Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

You don't see the problem with unlimited campaign finances being poured into a candidate by out-of-state donors?

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

Local government in action.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Yes it is. While many black Wisconsinites may absolutely loathe Walker, they as a collective are highly unlikely to take action. The Twitter cherrypickings are empty threats, plain and simple.


Of course not, but you're making generalizations that are wholly unsubstantiated. Social issues play a huge role in this; black Americans, particularly those tweeting about Walker in Wisconsin, aren't as likely, historically, to "snap" in a way that would legitimately endanger the life of a prominent public figure. As I've said already, there has not been a single successful assassination attempt on the part of a black American. That's not to say that it isn't possible, but the fact of the matter is that blacks are more prone to spontaneous violence than they are to planned, targeted killings of "important" people --- a symptom of decades of poverty, no doubt, but a relevant symptom nonetheless.


So sayeth the man who continues to believe claims that were just systematically debunked.

EDIT: Capitalization error.

Not really. A bunch of individuals donating small sums of money, here and there, will add up to a lot over time but we're not talking about multi-million dollar donations.

Regardless, couldn't Barrett have done the same? Is there a rule saying that state elections can't be financed by people from other states? Barrett, as I understood, had the backing of the Unions... and I'm just guessing that the Unions did whatever they could (even financially) to help Barrett. Since Unions aren't exclusive to a single state, and their fee's are paid from any member, does that mean Unions can't financially support a candidate by donating to a PAC since some portion of the money was funneled from out of state?

Yeah. He's not selling the state to corporate interests.

I mean, why do you think he didn't do the same?



Actually they are. And union federations are extremely weak these days, far weaker than individual member unions. Police, fire, and teacher unions are all local.



Why would union federations take money from other state unions to donate to this particular campaign?

Taking a step back, what's your beef with unions? As someone who was free-boarded through life by the National Guard, you're really not in a position to argue that people can or should get by in life without institutional support.



You really think that small individuals make small donations to state campaigns in OTHER states?
Why would they do that? Do you do that?

Question: Why do you make the assumption that it's not big money?

And connected to that question - you still haven't answered the previous question I asked. Given you so easily believed something provably not true (and still do), and now you make unlikely assumptions in the service of your ideology, what's your basis for believing you're not being manipulated?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

It's a problem that either party can do it. Blaming one for it is foolish.

EDIT: @Dagery: Sure, most american political leader assassins(hell maybe all of them) may have been white christian males. But most americans are white christian males, so that actually makes more sense than if say, 75% of our assassins were asians. I'm sure in other nations their assassins are more likely to belong to the more numerous demographic too.

EDIT2: Dude that shot giffords, Lonagher? Lougener? He wasn't in the tea party. He was an atheist, a registered independent, drug addicted and crazy to boot, but not a tea partier.

It's not an issue of demography, though --- it's an issue of culture. Black American culture, while often violent, is much less likely to produce crazed serial killers and meticulous political assassins. White culture, on the other hand, consistently churns out depraved act after depraved act, a result of centuries of ethnocentric conditioning and a subsequent racial superiority complex. The issue of assassination probability comes down to whites' dominant psychology versus blacks' victim complex, not population.


He was, as Aestu already pointed out, responding to calls for anti-liberal violence made by the Tea Party. This does not shift the blame from the shoulders of the Tea Party.

What the fuck is this disaster of a thread even about?

-Scott Walker sucks so much Koch it's unbelievable
-no black American has assassinated a political figure
-Twitter postings are immediate national emergencies
-Eturnal loves everything that benefits Republicans

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

More like (in chronological order):

-Scott Walker was "threatened" via Twitter, which in turn is obviously proof that white people aren't racist.
-Walker's campaign was funded mostly by out-of-state donors. (Courtesy of Azelma, Duke of Derailment)
-The people who are calling for Walker's death would never play any role in an assassination, given racial circumstances.
-Anyone's capable of violence, so Walker should therefore take these "threats" seriously.
-Most people who carry out violent acts are those who would be supporting Walker.

I'd say that --- by this board's standards, at least --- this topic has so far stayed on the path it started on. Though at this point it's more an argument of principle that will, in typical FUBU fashion, eventually degrade to the point where those who were proven wrong stop posting and it becomes a completely different thread within a day, thus spurring Mayo to lock it and assorted persons to complain about said lock.

This is a very interesting topic and I agree with Dagery's wise insight. White people feel more inclined to become assassins or serial killers because they see themselves as part of mainstream society by default, and are inclined to either change it or take up arms against it when alienated. Black people, on the other hand, are constantly reminded of their place in society.

But I don't believe the issue is entirely cultural. I have often said that I am very racist but not bigoted, and I stand by that. I do believe there are significant mental differences between the races, not only in terms of basic intelligence and aptitude but also psychometrics.

I truly believe that there is something in the genome which uniquely inclines white people to seek control over people and the world at large by vicious means, as well as being more resistant to control, more assertive, and more mentally organized than other races, similarly inclines black people to like loud bass, crave chicken, and be, on average, somewhat less mentally disciplined, while also making Asians much more mentally disciplined than most. I also believe that these characteristics are driving forces in societies comprised of different races.

I believe that black Americans are genetically distinct from black Africans due to unnatural selection during slavery, which had the effect of removing the most assertive and independent from the gene pool. I also believe that it is because of slavery that black men have, on average, bigger penises than white men.

To my mind, the proper analogy is different breeds of cats: comparing the temperament of Siamese to Persians, despite being of similar size and body plan and being genetically compatible. Note that tabbies are the most rugged of the species, and have the best general survivability.

On a related note, I believe that if the Earth were conquered by aliens from outer space, and humans were sold as pets, the aliens would kill off all whites and blacks, and make it illegal to keep any very light or very dark humans as pets (a point on which the Kama Sutra agrees), preferring Asians.

I believe that the uniquely intense hatred that white people have for blacks is driven more by organic chemistry than anything else. I believe that black people emit chemical messengers that arouse very intense hostility from white people, and I think this is connected in some strange way with the mechanics of sex-related pheromones in the white human brain (similar to how pigs seek truffles because of similarities between truffle chems and porcine sex pheromones, or how cats react in contrary and unpredictable ways to catnip, or humans to caffeine).

Despite this, I oppose racial laws, because I know based on careful study that those laws not only usually don't work, they also prove self-defeating, because the creation of a subordinate race in society tends to arouse the "law of unintended consequences" and result in decadence and degeneration amongst the dominant race. This is true, of course, in Jim Crow society, but there are other examples, such as the decline of classical civilizations and the Aztecs (who were already headed towards defeat due to their racist policies before Cortez showed up).

History pretty consistently shows that shuffling the genetic deck sometimes does result in temporary degeneration, but if proper natural (or unnatural) selective processes are allowed to operate, the result is usually long-term improvement, just like in all other plants and animals. Examples include the gradual evolution from the Romans into the Italians, the Ottomans and Byzantines into the Turks, motley European trash into Americans, and Ainu and Chinese into Japanese.

An excellent example are the East Indians, probably the most throughbred people in the world. No one today would call them inferior to anyone, but they discriminate against black people too, they share the visceral European hatred for their untouchables, despite sharing a great deal of genetic stock with them. Hence my belief that the antipathy is organic in nature and that the best long-term solution is to genetically integrate them, then breed out undesirable characteristics from the combined whole.

Probably the best example are the modern Ashkenazi Jews. These creatures were produced over the millennia by cross-breeding Semitic, swarthy Sephardic Jews with fair Europeans, while culling individuals of below-average intelligence.

Modern Ashkenazi Jews have measurably higher intelligence than their ancient ancestors, and also developed unique physical and mental characteristics observable in neither stock (curly brown hair, Tay-Sachs, extreme excitability, and improved resistance to TB). I also believe that Ashkenazi are more virile (both behaviorally and physiologically) than either ancestor as a result of this process, and I also believe this is a driving force in their evolution of the Jewish culture.

And when they got together and built a nation based on apartheid, so far from being amazing, degeneration rapidly took hold.

I believe that race and human degeneration are best managed through race-blind policies designed to encourage gradual, long-term improvement in the human genome and eradication of genetic and congenital faults such as social pathology.

Career criminals should be sterilized, life support for babies and young children should be outlawed, and there should be a cap on the number of children any one individual is permitted to produce. The cap should consist of a simple sum of two values with a maximum of two for either value, based on physical/mental fitness in the former and employment in the latter.

I believe that necessity will result in such a system being implemented at some point, by some authority. Whether they implement it well or poorly is beyond our capacity to foresee at this time, but honestly I am pessimistic given the limits of human wisdom.

The problem with such a program is the potential to over-domesticate humans, or to create a feedback cycle between social mores and human evolution, resulting in breeding out useful characteristics that may not be convenient to society. I believe the best way to avoid this is to make the fitness tests as simple and fundamental as possible, but I also believe that it is necessary to keep the genetic stock of domesticated humans viable through continual replenishment from feral human populations.

To this end, I believe that the proper approach, would be to restore natural habitats and reintroduce feral human populations to areas they have been exterminated from. For example, I believe the buffalo and other native plants and animals should be reintroduced to the American Midwest, and surrogate Native Americans reintroduced. Not the same people by lineage, but surrogates - various unsettled people throughout the world, (e.g., Tibetans, West Africans, Berbers and Bedouin) - who would then establish the same hunter-gatherer relationship and over time evolve into a similar culture. The hunter-gatherer lifestyle would keep natural selection in play.

A law should be implemented to the effect that artificial insemination can be legally performed using only sperm from feral human populations, thereby creating a mechanism by which the domesticated human genetic stock can be continually replenished, and protecting both the natural environment and the rights of traditional societies by way of a mutual relationship.

I believe that the United States is uniquely poised to, over many centuries, produce the best human stock ever, as we have access to the broadest genetic base and potentially the best theater to breed out negative characteristics. It is likely that over the millenia, our descendants will evolve into a people similar to the modern Turks, who are clearly not stupid or incompetent.

If we are able to counter the arresting effect that civil society has on natural selection, while maximizing on its potential to improve the human condition through civilizing people, educating them, and channeling their drives (including anger, aggression, hedonism and desire to dominate) into productive forces, America might well do quite a bit better.

With such a broad genetic base for successful hybridization, we could produce domesticated humans with strength, intelligence and vigor far exceeding any other population.

This post may seem very strange, but I encourage people to think hard about what I say.
Also, it reads more easily if you "moo" loudly while reading it.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

What of the surrogates' geographically-specific practices, though? Certainly the agricultural expertise of the Bedouin and West Africans, so ingrained into either culture for thousands of years, differs greatly from what they'd be stepping into upon moving onto the Great Plains or elsewhere. It's also important to factor in culture itself; the peoples of Africa and still-tribal Asia aren't likely to stay wherever they relocate, if they even relocate, regardless of the incentives offered. Most, after all, stay where they are now because they know of nowhere else to live --- this wouldn't be the case if they were offered (free?) passage to what's trumped up by the third world to be the center of the universe, a place almost mythical in nature.

It's a reasoned, rational solution, yes, but it's impractical and unlikely to ever, in any capacity, come to fruition given politics and intercultural tensions.

They are human. They will learn and adapt.

It's unlikely in the extreme that they will perish for inability to do so, especially if we throw the odds in their favor by making sure they have the resources (abundant fish, game and ductile wood) to succeed.



Many of these people are under severe threat of being pushed off their ancestral lands. They may not like being moved, but they cannot say no.

For example, the piracy off East Africa is motivated by Europeans wiping out their fish stocks. In Brazil, development is a severe threat to the Native Americans who still live as their ancient ancestors did in the Amazon. There are also people like the Roma and Uighur. These people cannot say no.



I agree, at least about my suggestion about how to re-seed feral human populations. That is unlikely to come about without some sort of tyrant imposing the system on a whim. But then again, men like Romulus, Moses, Lycurgus and the Founding Fathers have now and then come to desperate people and imposed wise laws. Perhaps it will happen again, if things get bad enough. Although my personal ideas about how to manage genetic replenishment are esoteric enough that it's unlikely an American tyrant would arrive at the same conclusions.

But so far as domestic populations go, I believe that necessity will compel the imposition of a system of reproductive regulation and eugenics at some point - with or without a tyrannical lawgiver.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Of course, but the question is when rather than how. Every facet of the argument for eugenics relies upon societal norms and social circumstances of today's world rather than that of the future --- who's to say that in the next fifty years there won't be another Holocaust or equally drastic social upheaval? The blowback would be incredibly far-reaching to the point where racial guilt, rather than human advancement, would be at the forefront of global politics. An anti-Gattaca, I suppose. It would push true eugenics back decades, if not a century or more.

On the contrary. I think that people will be sufficiently willing to question today's anti-eugenics, anti-government, anti-community mores when things get bad enough. Even now it's starting. I think people today are more receptive to such ideas than 10-50 years ago.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

That's what I'm saying. It's fine now, yes, but the pro-eugenics movement would be set back decades if anything was done wrong --- it's obviously a touchy subject, even among most of its advocates. A single mishap could lead to an absolutely massive global backlash.