Will (implicitly) white people turn away from the pale and downtrodden?



I don’t know that Pink Floyd is made up of white people. Maybe they are all nonwhite. I don’t know.

But certainly Pink Floyd’s fans are largely white, and the music is, like NASCAR, “implicitly white.”

That means, to say “I like hanging out with NASCAR fans” is tantamount to saying, “I like hanging out with white people.”

The Lord of the Rings
is not implicitly white, although there are a lot of implicitly white social contexts where The Lord of the Rings is more popular than Fiddler on the Roof or The Jazz Singer. Movies celebrating the Lord of the Rings were made with non-white actors, for example. However, the East Asian people who like the Lord of the Rings stuff implicitly approve of and celebrate white culture.

While thinking about the fate of the whites on New Years’ Day, this song came to mind.

The “pale and downtrodden” are the underdogs, and white folks are a high-trust society, so they love acting altruistic toward the underdogs.

But the “pale” are also the whites, who are not healthy because they have not been properly cared for.

I don’t think that Pink Floyd ever wanted to be a pro-white band. (I think they named themselves after black jazz musicians.) But the implicitly white Pink Floyd fanbase might turn out to be pro-white if they apply their altruistic ethics to their own gene pool.

Meh.

I don’t have a dog in this fight. The white race might happen to survive, but it’s not likely, even if they manage to take back their art from nonwhites and hostile elites.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in aesthetics. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Will (implicitly) white people turn away from the pale and downtrodden?

  1. Tucci78 says:

    [Editorial intrusion – because I don’t know much about the cost of health care in the USA, I thought I might shed some light by including this handy chart. The following graphic was not part of the original comment.]
    USA healthcare costs a lot but doesn't deliver much lifespan.

    [Original comment follows]
    A long quote drawn from John Ringo’s The Last Centurion, to which the author and his publisher provide free access (in the form of sample chapters). This is from the chapter titled “Daddy Is Under The Roses,” and it summarizes (in colloquial and somewhat pungent language, which I do not censor here) the findings of a 2004 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study on pharmaceuticals development and “socialized medicine,” so pay attention, RC.

    Study done in 2004 by the CDC. The way that good science works is that the scientist looks at something and says “What if?” He then develops a statement from that (a hypothesis) then tries to disprove his hypothesis. “The sky is yellow.” He first defines yellow. He then tests to see if the sky is yellow. If it turns out that the sky is actually blue, his hypothesis gets disproved. But he still publishes the paper and comes up with another hypothesis. Say that the world is really round. If he cannot disprove his hypothesis, it then and only then becomes a theory. This is Science 101. Man-induced global warming was an hypothesis that had been repeatedly disproven. Anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming proponents weren’t scientists, they were religious zealots.

    Anyway, the CDC liked “universal healthcare.” It was a government health program and government health programs were good. They were a government health program so any government health program had to be good.

    Hypothesis: “Universal health care will increase the lifespan and general health of a population over free-market health care.”

    Conclusion: “Fuck, we were not only wrong we were really wrong!”

    How could that possibly be? Seriously. Universal healthcare is, well, universal healthcare! Everybody gets the same quality of treatment, young and old, rich and poor! Nobody is turned away! It’s perfect communism! With doctors!

    Yeah, everybody gets the same quality of treatment: Bad.

    Look, if you’re between the ages of 7 and 50, in reasonably good overall condition, don’t have fucked up genetics and don’t really lose the lottery, you generally don’t really need a doctor. People between the ages of 7 and 50 rarely realize how bad socialist medicine is. Because they don’t have to depend on doctors.

    Try getting a hip replacement in a country with socialized medicine. Or a gall bladder operation. Hell, try getting drugs that improve a heart condition without surgery. And even though you can’t, you also can’t get surgery. Not in any sort of real time. Go rushing into a socialized medicine hospital with a clogged artery. You’re going to get a stent if you’re lucky. And get put on a waiting list for a bypass. For various political reasons, drugs that in free-market economies are the first line of defense just aren’t available.

    In the U.S. the standard time to wait for a gall bladder operation was two weeks. In the UK it was nine months. In the U.S., if you needed a bypass you’d be out of the surgery less than fourteen hours after emergency admission. In the UK it was emergency admission, minimal support therapy, months wait. Some 35% of persons waiting for a bypass operation died before they got one.

    They found an interesting statistical anomaly as well. Death rates amongst the elderly climbed sharply as the end of the fiscal year approached.

    Doctors in socialized medicine programs worked for the same pay whether they fixed people or not. But they had quotas for operations. As the end of the fiscal year approached, most of them had filled their quotas and went on actual or virtual vacation.

    And people died.

    Average population age in most of the socialized medicine countries were only starting to climb to the levels where death rates due to poor medical care were going to be noticeable. But the truncation of ages was clear. As were quality of life indicators.

    Persons in free-market medical environments lived longer, healthier, less pain-filled lives. Despite the evil doctors and HMOs and pharmaceutical companies? No, because of the evil doctors and HMOs and pharmaceutical companies. All three groups had a vested interest in keeping patients alive as long as possible. The longer they lived, the more money the “evil” guys made.

    The U.S. had been repeatedly castigated for the cost of healthcare and especially pharmaceuticals. Also for over-prescription of the newest and most costly.

    But.

    In Europe there was no pressure to use pharmaceuticals. With costs capped by the government, there was no incentive for the pharmaceutical companies. Modern pharmaceuticals are enormously expensive to field. The first problem is the cost of development. Many of them are derived from natural substances, but it takes relentless searching to find a new natural substance. Cancer drugs were derived from rare South African pansies, new antibiotics were derived from fungus found on a stone in a Japanese temple. Then they had to be tested to find out if any benefits could be derived.

    Here’s the numbers:

    Animal (screening) in rats — about 1–2 years, cost about $500k/year, in monkeys — about 2–5 years, cost $2 million a year. Phase I in humans is strictly toxicology: 2 years, $10–20 million a year. If it doesn’t kill anybody, then move to Phase II testing for effectiveness: up to 10 years, cost $100+ million/year. If statistics suggest a beneficial effect, then on to Phase III to determine effective dosage, side effects, other benefits and “off-label” uses: 5–10 years at another. $100+ million a year. A (large) Pharma company will start with 10,000 compounds in screening, take about 200 into animal testing, then possibly get ten into Phase I to maybe get one into Phase II. In the last 10–20 years, about 95% of Alzheimer’s disease drugs that got to Phase II on the basis of rodent testing were sent back because they had no effect in humans — hence the necessity for the added expense of monkey testing . . .

    It was a hideously expensive process. Again, Do. The. Math. Easily a billion dollars invested in one drug. The reason that a new pharmaceutical was so expensive was not just the cost of developing that pharmaceutical but the brutal necessity of so many thousands and millions of failures that that one new shining hope bore upon its back. Billions of dollars lost when “miracle” drugs failed at one step or another. And all that money only being recouped by those limited shining hopes that made it through the process.

    But the results were worth every penny. New drugs that cut the need for bypasses; one of the most lucrative surgeries of the 1980s had been almost eliminated in the U.S. by the time of the [CDC study]. Stroke reducing medicines, anti-cancer medicines, cancer prophyllactics and, of course, Viagra, every old man’s fantasy made real.

    In Europe, in contrast, it was considered cheaper to just operate. Much more unpleasant for the patient but the doctors filled their quotas and the government wasn’t forced to pay for the development of pharmaceuticals. Which was why most of the modern wonder drugs were coming out of America or from European businesses that were making most of their nut selling them in America.

    Doctors in socialized medicine countries, and their bosses and the heads of departments, had no vested interest in keeping old people or the chronically sick alive. The doctors might have a personal desire to help people, otherwise they wouldn’t have become doctors. But they had no actual benefit and if you’ve ever dealt with a bunch of crotchety old people you can see some of the actual detraction.

    For doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies in the U.S., those crotchety old people spelled money, money, money! So they researched and they worked and they studied ways to extend the time they could continue to suck the money out of them.

    In the case of governments of socialized medicine countries, the primary users of the services, see: “crotchety old people,” were their worst nightmares. The patients worked their whole lives, contributed to the economies of the countries and now expected to be paid back. Heavily. Socialized medicine wasn’t the only benefit they expected. They retired early with pensions that nearly equalled their salaries when working. And they paid little or no taxes. And as any health insurance actuary will tell you, they consumed 90+% of the health budget. Mostly in their last six months of life. And what was the point of that?

    It would be unfair to say that the politicians just wanted to see them all go away and that cutting off access to vital health services thus killed two birds with one stone. Save money and quietly kill off the primary users.

    Or would it? Health care spending as adjusted for inflation had dropped steadily in socialized medicine countries in Europe even as the need had increased. All access to medicine was rationed. And in the Netherlands people who were “beyond help” were denied access to healthcare on a regular basis and even “medically terminated,” put to death, against the wishes of their care-givers. Not only old people but children with chronic health care problems. “Terminal” cancer? Which sometimes was treatable or even erasable in the U.S.? In the Netherlands, they just turned up the morphine drip until you quietly passed into the Long Dark.

    A corollary effect was on the members of the health profession. A doctor in Britain who worked ninety hours a week got paid exactly the same as a doctor who worked forty hours per week. (Often they worked less.) And it was rare that there were any changes for quality. World-renowned surgeons in Germany and France made only a fraction more than less competent doctors.

    In the U.S., on the other hand, they could write their ticket.

    The brain drain was not severe at the time of the [CDC study] but it was telling. More and more top-flight doctors had left to find greener pastures. For that matter, doctors in less developed countries had flooded into the U.S., where they might not make a fortune but they got paid in more than chickens and hummus. They filled the corner “Minor Emergency Centers” as well as being the front line general practicioners, a field most American born doctors disdained as the most plebian of medical fields.

    This was what the good doctors at the CDC learned when they set out to prove that American healthcare, with its dependence on the free-market, doctor/patient choice, HMOs and pharmaceutical companies was far inferior to the enlightened healthcare of “socialized medicine” countries.

    They discovered the irrefutable truth that when you put the same sort of people that run the Post Office in charge of your healthcare you get Postal Workers for health care providers. And more people die in less necessary ways.


    (( All emphases in the original. Source: http://www.webscription.net/chapters/1416555536/1416555536___6.htm ))

  2. That long quote is interesting, but I don’t see its relevance to white people or Pink Floyd. It mentions Europe, which has a lot of white people, so I guess that’s relevant.

    Here’s the part I see as most relevant:

    Hypothesis: “Universal health care will increase the lifespan and general health of a population over free-market health care.”

    Conclusion: “Fuck, we were not only wrong we were really wrong!”

    How could that possibly be? Seriously. Universal healthcare is, well, universal healthcare! Everybody gets the same quality of treatment, young and old, rich and poor! Nobody is turned away! It’s perfect communism! With doctors!

    Yeah, everybody gets the same quality of treatment: Bad.

    So perhaps your point is that when people try to be compassionate, they get Communism, and that’s worse than being “non-compassionate” and forcing the free market to cure people.

    You’re welcome to expand on how socialized medicine relates to whiteness.

    Update:

    To shed some light on the costs of USA health care, I added a neat little graphic showing that the USA has horrible life expectancy for the amount of money paid on health care.

Comments are closed.