Brutal Honesty Entertainment in association with Severe Butthurt Productions and the Question Everything Company presents:
Updated: 9.5.23.
Why the Concept of "Equality" Is So Deeply
Flawed
NOTE: This text exists as a reaction hence as a middle finger to the hypocritical/insane/irritating Anti-Racism Brigade and the self-righteous bullshit they've been bombarding us with for decades, especially in recent years. I speak for the many silent voices too fearful to speak about this subject openly.
This wee text has the potential to trigger most people - extremely. If you are one of those mentally unstable, hyper-sensitive, easily offended, brainwashed fruitcakes you should either skip this post, or take a few sedatives before reading it. (A heavier dosage than usual is strongly advised.)
Furthermore, if you decide to angrily post a comment, make you sure you do it after you'd read the entire text. Failure to read the entire post is something I will be able to easily detect in your response, hence might not reply to you if this is the case, or might not even approve your comment. I won't go into any discussions with people who merely skim through this post, naively believing they "know" in advance everything that's in it. Trust me: you don't know. Read it first. All of it.
So don't be lazy, you silly (millennial) sods, and read the entire text before starting to punch holes in your Gandhi&Che-posters-infested walls. You actually might learn something. (From an irrelevant blogger. Yes, stranger things have happened.)
This is not the final version. I might be adding more stuff later on.
INTRO
I’ve had the urge to write this text for years, but didn’t for a variety of reasons. One of them is I felt I might anger some people who visit my blogs regularly, which I felt wouldn’t be fair. Angering people through my music/film views – I have no problem with (quite to the contrary: I take sadistic pleasure in it) – but angering a black person, a Jew, or an Oriental with my “unique” take on racism, this is something I feel uncomfortable about, and this is certainly not my intention in the slightest. (Annoying any white liberals on the other hand wouldn’t pose an issue, quite to the contrary... sadistic pleasure an' all...) People tend to be naturally defensive of their own culture, language, ethnicity, heritage, gender and even race, and are quite irrational and biased this way. (White liberals who feel the need to defend i.e. patronize other cultures/races on the other hand are idiots and I have zero problems offending them.) Dare question someone’s core beliefs, stuff they’d been bombarded with (or even brainwashed) since early childhood, and you risk pure, unfiltered hate. Yet, it’s still your (dumb) choice to identify strongly with the ethnicity/race you were handed by nature “randomly”, so if you get upset reading this text it’s kinda your fault much more than mine.
Before you read this “shocking” text, you need to know a few basics about me. I do not identify with my race, ethnicity, or even culture. I can’t say I don’t identify with my gender because that would be a lie. I am biologically programmed to like being male, and am very happy that I’m not female. (That doesn’t mean I hate women - for any of you easily offended (white liberal) morons who might draw this false conclusion.) But when it comes to my ethnic background, I am one of the biggest critics of Serbs on the planet - despite being a Serb who was born and lives in Serbia. I am an atheist/agnostic (or thereabouts), unlike most Balkan people who are religious. (Very few of them are deeply/truly religious though; they chose to “believe” to fit in with the majority, and especially as an excuse to stuff their faces with food and alcohol during the numerous Serb-Orthodox holidays which celebrate binging far more than they celebrate Christ or any of his saints.) Unlike most Serbs, I detest the Church here. (It is largely made up of semi-literate nationalist and communist crooks.) Unlike the vast majority of Serbs I am not only not a patriot but am critical of (or at least disinterested in) numerous aspects of Serb mentality and customs. For example, I hate modern Serb music, unlike the majority who worship it or at least tolerate it. Unlike the vast majority of Serb men, I detest both of Belgrade’s major sports clubs, Partisan and Red Star. (Not because I root for other clubs (I could give three shits about that nonsense), but because I detest all mafia-like organizations.) There are many more examples...
In short, I am not a typical Serb in many ways; I don’t define myself through birth (like most morons do). I hadn’t adopted this attitude simply to be a contrarian; I did it because I genuinely cannot identify with a culture/nation that is so fundamentally different from me. Then again, I’d probably have the same or similar stance regardless where I was born. Because I generally disagree with the majority on the majority of issues, anywhere. I may be immune to brainwashing, but I'm not immune to bullshit. When it comes to bullshit, I call it out, and write about it, or talk about it.
So if I can “disassociate” myself from my heritage, why can’t you? (Just kidding, you don’t have to. It’s your choice to be a compliant non-thinking sheep if that’s what appeals to yer tiny inflexible brain.) Because I have no positive biases toward my own ethnic group, religion and race, I have the right (in a way) to talk about the extremely taboo race issue without having to justify myself as some sort of narrow-minded nationalist or racist. It makes things a lot easier. It makes me more objective. I am in fact as objective a person as you’re liable to find on this dumb planet. Most people carry all sorts of demographic/emotional baggage with them which disallows them from being realistic on numerous issues. People who are able to objectively assess the race issue, for example, are extremely rare. I may not have all the facts, I am not God (luckily for you all, because I'd have most of you armageddoned in a jiffy), but whatever I do know I process without bias. Or I try to at least.
I am objective (yes, I know, that’s what they all say!) for one simple reason that makes me a very rare breed: I am completely unafraid of the truth. I don’t suffer from “cosmic insecurity” (which is how Richard Feynman termed it, though there are several other names for “fear of life/nature/universe”) and this allows me to face unpleasant truths about this world with far less or no resistance, or at least with grudging acceptance, than the vast majority of you sheep out there who prefer the cozy cocoon of denial. Going with the flow is so much easier than questioning everything ("oooh, my brain hurts!") which is why the vast majority of people everywhere are compliant sheep. Still, I envy you bastards, in a way. I’d prefer to take the blue pill as 95% of you do, but I couldn’t even if I wanted to. It’s not in my nature. I don’t really have a choice.
The trigger for writing and posting this text i.e. the last straw are the current American riots; the new wave of extremist reverse racism avalanched onto us by liberals seeking to defeat Trump in November, which they will. (What, you thought the timing was a coincidence?) There is a palpable sense of déjà -vu, of a witch-hunt mentality hitting the western world yet again. “Racists” (and “fascists”) are the new witches: they must be hunted down and exterminated. Even if they are not witches, even if they're not Fascists and racists. (The political-hunt/witch-hunt analogy is deeply flawed because witches don’t exist (unless we count Barbra Streisand, Oprah and Ellen Degeneres) while political opponents do. But hey, the Left embraced this dumb analogy, I’m just boomeranging it right back at them.)
WHY EQUALITY IS A BULLSHIT CONCEPT, who is behind it, & WHAT THEIR REAL AIMS ARE
First of all, I am all for equality in the court of law, applicable to all demographics. That’s not the kind of equality I am referring to here. Just need to clarify that right away to avoid misunderstandings.
NATURE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR GOD
To explain why racial/gender equality is an idiotic invention with no basis in reality, first I need to crush some unspoken myths about what nature is. Nature as such doesn’t exist. It is just a linguistic, scientific concept that we’d invented that enables us to discuss things that involve the world i.e. “nature” and its effects, limitations, scope and anything else. Nature isn’t an entity, it is not a thing, it is not a person – and it certainly isn’t an almighty god which is how the Left unintentionally regard it. Hence it doesn’t plan, it doesn’t do things intentionally. Only a universe guided by something/someone can have intent hence lead to potential equality (or at least to have a striving for it). A godless universe cannot have goals. It’s just there. (Just one of many in a vast multiverse of worlds, all of them probably just as hopeless as ours, if not worse.)
Many on the Left scoff at the concept of good and evil, for example. They discard this idea as antiquated, non-provable. Yet they fanatically cling on to the idea of racial/sexual equality – which is deeply entrenched in a good-vs-bad morality, and which is far more elusive from a rational point of view, pretty much impossible to justify scientifically. At least “good and evil” can exist as a subjectively measured and defined system, to be applied imperfectly within a society with generally positive results (unless measured/defined by madmen), which cannot be said about sexual/racial/class equality which completely goes against nature, against logic, against economics, against biology, against facts – hence against nature itself. (This is highly ironical because leftists swear on Lenin’s testicles that they worship and respect nature. Of course they don't.)
The (Far) Left persistently pretends to be scientific, they insist on it, they swear on their Holy Red Bible that their methodology is based on “science and nothing but science so help me Darwin”, when in fact they are obviously very religious: dogmatic, fanatical, and zealous in their ideological pursuits, and so Darwin must be spinning in his grave every time a devout Marxist claims to be his follower. Their belief system is just as religious i.e. nonsensical as Christianity or Islam or any other major or minor sect. There is no difference, because both these approaches to life – religion and Marxism – first formulate a precise end-result i.e. an “irrefutable” conclusion, then try to make everything else fit into this wild, ridiculous theory. It would be like assuming cats subsist on vegetables, and refusing to even consider that they might actually eat only meat. As a result, you end up defining the cat falsely as a herbivore and you proceed to kill the “patient” as opposed to helping it. (Which is a neat way of explaining why communism not only fails in practice but also in theory.) This is of course the complete opposite of the scientific method, whereby you keep an open mind – at all times: observing, studying, asking questions, analyzing, re-assessing what you already know or think you know, processing data objectively and unemotionally and then reaching conclusions, eventually (hopefully) finding the truth, or at least getting closer to it. No rational person decides on the conclusion of a study/experiment/test before starting to conduct it: that is idiotic, agenda-based, self-serving nonsense. You are allowed to guess, to make assumptions, but you cannot treat your expectations as infallible predictions: this defines you as an arrogant, fanatical moron. (Either that or you’re serving your masters obediently for monetary reward. Or you’re conducting a test that’s already been done a million times, so you already know the outcome.)
The notion that this non-conscious abstract non-entity which we refer to as nature “made us all equal” is not just mistaken but plain idiotic. Nature, as a non-conscious non-entity that doesn’t give a damn about us, does not give three flying f**ks about equality either. It goes without question that if nature is incapable of giving a damn about us then it can’t give a damn about equality either, whether it be racial, gender or class equality. Yet keep in mind: the Far Left treat nature as if it were alive. The term “mother nature” is certainly one of many proofs that we struggle to regard nature as an abstract, non-existent concept. Far too often “nature” is used as a substitute for “god” – not least of all by deranged environmentalists who swear on their imaginary dolphin fins that they are a scientific movement, not a political one. That’s all nature is though: an idea, just another word for "world", and we need to accept that. Calling it “mother” is hilarious and absurd, masochistic even. There is no nature as such. Hence no equality either. Does a mother treat its children cruelly and with zero compassion? Yet we call it "mother nature", which is preposterous.
We probably couldn’t even agree on where nature ends! Does it end in the stratosphere? In Moon’s orbit? Is the entire universe “nature”? Is nature only where life exists? If so, what kind of life: advanced or basic? It’s just another synonym for “everything”, and the cosmos, two more words that essentially mean nothing. (Ironically, since the cosmos is “everything”... at least when we talk about our own irrelevant universe.)
NATURE DOESN’T GIVE A F**K
This in turn means that there is no rationale behind the optimistic, deluded belief that the races were all created equal, and that the sexes are created equal.
Why would they be?
Where is it written that we are all equal and who cast this into stone as unassailable fact? Why must they be equal? If nature were a “thing” or a creature, then you’d have some (admittedly flimsy) argument that yes, maybe, perhaps, there was/is intent to make us equal. But even then, all you need to do is observe your environment without prejudice/bias to know that this isn’t the case. There is no equality, anywhere. If anything, inequality is the natural state of things, on all levels and among all humans, and among most of the higher forms of animal species.
Life is essentially vicious struggle for survival, and in such a hostile environment it is ludicrous to seek for inherent fairness i.e. equality.
It is understandable that some people want to do away with inequality, but carrying this idea to the extreme i.e. to total equality is absurd. All goals are limited by the realities nature imposes on us.
HOPE IN FAIRNESS
This left-wing “equality hope”, for lack of a better term to describe this desperate optimism that the races must be all equal, is the direct result of the cowardly inability to accept the total lack of fairness in the world as the normal state of being. You want fairness? You can’t have it. You have to enforce it. (Good luck trying though, all ye bloodthirsty Marxists…)
Nothing is fair. If anything, unfairness is the natural (dis)order of things. Dim-witted, illogical, self-contradictory Marxists refuse to accept the “good and evil” approach to structuring a society, claiming that a godless universe makes no distinction between the two. (Which is of course true, but this fact doesn't prevent humans from creating their own system of values as a necessity to avoid slipping back to the level of violent, unhinged savages who were for all practical purposes common self-serving animals.) And yet, very stupidly/paradoxically, they expect this same “godless nature” to create (or to already have created) a perfectly equal bunch of races and ethnicities!
And for no apparent reason. They deny this fictional living/thinking/caring "nature" the ability and motivation to create “good and evil” - and yet they allow it the ability and motivation to create all the races as equals, which is based on a belief in morality and fairness! One of liberals' dumbest contradictions.
The astounding stupidity and naivety of the Left never ceases to astound me; the multitude of contradictions, something I’d written about extensively on my Westerners: Marxism post.
A banal example… (So banal and obvious that I feel silly having to even use it.) Take any group of chimps. There are the strong, big alpha males that shtoop everything in sight, that can have any female, and then at the other end of the f**k/happiness-spectrum are the meek, pathetic males that never get laid, or only get sex when they can sneak it from the alphas. It’s similar with chimp females: a definite hierarchy exists among those hairy bitches, just as it does in human society (among hairless bitches).
Feminists who cry out angrily against men aren't interested in their "sisterhood" rising toward equality, they become feminists in order to forge careers, to be the top alpha females, to rise above other, lower females. Nearly all ambition is essentially self-centered, which is why one should beware of "do-gooders" i.e. narcissists and psychopaths impersonating goodness. 90% of the evil in this world is perpetrated by deranged assholes trying to trick us into believing they are "doing it for the common good". In fact, studies show that a small % of psychopath population (roughly 1%) are responsible for 70-80% of all crimes in society.
Every human demographic, not just chimps, can be ranked according to intelligence, ability, success, physical prowess, ambition – you name it. You can rank anything, and it’s not like ranking movies, which may be subjective. You can rank demographics based on a scientific model, based on provable facts. Every mammal herd or group has a hierarchy. So why would nature treat us any differently than the other animals? Why would animals experience genetic inequality - while humans are exempt from it? This makes zero sense. Especially since genetic "unfairness" among humans is extremely obvious.
The Left places us far above animals in importance, which is very foolish and arrogant. In fact, Marxists idealize mankind as a result of their own narcissism. "I happen to be a human - hence humans must be the pinnacle of creation, because I myself am so divine and perfect, hence we as society are potentially perfect - hence we can achieve Utopia!"
In a nutshell, that is the psycho-analyses of Marxist mentality.
It makes zero sense to accept the fact that there is inequality within every race or ethnic population, i.e. a natural hierarchy within each society or group of people, yet to make the leap of faith that there are no differences between different ethnic and racial groups.
Total equality implies by definition that nature is a conscious entity, a sort of God, and it implies that this God must have a reason to make us all equal - despite very obviously having created a world that is extremely unequal in every way. Belief in total equality is a Marxist idea and can only make sense to stupid people.
THE EVOLUTION OF RACES IS ONE VERY LONG RACE FOR "SUPREMACY"
Nature not being alive, or even existing as a physical whole, means that there is nothing to make the races/sexes equal on purpose. Things evolve, devolve, stagnate, or go extinct - naturally and randomly. Creatures, plants and humans evolve, devolve, stagnate and/or disappear. Leftists conveniently use Darwin when it suits them, but completely ignore him when he gets in their way. (They do this with all scientific discoveries, with all the basic laws of biology and other sciences.) Evolution never results in equality (except among the lowest forms of species, such as worms), because in many ways life on Earth is like a very lengthy race. Even a short sprint never ends with all the runners crossing the line at the exact same time. This never happens, let alone in marathons. (No pun intended: races and races.)
All races and ethnicities being equal would mean exactly that, however, that in this ongoing evolutionary super-marathon, which lasted for at least tens of thousands of years, all of the race(r)s crossed the finish line at the exact same time.
Preposterous! Only divine intervention can lead to that kind of perfectly uniform, neat, Hollywood-like happy ending – something Marxists vehemently oppose, as indeed they denounce all religions as bullshit. (Though they much more prefer to denounce Christianity than Islam, which is further proof of their extreme bias and lack of ideological consistency.)
Only a devoutly religious person can have a "logical" excuse for believing in such unlikely equality. Atheists do not have that privilege, however. Any atheist who subscribes to this fictional notion of "total equality" is a (closet) Marxist - hence a believer. Hence religious.
Hence liberals/Marxists contradict themselves: if you don't believe in intelligent design then how can you believe that all races crossed the finish-line at the exact same time? If there is no "grand plan" then why would races be equal? You can't have it both ways... Atheists by definition should not believe in racial equality: it contradicts their core beliefs. Yet many of them do just that, because they decide to make that illogical leap of faith.
Just like religious people do.
What irony.
BELIEVERS VS NON-BELIEVERS (CONTINUED)
I never get annoyed at a believer claiming “we are all equal”. I get annoyed at Marxists saying that, because they are grasping at divinic straws every time they utter such nonsense hence contradict themselves. They, who arrogantly claim that religious belief is idiotic and plebeian, are the ones whose entire belief system circles around an unspoken belief in a fair, motherly nature that is benign, that has a conscience, that has a purpose and that actually gives three shits about humans, wants to help us progress.
Marxism = religion: Utopia is just another substitute for heaven, “Das Kapital” is a substitute for the Bible, Marx/Lenin/Che are substitutes for Christ, god, and the disciples. The fanaticism and intolerance of Christian Crusaders and Antifa/SJW Crusaders is identical: both declare(d) all opposition as genocide-worthy, both crush free speech, both are aggressive, both are retarded, both have hidden agendas, and both base(d) their beliefs on non-provable, anti-scientific horseshit.
Believers are still wrong, of course, when they claim that equality exists (or can exist), but at least they have some logical basis (dubious as it may be) upon which to build a ridiculous ideology based on equality and fairness. If there were a god, he might, potentially, want to make everyone equal. But, as I mentioned, if such a being did exist it would have failed miserably implying that it is far from omnipotent (hence how can it be truly a god). Or it would imply that this God in fact does not want an equal world, or is at the very least indifferent about this subject or about living things in general. Many philosophers have bickered endlessly over whether god might be an involved creator or an indifferent don’t-give-a-f**k observer. That’s not what I want to discuss here though.
NO EQUALITY – ALL ACROSS THE BOARD
When one observes society – any society – there is a hierarchy of power, intelligence and ability all across the board. (Frcrssakes, even ants, bees and termites have social hierarchies!) Take any family: there is the most intelligent family member, the strongest, the dumbest and so on. So if there is no equality on a micro-social level why would there be any on a macro-cosmic level? Why would the races themselves be exempt from this all-encompassing non-equality that seems to rule the world? SJW cretins would have us believe that, somehow, this non-entity non-thinking thing we call nature accidentally made all races equal. Just like that! Like magic. Abracadabra, voila! Why would it though? The odds for such a wildly implausible accident are extremely slim. lottery-win-level slim. Besides, there is zero evidence to support this.
(In fact, racial studies have practically all been halted. Any attempts to re-ignite them brings immediate comparisons to Mengele, Himmler, and what-not. Race studies had given us many fascinating and useful discoveries, such as the "highly controversial" study that proved that the darker the skin the higher the sex drive - hence aggression too.
Or how about the 100% irrefutable finding that the skulls of certain Pacific islanders are much smaller and more fragile than the skulls of other islanders... Which doesn't mean that one is "better" than the other, just different. (Leftists hail diversity as their essence, yet they appear opposed to diversity in practice.)
Even a mere mention of any of these findings gets one branded a "hateful racist".
Btw, both these examples I got not from some "neo-Nazi white power" internet site: no, I never visited any of those. I got them from a Discovery Channel documentary that was shown over 15 years ago. You can bet your pink/black/yellow ass that this documentary had been deleted from Discovery's large film vault, a long time ago, never to be shown to the public again. Keep in mind that these findings are mild compared to all the other "shocking" scientific findings about the nature, development, and differences among the races.)
Do you hate me yet? Shaking in your boots, smashing your keyboard with yer tiny fists yet? Getting the urge to kill me?
Before you do, read on... You can always kill me later.
If nature or god (or whoever/whatever) wanted equality, then why would there be zero equality on a micro level? One person is born as an invalid tied to the bed, whereas another is born to become a good-looking alpha male that wins sports championships and has millions in the bank. This kind of inequality, which we find on an individual level, is enormous and self-evident. Why would there be such drastic inequality on the micro level – and yet supposedly when we average out all the members of a racial or ethnic group, somehow miraculously the average IQ is the same everywhere? Absolute idiocy. Mathematically, logically, biologically - equality is utter nonsense based on nothing but pure fantasy and Utopian optimism. A fairy-tale geared for Disney-bubble people.
This brings me to another key question: even if nature were alive and “wanted” to make us equal why would it make us physically different yet intellectually/mentally/psychologically identical? Climate, geology, flora, fauna, even political/historical events – all these factors played and still play a role in forming differences between cultures, ethnicities and races, differences that are as self-evident as the blueness of the sky. (Or would anyone dare deny that the average Chinese person is far less likely to become an NBA champ than the average black person? Why are there no Bolivian basketball champions?) Cultural Marxist retards would actually have us believe that these vast differences in environments (ranging from Finland to Zambia) would produce such obvious physical differences – yet not have any impact whatsoever on how we develop emotionally, intellectually? Asinine. This is the Donald Duck approach to thought, to philosophy and to science, that is to say a childish, convenient over-simplification of the world we live in.
“All people are equal! Hooray! Case closed! Now we kumbaya!”
A 5 year-old thinks this way, not a rational adult. Yet, perhaps as many as 80% of adults in the West share this view.
(Certainly this seems to be the case in all those “enlightened” EU member-states, or even more specifically in Scandinavian countries where political/social naivety has reached its absolute peak in recent years.) They’d been brainwashed through their culture (TV, movies, music), their schools, left-wing politicians and others to adopt this fallacious malarkey as an unquestionable cosmic truth that may not ever be questioned.
You dare question it?
“Racist!!!”
But why though? Everything needs to be questioned, put to the test, certainly everything that seems to be very iffy upon observation. Placing seals on certain taboo topics, hence banning them from further discussion/analysis, is what the medieval Roman Catholic Church used to be known for, and yet liberals, who considers themselves the polar opposites of fanatically religious crusaders, are behaving in the exact same way. Only idiots cling on to “infallible truths”, refusing to at least re-assess them once in a while. Racial/ethnic/gender equality is more than just iffy: it begs to be re-evaluated and then unceremoniously dumped into the “shit theories” bin forever.
Facing our racial differences with honesty and courage would serve us better in the long run, anyway. By getting acquainted with the facts we are much more likely to solve race-based problems. By ignoring our differences we merely sweep uncomfortable truths under the carpet, pretending they don't exist. But no problem has ever been solved through lies and ignorance.
THE ESSENCE OF S.J.W. HYPER-SENSITIVITY
The reason why the Anti-Racism Witch-Hunt Brigade reacts so violently and psychotically to even the smallest challenge of their political beliefs is very simple: their convictions have no scientific legs to stand on. They have zero factual arguments. People with no arguments react angrily when asked to provide proof for their stance. Their beliefs are religious, not scientific – hence the instant aggression: they feel cornered when pressed to provide evidence, and a cornered animal nearly always reacts aggressively. Fight or flight. This is why a religious person is far more likely to get upset by someone challenging the existence of god than a non-religious scientist is when being “challenged” by a Flat Earth Society moron on the issue of Earth’s shape. Rabid religious belief has no foundation to stand on; it is hence insecure and insecurity breeds aggression, intolerance and violence.
This is a very simplistic, general explanation why SJWs are so cuckoo. Aside from the fact that emotionally unstable morons are far more easily drawn into political extremism than rational, stable, balanced individuals. (Far Left and Far Right movements have a vastly disproportionate number of insane people in their ranks.) This is exactly why SJW activists look and behave like escaped asylum inmates. They are not "passionate do-gooders"; they are insane, aggressive, often narcissistic cretins.
RUNNING AWAY FROM REALITY
The belief that all races are intellectually equal is a flawed, deeply religious, fanatical, non-scientific belief based on nothing but optimistic Disney-bubble hope that “yes, we can all get along and sing happy songs”. This is delusional. (I mean, we can still all get along and sing happy songs, but it’s delusional to expect us to cheerfully sing shitty happy songs all the time and to believe in equality.) Reality is harsh and ugly, it isn’t Disney-like.
Personally, I would prefer to believe in racial harmony and racial equality (and I used to until roughly 6-7 years ago – which proves that even an intellectual giant such as I had been successfully brainwashed for a long period), but I can’t anymore because the evidence against it is so abundant and so profoundly obvious. I hadn't shifted my views on race on purpose: it gradually crept up on me, with plenty of resistance on my part. I didn't want to believe in this inequality, for a long time, hence ignored many indications that I was wrong. (Which is atypical for me.)
Guess what: if you're reacting angrily to this text, in all likelihood it is because you know I'm right. Your denial is pushing you toward hating the messenger, because the message scares you. It scares you for a variety of reasons, one of which is that you're far too lazy to re-evaluate an entire belief system you'd obediently accepted as 100% truth for many years. Plus, most people's egos don't allow themselves to admit they were wrong on a crucial issue.
The understandable but basically irrational expectation that when we compare the IQs of nations, there must be a straight line all across the board, the exact same levels of (in)competence in all fields is ultra-naïve, borne out of the most idealistic optimism, not out of a sincere desire for truth… What self-respecting "intellectual" can possibly believe in such drivel? Yet, most so-called intellectuals in the West today are absolutely certain about this, or at least they try to convince themselves and others to this effect. We've got the top-tier of the intellectual elites insisting on equality!
Why? Because denial isn't just common among the "proletariat", it is completely normal among the most brilliant minds as well. They are not robots, they are human too, hence not entirely rational. (Not to mention they can be bribed if corrupt.)
Actually, many of them don’t believe in equality at all or are plagued with doubts, but willingly play along because it helps their careers, and also because it is far easier to go with the flow than to swim against it. They are perfectly well aware that whoever dares touch any of these taboo issues in a way that isn’t PC risks being condemned and humiliated instantly by their peers - and the general public which is programmed to virtue-signal at every opportunity: no trial, no discussion - an immediate guilty verdict. The sentence: “racist!”
The purveyors of the Frankfurt School have successfully instilled terror and fear into us, including those who should know better i.e. intellectuals i.e. cowardly intellectuals i.e. sycophantic pseudo-intellectuals who have failed society by meekly accepting all of these lies. (Climate change being a great example of how the scientific elites failed society, by allowing to be politically bullied to submission.)
MANY "ANTI-RACISTS" ARE FULL OF IT
Which brings me to how real this belief really is, how honest these self-declared “non-racists” truly are. On the surface it would appear that 99% of all Germans are now non-racist peace-loving equal-opportunity zombies. But that’s if you interrogate them publicly. Anonymously? A whole other ball-game. We all know people in our lives who are racists yet would never come public about it. I’ve heard numerous racist remarks from people I’ve known and met, and not just from Serbs.
Do I believe that Germans had miraculously transformed themselves from a nation of genocidal Lebensraum racists to modest do-gooder pacifists within just a few decades? Of course not. That’s very naïve. Only a left-winger who has infinite belief in the god-like transformative power of humans can actually believe in such a laughably speedy evolutionary model. Marx actually believed (or claimed to at least) that we can evolve at great speeds, artificially, with change brought about on our own, without nature’s help: I do not believe in this crap though, and both history and biology are on my side. He only had hallucinatory optimism on his.
RACISM BEING SUCH A COMMON OCCURRENCE SHOULD MAKE YOU WONDER...
Racism is a natural occurrence, not an aberration or a mental anomaly, nor was it "invented by the Right". It is not “old-fashioned” either. It appears to be innate. It is natural to be racist, as much as this may work against us, and as "immoral" and ugly as it may be. There are perhaps far more racists in the world as a whole than there are non-racists. It is natural to hate, or at least dislike, whether it be your former friend, your teacher, your ex, or even someone of a different appearance.
However, it is also natural to control our “negative” urges. After all, it is also natural to want to kill other humans, for petty reasons often. It is natural for some men (especially during extreme conditions such as war and chaos) to want to rape women. It is natural (for some smelly sewer-hugging exhibitionist perverts) to want to shit in front of other people. (They were born that way, hence it is natural.) Just because we have an urge doesn’t mean we need to act on it, even if it is natural. That’s the behavior of infants and animals, not adults.
(Generally speaking, the word “natural” seems to be vastly misunderstood hence abused. Just because food is “naturally” processed doesn’t mean it’s good for you. Just because a birth can be “natural” doesn’t mean a woman should risk having it. There are plenty of other examples. It is “natural” to piss too, but that doesn’t mean you should do it anywhere. This word has far too positive a connotation. To me, natural is a word that has very negative connotations, not just positive, but I seem to be in the minority on this.)
ARE WHITE PEOPLE REALLY THE MOST RACIST?
However, it is important to recognize that racism isn’t a sign of mental illness, or evil, or sociopathy, as some would have us believe. Though this largely depends on the extent of the racism. Extreme hate brought on by racism is definitely a sign of severe mental degeneracy. Ironically, SJWs experience extreme hate brought on by their phony-baloney anti-racism (which is often faked, because many of them are narcissists hence immune to empathy). Racism is also not exclusive to one race. If anything, I’ve noticed more racist behavior among members of Third World countries than among “enlightened” white Europeans, especially clueless millennials. American liberals have actually successfully popularized the baffling notion that blacks are incapable of racism! Blacks have a deep inferiority complex (I am not making this up, it’s on Wikipedia) as a result of historical and evolutionary events that placed them behind other races in terms of achievement and riches, not to mention that “recent” slavery is mostly associated with them. Logically, how do you think people with an inferiority complex behave? They are hostile toward groups which they (unconsciously) perceive as superior. They are envious of them. (A topic also related to class-envy - which modern socialist populists build their careers on.)
In other words, if anything it must be generally black people who must be more racist than whites – and the recent spate of violent American protests only confirm this. The racial hatred is palpable; they are not looting because they hate "da poh-leece", they are looting because they want to punish white people as their suspected enslavers and alleged jailers. It is the masochist, deranged, mentally ill white Establishment that is not only allowing but perpetuating this myth of the “perpetual black victim”, much more so than blacks themselves. White Americans (more-or-less) control the States, hence they are the ones very intentionally creating martyrs out of black individuals (for example ones gunned down by cops) and blacks as a “minority” group. (In some states/cities blacks are not a minority, and in some places constitute the majority, a fact many prefer to ignore.) Hence the claim that white-on-black racism is the prevalent form of racism is stupid, to put it very mildly.
WHY BLACKS HAVE MORE REASON TO BE RACIST THAN WHITES
If one analyzes this issue sanely, rationally and calmly - without bias toward either racists or anti-racists - one can only reach only the following conclusions...
White people had owned black slaves for a very long period, whereas blacks never owned white slaves. Who should, logically, be more angry at whom: the oppressed at their oppressors, or the oppressors at the ones they oppressed?
Obviously, the oppressed i.e. the enslaved have far bigger motives to hate. Why would a slave owner hate blacks with fierce passion? A slave owner used slaves to do his work, so why would he hate them? If anything, he was happy to have them around to help. Some slave owners did hate their slaves, but far from all of them because slaves were useful to them. It is also possible that some slaves did not hate their owners because they weren't treated too badly.
Now comes the question of physical punishment. Depending on the owner, slaves were sometimes brutally punished, even for small infractions. But does that prove that these particular slave owners hated their slaves? Absolutely not. Parents punish their children, sometimes with very mild use of violence: does that mean they hate their children? No! Even a violent parent doesn't necessarily hate their kids. A slave owner used punishment because he thought that was the best way to control them, to keep them in line, not out of hatred. Punishment was often carried out for practical not emotional reasons. Many white people were publicly punished too: does this mean that the judges hated them? No. Do prison guards who lead a killer to the electrical chair necessarily hate the killer? No. Does the judge who hands out a 10-year sentence to a drug-dealer necessarily hate the drug-dealer? No.
So let's not confuse punishment with hatred. Let's be rational instead.
Slaves, on the other hand, after being punished, must have hated their owners passionately - and justifiably. Just as kids (briefly) hate their parents after a punishment. Not the same, but similar. Whoever exercises the power has less reason to hate than the person at the receiving end.
Hence, using this very obvious logic, blacks today should be more racist than white people. And they are, not least of all because liberals egg them on to hate whites.
Why do white liberals push the bullshit narrative that whites are bigger racists?
Because their agenda is to always portray and define blacks as completely innocent victims devoid of vices, while portraying whites as the perpetual guilty party in race-relations.
Liberals want to have it both ways: "blacks were mistreated for centuries by whites - yet we believe that whites are the bigger racists and more hateful". An extremely illogical, bizarre argument.
Why are white liberals siding with blacks 100%? Why the extreme bias in favour of blacks?
This extreme bias has nothing to do with the liberal excuse that "blacks had been oppressed long enough so they should now be protected more": that is a blatant lie.
It is an obvious lie because of the extreme bias, and it's an obvious lie because liberals couldn't care less about black rights.
The real reason liberals side with blacks against whites on every issue is because white liberals (especially the ones I won't mention here) are dishonest manipulators with a clear agenda: divide and conquer. It is the liberals' intention to make blacks hate whites even more by egging them on to blame whites for everything. By the same token, by favourizing blacks liberals aim to make whites hate blacks more - out of resentment because blacks get preferential treatment from the liberal media.
This is exactly what is happening. Liberal propaganda results in increased racism from both sides: blacks feel far too entitled by all this liberal encouragement so they hate whites more, and whites feel discriminated against hence they start resenting blacks more. What an ingenious, devious strategy! "Please, let's start a race war if we can!"
Divide and conquer. That's all it is. Liberals do the same with gender relations: they completely side with women, and blame men for everything. This leads to women feeling entitled hence resentful toward men, while men feel discriminated against and end up hating women more. It is the exact same strategy used to pit blacks and whites against each other.
Why do liberals pit women against men, blacks against whites, transgenders and gays against straight people?
Because they care so much about minorities? Absolutely not. Don't believe this naive nonsense for a second. Liberal elites merely misuse gender and race issues to their own advantage, to create a hostile environment that suits them.
Why though?
Because they want to destabilize the success of capitalist democracy, a century-old obsession of theirs. By destroying society from within - using divide and conquer tactics - liberals are attempting to lead America into an Orwellian Age in which corporate interests can dictate life in a new totalitarian system based on Marxist ideology. The wealthiest elites - despite behaving like capitalists - are in cahoots with neo-Marxist liberals, they are all in it together. (China already practices capitalist Marxism, so it is not completely new, and why the lines between Left and Right are becoming blurred everywhere.) This also explains why they are intentionally dumbing-down the populace with slut culture, awful music, ugly art, idiotic movies and cretinous, degenerate morals. A nation of idiots is much easier to control and exploit.
ALL THAT LIBERALS EVER WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS RACISM – AND YET THEY ACTUALLY DON'T REALLY WANT TO
FBI statistics show that almost no black women get assaulted and raped by white men, whereas the number of white women being raped by black men runs in the tens of thousands - annually. The fact that this kind of revealing non-PC fact is banned from being reported/discussed in the mainstream American media is further proof that Marxists completely control the public debates, allowing only what they deem acceptable as part of those quasi-debates. There is no more honest dialog on the subject of race – whatsoever, just as there is no honest, real debate on Climate Change or illegal immigration. This is very ironic considering racism is all leftists ever talk about!
That’s because leftists don’t want to analyze the issue of racism, they just want to bombard you with repetitious, hateful, anti-white nonsense. So-called “public discussions on race” are limited to the recycling of established “truths”, i.e. reduced to trite virtue-signaling sloganeering; they are completely devoid of new approaches to the subject, devoid of honesty, a frank hence constructive discussion. Liberals aren’t interested in debates on racism, only in cheesy propaganda.
A proper debate goes both ways, and should – logically – include racists in their panels. (Can we have a discussion on capitalism with just pro-capitalists or just anti-capitalists? Of course not. We need to hear both sides.) But there has been no real debate on racism in many years because nothing of relevance is allowed into these “debates”. As a result, right-wing extremism is on the rise. If this kind of one-sided nonsense continues, we shall have a full-blown “Race War” in a few decades, or to be more specific civil wars based mainly on the unresolved issues of race relations - and a result of the destruction of democracy. (No political issue ever got resolved by throwing facts under the carpet.)
Whoever laughs at this suggestion/prediction, you might want to consider how many Jews scoffed at the idea of leaving Germany/Austria/Poland in the 30s – then suddenly found themselves in Hell just a little later, wishing they’d heeded the early red flags. Never underestimate how extreme things can get, and how rapidly. It's excessive optimism you should beware of.
LIBERAL OBSESSION WITH ANTI-RACISM IS DEEPLY SUSPICIOUS: THE HIDDEN AGENDA
Why does the Left promote this Utopian notion of total equality? Why do most westerners want to believe in this fairy-tale? Different questions, several reasons, some of which I discussed earlier.
Most (decent) people want to believe in equality because not believing in it would crush their worldviews, because not believing in it would raise some serious questions and would require many “essential” books to be re-written, would cause many basic tenets to have to be re-assessed. In short: the realization and acceptance that races are not all equally intelligent would cause a cultural, social and political earthquake of a 10.0 magnitude. It would bring numerous new (non-solvable) problems with it, not least of all the potential for new wars, conflicts, new terrorist organizations, for the Far Right to grow in popularity and power. It would cause havoc.
On a personal level, declaring yourself a non-believer in equality i.e. “a racist” you’d lose some friends from different racial or ethnic groups, you'd get stigmatized for being "intolerant" and what-not. So learn to distinguish between real racists (the hateful kind) and people who simply refuse to believe in equality (like your not-so-humble narrator).
In other words, there are many good (and bad) reasons to keep believing in equality, hence most people are comfortable with keeping the status quo. It’s cozier that way, much safer, at least in the short term. Don’t rock the boat, it might sink. (Well, it’s sinking anyway.) Denial is the security blanket of every single person on this planet.
HOW THE ANTI-RACISM WITCH-HUNT CAMPAIGN ACTUALLY HELPS CREATE MORE RACISTS
I'd already touched on this subject, when I explained how and why liberals pit blacks and whites against each other.
The Far Right’s recent growth is a direct result of the oppressive nature of political correctness. People, accustomed to free speech for decades, don’t like being suddenly bullied and told what to think – in a rather Orwellian manner - and they certainly don’t like having (illegal) immigrants treated or portrayed the same or even better than themselves, or as victims of the white middle-class. Without Cultural Marxism there would be no Far Right resurgence in Europe, I am convinced of this. There would be no Orban, no Le Pen, none of these sociopaths (some of them "reformed" communists) would be a factor in elections. The genocidal midget Putin would have far less support in the West; he appeals to all those who have lost hope in western ideology and its narrow-band Orwellian political scene.
Western democracy is all but dead; it has crushed free discourse about essential topics such as race, gender, immigrants and Islam, hence voters who demand these issues to be discussed and resolved "have no choice" but to turn to extreme fringe groups – simply because nobody in “mainstream politics” is willing to listen to their concerns. Instead of listening, they dismiss these people as “racist idiots”, which is not only largely false and unfair but irresponsible. By banning “racists” from politics you only make them angrier and more dangerous in the long run. Their numbers grow. But isn’t that what the Far Left wants? Chaos. They want instability, civil wars, economic strife: these are all precursors to a real or imagined Red Revolution. This isn’t some lame far-fetched conspiracy, it is fact. Or did 1917 never happen?
So is racial equality a lie that is being maintained/propagated on purpose to keep the status quo? Yes, but that’s not the only reason this equality agenda is pushed. The main reason the Left pushes it is to keep the Right subdued and silent. In the modern West, leftist ideology has been dominant since approximately the 80s/90s, perhaps even earlier. Sure, many right-wing regimes had been in power, still are, but the Right was forced to shift to the Left by a substantial margin.
THE TAMING OF THE RIGHT
In Merkel’s Germany the parliament essentially consists of parties that range from the Far Left to the center. There is no real Right anymore, certainly not in any relevant numbers; even Merkel’s own party had shifted from center-right all the way to the Left, and they did it in order to maintain power, to stay relevant and electable in a changing world. In some ways Merkel is the “new Hitler”, a kind of “more positive, optimistic, non-genocidal side of Hitler”, a far more subtle hence more dangerous version of her ancestor. Hitler started doing his damage immediately, whereas the damage caused by the likes of Merkel will only fully reveal itself in several decades, when it might be too late. Currently, Germany is essentially ruled by a “left-wing democracy”, as I call it. A precursor to a Marxist dictatorship. Take a closer look at Germany’s media landscape and popular culture, and you will find that freedom of speech is dead there. Germans have gone from one extreme to the other, in less than 70 years, proving once again that their role in Europe is, was and always will be destructive.
In order not to be decried as “fascist pigs” the Right were forced to abandon casting doubts on racial/sexual/gender equality, which means that many issues that require the understanding that there are indeed sexual/racial differences cannot be and may not be discussed publicly – hence cannot be resolved because no political or social issue has ever been resolved by ignoring reality.
The Right has had its balls cut off, and its brains amputated, and I intentionally use that term instead of lobotomized. There is no longer a right-wing in mainstream politics hence we are already in a Marxist dystopia with one foot. When the other foot will join it, is anyone's guess, but it won't happen in the distant future...
HOW IGNORING RACIAL REALITIES LEADS TO FALSE CONCLUSIONS HENCE FAILED POLICIES
For example, because America’s black kids continually score lower on SAT tests, we are programmed to always blame white “racism” and/or “bad testing” methods and/or lower income among black families for these results – as opposed to looking for the obvious explanations which could actually help deal with this issue in a constructive manner.
The lower income argument: do blacks have lower income because they are inherently less capable of carving out a successful existence in modern society, or due to all-round institutional racism? Left-wingers aren't willing to even entertain the former: by focusing only on the latter explanation they kill a debate at its root, declaring that racism is the culprit rather than race-related differences, without offering real, scientific proof. They always opt for the "it's racism" card. Is this an objective approach? Scientific? Rational?
No, no and no.
Leftist ideology is agenda-driven, never rational and logical.
Another example is the start of menstruation. Black American girls start ovulating, on average, up to a year earlier than their white counterparts. Liberals immediately pulled the Race Card.
Their bizarre logic:
"Blacks live in poverty, hence the discrepancy in biological/sexual development."
That's asinine, for several simple reasons:
1. You first have to prove that poverty leads to early menstruation. Liberals haven't done that.
2. You have to prove that there can even be a correlation between menstruation and poverty. It's not a given. Nothing is a given. Wild assumptions are non-scientific.
3. The starting menstrual age among all female racial demographics was becoming lower and lower in the western world, since after WW2, roughly. So, if anything, we could assume the opposite: that increased poverty in fact causes later menstruation.
4. Racial physical differences exist, there are numerous examples of them, listed not in Hitler's Mein Kampf but in medical journals and textbooks. Why skip this possibility?
Because Marxists believe that social influences/factors completely outweigh biological factors: this is at the core of socialism. (It hates, downplays and ignores nature and biology.) This is why they believe in accelerated evolution which explains their gullible belief in rapid social change - which explains their absurd goal of creating Utopia, a laughable Heaven-inspired-yet-atheistic construct. They are uber-optimists, anti-realists.
Which is yet more proof of the Left being anti-science, not pro-science. Denying the huge and defining influence of biology/genetics (i.e. nature) in human development is not only anti-scientific, it's just plain stupid.
The application of their hugely flawed equality principle leads to huge errors being committed in the realm of foreign affairs too.
For example, Arab democracy - a virtually non-existent phenomenon throughout human history. An oxymoron. Instead of studying closely why no Arab nation has had anything even remotely close to a functioning democracy (barring a very brief semi-success story in 60s Lebanon which was quickly crushed down by the usual terrorist activity), and instead of analyzing why the vast majority of Arabs are/were never interested in democracy, western "intellectuals" chose to apply the idiotic (un)written rule that all races and ethnic groups are the exact same, have the same interests, the same ideals - hence stupidly concluded that Arab countries can be democratized as well as any western ones, and want to be western-like. After all, we are all the same, right?
Wrong. Which is why the Arab Spring was such a joke from the very beginning. Arabs took out several dictators during this bizarre era - and replaced them with what? Chaos, civil wars, anarchy, even more violence, and new dictatorships. The Arab world has been additionally destabilized by this event, i.e. the revolutions had the opposite effect. Why? Because Arabs were never interested in freedom to begin with, at least not the kind of freedom we in the West consider to be freedom: they simply wanted to get rid of the old thieves in order to put new ones into power. Certainly Iraq should have provided an additional clue, years before the Arab revolutions; even a direct American presence was insufficient for the U.S. government to instill order, the rule of law i.e. democracy into Iraq post-Saddam. Instead, Iraq served as precursor to the Libyan scenario.
Arab mentality doesn't even seem to be a concept in various western-government meeting rooms. It is not a thing, it doesn't exist for them, which is why Western politicians will keep screwing up in the Middle East and North Africa...
The Arab Spring and Iraq (plus Afghanistan, which isn't Arab but might just as well be) are great examples how ignoring racial and ethnic differences can lead to not only not solving a problem but making it even worse. Because ignoring reality has never solved a problem.
In this way, by turning so many key topics into taboo issues within which the Left hold the monopoly on truth (i.e. on lies), the Left controls all political discourse by having their opponents, the feeble/castrated Right, constantly on the defensive – i.e. muzzled, unable to talk freely (for fear of being labeled “sexist/racist” which ends a political career with rapid speed these days). The Right has been silent for decades, essentially. The real Right, I mean. Not the Far Right, mind you. All we have is the castrated quasi-Right of the Sarkozy type: this is what the Right has morphed into, a sort of meek centrism afraid to voice their real opinions. There is nobody anymore in mainstream politics to represent the will of right-wing voters: this huge gap is helping lead to Far Right extremism.
HOW AND WHY “GENERALIZING” BECAME A DIRTY WORD
Richard Lynn’s infamous studies about gender, race and intelligence of nations are based on a large number of surveys and scientific papers. Read up on his findings: they are awesome, confirming a lot of our politically-incorrect suspicions and intuitions, plus clarifying/answering many general questions, solving riddles that had been confusing us for decades. They deal with statistics based on a vast number of studies. Do you know what these kinds of studies do?
They generalize.
But we are no longer allowed to generalize. It’s become a filthy word, even considered a sign of stupidity. Yet, scientists generalize all the time. “Turtles in the Pacific ocean tend to be...”, “most trees in the Borneo are...”, “average-sized planets usually have an atmosphere composed of...” – to give you just a few banal examples. When you generalize you don’t define every single specimen of a group as being identical or having identical properties; instead, you take averages and trends i.e. make conclusions based on your numbers, stating what kind of properties/behaviour are expected from most specimens, not all of them. (Sometimes findings apply to 100% of all specimens/objects.)
Generalizing hence isn’t racist, or stupid, or a sign of primitivism or a lower education. Quite the opposite: it is a sign of intelligence. An intelligent person is able to observe their environment with a degree of reliability i.e. quality, then reach conclusions based on a large enough sample. Generalizations help us in a variety of ways, not least of all as a way to assess/avoid danger or to maximize the predictability of an outcome - on which we might rely to survive. Obviously, rushed generalizations based on fallacious or scant/lazy analysis are non-constructive and harmful; I am not defending those.
More specifically, when someone says that “most Swedish people are a lot more introvert than Italians”, who in their right mind would disagree? Does this statement mean that all Italians are more emotional than all Swedes? No! Does it mean that Italians are dumber for being more emotional? No! Nevertheless, this is precisely what is scoffed at in the age of pre-Orwellian political correctness. Any generalization based on a logical, rational, reliable observation regarding race, gender or ethnicity is treated as uncouth and potentially racist or chauvinist.
Which is is one of the ways to shut down Free Speech.
What the Left is telling us is basically this: “do not think - and avoid being rational, simply obey us and do as we say, do not question anything unless we tell you to question it – and even then we are the ones who provide all the answers so don’t even try reaching your own conclusions.”
The war on generalizations is a war on truth. It's a war on common sense, analysis, and science itself.
Women and men are defined by a host of physical, mental, behavioural, emotional and intellectual differences, all of which had been already proven by numerous scientific studies. (Many don’t even require a scientific method because they are so self-evident.) Yet, the radical feminist Left is gradually forcing us to deny them, even the most self-evident traits that differ between the sexes. They even try to invent new sexes, which is literally 100% anti-scientific, i.e. bullshit pseudo-science. The ultra-feminist Left is deranged, and I mean completely. In a healthy culture/society/civilization, such an extreme man-hating political group would be completely on the fringes of public life, the media and politics. But western society is currently so ill, so intellectually damaged, so castrated, so cucked out, that it allows extremist lunatics (lunachicks) to not only have a very loud voice, but to actually dominate all social/political debates.
ANTI-RACISM: THE NEW MASS HYSTERIA
The Left is a radical, extremist, cult-like, anti-scientific, aggressive, irrational, antisocial, delusional, self-righteous, fanatical bunch that – if we allow them to continue dominating culture and politics – will completely neutralize all of the progress painstakingly achieved by mankind over the last few centuries. The damage they’d already inflicted on western civilization is enormous and could take several generations to completely reverse.
There is however also a critical mass, a point of no return: if they continue like this for a few more decades the damage will be permanent or might take centuries to fix. The entire universe is based on the concept of entropy; it takes a lot more time to build/create something than it takes to destroy it. Educating the masses to be halfway rational (during the 19th and 20th centuries) took many generations, but getting them to abandon common sense can be achieved within just one generation. This is happening.
Sorry to burst that Disney Bubble you so cherish, all ye optimistic leftist sheep who may be reading this, but that's the reality. The reality is that reality is not on our side. Reality works against us on all fronts. Nature "hates" life: it seeks to destroy it at every opportunity. There are a million diseases and endless dangers and traps. Don't idealize nature and don't romanticize reality, or you will always remain trapped by left-wing lies and fallacies, and will hence always be confused and mislead. And you will be part of the problem, and part of the downfall.
HOW AND WHY THE WORD “PREJUDICE” BECAME MISUNDERSTOOD HENCE MISUSED
Any criticism, or even an innocent remark or observation about a race or an ethnic group, or just a good-natured joke, nowadays gets you cancelled, and showered with accusations of racism, generalizing - and not least of all prejudice. (Except, of course, if you say something negative/critical of white people: this is not only not condemned but actually condoned, applauded and encouraged.)
The word prejudice is exactly what it says: to pre-judge, to form an opinion based on insufficient information. An example of how the word prejudice is being misapplied by idiots: an American who'd lived in Turkey for many years describes the locals as intolerant and primitive - and gets called out for being "prejudiced". How is he pre-judging Turks though? He'd been there already, he had numerous acquaintances there, he got to know their culture. He may or may not be correct with his assessment, but he certainly isn't pre-judging. He has a right to an opinion, whether it's a daft one or not, whether you personally approve of it or not. Just as Turks have a right to negative opinions about Americans - without even having met any Americans or having been in America.
Why do selective-outrage liberals get outraged by this hypothetical American's view of Turks, yet when a Turk expresses his dislike for America this is somehow OK?
Because liberals hate America, as long as it is a capitalist democracy. They will stop hating it only when/if (more when than if) it becomes a totalitarian capitalist-Marxist tyranny. At that point any criticism of America will be punishable by death or imprisonment in labour camps. But until that happens, liberals quietly support all foreigners who express negative feelings toward America - because it reflects the feelings liberals have toward America: liberals hate America.
THE FLAG-WAVING AMERICAN
This is why liberals get so triggered by patriotism in America, by flag-waving Americans. They define all patriots in America as idiots, rednecks and racists. That's what liberals do: they lie and fabricate nonsense, promote hatred and dissent, and they do it by presenting everyone/everything in simplistic terms. Granted, your average person waving a flag may not be the brightest cookie always, but their flag-waving might just be a reaction to being bombarded by very obvious anti-American sentiment. White Americans waving flags are to the most part people sick and tired of being vilified by a deranged minority of political extremists.
All attempts to deny us the opinion to "prejudge" is an attack on free speech hence democracy. That is however precisely what liberals are doing. Liberals are not about liberty; in politics nomen est omen is usually not a suitable phrase. We can condemn calls for aggression against Turks, but we cannot condemn this man's right to his opinion, unless that opinion is a direct call for inflicting harm on Turks. There is a huge difference between disliking an ethnic group/race and wanting them dead: there are many shades of grey at play here, and yet liberals do not accept any shading because their idiotic ideology is all about clear-cut black-or-white divisions. With them it's either yes or no. Black or white. "With us or against us." No nuances allowed. No intelligent analyses allowed for complex issues.
Besides, if we are allowed positive commentary on races/ethnicities (which are encouraged) then it logically follows that we should be allowed negative remarks as well. No virtue-signaling feeble-minded douche had ever bitched about "positive prejudice", right? Hence negative opinions are just as valid. You can't have one without the other. You can't condone positive prejudice yet condemn negative prejudice, yet liberals do precisely that too.
HOW AND WHY "RACISM" BECAME A WORD DEVOID OF MEANING
This word has changed in use so much in recent years that nobody can agree on its meaning anymore. Hence my opinion, my definition of the word is as valid or invalid as any linguist’s.
Nowadays, in America at least, essentially 95% of all whites are considered to be racist. If you vote Republican you are racist (Hollywood has been telling us this for decades): this pretty much takes care of at least 50% of the population. If you say “black guy” instead of using the impractically overlong and fallacious term “African-American” you are automatically racist: that’s at least another 20-30%. (You get the picture.)
 |
You should never feel compelled by the New World Order Police to use the dumb and overlong politically-correct term "African-American" because:
1. not all black Americans stem directly from Africa
2. not all black people are indigenous to Africa
3. many Arabs also stem from Africa
4. most American blacks are partly white
5. the vast majority of U.S. blacks haven't even been to Africa nor can even name more than 2-3 African countries... |
White guilt, invented/promoted/pushed/justified/advertised by the Left, has subdued the white population into a state of constant defensiveness and self-doubt, throwing many gullible white SJW pushovers into a kind of bizarre “racial identity crisis”.
Similar to the "guilt of sinning" pushed by the Catholic Church, to control their own flock of sheep. Liberals just copy-pasted this strategy, but apply it only to a selected group: whites.
(All those jokes/references in popular culture vilifying/mocking white males – you have to be an imbecile not to have noticed them. There used to be the lesser-known phenomenon of the “self-loathing Jew”, but now we have the very popular “self-loathing brainwashed liberal white imbecile” phenomenon too. Needless to say, because it’s so obvious, hating or loving yourself according to which racial or ethnic group you were born into is sheer idiocy.)
These pitiful white Americans have been brainwashed into believing that the white race is the cause of most if not all misery in the modern world, a blatant fallacy which couldn’t be further from the truth. It is complete nonsense.
For example, slavery is portrayed as a purely white invention, despite the fact that there is no race that hadn’t been practicing slavery at some point in the past. Orientals had their own slaves, Arabs had slaves – and routinely sold black slaves to white Europeans. In fact, usually it was Arab merchants pillaging African villages in search of slaves to sell to Europeans.
Nor was slavery ever limited to just black people as its victims; white people were slaves too. Ever hear of the Roman Empire? Ever hear of landowners and their ultra-miserable serfs? But this is all thrown under the carpet, with left-wing liars re-writing history as they deem fit. White people, especially men, may not ever be portrayed as victims of anything or anybody. White males are the new witches in this modern witch-hunt.
“Go after the strongest link in a society if you want to crush it effectively and quickly”.
Dunno who said this but it’s true. (I said it. So there.)
This notion that whites are “responsible” for all problems is of course utter horseshit. It stems from the same liars/manipulators/degenerates who claim that capitalism is the root of all evil and that it should be replaced by hardcore socialism i.e. communism. It stems from the likes of Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, the Beatniks, liberals, hippies, Hollywood… that whole deranged, sociopath lot. Nearly all of the greatest inventors and scientists without whose help we would have less than half of the current global population are… you guessed it: white males. Without them we’d not have penicillin, we wouldn’t have advanced transportation, no computers, we’d still be in the Middle Ages, living like pigs in squalor - as humans of all races had done for thousands of years. But instead of gratitude white males now receive wholesale hate. This is an example of how powerful and influential the Frankfurt School is, and how well it’s achieved most of its objectives already. But since white males are the ones who had allowed this to happen, they have nobody to blame but themselves. In that sense, white males are the ultimately failures.
What does Darwin tell us happens to failures?
They eventually perish.
As they should. White people should disappear, because they'd proven themselves too stupid to survive (in the long run).
Of course, just by stating the obvious about white inventors/scientists makes me an obvious, easy target for the Anti-Racist Witch-Hunt Brigade to decry me as a hateful racist. (Talk about the pot and the kettle…) Because nowadays saying the truth has become racist, too. It won’t be long before speaking out the way I am now will be punishable by death or prison. These things devolve into depravity and oppression far more quickly than most people can possibly imagine… You think my predictions are impossible and far-fetched? Don’t come crying to me when it all starts crashing down on your gullible, empty, optimistic heads.
The Far Left, which rules nearly all of America’s culture and media now, has essentially stigmatized the majority population i.e. whites into regarding itself as vile, wicked, hateful – in short: racist. Ironically, by forcing the anti-white issue, the Frankfurt School psychos had revealed their own racism – toward whites. Who is behind the Frankfurt School? I believe you know...
This may indeed be a unique occurrence in human history, a first: I am not aware of any past civilization in which the majority was forced into self-loathing – not to mention into minority-worship – by a relatively small elite of manipulative sado-masochists. It is an astounding development which speaks highly negatively of: a) white people, b) “progress” and c) the naive belief that humanity is evolving rather than devolving.
A. If white people are this easily subdued into self-loathing, and so quickly after having become an evolutionary success story, then that means as a race they have failed. We all know what nature does with failures…? It eliminates them, usually. All those cultural, scientific, artistic, technological, philosophical achievements initiated by Caucasian Americans/Europeans? They mean nothing if they lead this rapidly to their own downfall. The naivety of white people is astounding, and it is the key to their ultimate failure, it is the door leading to their ultimate doom. This naivety is nowhere as pronounced as in Scandinavian countries, where the "whitest" people reside. Scandinavia is completely brainwashed.
B. It would appear that the progress whose fruits we’ve all enjoyed for roughly 50-100-150 years only served to make us weaker, both physically and mentally. There are more obese people than ever before (very mildly put), IQs are dropping, popular culture has never been more dumbed-down… All the signs are there that a cozy lifestyle may be fun in the short term but in the long run turns to highly self-destructive behaviour.
 |
| A scene from Wall-E. |
What’s the alternative? Going back to the caves? Of course not (unless you ask hippies and Marxists), so in fact mankind is in a lose-lose situation, an obvious fact that almost nobody is willing to even consider, let alone take seriously. Humankind’s innate optimism - ironically the same delusional self-deception that (as a coping mechanism) aids it in overcoming adversity - is the reason we are unable to face this fact. We cannot win, either way. More evidence that nature simply does not give a f**k. The naïve assumption that “there is always a way, a solution” is bullshit. Why would there be? Where is this written? Who says humankind must survive? Nature isn't interested in man's survival hence there is zero guarantee for it.
C. We are in fact devolving as a species. A whole other topic which I’ve only slightly touched upon here.
MINORITIES AND DIVERSITY: MORE BULLSHIT MYTHS DECONSTRUCTED
Minority worship really does exist. It never did in the entire history of the world, not before this “enlightened” age.
Why is rap music so intensely promoted by the Establishment, despite being unmusical, racist, sexist and promoting drugs, violence and stupidity? A stupid question, because the answer lies within the question itself! Precisely because it is degenerate and dumbed-down, “rap culture” is the obvious garbage-of-choice to promote as “artistic” and fashionable to the zombie masses. Cultural Marxists work that way: “keep ‘em dumb”. And dumber. Best achieved by giving them garbage.
But even more so, the reason is that rap is considered “black culture”. If whites had invented it, never would it have had such a huge impact on popular culture, not even close. We are intended not only to embrace this garbage – as great music – but to adopt its retarded street lingo as well. In this the liberal media had succeeded: many white kids “talk like blacks”, dress like them, act like them. This idiotic phenomenon can be found even in European countries, even in Serbia, though to a much lesser extent. There is a whole army of young white imbeciles who’ve adopted the “black way” as their own. Instilling white guilt into these clueless kids from a very young age certainly played a major role too in crushing their self-esteem and their brains.
Why is metal not promoted? Simple: because it is “white music”, because a lot of it is good or at least passable, and because it’s actual music performed by actual musicians. Why would Cultural Marxists want to promote hard work which is needed to master an instrument? Never in the history of the West has awful music reigned supreme in mainstream life over quality music. This is a first, and a very telling omen of things that await us…
The Left doesn’t give a rat’s ass about minorities, in truth. The Left conveniently ignores the plight of minorities in countries such as Turkey: they are NATO, they are Moslems – hence they get a pass, a Green Light to be anti-liberal. They are allowed to be racists, bigots, sexists, and to treat other religious and ethnic groups like garbage. (Try being openly Christian in Turkey: try if you dare. Try being a transgender in Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Syria: try if you dare. Try being openly atheist: you might be beheaded before you'd even properly started!)
Imagine a "primitive, backward" society such as the Turkish one in a western European country… Imagine if you can. They’d be stigmatized, they’d have economic sanctions lumped on them, they’d be vilified in the media, treated like dirt. The Left is highly selective of when and to whom to apply its ideology in practice.
Ditto women’s rights: should a white American so much as slap his wife he is immediately branded a violent psychopath – even if the wife slapped him first. But what about Arab countries that treat women like garbage, wholesale, and in far worse ways? They are forgiven because they are after all… Moslem. A protected species. Gay rights? Only applicable in the West, leftists don’t give a crap about gay rights elsewhere. (They made a fuss during the World Cup in Qatar, and in ways that were very embarrassing, but as soon as it was over, it was back to the usual.) Leftists don’t give a damn about gays, they merely use them in their social/political war on capitalism - and against the white people that created it and made it work. They don’t give a shit about blacks or women either. These are all demographics used as pawns in a destructive political game, a global game initiated by Cultural Marxists. The pawns are largely totally unaware that they are pawns, but perhaps some of them don’t even care, because why question the motives of your benefactors? They just enjoy the ride – at all of our expense. Even if it will destroy you in the long run, or your kids.
The Left has its protected species on the one hand, and its despised "pure-evil" enemies on the other. This is how they divide the world, into black and white (quite literally). (Funny this, considering they refuse to accept the "good and evil" divide.) They never apply the same set of moral codes everywhere though. It’s not about which injustice has been perpetrated but who perpetrated it. Moslems, blacks, women and gays get a free pass in many instances, whereas white males not only don’t get a free pass in anything, but lies are invented about them in order to make them the scapegoats for everything. A black man breaks a shop window in a race riot? Somehow this isn’t his fault, it’s the whitey’s fault.
“Honkeys be oppressing me!” he shouts as he smashes the window with a chair. The Left watch and applaud.
Liberals are psychopaths. Liberalism is a mental affliction.
The great big irony in all this is that by focusing so much on “protecting” minorities and certain races, liberals are inadvertently admitting that they consider those groups needy of protection hence inferior.
Who needs special protection usually? Children and endangered animal species. The rest can pretty much take care of themselves, and if they are unable to do so then it is natural to expect that they should perish – according to laws of nature. Because nature does not favour losers. Nature has no pity. But I forget… liberals only follow/advocate science when it suits their own agenda (which it rarely does). The fact is that if you treat blacks, for example, as a special group that needs a million laws and amendments to “guard their rights” such as Affirmative Action, “helping them get jobs” and so on, then you are basically saying that they are too stupid to fight for their place in modern civilization without a great amount of outside help. That is in itself highly racist. Yet hardly anybody seems to even notice this very obvious and huge irony.
Yes, liberals are the biggest racists in all of this.
The belief that a certain gender or ethnic group needs special laws to help them advance in society is a direct admittance - or at the very least an implication - that these groups are weak and incompetent hence inferior. Hence liberalism is not just a race-driven ideology but a racist ideology as well, which is extremely ironic and involves many layers of blatant hypocrisy along with it.
One of the most crass contradictions in liberal ideology are the incessant slogans calling for diversity – and yet a striving to turn multi-cultural western society into one large mixed race melting pot! They claim to love and support racial diversity, but this by definition can’t be true because they incessantly advertise/promote mixed-race marriages. Hypothetically, if you mixed all whites and all blacks (and that's the main combination they push for in movies and TV commercials), then eventually you won’t have either race! You will end up with ONE race instead of the previous two, which means less diversity, not more!
This blatant idiocy, to me, is definitive proof that a) liberalism is a moronic, self-contradictory, irrational ideology, and b) liberals are not interest in diversity but have the extermination of the white race as their primary goal, the race they’d declared a war against. Liberals are above all closet Marxists and as such their prime enemy is capitalist democracy – which was founded by and predominantly practiced by white people.
This is the core issue.
Any race agenda the Left has interest in is directly connected to political ideology first and foremost.
The push for diversity is a lie. Liberals do not tolerate either racial or political diversity. Left-wing extremists by definition hate any opposing opinions i.e. they are against diversity. What they do promote is mindless, obsequious uniformity. They hate the white race, and they don’t tolerate any (real) political opposition, which is proven by their clamping down on free speech (by setting PC traps that few people dare fall into) and the vicious hatred they reserve for all of their political opponents. Liberals are pathological liars, master manipulators, and as such are the single biggest threat to western civilization.
WHY LIBERALS ARE THE SAME AS NAZIS
When the Nazis tried to create a "master race", an idea based on utter bullshit i.e. almost zero science (with almost zero knowledge of Germany's own genetic make-up), they were trying to mold humanity into a certain racial ideal.
When liberals push for mixed marriages hence the extermination of all known races, they are also trying to mold humanity into a certain racial ideal.
There is no difference, basically. Both of these movements - the Nazis and the Kumbaya Benettons - use different approaches toward reaching their "perfect societies" (i.e. utopian hellholes), but they are essentially the same because they are intentionally trying to mold/purify/create a race of people. Even if you don't agree with this analogy, you cannot deny the fact that both the Nazi Far Right and the Modern Left are racially obsessed lunatics, hence both are by definition ultra-racists, the only difference being that one side (Nazis) openly talked of racial hatred while the other side (liberals/neo-Marxists) chooses to hide its racist hatreds behind a veil of totally fake pro-diversity agenda.
After all, the typical American die-hard liberal talks of white people with barely restrained hatred, using the term "white" as a cussword, only in a negative context. Just as Jews have their "Jewish anti-Semites", the Caucasians of America now have their own self-loathing white-guilt contingent: people successfully manipulated/brainwashed into believing that white people are a demonic race.
This has been achieved through decades-long cultural propaganda (Hollywood being the main culprit), brainwashing through Marxist staff at universities, and a rewriting of history.
REVERSE RACISM & OTHER SIMILAR NONSENSE IN MODERN CULTURE – EXAMPLES:
There are many race-related double-standards in modern western culture, all of which are very revealing:
1. It is perfectly acceptable to use phrases such as “white trash”, but if somebody dared say “black trash” or similar they’d be literally hung on the nearest telephone poles.
2. It’s acceptable to use stereotypes regarding perceived white incompetence, such as a lack of ability to dance or… White Men Can’t Jump. Just imagine a movie called Black Men Don't Do Well In Maths: an impossibility. Or Black Men Can't Swim.
3. Jokes about Orientals are tolerated to a large extent, even to this day, whereas jokes about blacks aren’t. Why? Aren’t American Orientals a much smaller minority than “African-Americans” – hence in need of more “protection” rather than less?
The explanation to this is simple (yet elusive because nobody dares discuss this taboo subject openly): Orientals aren’t perceived as “endangered”, either politically or especially economically, hence they are exempt from “special protection”. Hence it is considered OK to make fun of them or to mock their racial characteristics in popular culture. Mocking is only reserved for those groups perceived as superior or "guilty" of victimizing others. (I.e. white people, the wealthy, and men – in particular white men, and especially wealthy white men.) Orientals are latently perceived as a highly successful and independent demographic hence they don't get the same treatment as black people do - which are latently perceived as a failed demographic: incompetent and non-independent.
In other words, if Orientals had been slaves brought over to the West and were economically at the bottom while blacks were as successful as Orientals, i.e. a reversal, then Orientals would have been chosen as the Left's "favourite victim race".
Of course, these are all “unwritten rules” which the vast majority of westerners have become so used to that they don’t even notice them. Such is their blissful ignorance.
4. Black slavery is constantly being pushed as a subject, but nobody seems to even acknowledge the fact that until the French Revolution 95% of the white population in Europe were essentially slaves, with pretty much zero rights and freedoms. For well over a thousand years most of Europe had practiced slavery over its own people. Landowners, kings and nobles had pretty much free reign to kill and loot their own subjects on a whim while these long-suffering serfs lived in abject poverty, and were treated literally like rats. Additionally, many European regions/lands/countries were continually under foreign rule (Roman, Ottoman, Habsburg, French rule - you name it) and their citizens were treated as slaves, or even worse. Serbs were essentially slaves under Ottoman rule for 300-400 years. Just an example from many.
Furthermore, African blacks themselves owned slaves. The only time I ever heard this mentioned anywhere was when Bill Maher, of all people, brought it up. Of course, the Maher of the 90s and the current Maher are fairly different: he is what I refer to as an "evolved liberal", i.e. a liberal who has come to realize certain idiocies within his own movement. He is one of the very few liberals who question the status quo, who is happy to discuss non-logic within the rank and file of the idiotic American Left.
5. Nobody is allowed to make movies anymore or publish comics about the savage side of American Indians. They must always be portrayed/romanticized as morally flawless wise men, as pacifists even.
African history is essentially a series of tribal wars, incessant butchering, racism, and extreme violence, yet this history is being re-written for retarded neo-Marxist American university courses called “Black History” which are basically fairy-tales rather than serious studies.
But why? There seem to be no problems in depicting white people from the 18th, 15th or 5th century as being brutal primitives – which they were - but for some reason nobody is allowed anymore to discuss the historical savagery and primitivism of “protected” ethnic groups and races. Up until relatively recently, the entire world was primitive, savage and non-democratic. So why portray blacks and American Indians as holier-than-thou victims? Why are they made out to be exceptions?
Simple: in order to vilify white culture, and the white race as a whole.
6. The Holocaust is all about the Jews. “6 million Jews perished in concentration camps”. We hear this over and over and over.
The fact is however that 50 million people died during WW2, hence 44 million non-Jews are somehow less relevant?
Besides, even if we focus only on concentration camps, these camps had numerous Slavs, gays, invalids, Gypsies and other ethnic and demographic groups. And yes, Germans too. And yet, all we ever hear about is how Jews were exterminated. They made up the bulk, sure, but they weren’t the only victims. This misleading propaganda is so extreme that many kids nowadays believe that concentration camps were only about Jews and nobody else. In Croatia alone, up to 300,000 Serbs were exterminated by the pro-Nazi Croat regime during WW2! Are there Hollywood movies about this? No. Is this part of popular culture/knowledge? Not in the slightest.
The Great Leap Forward, a genocide initiated by Mao Tze Dung in 1958, took around 45 million lives, in just four years. It's all documented - by Chinese Communists themselves, including details of how millions of peasants were tortured in ways that would make most people fall into catatonic shock if they read about it or witnessed footage of it.
Yet, the liberal western elites hide this from the public: there are no movies about it, and certainly almost no documentaries about it on the commercial "documentary" channels. Why? Because Socialism must not be brought into (even) more disrepute. Also because Western "intellectuals" don't give a damn about some dead Chinese peasants, this doesn't interest them. Even when there are 45 million of them... not to mention millions more after this genocide.
In fact, the Great Leap Forward is by far the biggest genocide in all of human history. And it's not even ancient but occurred very recently... Yet we only hear about Nazi atrocities, very rarely about Stalin's and almost never about Mao's.
Not only is this fallacious “Jews only” myth criminally disrespectful to all the others who went through that hell, but it reveals the extreme favouritism that Jews seem to get in the media, schools and popular culture – ever since WW2. They have been branded as victims – and victims only. Jews can only be victims, never perpetrators.
(Except in the Middle East, but liberals wisely choose to refer to those Jews as “Israelis” as to not appear prejudiced – because they are so blatantly pro-Palestinian. This bizarre and paradoxical pro-Jewish/pro-Arab/anti-Israeli approach is a fascinating example of liberal self-contradiction, confusion, and the tendency to bend their own "ideals" as they suit a situation. If Israel were a communist dictatorship, liberals would be singing an entirely different song, they'd be praising them in numerous movies and songs…)
Hence any criticism directed at these “victims” is automatically perceived as racist, Nazi-like, Fascist, and of course "anti-Semitic". The pro-Semitic bias in the increasingly tyrannical/bullying western media is incredibly lop-sided. People aren’t even allowed to discuss the fact that Hollywood or Wall Street or journalism are all areas essentially dominated by Jews. (Despite Jews making up only 5% of the U.S. population.) Merely stating this fact is regarded as clear-cut evidence of racism. The simple and factual statement that “Hollywood’s studio executives are nearly all Jews and a vastly disproportionate number of Jews are famous actors/directors/producers” is racist? No. It is merely a statement of an easily provable fact.
I have nothing against Jews, but I would like certain Jewish-related topics to be freely discussed in public, such as their dominance of the entertainment industry, or their use of the word “Goyim” which is blatantly racist, similar to “Gaijin” used by the Japanese. I.e. white people can’t say “spick”, “nigger” or “kike”, and yet “Goyim” is acceptable?
(In Serbia, we have a similar situation with Montenegrin people, who came/come to Belgrade in large numbers and take up all the top functions in companies and schools, basically run everything; they achieve this "minority monopoly" by helping each other in a sort of sect-like way, by hiring only "their own". This is an open secret in Serbia, an irrefutable fact, but it's never discussed publicly.)
7. “Black Lives Matter”. Anyone with a modicum of common sense must notice how blatantly and unacceptably racist this movement is. Why not “All Lives Matter Equally”? Because they don’t all matter equally – not to liberals anyway.
Likewise, the blatantly racist slogan “no more black-on-black violence.” What the hell is that all about?... How would the world react to “no more white-on-white violence”? If liberals weren’t such racist scum they’d come up with a more appropriate slogan such as “no more race-based violence” or simply “no more senseless violence”. The “Black Power” movement is one of the earliest examples of blatantly racist anti-white sentiment.
The anti-white sentiment is all over those three words: “black lives matter”. It is obvious and implied. What BLM amounts to is basically this: “blacks matter more than whites because they’ve been the victims of white oppression and white privilege for centuries, and still are”. If you actually agree with this profoundly fallacious statement, know that you are an imbecile and you need a lobotomy. Darwin hates you, he wants you gone.
8. It’s common that a well-educated, intelligent black man who “talks like a white person” is mocked or even ostracized by fellow blacks, even whites. If a black person chooses not to utilize what is allegedly the “lingo of his own race” he is considered a sycophant and a traitor to “his race”. Thereby pressure is exerted on him to revert back to the “ways of your own race”, to "keep it real" (which Chris Rock hilariously mocked as "keep it real dumb"). Reversely and hypocritically, the imitation of the lingo (and even body language) of black people by masses of white teen males is encouraged. This copycat behaviour does get mocked occasionally, but only when it becomes excessive i.e. verging on caricature, or when perpetrated by a kid who is perceived to be “extremely nerdy” hence “unworthy/undeserving” of becoming an “honorary black man” – because black men are secretly considered to be more macho than white men.
In other words, there is ever-so-subtle (i.e. unspoken) pressure exerted on young white kids to adopt “black culture”, thereby acknowledging it as superior to their own. Conversely, the Liberal Establishment is sending signals to black kids that any attempts to “speak properly” will be regarded as “sucking up to your white masters” i.e. the Establishment. It is small wonder that American civilization is so mentally ill… It is in shambles, on the verge of imploding.
9. American cinema and TV, commonly known as "Hollywood", have been casting black people in recent decades, especially black women, in the roles of courtroom judges - whenever the judge is fair, just and non-corrupt. But whenever a movie/TV judge is corrupt and unfair the role is given to a white man.
This kind of semi-subtle reverse-racist "re-education"/brainwashing of the masses is not only blatantly racist: it is patronizing toward blacks. If I were black I'd be greatly annoyed to have asshole white do-gooders try to kiss my ass, or "take care" of me by "defending my rights", implying that I am some helpless, dumb child who needs their help. Except that this kind of thing leads to even more racism. Taking sides in the "race debate" is always a racist decision.
10. "White silence is violence", a stereotypically hysterical and brainless SJW slogan, is an extreme example of:
a) anti-white racism
b) creating the false illusion that black people are victims only (not Orientals though: very few liberals are interested in them)
c) attempts to blackmail the (white) masses into behaving in a certain way.
In other words, failure to be loud (and obnoxious, like a true SJW psychopath) in "defending" blacks from both real and imaginary racists labels you automatically as a non-desirable, hence someone who must be racist or at the very least selfish and immoral. "So you'd better start shouting in the streets along with the rest of us good people, coz silence is violence!"
What about "black silence is violence"? Would that slogan last even 5 seconds in the public arena? Of course not. Because blacks are always "victims", and victims don't perpetrate either criminal or immoral acts. Reverse-racism in its purest form.
11. Recently, millennials had created a word for an "entitled, bitchy white woman". A karen. While I agree that white American women have recently gone off the deep end in their ultra-feminist, man-hating, righteous self-praise and narcissism, I do believe that there should be such a word for "entitled, bitchy black woman" as well. Don't such black women exist? They should, not least of all because being female and black, the liberals have been pumping their heads full of ideas of extreme entitlement and total innocence in all issues. Black men should come up with a term for them.
Sure they should. Why is there no word for "bitchy black female"? They don't exist? Laughable notion.
It doesn't exist because white people would be terrified of using it. They have been so thoroughly brainwashed to fear accusations of racism, so much that they voluntarily propagate this anti-white pro-black narrative. This narrative that promotes inequality, not equality.
While we're on the subject, we ought to also have a name for "angry Oriental bitch". Let's really be "all-inclusive", shall we?
There are numerous other examples of such extreme hypocrisy and double standards - examples of real racism that are accepted as normal and moral. This reverse racism is a despicable cultural/social movement founded on the principles of white guilt. Ironic, considering it is promoted by the same people who allegedly preach equality. It is proof that liberals aren’t after equality but after the destruction of capitalist democracy - which is itself a direct product/heritage of white European culture. Their goals are never the ones they claim to have; behind every public agenda there is always some hidden agenda. Everything they say must be interpreted by diligent reading between the lines.
Liberals are professional deceivers, and liberalism is the most dangerous political movement by far since National-Socialism and Communism. Racism will never be resolved by showing preference to certain racial/ethnic groups, that much is obvious.
Certainly racism will never be rooted out by dividing races along lines of victim and perpetrator, because the alleged victims start feeling increasingly entitled whereas the alleged perpetrators/racists start feeling increasingly resentful/hateful for being unfairly singled out for no valid reason.
WHAT AMERICAN BLACKS NEED TO KNOW (ABOUT SLAVERY & OTHER THINGS WHITE LIBERALS DON'T WANT THEM ACQUAINTED WITH)
Blacks in America have been lied to, deceived and manipulated by liberals for almost a century. Due to their naive trust of the "Democrats" they have devolved and they keep devolving. (Admittedly, under this recent one-Party rule nearly all ethnic/racial demographics have been devolving rapidly, in particular whites.) One of the reasons blacks harbour strong and mostly unjustifiable resentment toward whites is because of their total lack of understanding of history, especially that of Europe, which suits liberals perfectly. If Americans stink at geography, they really stink at history - which is far more dangerous. They are absolutely clueless, but that's mostly U.S. schools are run by liberals who routinely re-write history how it suits them - and it suits them to cause dissent among the races. Black Americans know about "some guy called Hitler who killed a bunch of Jews" and that's where their understanding of Europe's highly complex history begins and ends. Whoever doesn't have at least basic historical knowledge is bound to forever remain an ignorant fool, and one easily manipulated by devious (left-wing) politicians.
1. Blacks need to know that "white privilege" is a bullshit concept, invented by liberals to make blacks resent the white middle-class even more. As a result, blacks imagine whites as this uni-race (all the same) that always had a cozy life at the expense of others. Which is complete and utter nonsense. The majority of Europeans - from Britain all the way to Greece - had lived like rats not for centuries, but for millennia. White poverty was the norm since at least the Middle Ages, and not until roughly the early 20th century did white Europeans finally start emerging out of abject poverty (the kind that makes "ghetto life" seem like a picnic by comparison) in substantial numbers. American blacks have been fed lies by liberals that they are the only suffering race, that they're the biggest victims in all of human history. This fantasy-tale needs to stop. Blacks don't have a monopoly on suffering, far from it.
2. Slavery existed in Europe too - before blacks even appeared on the continent, and also after they'd appeared. Millions upon millions of European peasants were slaves, treated like dirt, living no better than the pigs they kept in sties - those lucky few that owned pigs. (Which they didn't really even own because their masters owned everything, including their slaves - the serfs.) Do American kids even learn about serfs in school? I really doubt it. They "study" a fictitious, cooked-up version of black history that might as well have been concocted by a Disney writer.
3. Slavery isn't a white thing. Not even close. Slavery existed in all recent eras, on all continents, and all races practiced it to some extent - and usually on their own race, their neighbours for example. Hence slavery was not based on racism but a perceived economic need, a way to boost an economy with very cheap labour. Blacks were routinely abducted from their villages by Arabs: that's right, those same Moslems whom many black Americans worship for some reason. Blacks themselves had enslaved other blacks in Africa, a continent that the vast majority of American blacks do not understand, at all. Example: black villages would fight each other and enslave the losing side. That's right: blacks owned black slaves. The Roman Empire had a huge slave trade "industry" in place, and these slaves were multi-ethnic, though mostly white.
4. White settlers weren't "racist genocidal scum who killed all the Indians" as bleedin'-heart liberal liars like to portray them. Most of history is a series of takeovers of territory. Every single race took over lands from their neighbors (or much further away) and killed the men while raping the women. This was so common that women developed a mentality of accepting copulation with the invaders in order to survive.
5. Whites aren't all the same, they vary greatly in terms of appearance, mentality and culture. Europe is a multi-ethnic, highly diverse continent. Many white cultures and governments had been and/or still are at odds with each other, had fought many extremely bloody wars and had committed genocide against each other.
6. Black Africans had committed genocide against blacks, as recently as the 20th century. Angola, Congo, you name it, and it's been done... The liberal media is very silent about this, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who'd read this entire text.
7. Democrats i.e. "liberals" were the racist Party in the 19th and even early 20th century. Republicans were the ones closer to black interests.
8. The liberal media pounces on every killing of an "innocent" black person by the police, because they want to exacerbate racial tensions, not because they are "concerned for our black minority". The liberal media never make a stink over a killing of an "innocent" white person by police, because they want you to believe it only happens to blacks.
9. The liberal elites want you to hate America. That's what this is all about. It is essential that you equate white Americans with the nation they'd created - so that you can support and help these liberal elites build a new Orwellian left-wing tyranny after they successfully crush the old order, capitalist democracy, which means freedom. (Or at least used to until it was destroyed by neo-Marxists impersonating "Democrats" i.e. "liberals".) Blacks and dumb white SJWs are pawns in a massive game which has at its end goal the control of all of the "rabble", total obliteration of individual rights and freedoms. Once the old order is replaced by the new one, blacks (as well as everyone else) will find themselves in a far weaker economic situation than before.
Whoever is too lazy to read about this, you can check out numerous YouTube clips about the real history of slavery. You will be amazed how little you knew.
AM I A RACIST?
According to all modern definitions of the word, i.e. all the lies, I am not just a racist but an uber-racist.
Do I have a problem with that?
Yes and no. Yes in the sense that I don’t consider myself a racist (the way I define the word) and no in the sense that I could give three shits how Marxists and other lower political life-forms refer to independent freethinkers such as me. I’ve been called racist and Fascist numerous times for no valid reasons whatsoever (as I am sure many of you have been too – even if you are Antifa retards because everyone is a potential "witch" now), but I find it amusing every time. I am not insulted by it, because I am not bothered by the laughable stigma that the Far Left had attached to this term several decades ago. The fact that I posted this text is proof of it.
These days, westerners have more fear of being called a racist than being attacked by a shark!
I am not exaggerating much… White-guilt Americans (and braindead EU-hugging Europeans) break out into a cold sweat whenever someone is on the verge of labeling them as a racist, especially publicly. Me? I couldn’t give a shit. Call me what you will. Opinions from amoeba-like degenerates have never bothered me, let alone randomly thrown insults utilized by politically-brainwashed zombies without an iota of a capacity for rational thought. Most people have an IQ lower than 105 (which in itself is a low IQ, at least in my opinion) and I’ve never taken such people seriously, in terms of their opinions, either about the world or meine kleine Wenigkeit. Sticks and stones can hurt me, but retards never will.
Call me a racist if you like. I couldn't. Care. Less.
In fact, whenever I notice a white Westerner (European or American) get fearful that they said something "wrong", something that might be construed as racist - I grin like an ape. I just find it so amusing to observe this in libtards, this total terror of letting something slip out, of being "found out", because clearly most of these people are closet racists, to varying degrees of course. They weigh every word carefully, they walk on egg-shells around blacks and other libtards, and I just find that both funny and absolutely pathetic. They end up embarrassing themselves by being patronizing to black people. This happens literally millions of times across America, every day.
The fearful patronizing of the black person: I must have witnessed it a thousand times already. These white patronizers are very often the same knuckleheads who post virtue-signaling garbage on their Twitter and Facebook accounts, where they take the moral high ground while trying to catch other latent libtarded racists in the act. It is indeed a comedy. A black comedy.
No, that isn't a racist pun. Black comedies exist and if you think I made an intentional pun then you're an utter fool.
Let me define the word racist as I see it.
A racist is someone who hates people of other skin colours simply because they look different. Does this describe me accurately? Not at all.
A racist is someone who does not want all people to be treated fairly in a court of law. Am I like this? Not in the slightest.
Is a racist someone who denies the existence of intellectual equality between nations and races?
Now we get to the crux! This is the tricky one. Yes, I deny that all races are intellectually and physically equal, and I deny that women are as intelligent as men. Does that make me a racist sexist pig? No, because I don’t hate either women or “other” races. Why would I? I also consider children intellectually inferior to myself: this doesn’t mean I hate kids. Cats are intellectually inferior to me yet I love them. A problematic analogy, admittedly... but a great analogy in the sense that it might trigger severe butthurt in the less intelligent readers of this text.
You see, I can’t help it if “nature” made the genders and races the way they are. Don’t shoot the messenger. I am the messenger of bad news, for sure, but if you can’t face reality then you shouldn’t be searching for truth in the first place. Certainly not on my blogs! If truth annoys you, and you find yourself twisting and bending facts in order to make truth/reality more Disney-like i.e. more cozy and fun and less stressful, by all means do so. I am not opposed to denial as a way of life. (As long as it doesn’t involve illegal substances, because I don’t want to be the one paying for your numerous bloody rehabs – or to be attacked by your sorry broke junkie ass in some dark street corner.) Be my guest - knock yourself out with rosy-cheeked ideals about races and women and fairy-tale equality. Believe in any kind of nonsense you want to. Just don’t come crying to me that I am your “enemy” because I shattered that convenient pink glass window through which you chose to view the world.
Put more simply: it's not my fault you're a brainwashed moron. Not my fault you are scared of the truth. Not my fault you preach tolerance yet try to deny me the freedom to express my opinions. But this is typical of Socialists: they have a burning hatred of diverging opinions, hence why so many socialist regimes had committed wholesale genocide in the last 100 years. Zero tolerance of opposition, the absolutely same attitude as Hitler's Nazis had.
Can a rational being, someone who considers themselves logical and intelligent, actually believe that all races are intellectually and physically completely equal, with a perfectly straight, horizontal line depicting the various average IQs on some Mickey Mouse race chart?
No.
Can you force yourself to believe in a truth so ugly that it might cause some (if not all) of your black (or other) friends to hate you?
You can force yourself, but you don’t have to. You can continue believing in fairy-tales that you’d been inundated with since childhood by the Frankfurt School propaganda machines. That is your choice. But don’t try to deny the rest of us the right to face reality in a way we see fit.
Left-wingers are supposedly all about diversity, but when it comes to political diversity they are about as liberal as Stalin’s balls. Anyone who doesn't fall in line with their dogma is immediately pegged as a racist chauvinist Islamophobic lunatic: this in itself should serve as a dire warning to anyone not yet lobotomized by cancel culture, a warning that we're dealing with devious control-freak psychopathy within the Leftist movement.
Most people are unable to fight an oncoming extremist political tsunami, such as Cultural Marxism undoubtedly is. Most people are too stupid to recognize when they’re being brainwashed/manipulated, many are simply too lazy to fight it, and yet others prefer to “go with the (left-wing) flow”.
An example of this is social media virtue-signaling. Idiots post PC texts or tweets, then get 100s of likes, as sort of non-physical “rewards” for being compliant, for being good obedient slaves. It is much easier to simply do something that gets you “rewarded” than to post a critical text about how disgusting reverse racism is, for example, getting you bile from hateful, bored SJWs. Praising SJWs for some daft show of support for some idiotic hypocritical activist will get you likes, whereas criticizing black racists might get you banned. So which will most people choose? It’s obvious. Especially when it comes to women: they are far more likely to virtue-signal. Practically every current female pop star or (Hollywood) actress is a narcissist virtue-signaling deviant.
GENDER INEQUALITY
“If I were surrounded by Communists, I’d be a Communist. If I were surrounded by Fascists, I’d probably be a Fascist”.
A quote from Suzanne Vega, something she said in an 80s interview.
This quote stuck with me, because it so perfectly summarizes the female psyche. Women are far more concerned with social acceptance than with ideology or logic. Hence they are perfect fodder for extremist politicians. Men like to follow the herd, but women love to follow the herd. Women are by nature more gullible, hence why they read the horoscope a lot more, why they believe in all sorts of unproven bullshit more readily than men, and why 80% of all church-goers in (western) Europe are women.
In Serbia during the 90s, during the wars, a poll showed that the wars had more support among women than men. Shocking, right? It doesn’t fit too well with the notorious, idiotic “if women ruled the world there’d be peace” myth, does it? Men are physically violent, women are emotionally aggressive: just one of the many differences between the genders - which feminists flat-out refuse to discuss, let alone ever acknowledge. Women, having far less testosterone (on average), have far less confidence than men (on average), and as a result are more easily manipulated because they are bigger pushovers, easier victims of sociopath populist politicians, more susceptible to hype and mass hysteria than men are. More susceptible to fads, more prone to adopting any beliefs that are current.
Testosterone creates confidence which translates into more defiance and rebellion, which in turn translates into a bigger potential for independent thought. This testosterone (and everything it entails) is why men are more natural leaders than women: it has nothing to do with “man-made” sexism, it is simply basic psychology based on proven biological facts. (Margaret Thatcher was awesome, but she was a unique exception. There are always exceptions, because humans aren't mass-produced in a factory.)
Cultural Marxism wants not only a race war, they want a gender divide, because, hey, “divide and conquer”, destroy the family unit. Annihilate the fabrics of society from within. The Left invented the minority tag for women. 50% constitutes a minority? What math school-book is this based on? So just as women have little sense for maths, liberals are numerically-challenged…
Women as perpetual victims, just as blacks. And Jews even. (Portraying Jews as victims is mostly limited to WW2 movies though, not the present. Anyone who actually believes that Jews are victims now must be retarded.)
So far gone is leftist feminism in its deluded, hallucinatory beliefs that many feminists are claiming that women aren’t even physically inferior to men i.e. not weaker. Already now, it is becoming dangerous to state the obvious fact that women are the physically weaker sex. You are "sexist" if you do so. You are a "chauvinist" even if you merely imply it. You can’t even ask "why are sports still divided by gender since women aren’t inferior?" Posing this question means you’re a "sexist chauvinist pig", probably racist too (because sexism = racism to those cretins), just as posing a critical question about illegal immigration will instantly get you labeled a racist.
Feminists contradict themselves in every way possible.
Just an example. Allegedly they want to get "rid of toxic masculinity" yet they are attempting this by trying to replace men - by becoming "toxically masculine" themselves. For example, brutal female superheroes in comics and movies are merely women used as substitutes for what men do: using machismo and violence to solve certain issues. It is ridiculous to claim that masculinity is "toxic" - but at the same time to push an agenda for women to behave the same way! It is preposterous logic only moronic women can fall for.
 |
Wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
Feminists go ga-ga over female UFC fighters and all such examples of women impersonating "toxic men" - while blissfully unaware of the blatant stupidity of appropriating this supposedly "toxic masculinity" for themselves. In other words, when men - who were bestowed this "toxic masculinity" by nature itself - act this way they are being condemned as vile and awful, yet when women (who were bestowed femininity by nature) act like "toxic males" then that is not only acceptable by condoned.
Feminist logic in its full inglory. Total hypocrites, and totally brazen denial of male-female roles assigned to us not by men, but by nature itself.
Or do feminists ever complain/moan/bitch about "toxic masculinity" in the animal kingdom? They never do.
But who knows, perhaps one day when feminists are done castrating all (Western) males, perhaps their next goal will be to "fix the animal kingdom, get rid of the toxic males" there too. Do not think that this is a far-fetched joke: they may just go after male tigers, male elephants, male giraffes next... Feminist lunacy is limitless, as indeed insanity itself has no limits. |
Ultra-feminists, just like white SJW morons and black people, are also pawns of the degenerate white liberal elites. But feminists are such pushovers, so easy to radicalize, that they never stop to actually analyze the whole picture, rationally, and from a biological/scientific perspective. They'd been trained to hate, and only hate.
But only to hate white men, not black men, which reveals the fundamental flaws and hypocrisy in their entire ideology. Not to mention their tolerance of Islamic chauvinism. They'd been trained (like dumb circus animals) to only object to Christian chauvinism. They are selective in their outrage, hence their abysmally idiotic "ideology" means nothing, it is just a ruse for the real agenda which isn't "liberation of women", but instead the destruction of capitalist democracy. It's a pity feminists themselves aren't even vaguely aware of this...
However, the gender issue requires its own space. Maybe some other time.
TOTAL EQUALITY: A COMMUNIST MYTH
The Nazis sought to deepen inequality, or at best were indifferent to it. Or, one could say, an increase in inequality automatically rises in a system of that nature. It was an ideology that exacerbated this issue.
Marxists/liberals (allegedly) seek total equality, a kind of ultra-naive Disney equality that exists only in fantasies and sci-fi literature. It is a Sisyphusian pursuit, a complete waste of time and energy - which inevitably causes far more damage than it helps anybody. What's worse, communist leaders are always hypocritical, without exception creating societies that have a powerful, extremely wealthy elite, while the rest of the population were reduced to chasing breadcrumbs in the wind, with zero political power i.e. no legal means by which to get rid of the scum. No communist society ever worked, to put it very mildly. In Yugoslavia (yet another failed socialist experiment) we had a saying: "It's true that in communism everyone is equal - we're all equally poor." (Except of course the Party functionaries, they enjoyed greet wealth.)
The striving for total equality is an uber-optimistically childish pursuit invented by fantasists and liars that we need to abandon, if we are to prosper - or at least to prevent a further decline into the abyss. We shouldn't not care about gender, racial and class equality at all, but we should be realistic about what is and what isn't achievable and what kinds of "equality" make sense. We should be moderate as opposed to fanatical. (Read my post on Moderation.)
What the neo-Marxist liberals in the West are doing right now is taking the idea of equality ad absurdum: they are taking it too literally, like true fanatics. It is like trying to solve the Career Aptitude Test by forcing the triangles into the square and round shapes and vice versa: you're basically trying to mold reality in a way that is dumb and unachievable. Women and men cannot have the exact same pay in all fields, just as economic equality for all races is complete nonsense, because the races are not copy-paste identical just as all of our cultures are different.
Class equality is to be treated separately from gender and racial equality, because is not only quite impossible - it is actually a very dangerous and harmful concept, because it would do away with incentive, ambition and hard work. In a fully classless society the lazy wold become even lazier and the hard-working and the intelligent would question their desire and need to work hard when they're getting the same rewards as the lazy, the unskilled and the incompetent. Socialism has been proven time and time again to destroy ambition and the incentive to work, to will to achieve. People are essentially selfish, as all animals are, and they work primarily for themselves and their family - not "for the community". If you take away the rewards for work, you take away the essential ingredients to have a successful community.
The sooner humans mature hence stop wasting their time and hopes on Mickey Mouse fantasies the sooner some problems will be resolved. The notion that all problems can be solved and that by definition all people/demographics can be (equally) happy and taken care of is idiotic, because it completely ignores the realities of our existence, of our place in nature.
Our place in nature isn't divine. Whoever believes that needs to work on curbing their narcissism... Stop equating mankind with yourself, and you might just start being more realistic about everything.
Everything I ever posted about socialists/SJWs/virtue-signaling-assholes defined in just 21 seconds:
I've changed the settings to allow for "anonymous" comments, so feel free to voice your opinions. Feel free to disagree, and more importantly to agree: no need to fear retribution from the rabid internet Antifa extermination squads! The "anonymous" option keeps you safe from their guillotines!
