A Formula for Happiness

Conservative women are the happiest people. Liberal men are the unhappiest.
Arthur C. Brooks, New York Times

Political junkies might be interested to learn that conservative women are particularly blissful: about 40 percent say they are very happy. That makes them slightly happier than conservative men and significantly happier than liberal women. The unhappiest of all are liberal men; only about a fifth consider themselves very happy.

http://www.amren.com/news/2013/12/a-for ... happiness/

Još jedan od dokaza za:



Izađi iz mraka, budi deo nas.

Differences in Educational Achievement Owe More to Genetics than Environment

Medical Xpress, December 11, 2013

The degree to which students’ exam scores differ owes more to their genes than to their teachers, schools or family environments, according to new research from King’s College London published today in PLOS ONE.

The study, which took place in the UK, looked at students’ scores for their GCSE’s (General Certificate of Secondary Education), a UK-wide examination at the end of compulsory education at 16 years old.

Researchers compared the GCSE exam scores of over 11,000 identical and non-identical 16 year old twins from the Medical Research Council (MRC) funded Twins Early Development Study (TEDS). Identical twins share 100% of their genes, whereas fraternal (non-identical) twins share on average only half of the genes that vary between people. Therefore, if identical twins’ exam scores are more alike than those of non-identical twins, the difference in exam scores between the two sets of twins is due to genetics, rather than environment.

The researchers found that for compulsory core subjects (English, Mathematics and Science), genetic differences between students explain on average 58% of the differences between GCSE scores. In contrast, 29% of the differences in core subject grades are due to shared environment–such as schools, neighbourhoods or families which twins share. The remaining differences in GCSE scores were explained by non-shared environment, unique to each individual.

Overall, science grades (such as Biology, Chemistry, Physics) were found to be more heritable than Humanities grades (such as Media Studies, Art, Music)–58% vs 42%, respectively.

Nicholas Shakeshaft, PhD student at the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London and lead author of the paper says: “Children differ in how easily they learn at school. Our research shows that differences in students’ educational achievement owe more to nature than nurture.

http://www.amren.com/news/2013/12/diffe ... vironment/

Santa Claus Should Not Be a White Man Anymore

Yes, it is. And so I propose that America abandon Santa-as-fat-old-white-man and create a new symbol of Christmas cheer. From here on out, Santa Claus should be a penguin.

That’s right: a penguin.

Why, you ask? For one thing, making Santa Claus an animal rather than an old white male could spare millions of nonwhite kids the insecurity and shame that I remember from childhood. Whether you celebrate the holiday or not, Santa is one of the first iconic figures foisted upon you: He exists as an incredibly powerful image in the imaginations of children across the country (and beyond, of course). That this genial, jolly man can only be seen as white—and consequently, that a Santa of any other hue is merely a “joke” or a chance to trudge out racist stereotypes—helps perpetuate the whole “white-as-default” notion endemic to American culture (and, of course, not just American culture).

http://www.amren.com/news/2013/12/santa ... n-anymore/

This might be mildly amusing if it were satirizing racial insanity.

Sadly, it's not.

Merry mutha f***in Xmas muthafuggas!

Liberals and the Knockout Game

Matt Quain, St. Louis “knockout game” victim.

The “knockout game,” in which young black men try to knock out an unsuspecting stranger with a single punch, is finally getting national attention—as it should. It’s nasty business. If whites were knocking out blacks it would be a national scandal.

But since whites are the victims, and since the capacity of elite whites to excuse black violence is one of the wonders of the modern world, the New York Times and National Public Radio have told us there is nothing to worry about. As late as November 22, New York City Police Chief Raymond Kelly was saying, “We’re trying to determine whether or not this is a real phenomenon.”


Multiple-offender “knockout” attack.

The NCVS counts single-offender and multiple-offender crimes separately. In 2008—the latest year for which we have numbers—blacks acting alone attempted or completed 430,000 acts of violence against “whites,” while the figure for “white” violence against blacks was 91,000.

That same year there were 142,000 multiple-offender violent crimes against “whites” by blacks–that is to say, a bunch of blacks got together and raped, robbed, and/or attacked a “white” person. What about group attacks by “whites” on blacks? The NCVS sample reported so few that the official figure was rounded down to zero. That’s right: a group attack by “whites” on blacks is so rare that the huge NCVS sample of 160,000 people came up dry.

If we add single-offender to multiple-offenders crimes, we get 572,000 violent crimes by blacks against “whites” versus 91,000 cases that go the other way. Given that the combined white and Hispanic population is about 6.5 times greater than the black population, these numbers mean that a black person is 38 times more likely to attack a “white” than the reverse.

There is another way to look at this. When a black criminal goes looking for a victim, he chooses a “white” about 54 percent of the time. This means that despite all the hand-wringing about black-on-black crime, there is actually more black-on-“white” crime. “White” criminals choose black victims less than 5 percent of the time.

This is what the American people have been telling us year after year, but the New York Times and National Public Radio refuse to listen.

The only interracial crimes we hear about are those rarities committed by whites—especially if the police call them “hate crimes.” I don’t understand all the shouting about “hate crimes.” If black thugs rob a white man or gang rape a white woman, does it really matter whether anyone said “white mother-fu**er” while they were doing it? If a black person is beaten up by whites, does he care whether he was called rude names?

http://www.amren.com/news/2013/12/liber ... kout-game/

Knockout Game Goes Terribly Right as Woman Wails on Her Attacker



Well, this participant of the knockout game probably will reconsider future engagements after being beatdown by the woman he punched.

The video shows the assailant targeting the woman, who doesn’t go down after he lands his punch. She turns around and starts punching him repeatedly in the head–but, only after the man next to her delivers an epic kick to the face.

http://www.amren.com/news/2013/12/knock ... -attacker/

Ni zanimljivo?

Vaistinu epic kick... angažujte ovog kralja umjesto Šimunića...

Misliš ženu?

The video shows the assailant targeting the woman, who doesn’t go down after he lands his punch. She turns around and starts punching him repeatedly in the head–but, only after the man next to her delivers an epic kick to the face.

Ovog lika što naleti i pukne ga nogom u svinjsku glavušu.

Meni je ženskica bila simpatičnija.

Uglavnom ovo se zbiva preko bare...crnački narodni folklor...trčat za bijelom ženom (ili muškarcem/djetetom) pa ih opizdit u glavu i ako padnu u nesvjest (ili poginu) onda si "pobjedio".

Divan izraz autentične kulture oslobođene okova kolonijalizma.

Konačno.

I naravno o tome se ne priča, o tome se ne izvještava, medijski mrak kao u HR ili SR. Pa mnogi susojećaju sa patnjama jadnog potlačenog crnačkog naroda u toj imperijalnoj tamnici...a jebiga imaju donekle pravo dijele im samo iphone četvorke, a ne 4s ako glasaju za Barryja...

Zar to nije bezosjećajno?

Gospođici ili gospođi naklon do zemlje, ali gospodin je fudbaler od klase.
Hu d fak je Beri?
Vjerovatno je to neka asocijalna manjina koju je upropastila holivudska i muzička industrija, kojom naravno upravljaju Židovi i homoseksualci.
Nije Tupak snimao CDove u podrumu već ga je forsirala mejnstrim industrija.

Barack se u mladosti zvao Barry ali kad je postao napredniji to mu je zvučalo prebjelački ipak je on samo polubijelac pa je našao kompromisno ime Barack.

Hollywood to su ti sve ******** i komunisti, tako objašnjava naša dijaspora.

Na pola si u pravu. Njih je zapravo uništilo ljevičarenje bijelih liberala. Crnci su do 60ih godina zapravo bili podosta normalni. Radišni, samoodostatni, obiteljski orijentirani, religiozni, zadrti u konzervatizmu na dobar način naravno (ostatak čega je "zadrta" crna južnjačka baka koja u filmovima ispravlja mladež koja sluša taj odvratni hippity hopp i oblače se u donje gaće).

Uronjeni u bijelu civilizaciju sa mrkvom i batinom. A onda su bijeli ljevičari počeli samo dijeliti mrkvu.

I braća sjela na kauč i počela grickati ko Zekoslav Mrkva.

Razoreni su mnogi obrasci i vrijednosti, mladi danas imaju druge ciljeve i uzore, drugačije nego nekad. Matrijalističko društvo, šta da se radi. Sirotinja to samo više pokazuje nego više klase, sirovije... imaš i white trash kod Springera...

Imaš ubojstva i u Finskoj kao i u brazilskoj faveli.

Mislim da smo to razjasnili.

Nije stvar u pojavi nego rasprostranjenosti iste.

When Ducks Cry


As Americans huddle by their fireplaces and space heaters this week to either celebrate or avoid the Christmas holiday, the nation’s hottest cultural controversy hinges on whether anuses are more desirable than vaginas.

This latest bloody clash in the national Kulturkampf pits dick-hunters versus duck-hunters. It revolves around all manner of contentious cultural axes: red state versus blue state, rural versus urban, gun-toting carnivores versus gun-grabbing vegans, and Christian fundamentalists versus egalitarian true believers.

It was spurred by comments published in GQ last week by Phil Robertson, the scowling, grey-bearded, headband-wearing patriarch of the duck-hunting clan in A&E’s reality show Duck Dynasty, which is touted as the most successful nonfiction program in cable television history:

It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.

GLAAD—which in practice almost always seems far more AANGRY than GLAAD—allegedly used its gay superpowers to squeeze the A&E Network into “indefinitely” suspending Robertson from the show within hours after his homo-unfriendly comments went live.

Moral titans such as former crack addict Charlie Sheen and former heroin addict Nikki Sixx of Mötley Crüe denounced Robertson in the harshest moralistic terms. Lime-sucking enemy of All Things American Piers Morgan opined that “the 1st Amendment shouldn’t protect vile bigots” such as Phil Robertson. The consensus on the outraged celebrity left seemed to be that anal sex between men wasn’t vile; it was vile for people to say it was vile.

What happened to the art of simple, cordial disagreement? Maybe I have a head injury, but I seem to recall a time somewhere in the 1970s and 1980s where people didn’t freak the fuck out and scream for blood over simple ideological disagreements. This was a blissfully quiescent era right after Red Scare paranoia had peaked and just before PC totalitarianism began its ever-strengthening chokehold on the culture.

Though many of the duck-hating dick-lovers would likely claim they’re atheists, what we have here is a basic sandbox dispute between competing religions—traditional Christianity versus Cultural Marxism. Religions are, by their very nature, intolerant of one another.

But at least for the Christmas season, can you all call a truce? You can continue to call each other bigots and sinners—it all pretty much means the same thing, depending on which of the two religions you choose. But can’t you all share some eggnog and have a good laugh about the fact that homosexual behavior has been observed among ducks in the animal kingdom, and whether or not that’s sinful, it’s at least funny?

Gosh, I sure hope so. I dream of a day when hearts and anuses start healing all across America.

http://takimag.com/article/when_ducks_c ... z2oJW8OTrX


Još jedan primjer "slobode govora" "obogaćene" političkom korektnošću.

Neka seljačina u nekom reality showu raspravlja i tvrdi da ženska vagina ima više ponuditi od muškog anusa.

I što se događa?

Kulturni ratnici su na zadnjim nogama (ne Junuze i kad se predaš po 101. put oni skaču i 102. put ako ustvrdiš da je vagina polivalentnija od muške zadnjice)

Naravno seljačina je nestao netragom s blablavizora, a moralne veličine poput Charlieja Sheena su oštro osudili taj čin barbarizma.

Tvrditi tako nešto je jednostavno neprihvatljivo.

Naravno slobodi govora i toleriranju drugačijih stavova ni traga ni glasa.

To je valjda postojalo u zadrtim 50ima...

Po onoj Voltaireovoj: Ako želiš saznati tko vlada tobom, saznaj koga ne smiješ kritizirati, čini mi se da su Ameri saznali.

Dick hunters vs. Duck hunters 1:0.

Ja bih u svoje vlastito ime i ako mogu, u ime cijelog hrvatskog naroda, izrazio slaganje sa nastojanjima progresivnih elemenata unutar američkog društva da se oštro osudi ovakav barbaziram.

Tvrdnja da je ženska vagina polivalentnija od muškog anusa je jednostavno neprihvatljiva u modernom društvu.

Ovaj tko bi možda citirao znanstvena istraživanja koja pokazuju da ženska vagina lakše prima strana tijela u tijeku spolnog snošaja od muške stražnjice zapravo skriva svoj šovinizam (moguće i rasizam) pod maskom pseudoznanstvenosti!

Takvi stavovi nemaju mjesta u slobodnom društvu.

Ovog pećinskog čovjeka bi odmah trebalo uputititi u najbliži preodgojni logor koji će nadam se niknuti diljem zemalja gdje se prostire ovakova progresivna i slobodarska civilizacija.

Pizdarija zvana "Seks i grad" psihički uništava naše djevojke. Mnogi momci zbog toga danas stižu do sredine dvadesetih, a da nisu imali ozbiljnu vezu.

Umri kurvo prokleta i ti i tvoje potpetice i bolesna moda i nakaradan stil života koju promovišeš!!!

Da bi se stanovništvo obnavljalo potrebno je da bračnost iznosi 100%, i da u svakom braku bude po dvoje djece.
Bračnost stanovništva nakon 30. godine danas iznosi nekih 70-75%. Mnogi brakovi ostaju bez djece, ili se rodi samo jedno dijete.
Svaki četvrti brak završi se razvodom, a djetinjstvo u takvom rastavljenom stanju porodice je vrlo traumatično.

I onda se neko pita zašto Evropa izumire. To su vam čari "demokratije", ljudskih prava, individualizma i feminizma.
A demokratija je tobože glas naroda, izbezumljenog glupostima koje mu plasiraju mediji, serije, filmovi... a zna se u čijim su oni rukama.

Slažemo se da su liberalizam i svi ljevičarski pokreti od 60ih na ovamo štetni i na kraju pogubni za društvo.

Njena godina
Miley twerkom, prekidom veze i golotinjom na kugli došla do vrha

Naslov iz novina. To je navodno neka pjevačica koja je ove godine u nekoj dodjeli nagrada simulirala oralni i valjda zaguzni seks na pozornici pa je eto "uspjela".

Ovo je njezina godina pa budući da još malo traje da gospođici Miley čestitam staro leto.

I naša moralna vertikala možda provodi Božić sa familijom pa da i njemu čestitam.

'Volim te. Molim te, prestani zbog naše djece'


Dostojanstveno je šutjela dok ju je danima bivši suprug Charlie Sheen vrijeđao putem Twittera. No, čak i Denise Richards im svoje granice, pa se putem društvene mreže obratila Sheenu i zamolila ga da prestane.

– Jesi li gotov s napadanjem? Imaj stila, čovječe. Naša djeca ne trebaju ovo, bit ćeš dobrodošao alo želiš provesti Božić s nama. Nadam se da ćeš ipak stići. Molim te, prestani zbog naše djece – napisala mu je Denise, koja se posljednjih tjedana našla na Sheenovoj meti jer mu je navodno zabranila provesti Božić s djecom.

Otad Sheen objavljuje gnjevne tweetove, a i uništio je dar koji su on i Denise dobili za vjenčanje te je fotografiju također objavio na Twitteru.

Denise je također jednom od fanova na upit zašto ne dopušta Charlieju da vidi djecu, odgovorila kako to nije istina.

– Zapravo to nije istina. Ne znam zašto ima potrebu ovo raditi javno. Ne držim ga podalje od djece – napisala je.

http://www.vecernji.hr/zvijezde/volim-t ... ece-911784

http://www.vecernji.hr/zvijezde/priprem ... oli-909650

Vrli novi svijet.

Brought to you by Liberalism Inc.



A i za one zadrtije pjesma iz nekog prošlog vremena kad su obitelji bile dosadne pa su i mama i tata pjevali doma sa djecom umjesto da si pjevaju preko novina.

Sretan i blagoslovljen Božić.

Evo Doc da malo popraviš mišljenje o crncima.

Hated For Marrying A White Man—Tamera Mowry Is Not Alone


This made my heart ache and my blood pressure spike: Actress Tamera Mowry, who is black, wept in an interview with Oprah Winfrey over the vile bigotry she has encountered because of her marriage to Fox News reporter Adam Housley, who is white. Misogynist haters called Mowry a sellout and a "white man's whore." International news outlets labeled the Internet epithets she endured "horrific" and "shocking."

Horrific? Yes. Shocking? Not at all. What Mowry experienced is just a small taste of what the intolerance mob dishes out against people "of color" who love, think and live the "wrong" way. I've grown so used to it that I often forget how hurtful it can be. Mowry's candor was moving and admirable. It's also a valuable teachable moment about how dehumanizing it can be to work in the public eye. Have we really sunk to this?

Young actresses in the 21st century forced to defend their love lives because their marital choices are politically incorrect? We're leaning backward in the regressive Age of Hope and Change.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/hated-for ... -not-alone

Minorities Rising


Amy Chua, the Chinese Mom America Loves to Hate, follows up her 2011 bestseller The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother with a new book coauthored with her more laid-back husband and fellow Yale Law School professor Jed Rubenfeld: The Triple Package: Why Groups Rise and Fall in America. Their essential point is that being a minority in 21st-century America can be a pretty sweet deal.

Most of the press, which is heavily driven by the primal resentments of Jewish women writers and editors, was outraged by Chua’s act. First, she steals our husbands, and then she steals our children’s spots at Harvard!

Now Chua has gone back to the theme of her first book, World on Fire: market-dominant minorities.

How can we compare these groups’ accomplishments? The ultimate test of success in America is making the Forbes 400 of richest people, which remains majority northwest Europeans: 51% in 2012, according to the surname analysis by race/history/evolution notes.

Europeans with distinctive names include Italians at 4.25%, Eastern Europeans at 1.75%, and Greeks at 1.5%, and one Basque (0.25%). For most purposes of 21st-century identity politics, these 7.75% would all be lumped into the general white gentile population for a total of 58.75%.

Middle Easterners (such as Lebanese, Iranian, and Armenian) only make up 1.75%. At present, they are legally classified as white by the federal government and have traditionally been considered white by other American whites. But I’ve been noticing the initial signs of a Flight from White among West Asians who are recognizing that in 21st-century America, membership in the white category doesn’t come with the legendary Invisible Knapsack. Instead, “white” is what they call you when they’re going to try to frame you on second-degree murder charges.

East Asians number only nine of the Forbes 400, or 2.25%. South Asians represent a mere 1.5%.

The two numerically largest minorities constituted less than 1% of the Forbes rich list. The colossal Hispanic minority was only 0.5%, and blacks were represented solely by Oprah.

The most remarkable aspect is that people of Jewish ethnicity, who only represent about 2.2% of the US population, make up about 35% of the Forbes 400.

Judged from the lofty perspective of the Forbes 400, there are really only two main ethnic loci of achievement in the US: the large, diffuse identity group of white gentile Americans and the more concentrated identity of Jews. The rest is more or less Miscellaneous.

But Chua and Rubenfeld’s analysis looking at a number of other ethnicities as control groups is useful for comparing the two most important powerful groups in modern America.

Their foundational realization is that in 21st-century America, it’s better, all else being equal, to declare yourself a minority than to get stuck in the majority.

They argue that successful minorities benefit from three psycho-cultural blessings.

First, each successful minority cherishes its own quasi-racist Group Superiority Complex:

…all of America’s most successful groups believe (even if they don’t say so aloud) that they’re exceptional, chosen, superior in some way.

Second, they suffer an Individual Inferiority Complex: They “tend to feel insecure, inadequate, that they have to prove themselves.” They worry that they are letting down their ancestors and that the majority is out to get them.

Chua and Rubenfeld write:

It’s odd to think of people feeling simultaneously superior and insecure. Yet it’s precisely this unstable combination that generates drive: a chip on the shoulder, a goading need to prove oneself.

Third, these chips on the shoulder combine to make them more disciplined and focused than their more trusting rivals:

America today spreads a message of immediate gratification, living for the moment. But all of America’s most successful groups cultivate heightened discipline and impulse control.

Chua and Rubenfeld note that these three common traits—which I would call ethnocentrism, paranoia, and self-repression—are not liberal virtues:

Paradoxically, in modern America, a group has an edge if it doesn’t buy into—or hasn’t yet bought into—mainstream, post-1960s, liberal American principles.

And yet of the eight minorities, only Mormons are uncool enough to admit they reject liberalism.

Mormons are interesting because they are the minority among minorities—an odd group out whose members publicly aspire to being ordinary Americans, as Americans used to define themselves before the 1960s.

Being an insular sect that pretends to be regular Americans, the Mormons are the only minority that publicly dissents from the reigning worldview that minorities are inherently morally superior to the majority.

But do Mormons actually benefit financially from their strong moral culture? Or does their notorious niceness, their lack of a chip on the shoulder, their shortage of hostility toward the majority keep them from fully cashing in?

It’s not hugely clear that Mormons are particularly high achieving these days. My guess is that Mormons are strong at building a decent community in the absolute middle of nowhere, but whether they are outstanding at navigating 21st-century America is a different question. For example, a Mormon blog finds four Mormons on the Forbes 400, plus a Hungarian immigrant with a Mormon wife, so that’s barely over 1% of the total.

Back in 1981, George Gilder noted that Mormon Utah, with its orderly, self-sufficient communities, was deservedly more prosperous than neighboring Nevada, which Gilder viewed as a society of predatory grifters out to fleece passersby. Yet a generation later, grifting Vegas-style seems to increasingly strike Americans as mainstream and respectable than whatever weird family-oriented non-diverse stuff is going on in Salt Lake City.

In 2012, the Mormons put forward their champion as the GOP nominee. His election, like JFK’s in 1960 for Catholics, would prove once and for all that Mormons were finally accepted.

But Mitt Romney was beaten solidly by Barack Obama’s Coalition of the Fringes. The defining feature of who voted for Obama in 2012 was identity distance from the traditional norm. The further you saw yourself from being a white Christian married parent, the likelier you were to rebel against the oppressive majority by voting for the president.

Granted, the elements of Obama’s majority of minorities don’t like each other, but a savvy political machine can goad them into hating white men who have their acts together even more.

At least for a while. But the trawling for oppressed minorities has reached the point of comedy with the recent outbreak of World War T, with the self-esteem of “transgendered” individuals becoming the new most important issue in world history.

But how many voters can still get the joke?

Until a half-century ago, it was assumed that the central trajectory of American history was toward greater majority rule. But the moral glamor of the 1960s civil-rights struggle by blacks has been hijacked by an endless string of ambitious groups claiming to be oppressed minorities, even if they make up, say, 35% of the Forbes 400. But the present minoritarianism is not a principled position. Even when whites become a minority, as in California, there’s no relenting: instead, Hollywood simply switches into overdrive to recount the historic sins of the former majority.

Perhaps it’s time, for the good of your family, for you to study the secrets of successful minorities. Granted, they won’t make America a better country, but maybe it’s a little too late to worry about that anymore.

http://takimag.com/article/minorities_r ... z2s025qnN7

Jerry Seinfeld on Diversity in Comedy: “Who Cares? Are You Making Us Laugh or Not?”


At the height of Seinfeld’s popularity, the NBC comedy was repeatedly accused of presenting an exclusively “white” view of its diverse New York City setting. During Jerry Seinfeld’s BuzzFeed Brews with CBS This Morning interview on Monday, BuzzFeed Business Editor Peter Lauria asked about the enduring criticism, which has carried over to his Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee web series. {snip}

“People think it’s the census or something,” Seinfeld said of the assertion that all pop culture should accurately reflect society. “This has gotta represent the actual pie chart of America? Who cares? Funny is the world that I live in. You’re funny, I’m interested. You’re not funny, I’m not interested. I have no interest in gender or race or anything like that.”

Seinfeld went on to say that approaching comedy through the lens of race or gender or sexuality are “anti-comedy.” “It’s more about PC nonsense than ‘Are you making us laugh or not?’” he said.

http://www.amren.com/news/2014/02/jerry ... gh-or-not/

Koji ekstremist i desničar. Vjerojatno je i rasist...

U kojem stoljeću taj živi...

KOMENTAR BORISLAVA RISTIĆA
Ljevičarska kultura jest kultura korisnih idiota


No, nije to tako samo u Hrvatskoj. Od Hollywooda do modnih pista i filozofskih katedri, na svim meridijanima, naći ćete istu situaciju – svuda ćete nailaziti na ljude koji su jako kritični prema tržištu i kapitalizmu, dok će se vrlo pohvalno izražavati o socijalizmu. Dapače, što su više na društvenoj ljestvici, što su se bolje snašli u sustavu, to će njihova uvjerenja biti radikalnija. Tako se ne treba čuditi ako burzovni mešetar i milijunaš George Soros napiše knjigu u kojoj kritizira kapitalizam i hvali socijalnu državu, gdje traži veći upliv države u ekonomiju. Ili kada Bill Gates ili Warren Buffet traže veće poreze. Ili, kada Madonna ili Keith Moss obuku majice s likom Che Guevare. Ili kada skoro cijeli Hollywood glasa za Obamu. Ili kada Noam Chomsky kritizira američki imperijalizam i podržava sve moguće bjelosvjetske diktatore, od Chavesa i Lukašenka, do Miloševića ili Saddama, a od svjetske publike bude slavljen kao progresivac i intelektualni lučonoša progresivnoga i mislećega čovječanstva. Ili kada svjetski filozofski „superstar“ Slavoj Žižek nazove Kubu i Sjevernu Koreju jedinim "slobodnim teritorijima" (slobodnim od mrskoga kapitalizma i američke dominacije, naravno), a Ameriku "Imperijem Zla".

Zašto je tomu tako? Kako je moguće da u svijetu u kojem je kapitalizam odnio potpunu prevagu nad socijalizmom i postao globalan, čitav svijet, prvenstveno zapadne kulture, dominantno antikapitalistički i nagnut ulijevo? Kako objasniti taj paradoks? Bilo je nekoliko pokušaja objašnjavanja toga "subverzivnoga" karaktera, odnosno antikapitalističkoga mentaliteta zapadne kulture i njenih djelatnika. Od E. Burkea i J. Schumpetera, von Misesa i von Hayeka, pa do R. Nozicka, filozofi su na to različito pokušali odgovoriti. No, svi su se slagali da je riječ o neobičnoj pojavnosti. Kako, naime, uopće opstaje kapitalizam, ako je čitava kulturna scena ljevičarska, ako su kreatori javnoga mnijenja antikapitalistički nastrojeni radikali?

Mislim da odgovor leži u interesnom savezu klase političara, krupnih kapitalista i intelektualaca te njihovoj zavjeri protiv interesa naroda. Političarima i krupnim kapitalistima odgovaraju socijalističke politike – političarima zato što socijalizam političkoj eliti obećava moć i utjecaj, a krupnim kapitalistima zato što ih socijalističke politike lišavaju straha od konkurencije i ne moraju se brinuti za ugrozu svoje pozicije na tržištu. Svima njima odgovara da se obuzdaju kapitalizam i konkurencija, a da se poveća utjecaj države u ekonomiji. Otuda taj interesni savez politike i krupnoga kapitala potrebuje – kao neku vrstu korisnih idiota – razne progresivce, kulturne kritičare, buntovne glazbenike, ljevičarske profesore, radikalne aktiviste i tako dalje, kako bi među ljudima širili antikapitalističko raspoloženje. Iz toga će razloga uvijek krupni kapitalisti iz vlastitih fondova financirati razne ljevičarske ljudskopravaške udruge i građanske inicijative, a političari će njihove aktivnosti protiv "neoiliberalnog kapitalizma" izdašno poduprijeti novcima poreznih obveznika. Novce nikada ne će dobiti protržišne grupe, libertarijanci, "neoliberali" i slični, koji bi promovirali kapitalizam i slobodno tržište – oni će uvijek biti na margini – nego uvijek i samo ljevičari, koji će zahtijevati da država obuzda "divlji kapitalizam" i da regulira "neobuzdano tržište", maskirajući to visokoparnim humanističkim idealima i ideologijskim floskulama iz naftalina. A eto zašto.

Vratimo se opet u Hrvatsku. Upravo je otvoren ovogodišnji Subversive Festival u Zagrebu, šesti po redu. Kao što su javili preko svog Twitter računa: „Na današnji dan umro je drug Tito. Na današnji dan, 33 godine kasnije, otvaramo 6. Subversive Festival!" Kad pođete od same stranice Festivala, pa preko organizacije i broja gostiju (preko 300!) iz svih dijelova svijeta, prvo što shvatite jest da se tako što ne može organizirati bez mnogo novca. Na dnu stranice portala stoji impresivan popis državnih institucija koje su dale potporu tomu projektu, privatnih sponzora i medijskih pokrovitelja. Od Ivice Mudrinića i ekipe Hrvatske udruge poslodavaca, preko nacionalnih i višenacionalnih kompanija, do Milana Bandića i Andreje Zlatar, svi su potegnuli, što svoje, što tuđe (tj. naše) novce, kako bi sponzorirali veliku ljevičarsku konferenciju u Zagrebu, na kojoj će oni reciklirati komunistički totalitarni ideologijski otpad i prodavati nam to kao subverzivnu filozofiju utopijske budućnosti bez kapitalizma i sličnih burgija. Ako biste, pak, Srećka Horvata, pitali da objasni taj paradoks da se jedan po nazivu subverzivbni ljevičarski festival financira korporacijskim i državnim novcima, i što tu, onda, ima subverzivno, ako znamo da svi igraju kako svira onaj koji plaća, on bi se vjerojatno samo nasmijao i cinično odgovorio da bi on rado od kapitalista uzeo konopac o koji bi ih potom objesio.

No, od vješanja, naravno, nema ništa. Jedini koji su tu obješeni o konopce, i to one iz lutkarskog kazališta, naši su ljevičari i subverzivci. Deal je ovakav: "Dečki, evo vam lova, pa vi lijepo obmanjujte javnost i lajte protiv "neoliberalnoga kapitalizma", uvjerite sve u to da je slobodno tržište najgore zlo na svijetu i fašizam našega doba (imat ćete punu medijsku pokrivenost za to, naravno), kako bismo mi i dalje mogli ovjekovječiti taj rasklimatani i nereformirani, korumpirani socijalistički sustav, koji tako odgovara našim ekonomsko-političkim interesima." "Ok, šefe. I ja sam socijalist. Evo ruka." Svi sretni, i financijeri i subverzivci. Stara je interesna koalicija klase intelektualaca, krupnih kapitalista i političara protiv naroda ponovo potvrđena i očuvana.

Isplativo je biti korisni idiot. Isplativo je i financirati ih. U toj transakciji subverzija posuđuje ime očuvanju statusa quo.

http://republika.eu/novost/12549/ljevic ... nih-idiota

Kad su već i kod nas došli subverzivci financirani državnim i korporativnim novcem da se i njih spomene.