Someone once criticized whites because we care more about Rotherham than evils in nonwhite places.
Here's one reason why we should care more: because nonwhites seldom take ethical advice from whites anyway, so there's little point. (You might as well waste time ordering a volcano to stop erupting.)
Yes, nonwhites take practical advice, for example, planting a new strain of grain. They'll also take advice on how to exploit and destroy whites, but the latter is not ethical advice.
Ironically, if you start writing about Boko Haram or other evils in developing countries, they'll slur you as a troll, racist or Islamophobe. (In 2016,
an increase of the troll epithet was used to ban or dismiss unwanted truths. Where once trolling applied to inciting mindless internet spats, the word is now used to fanatically dismiss political counter evidence.)
Rotherham is part of our civilization, something we have a little influence over.
When it comes to multiculturalists, you get what you tolerate when they have the power to implement it. The more we acquiesce, the more evils explode. If we ignored Rotherham, which the British establishment tried to do for years, you get more Rotherhams. Opposing the events in Rotherham is more than just protecting the rights of girls in Rotherham. It helps prevent worse.
Every federal elected official in the United States is, to put it in ad hominem terms, crooked. Each is also, to varying degrees, a multiculturalist. The 1.0 correlation coefficient is no coincidence. It is extremely difficult to get multicultural whites to see beyond themselves, their friends, their close kin, and their feel good xenocentrism. Even a few nonmulticulturalists seem to care more about lifeless confederate statues than living whites in South Africa.
Most nonwhite adults, and many whites, support anti-white supremacism, waging an unconventional, long term war of aggression. Even the uber multicultural War Nerd
admitted it in "War of the Babies." It is ethically wrong to aid individuals, who support aggression. Misplaced altruism created multitudes of horrors in the past and will create horrors for future generations. "Common humanity" is an irrelevant genetic fallacy. Fighting just, nonviolent, unconventioanl wars should inspire us as much as just, conventional wars.
Simply because nonwhites suffered from genetic and environmental bad luck doesn't relieve them from the bare minimum of ethical duties to not support aggression, no matter how unconventional.
Adults who won't organize and fight for their legitimate claims deserve less compassion, too. I have little sympathy for Soviet citizens who tolerated Soviet invasions and other evils. Solzhenitsyn
noted that Chechen gangs (predictably) stuck together while whites were solitary gulag sufferers with their immoral universalism. There's a world of difference between an ethical martyr and a cowardly martyr. The latter's self-pity and hope in eternal reward has almost no power to make the world better. If there is an ethical God(s), who judges after death, why would that God send cowardly, fanatical, xenocentric individuals to heaven? Bertrand Russell had a few
scathing remarks about pious, feeble religiosity.
Over a decade ago, Slate published
dozens of articles about the poor, wonderful Kurds, many with "Kurd Sellout Watch" in the title. Guess how those wonderful Kurds behave when they become refugees?
Like you would expect Southwest Asians to behave.
Obama hectored us about being afraid of women and children. Damn right we should be afraid. Fact facers know what those women have between their ears and what those children will grow into. We know their devotion to evolutionary and psychological egoism.