Renegade Third Worlder

Dissuading the West from joining our lowly club of nations

Tag: Venezuela

The elephant in the Latin American room

A brief yet informative look at race and IQ in the sub-continent, and the lessons the West should learn accordingly, at Defend Europa:

Uruguay, for example, is 88% ethnic European (white) according to the latest data available. It will come as no surprise to those who have read up on the correlations between IQ and race that Uruguay also has the highest average IQ score of all South American nations (96). In contrast, a country like EL Salvador, in which only 12% of its people “identify as white (European origin)”, the average IQ is a mere 80, whilst average earnings are amongst some of the lowest of the continent ($3,960 per year).

Venezuela is another good example to look at. The homicide rate of Venezuela is a massive 53.7 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, whilst average income is a minuscule $804 per year. This is again unsurprising when we look at the demographics of the country; white Europeans are a minority in Venezuela, with just 43.6% of the people there “identifying as white”, whilst the average IQ is 84, a whole 12 points lower than majority-white Uruguay.

Argentinians enjoy some of the highest wages in South America, with the average annual income per capita currently standing at $13,000 – low by European standards perhaps, but still significantly higher than many other South American nations. Again, we find that this correlates directly with IQ and demographics. Argentina is 86% ethnic European, with an average IQ of 93.

It is vital that as many people as possible are aware of the dangers of the erosion of our European racial groups, along with the decline in the standards of all that Europeans are renowned for across the world; science, philosophy, architecture – all of our achievements in these fields are down to the intelligent innovations of native European men and women.

Of course, preservation of the white race and Western culture is an end in itself, justified by something of infinitely higher value than its fine achievements in all those fields of human endeavor: the very sense of meaning and purpose that makes life worth living.

Which makes the Latin American experience an even more urgent and relevant lesson for the West to learn from.

Liberal confusion, populism edition

Over at Amerika, Brett Stevens, commenting on an article on populism in Foreign Affairs, articulates a neat, crystal clear definition of the term:

…populism recognizes the nature of power, which is to use institutions to limit the organic nation and parasitize it for the benefit of international elites and home-grown toadies.

It is “populist” only in that it is meta-democracy, or a popular sentiment created outside the controlled confines of courts, voting and public discourse. It is a cultural wave pushing back against how politics frames the narrative and artificially limits choices based on the pretense of people in groups.

Where conservatives think we can import people from the third world, “educate” them in our ways and have them live among us, the Alt Right realizes that diversity as a whole fails. Where Nazis single out African-Americans and Jews, the Alt Right points out that every group acts in its own self-interest alone, and in the Machiavellian realpolitik and so ideas like “we are all one” and diversity can never work no matter what groups are involved.

Populists also recognize the nation as an organic entity, or a people. This means that it only lasts so long as its founding group remains unmixed and with its traditions intact. To a populist, social standards must be enforced by culture, and having government step in the way makes government into a parasitic and corrupting force.

Since the adoption of liberalism in the West, a process that took over a thousand years, we have become materialistic or focused on material goals instead of doing what is right. That includes deference to institutions like law and politics, a facilitative society that aims at empowering individual choice over commonality of purpose, and the mentality that whatever is profitable, popular or socially trending is more important that doing what is good, beautiful and true according to the order of nature.

The pushback began once it became clear that Leftists had buried our society in so many rules and precedents that any action except moar Leftism was demonized, ostracized and made politically incorrect…

It is important to define the term as precisely as possible, because its use and abuse is one of the liberal elite’s favorite rhetorical weapons in the culture wars.

The most Orwellian version of this exercise claims that populism necessarily leads to Latin-American-style authoritarianism.

A few recent examples:

How to be a poulist,” by Moises Naim for The Atlantic

Insult, provoke, repeat: how Donald Trump became America’s Hugo Chávez,” by Rory Carroll for The Guardian.

Populism: The new enemy of democracy,” by Nobel Laureate Mario Vargas Llosa for El Pais.

What Trump has in common with Hugo Chavez,” by Andres Oppenheimer for The Miami Herald.

Donald Trump is no Hugo Chavez. He is more like Nicolas Maduro,” by Francisco Toro for The Washington Post.

Don’t cry for me, America: Forget the wall. Donald Trump’s appeal is textbook Latin American populism,” by Enrique Krauze for Slate.

Beware, liberal bien-pensants say, of leaders who appeal to the deepest, gut-level political instincts of the common folk, pitting them against an oppressive, corrupt, establishment-entrenched elite: that’s exactly what the likes of Hugo Chávez did in Venezuela… and look how their common folk ended up!

The outrageous fallacy, of course, resides in the fact that the deepest, gut-level political instincts of a people are as good as a people’s culture. Which in turn is an emergent, path-dependent property of those people’s idiosyncratic matrix of predispositions, beliefs, behaviors, temperaments and aptitudes with which they are endowed by their genes.

As much as Marxist class-warfare demagoguery as championed by the likes of Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez use populist discourse to pit the common guy against the establishment, its inherent leftism can only resonate in the hearts and minds of mestizos that not only never really assimilated into Western culture in any significant sense, but also lost touch with their ancestral, native American heritage.

Mestizo culture, if it can be called that, is an incoherent melange. A confusing patchwork born of the delusional attempt to embrace “diversity as strength” at the core of Latin American national projects. Most of them, to add insult to injury, suffused with the feverish dream of a supranational Patria Grande.

This essential lack of cultural substance of the Latin American mestizo is, of course, the main reason why most of them, even in 21st-century Latin America, live in a state that cannot be characterized as anything but plain savagery.

Actually, perhaps it wouldn’t be inaccurate to say that in some respects, life in the barrios and favelas of Latin American megalopolises is today more savage than it was for their jungle-dwelling ancestors.

Can anyone in their right minds expect anything else than leftism, the anti-civilizational ideology par-excellence, to become hegemonic among a fundamentally savage people?

Can anyone in their right minds even insinuate that the deepest, gut-level political instincts of working class Americans and Europeans are in any way as susceptible to leftism as the mostly mestizo common folk in Latin America are?

Also, as Stevens points out elsewhere:

[Rightist] societies are neither individualist nor collectivist, but organic. They are people cooperating at a level of such maturity that each person finds a role they can serve and stays there. If that’s king, great; if it’s peasant, ditto.

Crass attempts to impose the notion of individual autonomy at the core of classical liberalism on uncultured peoples like those of Latin America, inevitably result in full-blown collectivist regimes that appeal to the savage impulses of the mestizo.

Given the actual state of affairs in the first world, the liberal notion of individual autonomy has seemingly proven to also exert a corroding influence on the spiritual values of Western culture that gave birth to it in the first place.

This led to the exacerbated, atomized, materialist individualism that Stevens describes. And ultimately, this seems to also be devolving into full-blown collectivism, albeit in form more akin to A Brave New World than 1984.

But if first-world liberals have their way and their open-border policies prevail, they will ultimately face a rude awakening.

When pervasive price controls and rampant nationalization of industry become the norm, the soma will run out, just like Venezuelans ran out of toilet paper, and they will realize they are living under the more 1984-ish version of collectivism that prevails in Latin America.

And it will be too late to do anything about it.

Economic illiteracy is not a government monopoly in Venezuela

Sure enough, the world has good reasons to be concerned about the latest lunacy of Venezuela’s socialist government, The War on Bread:

Facing a bread shortage that is spawning massive lines and souring the national mood, the Venezuelan government is responding this week by detaining bakers and seizing establishments.

In a press release, the National Superintendent for the Defense of Socioeconomic Rights said it had charged four people and temporarily seized two bakeries as the socialist administration accused bakers of being part of a broad “economic war” aimed at destabilizing the country.

In a statement, the government said the bakers had been selling underweight bread and were using price-regulated flour to illegally make specialty items, like sweet rolls and croissants.

The government said bakeries are only allowed to produce French bread and white loaves, or pan canilla, with government-imported flour. However, in a tweet on Thursday, price control czar William Contreras said only 90 percent of baked goods had to be price-controlled products.

But sadly, crass economic illiteracy apparently isn’t confined to government officials in Venezuela:

As a price control obsessive, I always finding it disappointing when opposition politicians won’t call a spade a spade and demand they end at once. After all, price controls may well win the hotly contested battle for the title of Most Destructive Policy of Bolivarian Socialism.

But yesterday I was left in complete shock when I heard an important opposition politician call for more price controls!

In a now sadly infamous statement, José Manuel Olivares, the National Assembly member for Primero Justicia who chairs the Health Subcommittee, said the National Assembly should push for price controls over medical consultations in private health centers, adding: “it is not a regulation meant to destroy, let’s not forget that the private sector, with 8,000 beds, caters to 55% of Venezuelans.”

…we still have opposition politicians who think if your intention isn’t to destroy something, then a destructive policy won’t destroy it. ¡Por favor!

This is, of course, a perfect example of why culture matters.

In cultures where liberty is a sacred value, price controls and other crass interventions in the marketplace are anathema.

Politicians themselves are part of that culture, and are basically aware of those policies’ self-defeating consequences.

Also, the sacredness of liberty means the people are ready to rise up in arms against politicians who might happen to loose that basic awareness.

But in Venezuela, as in much of the third world, no one will be much dismayed when a politician declares that the solution to the problems created by policies that by far have created the most destruction throughout the history of mankind… is more of those very same policies!

The politically correct will never admit it. But this is a perfect example of a people who simply have not reached a level of cultural evolution that is suitable for civilization.

The lesson for America is very simple: if you let a massive inflow of people from these cultures into your country, you can very much expect them to tolerate, and eventually to demand, such policies.

It’s not like American ideals will magically enter the deep psyches of people from utterly undeveloped cultures by osmosis as soon as they cross the border.

And once they become a large enough share of the population, there surely won’t be a lack of politicians willing to offer them what they want in exchange for votes.

Failing to see that, is simply failing to see why real American conservatives who voted for Trump are damn right to build that yuuuuge, beautiful wall.

Espionage firm behind Trump “dirty dossier” hired by Chavista cronies to whitewash massive looting of public funds in Venezuela

Fusion GPS’s shenanigans are most definitely not limited to aiding Planned Parenthood and attacking Mitt Romney’s friends.

London-based, Venezuelan investigative journalist Alek Boyd explains:

Well, if attempting to destroy Republican donors -or its perceived GOP enemies– doesn’t work, there’s always a gig to be had with the Democrats. It does crack me up however, to read, in The Guardian no less, stuff like: “Fusion GPS, led by former journalists skilled in digging up secrets on public figures.” Skilled?

I know better. Fusion GPS were (may still be?) in the employ of Derwick Associates, without a shred of a doubt one of the most corrupt group of thugs ever to have come out of Venezuela. The sort of “businessmen” that have no qualms in stealing over one billion USD from an almost destitute country. Fusion’s “former journalists”, of course, don’t have a problem with corruption, so long as billable hours keep adding up.

Glenn Simpson managed to get a few quid from the Derwick thugs. He dispatched his sidekick Peter Fritsch to Caracas once upon a time, along with another equally contemptible and disgusting former “prosecutor”, basically to impede journalists from carrying on with, erm, corruption reporting.

Fusion GPS’s Peter Fritsch’s record of visit to Hotel Lido in Caracas in July 2014.

I happen to know one of the “skilled” journalists at Fusion GPS, Tom Catan. He covered Venezuela’s 2006 presidential race for The Times of London, and as I was shadowing the opposition candidate, I was asked to organise an interview. We met a few years later, in Spain, when, again, I helped with another interview. I invited the guy to my house for dinner, we broke bread together, talked, had a few drinks with my family… He seemed, then, a decent enough person. Imagine my surprise when I found out that his firm was retained to destroy me on behalf of Derwick Associates. I confronted him with the kind of tactics they so readily employ with their targets. His reply dispelled my doubts as to his integrity.

But then, Derwick thugs decided to crank it up a little. My family was the subject of illegal surveillance in London. We were photographed going about our daily affairs for months. The operation culminated with a break into my flat, theft of my laptops, and threats of sexual abuse against my daughters. Now that I read about Simpson’s connection to a former British MI6 agent, I wonder: did Fusion GPS participated in the attack against my family? Did it subcontract former British intelligence officers to track me down in London?

How on earth this hasn’t been covered by the likes of Breitbart.com is absolutely beyond me.