Explaining the Spread of White Anger

Regular Unz.com contributor Robert Weissberg offers a thoughtful analysis of why whites are fed up with diversity.

I’ve pulled 500 words out of a 1,600 word essay. Furthermore, there are numerous excellent comments at Unz. Before going to the article excerpt, consider this short, spot on comment #17:

Affirmative action is just a tiny part of the explanation. It’s just one of the tools in the programme of White Genocide. As a European, I will not allow my homeland to be overrun – and ultimately conquered through bloodshed – by low IQ hostiles. This is basic survival and no amount of job opportunities can “fix” my “anger”.

The Unz site is not the Daily Stormer and I don’t believe it allows commenters to name the Jew, so it’s all the more interesting that the the phrase “white genocide” made it to the comments.

Unz.com

The phrase “angry white males” has been around awhile, but Donald Trump’s election has pushed it to the forefront. Indeed, at least for some, it is central to Trump’s election. As Steven M. Gillon put it in The Washington Post, “Donald Trump has tapped into this anger and manipulated it to his political advantage. The bond between President Trump and his white followers is not based on policy but on grievance. They both reject the cultural changes over the past half-century, and Trump’s Make America Great Again slogan signals his intent to unravel them.”

Whether this anger is somehow justified is, of course, a question of immense complexity but let me offer three observations that explain its scope regardless of its justification. My point is that affirmative action and other egalitarian social engineering nostrums inescapably spreads antagonisms beyond those immediately affected by the policies. And the anger will only grow as government keeps pushing the egalitarian fantasy.

First, violating the merit principle, whether in college admissions or hiring police officers guarantees disgruntled white males far in excess of its true victims. Consider hiring five firefighters strictly according to civil service exam scores. Let’s assume that a hundred men apply for the position and can be ranked by test scores. The top four are white and are hired. Now, thanks to a Department of Justice consent decree, the fire department must hire at least one African American from the list and if the highest ranking black scores at 20 in the array he will be hired despite his middling score.

How many white males have actually lost their job to a black? The correct answer is exactly one, the fifth ranking applicant. But how many whites will mistakenly believe that they lost out to an affirmative action candidate? The answer is 14 since this is the number of rejected white candidates between 6 and 19 and, to be honest, all can make a legitimate claim of being passed over to satisfy the diversity bean counters. Further fueling this anger is that each of those fourteen “unfairly” rejected applicants may complain to family and friends and thus tales of the alleged injustice multiply though, in fact, only a single white applicant lost out to a less qualified black.

No wonder Trump received such enthusiastic welcomes by white males—the anger has been silently boiling for decades and this was perhaps the first instance where it could be expressed albeit indirectly. Imagine if a speaker at a Trump a rally was more forthcoming: “We are sick and tired of being pushed aside so that some incompetent minority can take our place in the name of diversity whose only purpose is to make some airhead social justice warrior feel good about herself. How many people in this audience personally know anybody who lost their job to a less-qualified ‘diversity candidate’? Give me a show of hands.”

One can only imagine the panic of every corporate CEO, college president and other Thinkgood Americans upon hearing this speech. They would demand that Trump immediately repudiate it. The White Male Martyrs Brigade has awakened and is on the march.

The Explosion of Bullsh*t Jobs (Viral Video)

Something different.

Meaningless jobs keep everyone employed, but at the cost of real prosperity and human satisfaction.

Sixteen and a half minutes.

From the youtube information box:

David Graeber and Rutger Bregman discuss the amazing explosion of bullshit jobs, where the political and economic goal of full employment has led to the greatest and most expensive welfare system of all time.

Sample comments:

C’mon is this guy saying that Google’s VP of Diversity is unnecessary?

Useless job that provides nothing to society… Have you ever heard of hedge funds?

This explains the push to get women to choose a career over marriage. Feminism was a top down movement to enrich the 1%.

I read that 60% of peer reviewed sociology research papers have zero references to them. What I mean by zero references to them is that the majority of these “peer reviewed” studies and papers are never used as references. The university career machine is completely bloated, most of these academics are completely useless, just filling the air with random data squeezed through their ideological worldview, they’re so useless that no one bothers to read anything they write.

“In a 2013 survey of 12,000 professionals by the Harvard Business Review, half said they felt their job had no ‘meaning and significance,’ and an equal number were unable to relate to their company’s mission, while another poll among 230,000 employees in 142 countries showed that only 13% of workers actually like their job. A recent poll among Brits revealed that as many as 37% think they have a job that is utterly useless.”
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/04/why-its-time-to-rethink-the-meaning-of-work/

Bonus video:

Zuckerberg Stands with “Dreamers”–More Democrat Voters for Him in 2020

As President Donald Trump said, American kids have dreams too. Why should the dreams of foreigners come before the dreams of Mexicans, Haitians, Central Americans, etc.

Microchip has laid out the future if Trump ends DACA. We win bigly as the Antifa hit the streets and show the true colors of the left again. That breeds more disgust with Paul Ryan, the Democrats, George Soros, and the big companies, like Facebook, that support the so-called Dreamers.

The frame is “They hate our children.” If I had Facebook: “Mark Zuckerberg, why do you hate my children? What have my children ever done to you? My children have dreams too, and you want to destroy them. What’s wrong with you.”

Send the same message to Paul Ryan, et. al.

Idle Hands: Which Race Spends the Most Time at Work NOT Working (Graph)

Pancho and Jose must take zee siesta.

The graph gives us some clues as to why Mexico is a turd world s***hole. The Mexicans are too busy socializing to get their work done. You won’t find many of them in coding and programming because there you have to produce output that is easy to measure as accurate lines of code that work within a program.

Serena Williams calls for equal pay for black women in passionate personal essay

Nog females are worth less in the free market than white males and females.

You can knock me over with a feather.

And a nog female is complaining.

Knock me over with a feather again.

Excerpt from The Guardian

Serena Williams has issued a stirring call for black women to demand equal pay using a personal essay to highlight the financial disparity they suffer.

In the essay published by Fortune, Williams says that for every dollar earned by men in the United States, black women earn just 63 cents.

The 23-times grand slam winner writes that black women have to work eight months longer to earn the same as their male counterparts do in one year, and that black women earn 17% less than their white female counterparts.

She draws on her own experiences to highlight unfair treatment black women are subject to in the workplace. “I’ve been disrespected by my male colleagues and – in the most painful times – I’ve been the subject of racist remarks on and off the tennis court,” she wrote.

Williams has repeatedly been the target of sexist and racist remarks by men in tennis. In 2016 the Indian Wells CEO Raymond Moore said women’s tennis was riding on the coat-tails of the men’s tour and that female players should “thank god” for Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. In April the Romanian team captain Ilie Nastase made an apparently racist comment about Williams’s unborn baby and was heard calling her and Joanna Konta “fucking bitches”. Most recently, former champion John McEnroe said Williams would “be, like, 700 in the world” if she played on the men’s tour.

“Luckily I am blessed with an inner drive and a support system of family and friends that encourage me to move forward. But these injustices still hurt,” Williams writes.

Actually, if Nigger women didn’t have so many government jobs, their pay would be half or less than that of white men. The government overpays them. Whatever so-called pay gap there is doesn’t arise because of their skin color, but because of their lower productivity on the job, which is due to a variety of factors, including lower IQ.

Economics Professor “Deirdre” McCloskey Writes A Diversion Away from Truth at Libertarian Reason Site

DONALD MCCLOSKEY BECAME DEIRDRE MCCLOSKY SOME DECADES AGO.

Deirdre McCloskey no longer has her dick.

Wikipedia

Deirdre Nansen McCloskey (born September 11, 1942),[1] formerly known as Donald N. McCloskey, is the Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). She is also adjunct professor of Philosophy and Classics there, and for five years was a visiting Professor of philosophy at Erasmus University, Rotterdam. Since October 2007 she has received six honorary doctorates.[2] In 2013, she received the Julian L. Simon Memorial Award from the Competitive Enterprise Institute for her work examining factors in history that led to advancement in human achievement and prosperity.[3] Her main research interests include the origins of the modern world, the misuse of statistical significance in economics and other sciences, and the study of capitalism, among many others.

I’m not going to comment on gender fluidity, women with penises, or even on how highly honored economics professors get things wrong all the time.

Instead, let’s get the flavor of Dr. McCloskey’s argument and then fire back with some common sense. In this excerpt she focuses on the auto industry.

Excerpt from McCloskey writing at Reason

The Myth of Technological Unemployment

Otherwise sensible folk are, for some reason, terrified by robots. Yet the results of automation are good overall. Workers move from wretched assembly-line jobs to better ones standing in white coats monitoring the robots, at the higher wages made possible by the higher tech. Or, even better, they move to jobs outside the auto industry, earning pay that goes further because people can buy the radically cheaper stuff the robots now make.

If their new jobs are not higher paying, it’s probably because the auto union managed to extract monopoly profits from the company, and therefore from consumers. Robert Reich, a reliable source of sweetly leftish errors of facts and ethics, declares that “the decline in unionization [of private companies] directly correlates with the decline of the portion of income going to the middle class.” But paying selected workers on the assembly line more than they can earn elsewhere, at the expense of other, sometimes poorer, workers’ ability to buy cars, is hardly an ethical formula for raising up the working class.

When a Ford plant installed robots, Walter Reuther, a long-ago president of the United Auto Workers union, is said to have asked a manager: “How are you going to get them to buy Fords?” But Reuther’s argument is fallacious. Employees of car companies are a trivial share of the car-buying public. You can’t create prosperity merely by having workers purchase from their own employers.

Reich has accused the following things of driving down American wages: “Automation, followed by computers, software, robotics, computer-controlled machine tools and widespread digitization.” But such innovations have actually raised real wages, correctly measured, because a human supplied with a better tool can produce more outputs. And the point of an economy is production for consumption, not protection of existing jobs.

Consider the historical record: If the nightmare of technological unemployment were true, it would already have happened, repeatedly and massively. In 1800, four out of five Americans worked on farms. Now one in 50 do, but the advent of mechanical harvesting and hybrid corn did not disemploy the other 78 percent.

In 1910, one out of 20 of the American workforce was on the railways. In the late 1940s, 350,000 manual telephone operators worked for AT&T alone. In the 1950s, elevator operators by the hundreds of thousands lost their jobs to passengers pushing buttons. Typists have vanished from offices. But if blacksmiths unemployed by cars or TV repairmen unemployed by printed circuits never got another job, unemployment would not be 5 percent, or 10 percent in a bad year. It would be 50 percent and climbing.

No, Professor, after a great deal of personal anguish, “displaced workers” go to work as assistant managers at Burger King. If. they. are. lucky.

In my experience in academia most (not all) professors who rise up to national prominence are Jew stooges. McCloskey, identified with Milton Friedman’s Chicago School of Economics, is a smart guy … uh … lady. But a lot of his work, if not all of it, is designed to divert attention away from the (((tribe))) pushing the levers behind the curtain.

If you want truth in economics, regular readers know that I go to Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, who observes that the American economy only produces low wage jobs. Unemployment may be low by official measures, but in reality because of dropouts in the labor force, it’s much higher than publicized.

When I first discovered Dr. Roberts, I stayed up all night reading every article archived on his site (see blogroll). I won’t be doing the same for McCloskey because he’s not willing to say anything truthful about race, white genocide, immigration, or the gutting of the white middle class. Dr. Roberts (and Pat Buchanan) are two “respectable” thought leaders willing to tell the truth, or at least a large part of it.

I conclude, sadly on my part, that Deirdre is a Jew stooge.

You and Your Work (1948 Color Social Guidance Film)

Less than 11 minutes. A young white man has a serious attitude problem. The wisdom exhibited by the guidance counselor in this film has been lost today. Watch and rediscover wisdom.

Uploaded on Jan 20, 2011

Young Frank Taylor loathes working at a shoe store, but discovers that he is doomed to hate any job unless he changes his attitude. After a motivational lecture by his high school guidance counselor, Frank looks forward to working the rest of his life selling shoes.

There’s a happy ending to this story!