Equal Signs

All these equal signs for gay marriage are making me start to oppose gay marriage.

I saw this asinine post where someone has “male = female. Male + female = marriage. Male + male = marriage.”

Now I really don’t care about gay marriage. But male does not equal female. They’re not the same. And so the assertion is wrong, and so to build off of that that male + female = marriage, therefore male + male = marriage, is bogus.

Then there is the equating it to interracial marriage. Well, the obvious difference is that two people of different races can be different genders. Moreover, people of two races can produce children.

For someone like me, the parallel of gay and interracial marriage is unconvincing since I oppose interracial marriage and think it should be banned, but I guess it hits home for other people.

I’m just saying that even if you support interracial marriage, the parallel with gay marriage is not the same. The purpose of marriage was originally to make sure a man was raising his own kids, which became an important thing when people started farming and food production was individuated.

Prior to that, food production was collective, and reproduction was more collective. Marriage came about as a way to make men weren’t raising someone else’s kids. But gays can’t have kids, so the whole sound and fury about gay marriage is much ado about nothing.

There’s no kids. Sure, let em be “married”, whatever, who cares. Or don’t let them. I guess they like to prattle about being equal to normal married couples, but they’re not.

This is because normal married couples are male and female. Gay couples are not. So you can draw as many equal signs as you want, but they’re not equal. Because they’re different. And things that are different… are not equal. Pretty simple and inarguable.

Since the issue is of little practical importance, what it really comes down to is: “should the law be a little nicer to gays, or a little meaner to gays in a way that seems to royally piss them off?”. And when I look at it that way, the answer becomes super obvious.

I am against gay marriage. Before these stupid signs, I would have been for it, but the issue being brought up over and over has made me really think about the issue. I really don’t like gay people in general (even though I am one), I wish ill upon them, and this seems to piss them off, so lets keep gay marriage banned as long as possible.

INB4 “generalizations aren’t allowed!”. Besides, I’m allowed to say these things because I am gay. Or something like that.

Segregation is Peace

Segregation is peace. Now by this I don’t mean that segregation leads to peace, or that good fences make good neighbors. While I believe all of that is true, I’m saying something more fundamental: peace means separation.

Let me illustrate this with a classic example: Germany and Poland. Two separate countries. When Germany invades Poland, what are they doing? They are breaking down the border. They are ending the separation. They are starting a WAR.

Now, if they were to end the war and have peace with Poland, what would they have to do? They would have to agree upon new borders, which is to say a new segregation. The re-segregation IS the peace process.

It is not merely “part of” or “conducive to” peace. IT IS PEACE.

But this means the converse is true: unification is WAR.

I was listening to an interview with Jonathan Haidt, and he was talking about  how university sports events allow for tribalistic tendencies to manifest in a safe and non-violent way. When Texas Tech comes to Virginia Tech, the fans don’t attack the opposing team with Machetes.

Which makes sense, since Texas Tech doesn’t rule over Virginia Tech for 4 years if they win. Imagine if Texas Tech ruled over Virginia Tech if they won? Well, in that situation, the sane action would be to kill the team before they even got into the stadium.

Now imagine a world in which this was true, in which the outcome of football games determined rulership. And now imagine that this was agreed to be some optimal and fair system, and violently preventing games from taking place was considered “intolerant”, “unamerican” or “terrorism” or whatever.

What you would have is a cold war. A series of defeats and peace treaties, which are enforced by troops, and financial expropriation of the vanquished by the victors. All the stuff of war - except actual armies.

And then idiots wonder, “golly gee, why is politics so rancorous and cruel?”. It’s because it’s actually a form of cold war, but nobody is allowed to admit it or say it.

Just as the rational and sane thing to do would be to kill the opposing football team as it tried to enter your stadium and assert it’s rule over you, it would be rational to kill the opposing candidates and voters in the current system.

If Germany was ruling over Poland, Germany enforced a democratic rule over the union, in which the majority German population could always override the Poles, would we say the Poles should submit to the “will of the people”? NO! Because there is no “the people” - there are Germans and Poles.

In the United States, there is no “the people”, there are no “americans”. If you think there are, then tell me, what the fuck is an “american”?

Is it a racial type? No.

Is it an economic ideology? Hell no.

Is it a religion? No.

Is it a social outlook? Not at all.

Is it a language? No, and less and less so.

So what we have in the United States is several nations bound together by a single state, similar in form to the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact or the transient Nazi Empire.

Though with fewer gulags. For now.

A lot of this seems radical for those who have drunk the “Red White Blue, I pledge allegiance, USA” kool-aid, but from the outside looking in, it seems brutally stupid to not recognize this as the situation.

Unfortunately, the USA is something of a cult. Everyone believes in some sacred union. People who hate each other and should be different nations will temporarily join together in the group chant of the “national” anthem.

So what we have are separate nations, all claiming to be the real “america”, with different definitions of what is “america”, who bind themselves together and try to dominate each other because they have sacralized the United States. They have this religion - replete with an age of miracles (the revolution), sacred texts (constitution, bill of rights, federalist papers), temples and creepy face statues carved into mountains, creepy references to the “fathers”, and loyalty oaths and triumphalist history for the kiddies.

And because just about everyone has bought into this crap, instead of breaking up into nation-states, they maintain the empire of shit, because their secular cult of “america” says to maintain the sacred union.

So how do we have peace? Well once the situation is understood, the question “how to have peace” answers itself: the way you achieve peace in a hot war. Draw boundaries, draw new countries, separate and segregate.

The way you have peace with your neighbor is through separation. Walls, fences. If you start willy-nilly entering his house and “sharing” his stuff, and he doesn’t consent, and you say “too fucking bad because we outnumber you and we had a vote, and if you don’t like it we’ll throw you into a cage for ‘tax evasion’”, what would be call that?

Would we call that progressive? Liberal? Open-minded? No, it’s none of that shit. It’s something baser, something real. It’s war.

Peace IS segregation. Peace IS separation. The way to peace is peace, is segregation, is separation.

The Chimera of “Liberalism”

It’s not that I disbelieve in the existence of “liberals”, since a few of them exist. It’s that I disbelieve that “liberalism” ever has or can exist.

By “liberalism”, I basically mean coming to policy positions without on a non-nationalistic, non-tribalistic, non-religious, and non-racial basis. Coming to policy on an egalitarian basis. And with this definition, we can divide “liberals” into two main camps: the market liberals and social liberals.

The market liberals in the United States call themselves “libertarians”, and tend to caucus with the republicans. The social liberals call themselves “liberals” or “progressives”, and tend to caucus with the democrats.

The other groups that make up the republican coalition are the white nationalists (overt and covert), the theocrats, low-information “conservatives” - people who vote republican out of tradition and bull(shit) sessions and talk radio strawmen takedowns.

The other groups that make up the democrat coalition are the mestizo nationalists (overt and covert), the black nationalists (overt and covert), and low-information “democrats” - people who vote democrat mostly out of family tradition, peer group bull(shit) sessions and comedy central / family guy strawmen takedowns.

Now if we include the true-believer libertarians in the “liberal” fold, we can expand the “liberal” movement a bit, but even if we assume that true “progressives” make up half of the democrat fold (a generous assumption) and that “libertarians” make up a third of the republican fold (another generous assumption), “liberals” can’t win on their own.

They need an alliance either with the racial nationalist groups, the theocrats, or the boneheads (low-info voters).

Ultimately, the liberals can be destroyed if what I call “the US fascist bloc” can be formed. This is the mestizo nationalists, white nationalists, black nationalists and theocrats. These groups combined are more powerful than the liberals.

Now I don’t deny the existence of liberals, but I do deny the existence of liberalism, or secular post-nationalism. First off, liberalism, at most, is about 42% of the US. Moreover, liberals don’t have kids as much as the racial nationalists or theocrats do. The demographic future is racial nationalism and theocracy.

But aside from that, when we look at places that have achieved “diversity”, what do they look like? Well they look like Brazil, Mexico City, the United Arab Emirates, Los Angeles, The Dominican Republic, El Paso, San Diego, Las Vegas, Corpus Christi, San Jose.

University departments that have achieved not only numerical diversity, but a “diversity” of policy, tend to discriminate against white males, even when white males are no longer the numerical majority.

Wasn’t the purpose of affirmative action to eliminate some supposed unfair advantage whites have? Yes, but once that “goal” is achieved, and outcomes are equalized not by performance, but by legal mandate, do such legal mandates go away? Of course not. They are held in place by the groups that benefit from them.

Similar to how whites in the 1930s held in place the “Jim Crow Laws”. It’s only when it is too late to turn them back that the stupidity and impossibility of secular post-nationalism is revealed. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The world is nationalistic, the world is racialistic. Even within the university departments, once the “liberal” coalition takes power, the sexual deviants (gays, lesbos, trannies, etc.) bloc up as a nation to defend their interests in political group combat against enemy groups; and you’re starting to see something quite hilarious.

Which is the sexual deviants and feminist clowns in conflict with the blacks and mestizos, and being confused about this. IT’S NOT CONFUSING AT ALL. The black nationalists and mestizo nationalists are just like the white nationalists.

I know liberal storytime says that these are “liberal” groups that are just responses to “white oppression”. That’s one story. The other story is that racial conflict is natural and ceaseless.

Evidence for the liberal interpretation of black nationalism: the past 100 years and critical theory.

Evidence for the “right-wing” interpretation of black nationalism: all of history. Even the past 100 years can be explained as the manifestation of group conflict, and one group (whites) being infected with secular post-nationalism.

Group conflict is ceaseless. Nationalism is inevitable, and racial conflict IS. It is not something you sign up for, it is something you are born into. It is real. It is a great and terrible involuntary struggle. It is chafing, it is bracing, it is a warring torrent and a destroyer of worlds.

Races and groups that ignore the reality of racial AND group conflict have resigned themselves to annihilation. And there are many tumblr tools who have done so, and feel a great joy in turning Minnesota into a Guatemalan slum. Unfortunately, they are committed to taking down the whites who don’t want to die with them.

In the context of group conflict, they are the anti-whites. Now the mestizo nationalists and black nationalists aren’t anti-white - they are pro-black or pro-mestizo.

The anti-whites on the other hand have NOTHING to respect them over. The integrated societies they create are cesspools of racial and ethnic conflict. In effect, they are pro-conflict, pro-war.

Hyper-white white “anti-racists”

It’s not necessarily hypocritical, but it certainly is odd.

I first thought of this when I saw “antifa” marches with pictures of Chuck Norris and Arnold Schwarzenegger being against “racism” (whatever that means).

Chuck Norris is a red head. In a world with open borders and no nations, there will be no red heads. Ultimately, with enough time, there will be no white people at all.

And yet I see, all of these white people, who live in overwhelmingly white areas, painting their art of white people (or anime - northeast asians would also be destroyed in the great mixing), being adamantly against “racism”, pro-open borders, and pro-integration.

Claude Steele did a study involving conversation groups and chairs. Before the conversation groups, he would give people tests to determine their racial prejudice. A result that surprised him was that the white people with the more negative views of blacks sat closer and were visibly more comfortable around blacks than those who professed more positive views.

Read More

kellyhasadventures
kellyhasadventures:

fringeelements:

“Russia does not need minorities”
“We better learn from the suicides of America, England, Holland and France”
Putin is getting close to the truth in this speech. Perhaps he does understand the primacy of race, and that this isn’t really about “culture” but about race, but is just being politic. Similar to how he endorsed Obama in the US presidential election.

But let’s not mention their incredible lack in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and political identity.

In what context? For example, as a racial separatist, will I have an easier time advocating in Russia or the United States? You say “lack in freedom of speech”, but really they just crack down on speech you think should be allowed.
But from the point of view of someone who is effectively silenced in the US, Russia is not necessarily any more oppressive.
Or another way to look at it is that a communist in the 1950s probably found the US to bemore oppressive than the USSR.

kellyhasadventures:

fringeelements:

“Russia does not need minorities”

“We better learn from the suicides of America, England, Holland and France”

Putin is getting close to the truth in this speech. Perhaps he does understand the primacy of race, and that this isn’t really about “culture” but about race, but is just being politic. Similar to how he endorsed Obama in the US presidential election.

But let’s not mention their incredible lack in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and political identity.

In what context? For example, as a racial separatist, will I have an easier time advocating in Russia or the United States? You say “lack in freedom of speech”, but really they just crack down on speech you think should be allowed.

But from the point of view of someone who is effectively silenced in the US, Russia is not necessarily any more oppressive.

Or another way to look at it is that a communist in the 1950s probably found the US to bemore oppressive than the USSR.

"Russia does not need minorities"
"We better learn from the suicides of America, England, Holland and France"
Putin is getting close to the truth in this speech. Perhaps he does understand the primacy of race, and that this isn’t really about “culture” but about race, but is just being politic. Similar to how he endorsed Obama in the US presidential election.

"Russia does not need minorities"

"We better learn from the suicides of America, England, Holland and France"

Putin is getting close to the truth in this speech. Perhaps he does understand the primacy of race, and that this isn’t really about “culture” but about race, but is just being politic. Similar to how he endorsed Obama in the US presidential election.

ECP - MIRACLES

Lyrics set to this eargasm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs

Hopefully I can conscript Morrakiu to do some video/audio miracles and this can be made into a tribute to the racial egalitarians.

Egalitarian Clown Posse - Miracles

We got a theory, you see will, we got a theory, about magic and miracles (that’s right, that’s right)

——

If magic is all we’ve ever know

Then it’s easy to miss what really goes on

But I’ve seen miracles in every way

And I see miracles everyday

——

Evolution spanning beyond our sight

And a million differences from left to right

And you kinda have to be high, to understand why

That we’re equal, a miracle opened wide

——

We look at bears, wolves, horses and frogs

Whales and rabbits, pet cats and dogs

Ranges so wide they’ve all subspeciation

But human races? Pure speculation!

——

And I’ve seen 20 different kinds people,

Different in every way, but in the brain they’re equal

Cultural bias, on IQ tests

Though verbal is the subject that blacks do best

——

In brain size and shape, we all look different

We know males and females have their own listenin’

While races, who just as different in the brain,

It’s a miracle they all ended up the same

——

Pop-up book hist’ry, invention myths

Everything you believed in as kids

Scandanavia’s awesome cuz it’s so diverse

There’s too many miracles here to traverse

——

Saw a somali hanging out, at Riddarfjärden bay

Tried to give him a job, he ran away

White privilege is magic, like a dream

You can’t feel it or hear it and it can’t be seen

——

White privilege is all magic

(Are you a believer in miracles)

You can’t even quantify it

(Do you notice and recognize miracles)

It’s just there in the air

(Are you a believer in miracles)

Unfalsifiable magic

Right?

It doesn’t even make sense!

(Do you notice and recognize miracles)

——

Equality’s like love, it’s all a feeling

It’s what you want to hear, it’s distinction concealing

I see miracles all around me

Stop lookin’ around, your eyes’ll confound it

——

Nutrition, money, and bias lurk

Heritability, how does that work?

And I don’t wanna talk to a scientist

Y’all racists are lying, and getting me pissed

——

Diversity makes everything better

Fifteen thousand mestizos together

Detoit, London, St.Louis

When it was all white, it was no place to be

——

A girl in Sudan could be the next Einstein

Miracles ain’t nothing to lie

Shaggy’s little boys look just like Tyrone

And my little boy looks just like Tryone

——

To say that’s a problem means that race exists

And that shit’s racist, which is really racist!

This world is yours for you to explore

Except for certain topics kept under the floor

——

The 4 year Circus is your invitation

To witness that without explanation

Take a look at this fine creation

And enjoy it better with appreciation

——

We blur the lines, to keep it fuzzy

Even if, the results are bloody

Just close your mind, and it ain’t a hard way

To imagine these miracles every day

"Class" Goggles

I think I see a major cleavage between how what is called a “leftist” and what is called a “rightist” sees the world.

In the Arab-Israeli “conflict”, I’ve noticed that the self-styled “liberal” doesn’t really deal with the two factions as they actually exist: the Jews and the Muslims in that part of the world.

Instead, they construct from the Arab population a mythical underclass. And so they side not so much with the Arabs as they exist in reality, but this imaginary underclass. And they don’t defend the actions of the Arabs, but the actions framed from the point of view of underclass vs. overclass.

Far from being sophisticated or complex, this outlook simplifies the direct line to conclusions on issues. Of course once the conclusion is reached, then the argumentation can be incredibly complex and sometimes even brilliant. But it’s all after the fact. The conclusion was really reached once the overclass was defined and the underclass was defined.

In my experience - I have to data to back this up - in my experience, blacks in the US don’t fall for this abstraction. They see blacks as they are, and recognize their support for the democrat party not as some abstract support for “the oppressed”, but as a real, visceral support for their race in a zero-sum contest AGAINST whites - not “the overclass” - whites.

And when you free your mind of these abstract spooks, you are thrust back into the world, back into history, which is competing nations and races. An endless struggle. The arabs are not “the underclass” is some formulaic, categorical archetype. They’re arabs.

They have some advantages: they surround Israel, they’re more numerous, and they’re gaining ground in the popular press.

Israel has some advantages too: they have better military technology and have substantial support in Washington DC and the Pentagon.

I don’t see Mestizos and Africans as an “underclass”. The disparate impact of drug laws, racial profiling are problematic for them, and all else being equal, an employer will prefer to hire the white guy, and more than the white guy the asian guy. But they also get preferential treatment in university admissions, government contracts and jobs, and employers need to fill diversity quotas.

You’ll have people saying that they KNOW which side has the advantage. But they don’t know. They’re just partisans speaking from what is most of the time a pre-conceived position. Or they’ll get the view they got from a university, a class that has no empirical value and no reality check. American Renaissance is a good counter-weight.

Moreover, blacks and mestizos can be explicitly racially nationalistic, while when whites do it, it’s “supremacism” and “hate” and some people ask, with a straight face, if blacks can be “racist”.

Sure I’ll check my privilege. I have a much easier time shoplifting because the employees have their eyes on the black people. And you check yours when you get into Colombia with a 1250 SAT (M+V). And maybe your higher credentials, coupled with diversity quotas, will offset the fact that companies tend to prefer whites and asians - all else being equal. Or maybe they won’t. I don’t know, and neither do you.

To recap, “classes” don’t exist. What exist are different races and nations, each with different traits in the inevitable and involuntary power struggle of existence. To see the world with “class” goggles collapses reality into these stilted absolutes of “oppressor” and “oppressed”, and results in you being a useful idiot for whoever you decide is the “oppressed” at any given place and time.