Today I will explain why America is going to hell, and probably deserves it. It has to do with conservatives and liberals, who may be thought of as Woofers and Tweeters. They should all be taken out and shot. The country would then be a much better place. Worth a try, anyway.
Some observations:
(1) Liberals posit the equality of groups that are not equal, attribute the inevitable differences of outcome to discrimination, and try to eradicate them through regulation, affirmative action, and punishment of those noticing the differences. This doesn’t work, assuring a pretext for indignation that is non-depletable, like the liver of Prometheus.
Here we have the bedrock of American politics.
(2) Liberals believe that we should all love one another, and hate those who don’t. This puts them in the morally invincible position of being against hatred. It also obscures the observable fact that most of us, certainly to include liberals, dislike a great many people, and that most groups detest a lot of other groups, or will if placed in contact with them. Distance is prerequisite to love.
(3) Groups hate each other, firstly, the greater their proximity. Secondly, the more they differ from one another, and, thirdly, the more power one has over another or the greater the apparent superiority of one over the other. The result is a spectrum of hostility running from surliness to severed heads.
This explains anti-antisemitism. Jews do not assimilate: Bill O’Toole in America does not think of himself as Irish, but Rachel Cohen thinks of herself as Jewish. This is not a sin, which has nothing to do with it. Proximity is close to a maximum since Jews are widely mixed through the population. Jews rise to positions of power, completing the triad. They can’t win.
There are those who believe that Homo sapiens came about through the mating of a Neanderthal with a pit bull. While this has not been confirmed, it fits the evidence.
(4) This brings us to the curious notion that diversity is a strength, which it obviously is not. Diversity is in fact the cause of most of the world’s troubles. If you doubt that diversity is a great evil, consider relations between:
Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka; Tutsis and Hutus in Burundi; Protestants and Catholics in Ireland; Israelis and Arabs in Palestine; blacks, whites, and browns in the United States; Anglophones and Francophones in Canada; Sunnis and Shias everywhere; Chinese and Indonesians in Indonesia; Chinese and Malays in Malaysia; Muslims and Hindus in India; blacks and whites in South Africa; Jews and everybody else everywhere; Spaniards and Basques in Spain; Spaniards and Catalans; Turks and Kurds; to name a few.
Then consider the proportion of riots, crime, looting, arson, lynchings, racial attacks, complaints of discrimination, ill will, court cases, and legislation that would have been avoided in America over the years since 1600 had there been only one race in the country.
Thus sensible social policy should always be to keep different groups apart. Usually it is not that either of two warring groups is evil, but only that they are different. It is enough.
(5) The granularity of detestation descends well below the national and racial levels. New Yorkers and West Virginians do not like each other, nor the urban and the rural. Massachussetans and Mississippians do not like each other, though these do not actually kill each other. (In the mid-1800s, they did.) Those who like and those who despise President Trump hate each other. Women seem to hate men, which is why maintaining separate bars and clubs as sometimes retreats is wise.
(6) The only way to make different groups like each other is to make them stop being different. Blacks who move in reasonable though superficial comfort among whites do so by adopting white speech, dress, and mannerisms; the Irish and Italians in America by ceasing to be Irish or Italian while keeping the names. This suggests that good policy would be to allow, or encourage, different groups to separate from each other, or to force them to be like each other. The former approach leads to tranquility, the latter often to bloodshed. The current effort by Social Justice Warriors to make boys and girls into warped sexual interstitial amalgams produces angry, unhappy men and women.
(7) This in turn brings us to immigration, which amounts to the importation of people so they can hate each other.
Open borders are supported by vaguely warm-hearted appeals to those who think with their glands. There are probably 500 million Indians, as many Chinese, hundreds of millions of Africans, more Muslims, and several hundred million Latin Americans who would like to emigrate to the United States. The question for Social Justice Warriors is how many of these should be admitted–none, all, or a specific figure between?
Anyone who makes noises in favor of immigration should answer this question as otherwise he will be engaging in mere moral posing. But to choose one number is to exclude another number. Not inclusive, that.
(9) The two primary political errors are liberalism and conservationism (who hate each other: See?)
Conservatives are hostile, darkly suspicious of almost everything, tribal, but not actually delusional, living in something resembling the real world but taking a dim view of it.
Liberals construct in their minds a world as they think it should be, and then try to live in it. Their goodness of their ideas is so obvious, so reasonable, so heart-warmingly right that we should have a happy multicultural society, black and white together, and brown and yellow and what have you, kum bah yah, and learn from each other, vive la difference. It doesn’t detract from the appeal of this theory that it allows those holding it to feel really good about themselves.
An example of trying to live in fantasia is the statement by Obama,“Joe Biden and I know that women are as least as strong as men,” he said. “We’re stronger for it.”
Women are not as strong as or stronger than men. Perhaps they should be. We may want them to be. It might be a good thing if they were. But they are not. If Obama believes otherwise, he is out of touch with reality–i.e., psychotic. People otherwise sane can be politically psychotic in this manner. Think of conspiracy theorists.
When it doesn’t work, the fault must lie with obstructive racist, sexist, ageist, homophobic, Islamophobic, et cetera at unbearable length. We just need somehow to teach people not to act like people.
(10) Most of Social Justice Warriorism deals more with feelings than with fact, logic, observation, or actual thought, all of which are regarded as nuisances and probably sexist. Thus there is no hope. We should all go home and slit our throats, leaving the world to bugs and things.
I like the idea of keeping all liberals way the hell away from me forever.
Way to go Fred. Great post. I vote for (10). Either that or another beer.
THAT IS TOTALY RIGHT!!!!FOR detailed explanation read http://www.anonymousconservative.com/modern.pdf Modern political Thought in the context of Evolutionary Psychology.Michael Trust
I agree with most of your post, but Jews don’t assimilate? Are you kidding me? Go to the average store, school, workplace, or any other place where people congregate, and point out the Jew and the Christian. Unless you’re in one of the few Hasidic Jewish neighborhoods in the country, you won’t be able to; it’s that simple.
And before you go off, saying “Yeah, but there are those Hasidic Jews,” the are also the Amish, the Mennonites, certain Mormon sects, etc.
And no, I’m not Jewish…
I’ve often said: “I dated Jewish girls”. I’ve never said “I dated a Methodist”.
See, Tom, you don’t get it. There are only two kindsa joos: eevull joos and regyoulah joos. Regyoulah joos are the ones you see in the grocery store, but you can’t spot them, though everyone else can. They are regyoulah people for the most part and they go shopping, go to movies and ballgames and stuff, but they still keep themselves a little apart.
Eevull joos are the ones you never see in person because they are much too elitist to risk bumping elbows with non-joos. The main thing the two kindsa joos have in common is that they don’t assimilate because they hafta remain joos above all else.
There. I’m glad to try to help you get it.
This is the closest Fred Reed has come to reality in my readings of him. The real problems are not soluble by laws, customs or procedures: they are rooted in human difference, which is ineradicable (unless you allow genocide of one group in a pair of opponents).
Maybe we could just ship all the liberals overseas and the rest of us could sort things out like rational gentlemen?
“Conservatives …living in something resembling the real world but taking a dim view of it”
You got that right!
Wow.
What a racist, misogynistic, homophobic diatribe.
Well done Fred, well done.
Self segregation is the answer. That and population reduction starting with those “other people”.
Fred said he is a columnist; a hack. Today, he delivered the goods.
The tards are happy to have their prejudices validated. Life is good.
Tards will put their good feels to practical use:
“Honey, skip the laundry bar, use that perfume soap I bought for your birthday and lock the back door tonight, darlin’. I feel like having sex.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4672305/
Sci Rep. 2015; 5: 17963.
Published online 2015 Dec 8. doi: 10.1038/srep17963
PMCID: PMC4672305
The Inevitability of Ethnocentrism Revisited: Ethnocentrism Diminishes As Mobility Increases
Soham De,b,1 Michele J. Gelfand,a,2 Dana Nau,3 and Patrick Roos1
Abstract
Nearly all major conflicts across the globe, both current and historical, are characterized by individuals defining themselves and others by group membership. This existence of group-biased behavior (in-group favoring and out-group hostile) has been well established empirically, and has been shown to be an inevitable outcome in many evolutionary studies. Thus it is puzzling that statistics show violence and out-group conflict declining dramatically over the past few centuries of human civilization. Using evolutionary game-theoretic models, we solve this puzzle by showing for the first time that out-group hostility is dramatically reduced by mobility. Technological and societal advances over the past centuries have greatly increased the degree to which humans change physical locations, and our results show that in highly mobile societies, one’s choice of action is more likely to depend on what individual one is interacting with, rather than the group to which the individual belongs. Our empirical analysis of archival data verifies that contexts with high residential mobility indeed have less out-group hostility than those with low mobility. This work suggests that, in fact, group-biased behavior that discriminates against out-groups is not inevitable after all.
Alan, that makes sense, you can find evidence to the contrary but it makes sense. If neighborhoods are racially or politically polarized, anybody who doesn’t look like he belongs is automatically a suspicious character.
Racially pure is not the same thing as spiritually pure. It doesn’t lead to any kind of salvation. Even in Wip’s idyllic segregated groups, you would find smaller groups seeking to exclude the larger body. I saw that in a pic of a pool of super-salty water lying below the ocean above.
I’m not sure the saying – the devil take the hindmost – is correct. Once you separate, collate, categorize and filter the pervs, liars, fiends, low IQ, statists, leftists, communist sympathizers and holocaust revisionists, the devil will take the 99% left behind.
Sorry, race-cucks, the odds are not in your favor:
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.