Odds and ends on race, culture, economics, and politics.
1. A Negro earns $100,000,000 for a single boxing match against an injured and ineffectual Filipino. Now, will the shills for free market predatory capitalism say that is a good thing? Really, according to their dogma, there should not be a problem. The Negro has a "marketable skill" and the consumers made their preferences known in the marketplace. If folks are willing to fork over big money for this nonsense because they value and desire the experience, then that's supply and demand in action! The market has spoken! Economic efficiency wins out! And I'd like to point out this really isn't racial - White athletes and actors and singers, etc. also earn obscene paydays for contributing no more to society and to human progress than do these colored boxers. It's part and parcel of "free market capitalism."
Now, the shills can take two approaches to this. One, they can assert that it's all good, they see no problem, and that human progress is well served by having boxers, ballplayers, actors, singers, and dancers earn more in a day than truly productive folks earn in a lifetime. If they assert this, then they demonstrate that they have nothing in common with true racial nationalists; if you worship the free market above all, then you must accept the market choice if people choose racial dissolution over preservationism. These capitalist shills expose themselves as Economic Man, valuing consumption and money over racial progress and over actualizing a High Culture.
The second approach is to admit the flaws of free market capitalism, but excuse its excesses by stating, "there is no better alternative," and giving examples of the "horrors" of alternative systems. Or, they may propose "reforms" to improve what we see as flaws in their beloved system. Here, we see some progress. Although I do not agree with this second mindset, we have at least elicited an admission that unfettered free market capitalism has serious flaws, it is not perfect, and there is also the implied assumption that if somehow a better system were to be devised, then this new system should replace "economics uber alles" as society's foundational structure. Those of us who are critics of hyper-free marketism ad predatory capitalism should continue to try and elicit these admissions from those will take the second approach and who admit that the capitalist colossus has feet of clay.
3. And yet, one can argue that the Negro is objectively superior to the White. Despite all the defects that the HBDers like to point out, the Negro has assembled an effective and organized racial nationalist organization, in existence for many decades, with tens of thousands of loyal adherents. One can compare that to the pathetic laughingstock which is the "American White nationalist movement" and discern clear indications of an objective Negro racial superiority. Facts are facts.
4. Here is another article asserting that "winning Hispanic voters" is the "path to victory" for the GOP in 2016. Now, I've discussed this many times and hate repeating myself, but all such analyses for some reason miss the point that the White vote is absolutely essential for the GOP; that there is not some universal law that dictates that Whites automatically, without question, must vote Republican; and that pandering to minorities and the constant shift to the Left will alienate the conservative White Republican voting base. Sure, it's true that many Whites do in fact reflexively vote Republican, and will in fact vote Republican if the GOP candidate was a Black militant who openly called for White extermination. But, still, even with that cohort of "automatic votes," there are still some fraction of Whites who actually - amazing! - expect the candidates they vote for to, in some manner, however indirect, support their interests. Fact is, Republicans find themselves "between a rock and a hard place," because, in the long run, they do need to appeal to non-Whites (the "Sailer strategy" can only take you so far, given that a fraction of Whites are open anti-White leftists); however, by doing so, they will turn off their base and so gain little or nothing. And as politics become more racialized, and as White folks become increasingly tired of GOP fraud (the "Tea Party" was a reaction to this, before becoming compromised by Conservatism, inc.), the GOP will find it increasingly impossible to satisfy both the colored fringe voters and at the same time also satisfy their White base. The fact this happened is their own fault; the GOP could have resisted America's demographic changes, but instead they embraced and promoted it. And now they must pay the price, even if moronic "analysts" fail to realize it and take White votes for granted.