Posts Tagged ‘diversity’
Tuesday, January 24th, 2017
On the Left, where people are presumed to be universally good because they have reason and therefore are reasonable, it is presumed that civilizations die from external forces like war, climate change or disease.
To the Right, however, the more realistic scenario is that humans destroy their own civilizations by insisting on ideas that are personally flattering to them, and that this creates insane leadership and social decay, both at the hands of the thronging mob and the oblivious bourgeoisie, who ignore anything but jobs and wealth and thus work to obliterate necessary social standards.
On the Bell Curve, the two problem areas are then the far-left of lower-IQ people and the area slightly above them, where people who are smart but not intelligent enough to understand that life changes in response to our actions or failure to take action, and therefore that they cannot alter society — taking something from it — without needing to also strengthen it by maintaining social order outside commerce.
The union of these two groups results in a cult of individualism which subverts leadership and destroys culture, creating decay that manifests in a cascade of symptoms, much as we observe in the fall of one of the grandest civilizations to walk this earth, the ancient Maya:
Archaeologists have long puzzled over what caused what is known as the Classic Maya collapse in the ninth century A.D., when many of the ancient civilization’s cities were abandoned. More recent investigations have revealed that the Maya also experienced an earlier collapse in the second century A.D.—now called the Preclassic collapse—that is even more poorly understood.
University of Arizona archaeologist Takeshi Inomata and his colleagues suggest in a new paper, to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that both collapses followed similar trajectories, with multiple waves of social instability, warfare and political crises leading to the rapid fall of many city centers.
…While more general chronologies might suggest that the Maya collapses occurred gradually, this new, more precise chronology indicates more complex patterns of political crises and recoveries leading up to each collapse.
The West is currently trying to decide whether it will extricate itself from a similar death spiral, sculpted from class warfare, diversity, equality, democracy and consumerism.
Monday, January 23rd, 2017
In 1965, Leftists and compliant RINOs shuffled through Congress a strategy for permanent Leftist rule: import the third world, who tend to vote Leftist, so that demographically, the Republican base would be replaced and Leftists would win all elections.
The citadel wall for Hart-Celler is Affirmative Action and related policies, which holds that if a minority person and a majority person are competing for the same position or resource, it goes to the minority person, otherwise the person previously controlling that resource can be sued and lose everything they have.
If Affirmative action (and related laws) die, then the Hart-Celler strategy fails, because the different ethnic groups will retreat from one another and create a “balkanized” or ethnically-separated nation, effectively reversing diversity as a policy.
The Left fears this outcome, and so warns us that loss of Affirmative Action would doom the Left:
Affirmative Action. In 2007, Chief Justice Roberts wrote a stunning opinion that was joined by three other justices in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, in which he said that the Constitution requires that government always act in a color-blind fashion and thus all forms of affirmative action are unconstitutional. The Court, 5–4, declared unconstitutional the ability of local school districts to consider race as one factor in assigning students to schools so as to achieve racial diversity. Roberts’s opinion was joined by Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Kennedy was the fifth vote to strike down the school districts’ use of race, but he did not go along with Roberts’s condemnation of all uses of race to benefit minorities, remedy past discrimination, and enhance diversity.
Most recently, on June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court, in Fisher v. University of Texas, upheld the ability of colleges and universities to engage in affirmative action to benefit minorities and enhance diversity. Roberts, Thomas, and Alito vehemently dissented. Replacing Scalia with a conservative Trump appointee provides a fourth vote for their position, but if Trump gets to replace Ginsburg, Breyer, or Kennedy, that will end affirmative action in the United States.
The way to beat Affirmative Action is through a law passed via Congress that explicitly denies the law or the one-sidedness of its interpretation. If Trump achieves this, the great Democrat demographic replacement plan fails, and America separates, paving the way for the question of whether minorities and a majority can coexist at all without destroying one another.
Monday, January 23rd, 2017
Human beings react to life much like a sapling being pushed back by an unwary hiker. They will bend until they are about to break and then, because they have nothing to lose, will become an equal and opposite force — but released in an instant — to what has pushed them down. The sapling will snap or snap back, and the hiker will go home bloodied.
Since The Enlightenment,™ the best minds of humanity have been spent trying to invent “hacks” — unorthodox improvisations — which will make the idea of government-by-equality work. Our first stab was democracy, but that proved unstable, so in 1789 the Americans came up with a brilliant document, the Constitution, which was designed through an extensive system of hooks and levers to limit the impulses of the herd that come with pure democracy, or “mob rule” as it is more accurately described.
People put great faith in each one of these hacks because they know, on some instinctual level, that Western Civilization is in decline and totally unstable. As a result, they are under constant stress which is (somewhat) alleviated by the illusion of stability. Since WWII, the prevailing doctrine has been what came out of the American civil war: we had to destroy democracy in order to save it, and instead must have a powerful government that enforces the “correct” ideology on all of us. That was kept in check until its competition, the Soviet Union, fell, and in the ensuing monopoly the American experiment truly went off the rails, taking Europe with it, ending up with a new USSR in the US/EU.
One of the cornerstones of this new empire is diversity, or the idea that equality extends beyond class to race, and therefore, that the correct ideology is to accept having people from many ethnic origins in the same society. Like most Leftist programs, this clashes with reality and so requires constant laws, arrests, censorship, lawsuits and ostracism lynchings in order to make it appear to work in the short-term at least.
The perceived necessity of diversity made it a type of superpower for government. Much as they once found the voters were afraid not to approve of any help destined for “the poor,” big governments now found that voters were afraid not to approve of anything that benefited diversity. And so, diversity crept into every aspect of our lives, following “civil rights” agendas where anyone who excluded a diverse person was assumed to be guilty and punished monetarily, which brought business on-line with the regime.
But in 2016, something extraordinary happened. People looked around and said, “We did everything the politicians told us to do, and even elected a black president. But this has made the diversity crisis — ‘race relations’ — worse, as if it only emboldened these diverse groups. They behave as if, in the private truths they keep to themselves, they believe they are our enemies. And in fact, it makes sense that they would want to conquer us, since that is the only way they are really going to feel victorious about having come here as hired help from failed civilizations.”
The sapling whips back.
The founding group of America — Western Europeans, also called WASPs — tend to be non-confrontational people until they are actually endangered. For them, it is easier than for most to simply work around impediments and then go on to do what they enjoy doing, which is being effective at work, play and invention. This is classic behavior of a high-IQ society.
But, now that diversity has revealed itself as exactly what all of the bad boys of history said it was — an invasion, a conquest and a genocide — American Western Europeans (AWEs) are striking back. Their first step is to put themselves in a defensive posture: buy guys, buy gold and canned goods, and get away from the problem:
It’s about how many white people have reacted to increasing exposure to nonwhite populations, who are following in their footsteps and pursuing the traditional American dream. The reaction is not always articulated or even intentional; in fact, most people say they want to live in a diverse and integrated community; they, too, have the dream that no one will be judged by the color of their skin.
But data shows that as minorities move into suburbs, white families are making small and personal decisions that add velocity to the momentum of discrimination. They are increasingly choosing to self-segregate into racially isolated communities — “hunkering down,” as Lichter likes to call it — and preserving a specific kind of dream.
…A growing number of people are worried about the country becoming majority minority, including one in three Trump supporters. And more than half of white Americans believe the country’s “way of life” needs to be protected against foreign influences.
These new white enclaves are different from the old type of white flight which saw people going to whitopias, or areas that were at least mostly white so that they could avoid the problems of diversity. The new flight is not from problems, but from diversity itself, because diversity savages trust and trust is essential for high IQ societies to function.
This is echoed by statements made by those who retreat to white enclaves:
“A country can have racism without racists.” Writing in an opinion piece for The Washington Post in 2009, Benjamin noted that racial discrimination isn’t necessarily as deliberate and intentional as it used to be. In Idaho and Georgia, for example, Benjamin found that many white people emigrate to these predominantly white communities not necessarily because they’re racist, but for “friendliness, comfort, security, safety—reasons that they implicitly associate to whiteness in itself.” But these qualities are subconsciously inseparable from race and class—thereby letting discrimination and segregation thrive “even in the absence of any person’s prejudice or ill will.”
The first inklings of changing white attitudes came during the early years of the Barack Obama presidency, when a petition to stop white genocide made the news, even in the big liberal papers:
“Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for EVERYBODY?” he writes. “White countries are being flooded with third world non-whites, and Whites are required by law to integrate with them so as to ‘assimilate,’ i.e. intermarry and be blended out of existence.”
He says that this is a violation of the United Nations Convention against genocide. Thus, he is petitioning President Obama to “end White Genocide in the United States, and to call for the end of White Genocide in Europe, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.”
And Albert ends with this. “Supporting White Genocide is not anti-racist. It’s anti-white!”
This means that white people no longer think of the threat of diversity as a threat from individual groups or individuals within those groups. If they did, they would have laughed off the white genocide petition instead of reading about it eagerly. Now they recognized that the threat is diversity itself, and that they will not be allowed to have whitopias; instead, they will be milked for tax money and then eliminated.
Here is where government understands nothing of the human mind. Diversity is strictly speaking not necessary; that is, if it went away, white people would resume doing the things they once did that are now served by a minority underclass, and costs would go up, but other costs — taxes, insurance, crime, riots — would go down and so things would equalize.
The problem for politicians with policies that are not strictly necessary is that people treat them as binaries. They either support them, or want them gone entirely. The politicians, smelling money and power, managed to sell diversity for many decades. But now that it has shown us its true nature, people want it gone. They are leaving it behind and have elected Donald Trump to prevent them from being obligated to it.
If Trump really wants to go down in history as the best American president, he will find a way to abolish “civil rights” style laws like affirmative action through a bill passed in Congress or an amendment to the Constitution. This way, his work cannot be undone when we have a few really good years and the voters go back to sleep and elect the next Leftist parasite.
Trump instead is taking a difficult path, probably moving indirectly to make immigration to the United States so uncertain and expensive that few will attempt it, while squeezing the illegals by going after those who hire them, thus strengthening his government with an infusion of fines. Currently his attempt is to reinforce the “proposition nation”, but add qualifiers that amount to being obstacles for most immigrants worldwide:
Trump espoused his worldview in remarkably few words. He is a vituperative critic of the post-Cold War international system. Where the architects of that system see it as a bulwark of stability and global prosperity, Trump sees it as diminishing the United States in favor of foreign countries and an international class of wealthy political and financial elites. Washington has been serving its own interests, he said, and not the people’s. That ends now. His America will turn inward, focusing on domestic stability, education, infrastructure, and jobs. The one exception will be the fight against Islamic terrorism, where Trump is prepared to join with autocracies in pursuit of common goals.
Trump forcefully rejected identity politics. Racial and ethnic identities, he said, are less important than our status as American citizens. “When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.” There are no hyphenated Americans in this worldview, only Americans and outsiders. And Americans are to be privileged over outsiders. It’s been said that American presidents are replaced by their opposites. What a contrast to Barack Obama’s second inaugural address, where he called for a “world without walls.”
As others have observed, this is dangerously close to JFK’s policy. We know Trump admires both JFK and Reagan, both of whom were moderates to a realistic person but are far-right to mob rule crazed egalitarians, but his spin on the JFK rule is to stop accepting lower-value immigrants. This defers the diversity problem, legally, but may have ripple effects by making an application for citizenship the opposite of a sure thing, encouraging would-be immigrants to look elsewhere. Watch Europe adopt similar rules in the coming months.
Trump is acting indirectly and it remains to be seen whether he will cuck or not. However, a rising tide of acknowledgement that diversity has failed — following the recognition in Samuel P. Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations And The Remaking Of World Order that after liberal democracy comes world nationalism — shows us that the people want this to be the first step, an indirect stab at removing diversity, because it is now becoming clear that coexistence between different groups is fatal:
When asked by Jamie Weinstein, senior editor and columnist for The Daily Caller, whether a Jew could be elected mayor of Ramallah in an independent Palestinian state, Areikat said, “after the experience of 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it will be in the best interests of the two peoples to be separated first.”
Areikat added that “Well, I personally still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated, and we can contemplate these issues in the future.”
The die is cast. Americans and Europeans want escape from diversity. This is not limited to opposing immigration; they want diversity to end, at least as a compulsory policy, and if the mood is consistent, as a policy at all. They want us to go back to the order before diversity, having recognized that we have been misled by feelings of guilt, but that any obligation we have to other groups lies in the past, not the future.
This was apparently even a few years ago, when the UK discussed its guilt-fetishism:
Mr Hague said he was not alive when the then prime minister Harold Macmillan made his famous “wind of change” speech in 1960 – acknowledging independence movements across Africa.
…”Britain in seen in a different light. We have to get out of this post-colonial guilt. Be confident in ourselves. The lessons we should take from the admitted need for austerity, saving money, is that we actually need to be more ambitious, not less.”
The UK, he suggested, should “just relax” about its role as an imperial power and the legacy of that period in its history, adding that “it is a long time ago, the retreat from empire”.
If history is any guide, the pendulum of Hegel has swung one way and then the other, and has settled in the middle. We tried colonialism, then we tried inverse colonialism by inviting everyone here, and neither contributed to our well-being, so it is time to try something new and yet time-proven, namely nationalism, the idea that each nation consists of one ethnic group only and that it belongs to whatever group founded that society.
Sunday, January 22nd, 2017
In the midst of an otherwise maudlin article about race and privilege, an African-descended writer discovers the joys of uniformity, which although admitted in a backhand way, speak favorably for the sanity of nationalism:
The crew of boys leaning against it and joshing each other were recognizable; different faces, similar stories. I was astonished at how safe the streets felt to me, once again one black body among many, no longer having to anticipate the many ways my presence might instill fear and how to offer some reassuring body language. Passing police cars were once again merely passing police cars. Jamaican police could be pretty brutal, but they didn’t notice me the way American police did. I could be invisible in Jamaica in a way I can’t be invisible in the United States.
Walking had returned to me a greater set of possibilities. And why walk, if not to create a new set of possibilities? Following serendipity, I added new routes to the mental maps I had made from constant walking in that city from childhood to young adulthood, traced variations on the old pathways. Serendipity, a mentor once told me, is a secular way of speaking of grace; it’s unearned favor. Seen theologically, then, walking is an act of faith. Walking is, after all, interrupted falling. We see, we listen, we speak, and we trust that each step we take won’t be our last, but will lead us into a richer understanding of the self and the world.
In Jamaica, I felt once again as if the only identity that mattered was my own, not the constricted one that others had constructed for me.
When among our own, identity is natural and evident. Even if the situation is less than ideal, the rules make sense and we can anticipate them. Under diversity, we are all kept in a cycle of distrust and uncertainty, which while it benefits government — which is strengthened as a result — creates existential misery in a population which over time, becomes a form of self-destruction.
The history of white people in America can be understood through this lens. Since its founding days, America has struggled with diversity, first of Amerinds and then of Africans, finally of the whole world coming through our doors. This has lessened social trust and forced white Americans into a custodial role where they serve longer and longer hours to subsidize and manage the rest.
An alternative view of this situation is that it shows a society which has lost purpose and so, is trying to make its citizens happy through increased wealth. Since that has failed, it is time for a different angle, starting with a sense of what is comfortable, natural and capable of bringing joy to our citizens. That cannot be found in diversity.
Saturday, January 21st, 2017
Let’s just skip the hagiography here and cut to the sordid chase. Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), Civil Rights Era Dominus et Deus, refuses to consider any president who doesn’t share both his politics and pigmentation as legitimate.
That is certainly the Good Congressman’s right. There is no anti-rectal orifice statue in the current United States Code. He can spew in accordance with his fundamental nature for as long as a sychophantic chap with a microphone and a camcorder chooses to recording his inane ramblings for media publication. Besides, he brings up a good point. I worry about illegitimately elected leaders.
I simply differ from Conggressman Lewis and surprisingly concur wholeheartedly with Former Attorney General Eric Holder as to which of our three branches of government has been most despoiled by the spectre of political bastardy. I agree with him that the methods by which Congressional Districts are drawn to stifle the will of the voters. I further agree that this process gives an unfair mathematical edge to the So-Called Republican Party.
So given that I feel Mr. Holder’s pain and that “Illegitimi non carborundum” has always been one of my favorite lines of Classical World graffiti, I’m here with a set of suggestions as to how we could go about preventing our Congress from continuing to elect people who tour JPL and ask if the Mars Pathfinder took a photo of the flag that the astronauts put up in 1969.
Step 1 is to get rid of all of the mandates that force state legislatures to draw up convoluted districts that are mathematically inclined to elect more Republicans in larger states. This would involve repealing several relevant portions of The Voting Rights Act. This legislation requires the creation of electoral districts that concentrate minority voting power. This concentrates the votes of highly partisan Democrats into fewer districts.
This causes these districts to lose any semblance of quality control in who they send to Congress. This gave The Great State of Texas The Infamous She-Jack. It gave The Great State of Virginia the Moran its Northern Counties truly deserve. It gave Oregon Fake War Hero Wes Cooley. Congress has become a plush refuge for scoundrels.
Step 2 would be to mathematically limit the number of rigged districts that are possible. Take the operations research hours and massive computing power that both parties in our national duopoly and spend them on unrigging the system instead. Force each state to form their districts out of identically-shaped exterior polygons of variable size but identical population. This would get rid of districts that cherry-pick through non-contiguity.
So here’s your to-do list Mr. Holder. Get rid of the stipulations in The Voting Rights Acts that force a major deficit of diversity in so many Congressional districts. Make the state legislatures stop finding ways to draw non-contiguous districts to cherry-pick which neighborhoods vote in which district. Do that, Eric, and you’ll totally put a cork in the bastards. Why do I have these lingering doubts that you would never let these two proposals see the light of day?
Saturday, January 21st, 2017
Over at Garvey’s Ghost, as always an insightful commentary into the possibility of the return of black slavery:
This is the levels to which so called black leadership such as John Lewis have sunk to. They actually peddle the belief that slavery is just around the corner. Never mind that the Trans-Atlantic slave trade could not have occurred without the direct, willing participation of Africans (stories of kidnapping by white people are wholly over stated). So unless a significant portion of black people who have power over the lives of black people, countrywide, decide to engage in slave trading, it’s not happening.
He is correct. White people originally viewed slavery as a benevolent institution lifting blacks out of dire poverty and instability and giving them a comfortable, stable life that they could not provide for themselves. Looking at Africa today, we see that our ancestors had a point, and slavery appears to have increased the lifespan, average IQ and health of black people in America.
This does not mean it was “right,” but also, that it was not necessarily wrong either. After all, it was very similar to feudalism and other forms of slavery that happened in Europe, but without the feudal order, slavery passed into commerce (chattel slavery) or law (indentured servitude) and thus lost its sacred origins. Knowing the people in the South, it is likely that slaves were rarely mistreated, especially with no provocation, but any looking into the past is conjectural now, and we know we cannot trust any narrative of it tinged by the Left. The mystery remains.
But the fear of John Lewis that slavery will return, and the apparent interest with which the black community greeted his words, suggests that black America has not caught on to the change in white people. We viewed slavery as bad, so we changed it, and now, we are over feeling bad about it. It was a long time ago, and we have invested a lot in the black community, so in our view, it is over.
On the other hand, white attitudes toward diversity were never about a hatred for any one group. They were more a recognition of our own unique place, which first we saw as reason to enslave others and lift them out of savagery that way, and later as we got more Leftist, to do the same with welfare. But it was always about us, and other groups were pretty much a means to an end.
Now, white attitudes toward diversity have entirely shifted: we see no group as culpable, but we see diversity as a failed enterprise. This means blacks are not being singled out for criticism, as the dumber of the white nationalists tend to do; instead, diversity is the target. We are starting to realize that no matter if the group is “good” or “bad,” diversity will not work for us.
Diversity shatters social trust, removes social standards, alienates people and utterly dissolves any sense of pride in country or self. As a result, it must be dismantled. At the end of the day, this has no bearing on slavery, or anything else related to black people. But slavery is a form of diversity, so now people are realizing why it was insane in addition to being of questionable moral basis.
Tuesday, January 17th, 2017
It was Kant who introduced us to the philosophical concept of public vs private beliefs. Our public beliefs were what we told other people for the sake of social appearances. Our private beliefs are what we talk about when the kimono gets opened to the detriment of the viewing public. The difference between what a person espouses to the rubes and what they really feel can become a problem if these two sets of beliefs are pretty much antepodal.
Perhaps the presence of Faceberg on 24-7 Wall Street Blog‘s list of America’s most hated companies can be attributed to this phenomenon. Gloat-fodder follows below.
In recent years, the company has drawn significant criticism over its privacy policies and the mass data collection of its users. According the company’s statements, Facebook collects data on nearly anything it can, including who its users communicate with, users’ financial transactions, and the types of devices users are connecting with. Recently, the company faced sharp criticism for not doing enough to curb the spread of fake news leading up to the U.S. presidential election. Since then, in an apparent attempt to mend public relations, the company announced a series of new policies aimed at identifying and flagging fake news stories on its site.
Yet this only encompasses the extent to which we know Captain Zuckersperg is a hypocrite. It turns out the whole public/private moral dichotomy extended to many other things as well. The public Captain Zuckersperg is a diversity fetishist. The private one is less prone to singing “We Are The World” at the local Karaoke Bar. The public Captain Zuckersperg welcomes all immigration over a perpetual open border. The private Captain Zuckersperg has built that wall – encompassing his own palatial estate.
The dichotomy extends further. Captain Zuckerberg wants a ¡DIVERSE! workforce. He publicly pays bounties to recruiters who bring them in. It’s like he collects them and trades them with his Silicon Valley friends. The corporate Ministry of Truth sent Baghdad Bob out to tell Bloomberg the following.
“Facebook recruits from hundreds of schools and employers from all over the world, and most people hired at Facebook do not come through referrals from anyone at the company,” a company spokeswoman wrote in a statement. “Once people begin interviewing at Facebook, we seek to ensure that our hiring teams are diverse. Our interviewers and those making hiring decisions go through our managing bias course and we remain acutely focused on improving our ability to hire people with different backgrounds and perspectives.”
But then a funny thing happened to the swirly-cone aspirations of the cultural diversity cult. Facebook’s inner circle then intervened, by treacherously evaluating potential hires on a basis of indicators of professional competence. They expected things like degrees from prestigious engineering schools and solid resume blocks.
…the decision-makers were risk-averse, often declining the minority candidates. The engineering leaders making the ultimate choices, almost all white or Asian men, often assessed candidates on traditional metrics like where they attended college, whether they had worked at a top tech firm, or whether current Facebook employees could vouch for them…
When it comes to taking care of Zuckersperg, diversity is last in that corksucker’s line. He wants managed predictability. He wants forseeable results. He wants to be able to guarantee a positive result to the share holders. Diversity brings variation. Engineers hate that. Engineers don’t hire diversity for diversity’s sake unless they get the quota-gun held to their heads.
This brings home a fundamental truth about diversity. It does not coexist well with a low time preference. A low time preference is necessary for intelligent long-term planning. This is how diversity destroys social capitol. This is how diversity ruins social cooperation. This is why the private Captain Zuckersperg will not tolerate it in the engine room of his own personal Starship Enterprise. Formalize this knowledge and preach these facts. Then ¡DIVERSITY! can truly be over.
Saturday, January 14th, 2017
Over in socialist paradise Sweden, the clueless altruists are discovering that the “clash of civilizations” is about more than identity, but entirely different biological ways of life and genetic inclinations.
The social welfare office in Mönsterås, Sweden became the site of a small riot after officials tried to stop a child marriage. A 21-year-old Arab immigrant from Syria had married his 14-year-old cousin. This offended the morally righteous Swedes, who saw this as a form of child abuse, and demanded that the couple break up.
Naturally the immigrant community did not want to hear of this, and so when the man called his relatives, a mob of aggressive Arabs appeared and attacked the government officials. Police responded and arrested one person and took several others to the hospital. In the meantime, security at the office has been “increased significantly in order to safeguard personnel living in the new multicultural work environment.”
Time and again, the West learns that we are unique and our standards are not just unique to us, but to our genetics. Multiculturalism has failed but not everyone has got the memo yet, resulting in a miasma of rape, terrorism, dysfunction, crime, inbreeding and welfare abuse descending over Europe, starting with the archcucks in socialist Sweden.
Friday, January 13th, 2017
Meet the new media, same as the old media. You will notice that government, celebrities, social pressures and consumerism advance the same agenda as if it came from the same source:
Facebook removes hate speech, which includes content that directly attacks people based on their:
- National origin,
- Religious affiliation,
- Sexual orientation,
- Sex, gender, or gender identity, or
- Serious disabilities or diseases.
Organizations and people dedicated to promoting hatred against these protected groups are not allowed a presence on Facebook. As with all of our standards, we rely on our community to report this content to us.
Did you think They were really a “they,” or just people responding to the market created by many democratically-empowered people doing what people in groups do, which is fearfully pick stupid easy answers over useful ones?
In fact, the problem is “we” — or in other words, what happens when a group of humans get together and start behaving like scared monkeys who are more interested in pacifying each other Bonobo-style than finding any hard or realistic answers to any relevant question.
Notice that the above community guideline seems clear, until you realize how ambiguous it is. What does “attacks” mean? Who are “people”? Is stating a fact about an ethnic group, caste/class, race or religion an “attack” on “people,” or a comment in abstraction? Never mind: the point is to create the broadest possible standards so that you, in your quest to be popular and get famous, will not even come close to the murky edges of these amorphous guidelines.
In the meantime, we see the truth of political manipulation, which is that it is used as a means to control you and is not a serious policy the controllers apply to themselves:
In 2014, Facebook for the first time released its demographic data, and by the following year, it hadn’t shown much progress in increasing the number of women, black or Latino workers. The following year, the company decided to do something more. Publicly, executives talked about expanding programs that wooed college students from a wide variety of backgrounds to intern at Facebook.
Behind the scenes, the company dangled a carrot for recruiters: double points. Recruiters usually got one point for each candidate of theirs that took a job at Facebook. With the new incentive, they’d receive two points if that person was a “diversity hire” — someone who was a woman, or who was not white or Asian, according to two former recruiters.
Do as I say, not as I do, because that way I can remain functional and still punish you, subjugating you and humiliating your will and forcing you to be dependent on me.
Thursday, January 12th, 2017
I still fall for it sometimes. The pseudo-erudite chatter put forth by The Cathedral. I actually heard that the four thugs in Chicago’s BLMKidnapping got charged with a hate crime and felt happy. Like it was the smell of napalm in the morning. Silly, silly me. I was forgetting a relevant passage from the Old Testament – Leviticus 16:8-10.
And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat. 9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD’S lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. 10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
So the scapegoat is a symbol. The animal assumes all the sins for a community and takes them out into the woods. The members of the community can then drink, fight, fornicate and bear false witness athwart their neighbor for another year with a bleached conscience. Hate Crime convictions serve the same purpose.
Traditionally, hate crime laws have been almost exclusively aimed at white people. They are used primarily by other white people. They are a method of absolving their own impure reaction to diversity. It makes the “good whites” different from those other white people. Like Dylan Storm Roof or Eric Rudolph for example. So what does this hate crime charge against the BLMKidnappers even mean?
It means nothing. What was done to the poor, mentally disabled guy would have felt just as awful had it been an S&M session where he plum forgot the safe word. It would have been just as messed up had it been a love crime. Kidnapping, assault, false imprisonment, all of these things mean something. They are all good charges and I hope these four dirtbags enjoy their stay at The Chiraq Hilton. A preferred customer bonus of a few more free nights because of Hate Crime charges? Bogus.
So why do we need a set of laws to cast lots upon societal goats? Because we all feel varying levels of discomfort with diversity and our told to feel guilt and inadequacy. Thus, when we see DYlan Roof chimp out in a church somewhere, we can all condemn him and point out with a reasonably high probability of accuracy that I wouldn’t shoot a bunch of nice, old ladies at an African American church.
Then again, so what? Taking down The Stars and Bars won’t make you like diversity. Putting Dylan Roof or Timothy McVeigh under a jail somewhere with cockroaches in their soup will not make you truly believe !DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH! Our cheering for hate crime convictions is an empty symbolic ritual. It’s like people who take The Lord’s Supper and get nothing except unleavened bread and cheap wine.
Hate crime laws are a sham. They are a panacea. They are fake virtue signaling. They will not make you any more accepting of racial, cultural or religious diversity. They only allow you to participate in the charade of pretending like you do.
Bring back Freedom of Association in all private accommodations and get rid of disparate impact as a legal standard. Abolish all forms of racial quotas. Stop penalizing people who fail to virtue signal in favor of diversity. This is supposed to be the USA, not North Korea.
Then when you see the races, cultures or religions mix, you know its legitimate. When given an honest choice, a few people will choose to accept a certain level of diversity. This is nothing to celebrate. Just respect it and accept it like any other rational adult’s decision. The same is true of the choice to avoid diversity. Just accept and respect it like you would any other rational adult’s decision. Then, we can stop worrying about fighting hate crimes and worry more about fighting actual criminals.