The Concept of Societal Insurance

Contrary to what ‘famous’ white morons think and preach, human societies larger than 100-200 individuals are neither inevitable or strictly necessary for survival. Humans and humanoids did OK for over 3 million years and apes/monkeys have done just fine for millions of years without anything more complex than small tribes or groups.

Any functional and resilient society with a population of more than a few hundred individuals requires certain features that smaller societies do not require. Let us list them..

1. Customs and rules that are, by and large, reasonable.

You can certainly have societies with unreasonable, unenforceable or tyrannical rules. But such societies are either nonfunctional or unstable. Look at India for an example of what unreasonable and unenforceable laws do to a ‘society’. Ex-communist countries, China and Arab totalitarian regimes are a good example of what happens when you run a society as a tyranny- they sorta function until an ‘unexpected’ implosion occurs.

The USA and many western countries are marching in that direction and it is unlikely that the result will be any different, skin color notwithstanding.

2. Positive motivation to contribute to society.

Extermination worthy white losers often complain about ‘black laziness’. Whether through cognitive dissonance or plain stupidity, one fact seems to escapes them- slaves and people who are forced to work for any society don’t care about it. The threat of death or torture is insufficient to get people to care about or contribute to a society. Even the roman empire was largely successful because it benefited its subjects (trade, investment, building) far more than most oxbridge cocksuckers are willing to admit. True slave-owning systems have low productivity, safety and stability.

Highly unequal societies like Brazil, Mexico are violent and unstable places precisely because they do not offer any positive stake to most of its inhabitants. India is no different, and the USA is rapidly heading in that direction.

3. Belief in inherent general fairness of the system.

Lots of stupid white cocksuckers, amongst others, keep on saying that- “life isn’t fair”. But no society can be functional or stable without an inherent and testable belief in the general fairness of a system.

Consider socialist west-European countries.. What percentage of their populations are worried about not having enough food, medical care, decent shelter and entertainment? What percentage are worried about pervasive abusive treatment by the legal system? While these countries are no utopias, they are seen as reasonably fair by insiders unlike USA, Mexico, Brazil, India and China.

It is this triad of features which make the difference between living in a shitty, violence prone and unstable society and one that is functional and stable.

Societies which do not ensure the general welfare of individuals, either implicitly or explicitly, cannot expect them to care about its inevitable decay and implosion. To put it another way, a society can insure itself against dysfunction and implosion by providing a favorable social contract to most, if not all, of its members.

It is necessary to see things like social welfare payments, foodstamps, decent socialized healthcare, stable careers, reasonable laws etc in this context. They exist not because of generosity and altruism, but to prevent people from defecting or otherwise screwing the system. Failure to provide societal insurance has severe, and often irreversible, consequences- but morons will learn no other way.

Comments?

  1. Nestorius
    July 17, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    “Contrary to what ‘famous’ white morons think and preach, human societies larger than 100-200 individuals are neither inevitable or strictly necessary for survival.”

    They haven’t taken into account that population growth happens, thus leading to larger and more widespread human groups. Therefore growth is random.

    “Positive motivation to contribute to society.”

    Among positive motivation I count not having 2nd class members of the group. When Blacks were emancipated, they were considered as 2nd class members of the American people.
    There is no difference between non-members of the group, like slaves and foreigners, and 2nd class members.

  2. July 17, 2011 at 8:14 pm

    http://www.newsweek.com/2011/04/17/doing-the-right-thing.html

    don’t worry, diablo-it’s all gonna fall apart…..

  3. July 17, 2011 at 8:16 pm

    you might be racist….

    just sayin’

  4. Mr. Stricter
    July 17, 2011 at 10:56 pm

    stoner is willing being stoned. There was not one racist word in that whole article and it was as close to 100% fact as anything on the this green earth gets.

    Fact is it is stupid White morons who say stuff like “Life isn’t fair, suck it up” not other groups who have enough sense to try and get what they can.

    Only slight disagreements I might have are to note crap societies can go on for a gawdawful long time, long enough for people not to notice they crapped out and for people to think they work and also to note the morons never learn anyway unless its brought down on their heads and often not even then.

    I suspect an awful lot of aristocrats in Revolutionary France were still confused and bewildered why people wanted them dead just as they met with the national razor.

  1. June 2, 2014 at 1:54 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: