My father had a subscription to Playboy magazine against the wishes of my mother, and I viewed them.
I could understand why nubile women flocked to a rich, famous, powerful man, but I couldn't understand why others fawned over Hefner. Halo effects are bizarre. There was almost nothing fascinating about him. In the interviews I saw, he kept spewing his hackneyed shtick about 1950s "sexual repression." (He should have spent a few years in Saudi Arabia to see what real sexual repression looked like.) I doubt Hefner was particularly well-read. Most political commentaries in his magazine were poorly reasoned despite having his pick of thousands of writers sending in submissions, each hoping for a good payday and a bit of recognition.
The magazine had a page or two devoted to photos of Playboy parties, a disproportionate percentage showing African-American men with white women. The intended or unintended message: you pay for worthless paper images of attractive women. Look who gets the real thing. So his was a girly magazine that had more photos of black men than black women. Hefner worked to eliminate the peoples and white beauty his life and wealth depended on.
In older issues, the Playmates had a variety of attractive looks, to fit a variety of tastes. After the mid 1990s, more Playmates displayed dyed hair, orange skin, heavy makeup, breast implants. Yes, the supposed classy, highbrow porn magazine specialized in the b*mbo look. It was likely based on research. Hefner's fan base was likely the same as Howard Stern's. Behind the glitz was the reality of lonely male subscribers living purposeless lives. The morality of the cool comes to liberate, yet takes prisoners, looking for love and purpose in the wrong places. Among the less lonely, hedonism contributed to an epidemic of philandering and broken homes. The one night stand is not an act of liberation. It is an act of contempt. It says I can screw you and maybe give you a pathogen, but you are not good enough to be around me ever again. I'm going to pretend to be gaga about you, but only for a few hours, then switch it off.
Philosophies of hedonism give the impression that many whites in the 1950s were "squares" or worse. Having met thousands of individuals who came of age in the 1950s or before, I keep wondering where the squares went. Did they morph into non-squares by the 1980s? Many were great story tellers with fascinating life experiences. For the unfamiliar, it was once common in American society for friends to frequently visit, sitting and talking about thousands of topics for hours on end, sometimes playing cards while talking.
Writers complain about magazines setting impossible standards, but magazines are more about escapism than setting standards.
Like some other wealthy promoters of hedonism, Hefner seemed devoted to his children, yet such promoters seldom care about the consequences of hedonism to individuals in more difficult circumstances. Hedonism is a luxury that many can financially afford but few can ethically afford.
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
History, Multiculturalism, and the Near Certainty Principles of Nonwhite Rule
Let's imagine the centuries old Arab, Mongol, and other brutal nonwhite invasions of white lands have no relevance today. Let's focus on the current and last century when nonwhites became more civilized, listing the last six times nonwhites ruled large numbers of whites (leaving out smaller groups of murdered or kidnapped whites around the planet):
If one of these cases involved the mass slaughter of whites, it would be enough to condemn multicultural goals, yet in all six cases, nonwhite rule over whites resulted in tyranny and the slaughter of whites, often involving sadistic acts of torture and murder thousands of times worse than the acts of torture at Guantanamo Bay.
That is why self-determination is sacred and non-negotiable. It is inalienable, meaning it must not be taken away. Any person on this planet who opposes the right of self-determination, and billions of multiculturalists do oppose self-determination, is massively unethical.
The rainbow political platitudes of nonwhites are worthless at best. Nonwhites do not and will not protect us from their co-ethnics when they have power. Their ephemeral support for progressive humanitarianism does not include most whites. They blame victims of their racial depredations. Whites can engage in trillions of acts of misplaced altruism toward nonwhites. Years later nonwhites remember mistreatment, no matter how petty, not the altruism. Few multiculturalists care that whites saved billions of nonwhite lives with vaccines, other technologies, and charitable activities.
Al Jazeera supports multicultural progressivism because multicultural progressivism serves them as a divide-and-conquer strategy, until Muslims can implement sharia in the West. Note how the owners of Al Jazeera have little interest in implementing multicultural progressivism at home in Qatar.
Among multiculturalists, few enemies to the anti-white exist, especially when their allies rampage through streets and punish dissent. Trust but verify is a rule for chumpism. The verification usually proves faulty. History indicates nonwhites are capable of being decent citizens in white countries only when their power and numbers are tiny (and when whites don't act with abject cowardice).
Wealthy whites are mainly capable of egoism and treason, so whites should, ethically speaking, live only in nations that are nearly 100 percent white, including white foreign diplomats. A handful of near whites, who do not self-identify as nonwhite, are unavoidable and should be tolerated. Allow more nonwhites in and the wealthy begin to see the possibilities of cheaper labor, militaristic empire, multicultural grandstanding, pitting worker against worker, and other divide-and-screw practices. The slightest bribe of a wealthy white individual by nonwhites or white multiculturalists should result in draconian punishment of the bribed.
Now if some whites want live in diverse lands, they should have a legal right to do so, provided nonwhites want them. (It won't last long!) But such whites have no moral right and should have no legal right to force diversity on the rest of us. They also have no moral right to preach diversity since no one has a moral right to spew unethical, poorly reasoned arguments.
The ''what about white rule over people of color'' counterargument is irrelevant. Almost no one living today supports white rule over nonwhites. Separation has transition costs, but the costs of today's multiculturalism will be many times greater to multitudes of future generations.
As I wrote before, 100 percent of majority Muslim countries were and are totalitarian. One hundred percent of lands with large amounts of racial diversity became long-term unethical disasters.
No genocultural engineering by multiculturalists will ever create good, diverse, sustainable countries. Multiculturalists promote ideas that have failed multitudes of times before with ever more clever propaganda techniques, as if they assume we are all incapable of facing facts and as if they assume new packaging changes the moral facts. Most higher IQ individuals with comparatively less bad motives are too lazy and evidence averse to create decent political philosophies. Being forced to live in nonwhite ruled societies, surrounded by lower character fanaticisms is far worse, a prescription worse than death, a norm beneath the dignity of any white individual.
The above is merely a matter of being logical and ethical, not "white supremacism."
- Zimbabwe (1980 to the present)
- South Africa (1994 to the present)
- Japanese Empire (1942-1945)
- Ottoman Empire (1900-1922)
- Russia-Soviet Union (1917-1953)
- North Korea (1950 to unknown by Westerners)
If one of these cases involved the mass slaughter of whites, it would be enough to condemn multicultural goals, yet in all six cases, nonwhite rule over whites resulted in tyranny and the slaughter of whites, often involving sadistic acts of torture and murder thousands of times worse than the acts of torture at Guantanamo Bay.
That is why self-determination is sacred and non-negotiable. It is inalienable, meaning it must not be taken away. Any person on this planet who opposes the right of self-determination, and billions of multiculturalists do oppose self-determination, is massively unethical.
The rainbow political platitudes of nonwhites are worthless at best. Nonwhites do not and will not protect us from their co-ethnics when they have power. Their ephemeral support for progressive humanitarianism does not include most whites. They blame victims of their racial depredations. Whites can engage in trillions of acts of misplaced altruism toward nonwhites. Years later nonwhites remember mistreatment, no matter how petty, not the altruism. Few multiculturalists care that whites saved billions of nonwhite lives with vaccines, other technologies, and charitable activities.
Al Jazeera supports multicultural progressivism because multicultural progressivism serves them as a divide-and-conquer strategy, until Muslims can implement sharia in the West. Note how the owners of Al Jazeera have little interest in implementing multicultural progressivism at home in Qatar.
Among multiculturalists, few enemies to the anti-white exist, especially when their allies rampage through streets and punish dissent. Trust but verify is a rule for chumpism. The verification usually proves faulty. History indicates nonwhites are capable of being decent citizens in white countries only when their power and numbers are tiny (and when whites don't act with abject cowardice).
Wealthy whites are mainly capable of egoism and treason, so whites should, ethically speaking, live only in nations that are nearly 100 percent white, including white foreign diplomats. A handful of near whites, who do not self-identify as nonwhite, are unavoidable and should be tolerated. Allow more nonwhites in and the wealthy begin to see the possibilities of cheaper labor, militaristic empire, multicultural grandstanding, pitting worker against worker, and other divide-and-screw practices. The slightest bribe of a wealthy white individual by nonwhites or white multiculturalists should result in draconian punishment of the bribed.
Now if some whites want live in diverse lands, they should have a legal right to do so, provided nonwhites want them. (It won't last long!) But such whites have no moral right and should have no legal right to force diversity on the rest of us. They also have no moral right to preach diversity since no one has a moral right to spew unethical, poorly reasoned arguments.
The ''what about white rule over people of color'' counterargument is irrelevant. Almost no one living today supports white rule over nonwhites. Separation has transition costs, but the costs of today's multiculturalism will be many times greater to multitudes of future generations.
As I wrote before, 100 percent of majority Muslim countries were and are totalitarian. One hundred percent of lands with large amounts of racial diversity became long-term unethical disasters.
No genocultural engineering by multiculturalists will ever create good, diverse, sustainable countries. Multiculturalists promote ideas that have failed multitudes of times before with ever more clever propaganda techniques, as if they assume we are all incapable of facing facts and as if they assume new packaging changes the moral facts. Most higher IQ individuals with comparatively less bad motives are too lazy and evidence averse to create decent political philosophies. Being forced to live in nonwhite ruled societies, surrounded by lower character fanaticisms is far worse, a prescription worse than death, a norm beneath the dignity of any white individual.
The above is merely a matter of being logical and ethical, not "white supremacism."
Friday, September 15, 2017
Elements of Racial Supremacism
I dislike posting on Fridays because many readers are too busy to read, but I'm hankering to post today.
What makes up racial supremacism:
The phrase mixed race can also be inserted wherever you see the word race above.
The above describes most whites before the 1950s and many self-described national socialists today. It also describes almost every nonwhite and white multiculturalist.
Counterarguments?
Only white people can be [insert bad traits]. Hmm. That sounds like another aspect of supremacism. Please show me the evidence that that only white people blah, blah, blah. Because it doesn't exist.
But that's not what dictionaries or social science glossaries say. Dictionaries and glossaries are not authorities on ethical definitions. Their definitions on ethical issues consist mainly of ad populum definitions or rhetorical definitions concocted by activists.
What makes up racial supremacism:
- Unsupported belief that a race is superior to another, combined with an unsupported belief in a right to rule over another race, that is, freedom of association for one race but not for another, including denying the latter's right to exit a society and form a homogeneous society.
- Unsupported belief that a race should be off limits to criticism, no matter how well-reasoned, combined with free fire abusive ad hominem attacks on another race, plus assuming the motives of a race are pure while relentlessly assuming bad motives among potential critics.
- Unsupported belief that genocide is permissible.
- Unsupported belief that a race inherits ontological guilt while behaving as if past and present evils done by another race must be white washed, plus assuming one is the racial victim while victimizing another race.
- Unsupported belief that economic and other goods within a self-chosen multiracial society should be distributed according to power and race, not in proportion to economic productivity, combined with a belief that racial harm doing and free riding can almost always be justified as good for the cause, including spewing fallacies to see whether they stick, especially straw persons and small sample fallacies. It includes treating probabilities and expected values as irrelevant or worthless while treating assertions of specious rights as sacred.
- Encouraging members of a race to engage in dysgenic breeding to increase the demographic power of a race, no matter how poor the character of those individuals, plus a belief that the triumph of a race over another race is inevitable.
- Unsupported belief that those who oppose a harmful racial cause must be fired, fined, jailed, murdered, assaulted, ostracized or exploited, that thoughts contradicting the racial cause must be taboo.
The phrase mixed race can also be inserted wherever you see the word race above.
The above describes most whites before the 1950s and many self-described national socialists today. It also describes almost every nonwhite and white multiculturalist.
Counterarguments?
Only white people can be [insert bad traits]. Hmm. That sounds like another aspect of supremacism. Please show me the evidence that that only white people blah, blah, blah. Because it doesn't exist.
But that's not what dictionaries or social science glossaries say. Dictionaries and glossaries are not authorities on ethical definitions. Their definitions on ethical issues consist mainly of ad populum definitions or rhetorical definitions concocted by activists.
Wednesday, September 6, 2017
Multiculturalists Sacrificing Their Jobs
We almost never see good jobs having White or Jewish or Asian supporters of affirmative action volunteer to donate their good jobs for the cause, thus allowing their employers to hire less wealthy nonwhites. Why should they have good jobs if humans and human races are interchangeable?
They could reply that they are in favor of affirmative action for society as a whole. Their own jobs are supposedly irrelevant. They could claim they are desperately needed at their jobs, that no one else has the skills. But if humans are interchangeable, why can't replacements be found or trained?
Maybe they believe the r*cists in their trailer park centers of power are the ones keeping nonwealthy nonwhites down, not genes, not multiculturalists on Wall Street and elsewhere. (Please don't hurt yourself laughing.)
No rhetorical trick eliminates the contradiction of telling others to do something one is unwilling to do when no relevant differences allegedly exist. If necessary, affirmative action supporters could train their replacements, as Whites often do for the H1-B invasion.
But as I mentioned before, almost no multicultural contradiction is too great for multiculturalists to dismiss or ignore.
Millions of potential candidates to donate their jobs exist, for example, Paul Campos, a professional opinion maker and law professor from Colorado. Campos isn't competent at opinion making, especially his ethnoracial arguments. His recent New York Times article lambastes "white privilege" and racial economic inequality without even attempting to tease out alternative causal factors such as IQ, age, conscientiousness, marriage status, felony record, education level, education choices, relevant experience, and number of working adults per household. Campos criticizes white privilege without mentioning other racial groups with higher incomes than whites. He also cites junk science.
The best thing you can say about Campos is that he noticed we have an oversupply of lawyers but so have millions of other unemployed and underemployed nonwhites.
Campos posts on this pro-totalitarianism message board as poster Paul, where he frequently calls whites super slurs. And in terrific irony, Campos often invokes Dunning-Kruger when demonizing whites. Oh, where or where is the mirror for Paul Campos to look into? Where is his cognitive dissonance? Campos lived his life fleeing from low functioning diversity and should have donated his jobs decades ago.
But for some odd reasons, multicultural sacrifices keep getting shifted onto nonwealthy whites.
They could reply that they are in favor of affirmative action for society as a whole. Their own jobs are supposedly irrelevant. They could claim they are desperately needed at their jobs, that no one else has the skills. But if humans are interchangeable, why can't replacements be found or trained?
Maybe they believe the r*cists in their trailer park centers of power are the ones keeping nonwealthy nonwhites down, not genes, not multiculturalists on Wall Street and elsewhere. (Please don't hurt yourself laughing.)
No rhetorical trick eliminates the contradiction of telling others to do something one is unwilling to do when no relevant differences allegedly exist. If necessary, affirmative action supporters could train their replacements, as Whites often do for the H1-B invasion.
But as I mentioned before, almost no multicultural contradiction is too great for multiculturalists to dismiss or ignore.
Millions of potential candidates to donate their jobs exist, for example, Paul Campos, a professional opinion maker and law professor from Colorado. Campos isn't competent at opinion making, especially his ethnoracial arguments. His recent New York Times article lambastes "white privilege" and racial economic inequality without even attempting to tease out alternative causal factors such as IQ, age, conscientiousness, marriage status, felony record, education level, education choices, relevant experience, and number of working adults per household. Campos criticizes white privilege without mentioning other racial groups with higher incomes than whites. He also cites junk science.
The best thing you can say about Campos is that he noticed we have an oversupply of lawyers but so have millions of other unemployed and underemployed nonwhites.
Campos posts on this pro-totalitarianism message board as poster Paul, where he frequently calls whites super slurs. And in terrific irony, Campos often invokes Dunning-Kruger when demonizing whites. Oh, where or where is the mirror for Paul Campos to look into? Where is his cognitive dissonance? Campos lived his life fleeing from low functioning diversity and should have donated his jobs decades ago.
But for some odd reasons, multicultural sacrifices keep getting shifted onto nonwealthy whites.
Thursday, August 31, 2017
The Disastrous Politics of Hobson's Choices
Multiculturalism creates a politics of Hobson's choices, of choosing only among harmful alternatives, pressuring voters to choose between crooked, pro life, somewhat less antiwhite establishment Republicans or pro choice, more antiwhite, somewhat less crooked New Democrats.
In both cases, redistributing income to the powerful ranks above other priorities.
When establishment Republicans are in power, few federal pro life policies result. Research suggests that in the past few generations, millions of pro lifers threw away their previous beliefs on thousands of issues merely so they could be on the "pro life" team, an ultimate litmus test. The study concluded as "individuals realigned their party affiliation in accordance with their initial abortion views, their other political views followed suit." I wonder about other reasons though, since these "race blind" pro lifers arrange their lives to be far from low functioning diversity. They also arrange to not notice that most abortions are spontaneous, seldom recommending policies to reduce the likelihood of spontaneous abortions. Many muticulturalists ignore the abortion angle and imagine the Republican appeal rests mostly on ethnoracial "dog whistling," though establishment Republicans harm whites far more than they help whites.
Congressional New Democrats talk about the minimum wage most often when they know it has no chance of passing, leaving local governments to pass sometimes excessive minimum wage increases. Federal Democratic officials often fail to promote immigration restrictions, tighter labor markets, payroll tax cuts, and other policies that would be more efficient at helping lower income workers. Presumed egalitarian Barack Obama oversaw levels of inequality not seen for several generations. Donald Trump works to expand redistributions to the top, regarding the expansion of play money for Carl Icahn and wealthy individuals as more important to him than the lives of ordinary Americans.
Some call it tribalism, but ordinary voters have little role in the so-called tribes, except as useful voters and minor donors, gaining massive harms while misusing their votes and money. Tribalism relies on close kin. Contemporary Western multicultural politics emphasizes non-kin gang tyranny in the short term, although some kin nepotism exists alongside, as with the Bushes and Clintons. George H.W. Bush would not state the obvious: that his sons were unfit for office. The Clintons won't admit the obvious about Chelsea. In both, egoism rules, forcing altruists or ethical individuals to splinter or figure out ways of reducing gang power. With multiculturalism, bait-and-switch and divide-and-screw are even more rampant than in small tribes. In small tribes, usurpers are seldom far from overthrowing the chief's power.
When multiculturalism reaches its end state, kin gangism takes over.
In many free rider problems, ordinary individuals opt out of reform attempts because their individual efforts contribute so little. The larger the polity, the less influence most individuals have. We now have a nation preoccupied with politics, or at least political infotainment and demonization mongering, but the establishments seldom change, except to increase rent seeking and to become more anti-white. Progressives wonder why Hillary Clinton didn't step aside to let the more electable Sanders run. They fail to understand that genetic egoism functions on individual genes and psychological egoism functions on the individual organism. The party is not an individual. Congresspersons would much rather keep their seats and have the other party in control than lose their seat and have their own party in control, which is why establishment politicians support gerrymandering to protect their own political offices, even when it hurts their party. Ordinary partisans sacrifice for parties dominated by egoism, but the party insiders sacrifice primarily for themselves.
Neither party cares about fiduciary duties to future generations. Both support dysgenics. Both rely on technology, faulty stats, and increased workforce participation by women to maintain the illusion of normalcy. Both support non-white overpopulation. Both support reckless militarism on behalf of profiteering, grandstanding, and rallying tactics, not to mention as distractions from domestic wrongs. Neoconservatives try to distance themselves from Bush II and Paul Wolfowitz, even as they promote similar policies.
George W. Bush attained a 90 percent approval rating in the aftermath of 9/11, the best in Gallup's presidential polling history, despite having zero major moral accomplishments in his life. It's chilling to think what some other present and future multicultural politicians will do to rescue their popularity with voters or their colleagues and the donor classes.
Progressives eschew the foreign interventions of neoconservatism, preferring other destructive interventions, plus much more domestic warfare on whites and other perceived enemies.
The seemingly thoughtful demand race blind policies, only to find themselves ostracized or the policies failing. They haven't thought carefully enough. The incentives for both evolutionary and psychological egoism are too great, the genetic and cultural differences among groups too huge, though they manage to believe the straw person of "only because of their skin color." Many of the seemingly race blind only pretend to be race blind. Barack Obama pretended to be above the fray, "acting presidential," while appointing the likes of Eric Holder and encouraging most of the mass media to demonize those telling the truth. George W. Bush did likewise, letting Karl Rove, Fox News, and talk radio do the dirty work.
Hobson's choice politics occurs in dysfunctional nonmulticultural societies as well, but multiculturalism amplifies problems.
The dynamics are somewhat similar but less worse for now in other Western countries, worsening as other Western countries breed and import more nonwhites. And as they replace nuclear families with dysgenic breeding by single parents. No establishment politician would dare say, "If you insist on being a single parent, please go to a sperm bank and get the highest character sperm you can find of your own race. Stop sexing it up with individuals devoted to con artistry," though saying so would be more ethical than anything most of them have ever said.
When individuals support lesser evils, lesser evils become more powerful, greater evils. Individuals capable of great but lesser evils have little difficulty transitioning to greater evils.
We must reject the pressures to choose bad teams. Most contemporary political parties in the West must end. Individuals must politically fight for their right of self-determination. Organize, then organize some more.
In both cases, redistributing income to the powerful ranks above other priorities.
When establishment Republicans are in power, few federal pro life policies result. Research suggests that in the past few generations, millions of pro lifers threw away their previous beliefs on thousands of issues merely so they could be on the "pro life" team, an ultimate litmus test. The study concluded as "individuals realigned their party affiliation in accordance with their initial abortion views, their other political views followed suit." I wonder about other reasons though, since these "race blind" pro lifers arrange their lives to be far from low functioning diversity. They also arrange to not notice that most abortions are spontaneous, seldom recommending policies to reduce the likelihood of spontaneous abortions. Many muticulturalists ignore the abortion angle and imagine the Republican appeal rests mostly on ethnoracial "dog whistling," though establishment Republicans harm whites far more than they help whites.
Congressional New Democrats talk about the minimum wage most often when they know it has no chance of passing, leaving local governments to pass sometimes excessive minimum wage increases. Federal Democratic officials often fail to promote immigration restrictions, tighter labor markets, payroll tax cuts, and other policies that would be more efficient at helping lower income workers. Presumed egalitarian Barack Obama oversaw levels of inequality not seen for several generations. Donald Trump works to expand redistributions to the top, regarding the expansion of play money for Carl Icahn and wealthy individuals as more important to him than the lives of ordinary Americans.
Some call it tribalism, but ordinary voters have little role in the so-called tribes, except as useful voters and minor donors, gaining massive harms while misusing their votes and money. Tribalism relies on close kin. Contemporary Western multicultural politics emphasizes non-kin gang tyranny in the short term, although some kin nepotism exists alongside, as with the Bushes and Clintons. George H.W. Bush would not state the obvious: that his sons were unfit for office. The Clintons won't admit the obvious about Chelsea. In both, egoism rules, forcing altruists or ethical individuals to splinter or figure out ways of reducing gang power. With multiculturalism, bait-and-switch and divide-and-screw are even more rampant than in small tribes. In small tribes, usurpers are seldom far from overthrowing the chief's power.
When multiculturalism reaches its end state, kin gangism takes over.
In many free rider problems, ordinary individuals opt out of reform attempts because their individual efforts contribute so little. The larger the polity, the less influence most individuals have. We now have a nation preoccupied with politics, or at least political infotainment and demonization mongering, but the establishments seldom change, except to increase rent seeking and to become more anti-white. Progressives wonder why Hillary Clinton didn't step aside to let the more electable Sanders run. They fail to understand that genetic egoism functions on individual genes and psychological egoism functions on the individual organism. The party is not an individual. Congresspersons would much rather keep their seats and have the other party in control than lose their seat and have their own party in control, which is why establishment politicians support gerrymandering to protect their own political offices, even when it hurts their party. Ordinary partisans sacrifice for parties dominated by egoism, but the party insiders sacrifice primarily for themselves.
Neither party cares about fiduciary duties to future generations. Both support dysgenics. Both rely on technology, faulty stats, and increased workforce participation by women to maintain the illusion of normalcy. Both support non-white overpopulation. Both support reckless militarism on behalf of profiteering, grandstanding, and rallying tactics, not to mention as distractions from domestic wrongs. Neoconservatives try to distance themselves from Bush II and Paul Wolfowitz, even as they promote similar policies.
George W. Bush attained a 90 percent approval rating in the aftermath of 9/11, the best in Gallup's presidential polling history, despite having zero major moral accomplishments in his life. It's chilling to think what some other present and future multicultural politicians will do to rescue their popularity with voters or their colleagues and the donor classes.
Progressives eschew the foreign interventions of neoconservatism, preferring other destructive interventions, plus much more domestic warfare on whites and other perceived enemies.
The seemingly thoughtful demand race blind policies, only to find themselves ostracized or the policies failing. They haven't thought carefully enough. The incentives for both evolutionary and psychological egoism are too great, the genetic and cultural differences among groups too huge, though they manage to believe the straw person of "only because of their skin color." Many of the seemingly race blind only pretend to be race blind. Barack Obama pretended to be above the fray, "acting presidential," while appointing the likes of Eric Holder and encouraging most of the mass media to demonize those telling the truth. George W. Bush did likewise, letting Karl Rove, Fox News, and talk radio do the dirty work.
Hobson's choice politics occurs in dysfunctional nonmulticultural societies as well, but multiculturalism amplifies problems.
The dynamics are somewhat similar but less worse for now in other Western countries, worsening as other Western countries breed and import more nonwhites. And as they replace nuclear families with dysgenic breeding by single parents. No establishment politician would dare say, "If you insist on being a single parent, please go to a sperm bank and get the highest character sperm you can find of your own race. Stop sexing it up with individuals devoted to con artistry," though saying so would be more ethical than anything most of them have ever said.
When individuals support lesser evils, lesser evils become more powerful, greater evils. Individuals capable of great but lesser evils have little difficulty transitioning to greater evils.
We must reject the pressures to choose bad teams. Most contemporary political parties in the West must end. Individuals must politically fight for their right of self-determination. Organize, then organize some more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)