Why are all of the smartest, most successful, most renowned, most respected people outspoken anti-racists/pro-immigration/etc.?
This isn't a troll post where I'm calling Sup Forums poor or stupid by the way, I'm actually wondering what it is about becoming successful that makes you WANT a billion blacks and Muslims to move into your country.
Other urls found in this thread:
npr.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
Because they know they will remain on top and would rather have a populace full of dindus, sandniggers, feminazis and rapefugees to control because they are so easily distracted and pacified.
Their public behaviors are heavily affected by externalities like how their perception could affect business, etc.
RURAL AND SUBURBAN
E
T
A
R
D
S
Mass immigration keeps the supply of cheap labor high. It's good if you're extremely wealthy.
Well, when the spicks and niggers don't actually ruin your fancy rich asshole enclaves, just the places where the rest of us live, it's easy to forget why you might not like shitskins.
But they aren't *that* insulated
For instance the wealthy in Brazil and South Africa need ridiculous precautions like armored cars, skybridges, fortified compounds, etc. whereas a millionaire could just walk around "public" Manhattan as they please with minimum worry about kidnapping or assassination
media points cameras at the ones who betray us
who owns the media?
successful people generally associate with successful people. see, a successful white person works with a lot of successful brown people. this white person then thinks all these brown people are exactly like the ones he interacts with. the reality is these brown people are a very small minority out of billions and most are complete trash and make life shit for everyone around them
>all of them
Koch brothers are republican if I recall correctly
Most of them live in the most diverse cities. It's sheltered, suburban/rural white boys who dislike minorities. They're over pampered and over privileged, which leads to hate, ignorance and fear.
just (you) my shit up senpai
They aren't functionally different at all, they've advoacted step for step for all of the same types of policies, increased third-world immigration, etc. for years.
Because you basically have to be or you get kicked out of their social groups, which are important to make money.
Angry leftists can lead social justice crusades against you in real life just as easily as they can on the Internet. There is no upside to publicly being anti-immigration if you are in the elite. There is a huge downside to disagreeing because you get ostracized.
>For instance the wealthy in Brazil and South Africa need ridiculous precautions like armored cars, skybridges, fortified compounds, etc. whereas a millionaire could just walk around "public" Manhattan as they please with minimum worry about kidnapping or assassination
If they can afford all those things then it really doesn't matter if they need them or not to stay safe. It's also safe to assume that if political pressure from the white western populace disappeared they would simply adopt authoritarian methods of controlling the population like shooting rioters and criminals targeting the rich on sight.
Think of the mentality your average white American has towards groids shooting each other in some Chicago neighborhood and then just expand that to society at large and you have the ultra rich.
>This isn't a troll post
Lets pretend its not.
Your definition of success is based on celebrity status.
Celebrity status is controlled by the media.
Your definition of success is based on money.
Money is controlled by Industry and bankers.
Now lets think about this. What do Industry, bankers, and media all need? They need people to sell their time for money. And they need people to buy their products with the money they earned.
Its very simple, celebrities and wealthy people need more people's time to feed into the system, so they may take the surplus, and maintain their class. Its a system. And since its the predominate worldview, enforced by the religion of hollywood, the state, and Industry everyone goes along with the plan to keep the 'economy growing'. It is a directionless, meaningless, out of control pursuit, that creates the conditions of meaningless to life, whilst at the same time providing the solution, which is to consume and be entertained to temporarily by whatever fad will fill the void.
tl;dr Its a racket.
Most of these respected people live far, far away from the misery of the common folk, eh, J.K?
As usual the Torah hakedushah has the answer to all of our questions.
Proverbs.
On the left is wealth and honour, on the right is long life.
>disproves theory
A few reasons.
The fabulously wealthy are not particularly concerned with taxes, the decline of the middle-class, or the availability of entry-level or unskilled labor. They live in relatively safe neighborhoods overwhelmingly populated by upper-middle to upper class people. The only minorities they are routinely exposed to are, like them, members of the higher classes.
Basically, they are out of touch and have nothing better to do with their free time than virtue flag over issues that do not personally affect them to any meaningful degree. They just live in a different culture.
This. I have family that live in rural Arkansas and they are convinced (and in my mind terrified) that a terrorist attack is eminent and that Mexicans are taking over. To the point that their lives are dictated by said notion. Shit is pretty funny tbqh. I understand Californians and Texans having some of these fears but holy fuck when my uncle goes off on those damn Mexicans (that we've probably seen like 4 of) taking his small tomato farm shit makes me laugh. Don't even get me started on his terrorist have infiltrated us and are planning an "attack". What kind of attack you ask? He doesn't even know just an attack.
I can actually say I was inspired to make this thread because I recently did closed captioning work for an environmental engineering conference and was distressed to find that 90% of the speakers addressed the need for increased immigration and refugee acceptance in their speeches. If anything, I actually think the phrase "refugee" was mentioned more than the phrase "carbon emissions"
The highlight was a University of Indiana professor who based her presentation around the fact that Europeans emit 50 times as much carbon and 100 times as much landfill waste per capita as Africans, so the only way to protect the environment is to reduce the native population of Europe as much as possible and repopulate it with more environmentally friendly Africans. She gave this speech in a very warm, cheerful way without a hint of spite or anger and a lot of the audience applauded.
I'm conflicted aswell. I'm friends with multiple blacks and arabs and I really like them, but I don't want more of them here.
That's because we're not to Brazil or South Africa levels of violence yet. Also note that rich people can walk around Manhattan, where the cost of living drives out the mostly likely elements to commit crime, and has a heavy police presence. They're not walking around the projects at night.
the fact that niggers are dumber doesn't make me hate them or treat every single one of them based on this statistical trend
it's called being civilised, decent person and people seem to respect and listen to decent human beings more
sadly being decent also fucks you up in the long run
Projection. They assume everyone is is peaceful and well meaning like themselves. They've never interacted with the true average nigger/arab/whatever or even just the statistics with an open enough mind to realize and accept that they're basically violent self-serving retards.
>self serving retards
Deep down aren't we all.
>I'm actually wondering what it is about becoming successful that makes you WANT a billion blacks and Muslims to move into your country.
the benefit of not being ruined by public opinion
This in particular is about money. What you've got to understand is that people in academia make virtually all of their money from grants or speeches. It's a huge industry.
Why do 99% of scientists agree with global warming? Because there are tens of billions being distributed around, and you only get it if you agree with the people handing it out. Same thing with refugees.
Notice how conservatives get angrily and aggressively protested every time they give a speech on a campus? Why? Because if they were allowed on, they would be competing for speaking fees with the liberals who dominate it now. And those can be very hefty. You start out at $5,000 to $10,000 even for an unknown person who just has good public speaking skills.
If someone's livelihood depends on saying they agree with a certain political viewpoint, they will do it. There is a good documentary about Morton Downey Jr., a guy who ran a far-right political talk show in the 1980's. If you watch it, it's pretty clear he's actually a liberal. Why was he running around posing as a lunatic conservative? Because he got paid millions of dollars to do it and got his own TV show.
This is the correct answer.
They were convinced "if you aren't with us, you're against us", so the chose to take a side, and being insulated from the outside world, they made a bad decision.
"Tear out a building's copper pipes and wires for scrap" or "eat the seed crops you were given and then demand more" is a special level of retard that even the poorest, dumbest elements of Eurasian societies never manage to reach.
Dat smugface.
Exactly. Even we're not very good people deep down, and the 80 IQ races are ten times worse
>Why do 99% of scientists agree with global warming? Because there are tens of billions being distributed around
No, 99% of all scientists agree with global warming because it's within certainty affected by humans.
>smartest
Keep drinking the MSM Kool-aid shit for brains
It's virtue signaling
These people are completely unaffected and they hate us plebs. They are trying to prevent another "French Revolution" type of rise up.
They will be slaughtered soon enough thankfully and it will be the last time humanity let's money and power focus into such a small group of people.
Becasue that's the current zeitgeist influenced mainly by the tremendous fuck up of the nazis. But it's changing now thanks to the accumulated mistakes of the left that are starting to cause real problems. The fact that there's an overrepresantation of certain tribe in the media doesn't help and creates a situation where you have to go along to get along or you will end up like Mel Gibson or James Watson.
>and it will be the last time
That's what people said the last time
Because most of these people pro-miscigenation/pro immigration/pro bullshit lives in white and homogeneous contries. When their countries become like mine, they will regret their stupid decision.
Why are the stupidest, least successful, least respected people illegal immigrants?
ahem
And yet they keep having to juke the data to support the conclusions. And anyone who calls them out on anything gets ostracized and kicked out of the industry.
If this were a real scientific debate, you'd be allowed to disagree without some cuck coming in and freaking out about the fact that you've noticed a strange, 20 year pause in the supposed warming.
Nailed it.
*cough*
*cough*
True
>Why are all of the smartest, most successful, most renowned, most respected people outspoken Christian theologians / pro-thomist / etc?
>Why are all of the smartest, most successful, most renowned, most respected people outspoken social darwinists / eugenicist / etc?
>Why are all of the smartest, most successful, most renowned, most respected people outspoken socialists / communists / etc?
99% of scientist don't agree though. They did 20 years ago but now there are a ton of skeptics.
This. I've worked with people in universities who could not believe how someone could be racist.
They were all smart people from all around the world that all passed through the universitys filter. They do not associate with anyone outside their bubble, and they wonder how others could possibly be so "narrow minded".
Apologies for my political ignorance Miguel but I feel like your country still has a very outspoken left/multicultural/rich as fuck cohort that's interested in taking all the worst things about Brazil and amplifying them
targeting , Work on narrow circles of the audience, adjustment for fans, commercial and etc
Their whole public image is artificial shit
These troubadours became idols in the 20th century, instead of real heroes.
What kind of society, such and idols
You have got to be joking me
They can a benefit when they're exceptional outliers and can easily adapt to the new country, but once you get them en masse they're usually closer to their national average and start to create problems.
virtue signalling and cheap gardeners and maids
I don't feel like revealing her name because I know people here will shit in her inbox and it'll somehow find its way back to me but she's not giving a novel argument, here's NPR with another expert on the same topic:
npr.org
The professor being interviewed made a point to marry a Turkish woman and have only one child because Turks create less pollution than Europeans
Because helping others feels good. When you break it down its kind of selfish.
I worked hard to get my STEM degree and job in the field, and I throw money at my friends because it feels good to do cool stuff and enjoy it with people I care about.
Now imagine how much you can jerk yourself off if you can 'help' 10 million people.
Feeding Africa leads to a baby boom and more starvation in 5 years but you already got your wank session so you got your pay off and fuck the actual effects of what happened.
The smartest people in the middle ages were Christian theologians. If you were smart that ruling cult snapped you up and upper quartile IQ people were drawn to it out of a craving for social power. This cult can have any beliefs at all, and the capable section of the public will be drawn to it. it doesn't matter what any of the beliefs are, it just matters that it's associated with high status as a result of it having captured the nodes of power in that society.
Sup Forums sees through this game and has nothing to win by playing it so is happy to point out all of the bullshit these people pretend to believe in order to be accepted into the upper ranks
>most successful
Because they don't have to live around any "diversity". Rest assured it's easy to preach "equality" when you live in a 20 million dollar home surrounded by neighbors who live in their 20 million dollar homes and have your own private security to keep away muds.
Force these assholes to live in Detroit, Memphis, Dearborn, Baltimore, St. Louis, or south Chicago and they'll sing a different tune pretty fucking fast if they survive.
If you put a real price on their virtue signaling it would come to an abrupt end.
Get rich and move to said neighbourhoods.
Because in this day and age, it's political suicide not to be an anti- racist. Besides the fact that most people believe (including the elites) in the blank slate theory.
Three reasons, I think. First because if they weren't outspoken anti-discrimination then they would become controversial and risk losing their position.
Second, because they are very financially secure, they are very unlikely to end up suffering any severe consequences from changes, so they are unlikely to fear open borders, since they know they will still be rich and safe no matter what.
Third, because they find meaning and purpose in their succes, they are less likely to search for meaning and purpose in the nation, and thus less touched by nationalism.
The environmental impact the first world has should not be ignored, in saying that people who work in the 'environment' industry perpetuate their own little racket, by pointing to a problem and asking for money to create a solution, that will no doubt, require more funding, time and employment.
Refugee is such a bullshit word, it implies humanitarian disaster, but in the 21st century it is essentially economic migrant. Another little racket perpetuated by the NGOs and various government departments and liberal University professors. These economic migrants will expect the same living standards as everyone else, if not more.
Without a defined purpose, communally recognized, and inculcated with rituals God will remain dead. So long as God is dead, anarchy unfolds. Worse, the masses are so educated they understand history as a series of dates which coincide with technological improvements. This paradigm leads to thinking in terms of 'progress' which means the economy must continue to grow ever larger to cater for all the people's of the world. Material goods and luxuries, which the media and celebrities incessantly advertise for will be manufactured so we can sustain the illusion of progress.
What is truly entertaining is watching all the little rackets fight to keep their slice of pie. This is why things seem so screwed up and people have the dumbest ideas. They are operating from an outlook of progress, whilst trying to 'progress' conflicting agendas.
This is also a very good theory.
you JUST KNOW
This is an interesting post. It's as if pop culture isn't just a religion, religion was always a form of pop culture, and the actual tenets of a faith, be it theological or secular, have very little importance compared to the "movement" and "sense of purpose" they can inspire.
I think you're on to something.
The world is getting warmer much faster than ever before in history. The sea is getting more acidic, our glaciers are melting, we are getting more and more extreme weather.
Climate change is real, nobody can deny that. The debate is about wether human activities accelerate the process, and a absolute metric fuckton of data shows that this is indeed the case. The most important thing to do now is to help mitigate the damage, but nobody wants to do that because that costs money and no company really profits from it.
Because their opinion is predefined by their bosses. Thanks to political correctness nobody speaks their mind anymore. The ones who do get destroyed by the media.
Because they have been brainwashed by years and years of multicultural programming and selective contact with other races. It's like what said, these are successful people who only interact with other successful people for the most part, so they assume that since they interact with successful blacks that multiculturalism and integration must be the answer. They never take into account the fact that blacks are far less likely to be successful or that this is due to genetic or cultural defects but instead must be due to "oppression." They don't have to interact with the 95% of blacks who will never step foot on a university campus so they assume they don't exist or are victims of white oppression.
Because those are the values now held by the ruling class. Less than a century ago, it was exactly the opposite. In the 20s in the US, a very good political move for a US senator or state governor to make was to join the KKK, and anyone who advocated for negro horde migration at that point in history would not only have found himself out of a job, he might even find himself swinging from a yardarm.
Then came the 60s, and every value which is the exact opposite of any which produced civilization is now virtuous.
maybe we should point it out to those anti-racists that they are racists whenever they're dating someone white,
Fpbp
/ thread
The same reason why the U.S. state of Vermont is so liberal. They've never dealt with muslims, so from their perspective helping out foreign "people" is seen as an act of charity. They can be smug and feel that they did a good deed but will never know the consequences of their actions.
I think the climate change argument is a rhetorical defense mechanism and often neither side is interested in it so much as using it to bolster another ideological claim.
I'll stick my neck out and say right off the bat "factories and cars put out too much carbon, this is potentially hazardous to the equilibrium of the atmosphere." All right?
But that statement has to be followed up with "What do we do about it?" And for some reason the first, loudest answer to that always seems to be "We establish an authoritarian government and begin social engineering and redistributing the resources of the population as I see fit." And for some remarkable reason, if you ask "How do we improve gender equality?" Somebody will come along and answer "We establish an authoritarian government and begin social engineering and redistributing the resources of the population as I see fit." And if you ask "How do we end poverty?" Somebody will come along and answer "We establish an authoritarian government and begin social engineering and redistributing the resources of the population as I see fit." Stub your toe getting out of bed? Some guy call you a faggot in an Overwatch lobby? Your dog piss on your rug? There's a solution to that! Guess what it is? :^)
I can see why someone who's heard that answer so many times might want to reflexively say "fuck you" to the very premise.
because the media chooses who you hear about, who becomes 'renowned' and we all know who controls/owns the media.
How else is someone going to get famous? With a fucking podcast?
I can't say for certain why they hold that particular opinion, but generally speaking anyone who goes against the grain in the wrong way doesn't get to stay successful. Just look at Mel. Pedophiles can get away with their crimes if they have a good enough media image, but one recording of anti Semitism and you're done.
Rich smart people grow up in a bubble of rich smart people.
When I was in college I met a bunch of extremely intelligent, respectful africans - I mean international blacks from Africa.
All the of suburban rich college kids have never seen a nigger and so they think that Nitwombey is the average black, when he is the top 0.5% of blacks.
Same with spicks and arabs and everyone. You don't meet Jamal the rapist nigger in your PhD program, you meet Mr. Wimbooti the son of the king of niggerstan.
Then they tell the poor whites, who have to deal with the niggers and spicks, how evil and privileged they are.
The extremely wealthy are completely disconnected from the rest of the world. They either live in secluded gated mansions or are literal world citizens and just fly from place to place. None of the issues that effect the common people effect these people.
I'm 146 pleb step up
>I'm actually wondering what it is about becoming successful that makes you WANT a billion blacks and Muslims to move into your country.
Your financial status will keep you safe from any of the social conditions that massive 3rd world immigration will cause.
Basically if you are at the low end of the economic ladder rich people get to dress up, have their photos taken on red carpets, and engage in moral exhibitionism by telling you that your communities should be flooded with ethnic minorities and that you are racist for having any issue with this. They then retreat via chauffeur back to their mansions in neighborhoods with no minorities, and if they're a successful actor, they might have their maid bring them a drink while they stare at their awards for playing make believe.
great painting, never seen it before thanks mate
guilt, ignorance, and their money can insulate them from any consequences of the policies they favor.
They wouldn't be super wealthy if they were openly racist.
Really makes OP think...
well said and well identified.
Popularity and wealth are constructs used to control the masses, and global influence is the real currency traded within that group to maintain this status and exclude all opposition.
Because they understand how to create an image of what they want others to percieve them as, and how to profit from that image.
By creating an image of someone who doesn't only care about themselves, they gain popularity and support from people who have had a lack of care/love in their life and react to it with sadness. Sadly, this is the majority.
It's also easy to care for "everyone" and portray and altruistic image when you yourself don't have to fight to get anything, because you already have whatever you please.
They are basically saying "let them eat cake" to those who struggle within their home-nation, because they can not relate to their struggle. This makes them loose eyesight of the value of loyalty.
I dont buy the atmospheric "global warming" theory of climate change. The only thing that worries me is the pollution of the oceans. That is provable and has been a problem identified long before this anthropogenic climate change business.
Cousteau was talking about it in the 60's
Leftist media covers people who further that agenda and don't cover people who oppose it. If Ben Shapiro and Milo have fucking riots just speaking to a few hundred people on a college campus, what makes you think the media would tolerate a supportive view that runs counter to their narrative? It's not reality, it's the perception of reality that is being altered.
>The highlight was a University of Indiana professor who based her presentation around the fact that Europeans emit 50 times as much carbon and 100 times as much landfill waste per capita as Africans, so the only way to protect the environment is to reduce the native population of Europe as much as possible and repopulate it with more environmentally friendly Africans. She gave this speech in a very warm, cheerful way without a hint of spite or anger and a lot of the audience applauded.
This is unironically also Terence "Shrooms are aliens from outer space" McKenna's view on saving the planet, down to a T. She must've been taking notes from him
My problem is the data fudging. If it's true, why fudge data? The NOAA has been caught doing it a bunch of times, especially with respect to the recent pause in warming. When the University of East Anglia was hacked, there were e-mails where they discussed deleting data and documents because they didn't want to have to give it out to people under Freedom of Information Act Requests (this is a felony, by the way).
I am not a scientist. But I know people, and scientists are people. In many, many scientific fields, a large percentage of the scientific findings in published experiments cannot be replicated or have clear evidence of fraud. I have worked with scientists who are being paid to produce reports, and they don't care about the science. They ask you what you want them to say, and then they say it.
So please tell me why in the world a bunch of global warming scientists would want to delete their underlying data so no one can see it under a legitimate Freedom of Information Act request? We're talking about the raw temperature data. The stuff the entire theory depends on. And the people who should want to disclose it most want to hide it.
I have no capacity to analyze that data myself. But I've been following this debate since 1990 or so. And billions of deaths and out of control warming is always just a decade away. Then time passes, suddenly it's still coming, just a little later on.
Why should I believe people who have exhibited fundamental dishonesty? If they'd lie once, they'd do it again. Why would they need to delete or alter the underlying temperature data if it proves their theory?
solid points. i agree fully.
>tfw you hear about somebody for the first time and you're glad they're already dead
so what?
the wealthy in america live just as segregated from the riffrafff as the wealthy in brazil or america do. there's a reason why they spend millions for a home in beverly hills instead of living in downtown detroit, you know.
lol at all the aspir cucks in this thread just lol
When I see Emma hanging out with these ladies instead of having them clean her house, I might take her a little more seriously
>This is an interesting post. It's as if pop culture isn't just a religion, religion was always a form of pop culture, and the actual tenets of a faith, be it theological or secular, have very little importance compared to the "movement" and "sense of purpose" they can inspire.
this is how nearly all societies operated, ever. it's the primary mechanism by which a belief system secures its power and hold on society, and it has been the exact same way for thousands of years now.
you want to attain social status and wealth in medieval europe, you better be an outspoken christian, otherwise you're fucked. this resulted in nearly all important public figures being outspoken church supporters.
you want to attain social status and wealth in 1930s germany, you better be an outspoken nazi, otherwise you're fucked. this resulted in nearly all important public figures being outspoken nazi supporters.
you want to attain social status and wealth in the 1950s soviet union, you better be an outspoken marxist-leninist, otherwise you're fucked. this resulted in nearly all important public figures being outspoken communism supporters.
you want to attain social status and wealth in saudi arabia, you better be an outspoken muslim, otherwise you're fucked. this results in nearly all important public figures being outspoken islam supporters.
you want to attain social status and wealth in the contemporary west, you better be an outspoken liberal, otherwise you're fucked. this results in nearly all important public figures being outspoken liberalism supporters.
Because the arbiters of fame and success(media) only allow those with certain political beliefs to be famous.