perceived.
Whether these be the Davos attendees, the bankers, the politicians, the Bilderberger group, freemasons, or any number of other definable groups, the reaction, once a certain level of awareness has been achieved, is bound to be harsh. Naturally so.
After all, it is not as if historical this kind of event hasn’t played out before in multiple eras and across the planet. The only difference enow is that everything is more connected, and it will be a lot more difficult for those deemed responsible to run and hide anywhere.
So that’s my cheery thought for this Saturday.
Have a good week-end.
No related posts.
By G | 25 February 2023 | Posted in Catholicism, Christianity, Human Performance, Medical Science, Sedeprivationism, Social Commentary