Quote of the Day
Socialism kills, fast or slow. But on the way there, it makes people into dumb animals posturing and killing for no good reason.
The enemy is collectivism. The enemy is welfare. The enemy is turning humans into dependent zoo animals.
None of which will be solved by doing the same, but harder, and with different colors of skin as the all precious must be coddled.
All it will do is destroy the little that is still functioning. And make it harder to come back.
I beg you with tears in my eyes to believe civilization is worth saving. It is socialism that must be torn down. Please start working towards civilization.
Sarah H. Hoyt
June 15, 2026
The Color of Your Head – According To Hoyt
As I read it, the main point of her post is that there is a bunch of crap going on all over the world and that includes the U.S.A. A lot of people, of most any political persuasion, try to distill the problem down to skin color. That isn’t the real problem. To use an example of hers:
It’s not the skin color, you see. If it were Abigail Spanberger would be a firebrand for freedom and Clarence Thomas would be communist. Or if you prefer, replace those with Bernie Sanders and Thomas Sowell. The parallel stands. And it remains crazy.
I’ve said this before, judge people as individuals, not as a group. If you judge people as an immutable group you, in some sense of the word, are a collectivist. This will not yield optimal results. You will lose the ideas and influence of people like Colion Noir, Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, and Thomas Sowell.
Embrace the ideas and accept the contributions of the people that make meaningful advances in our fight against socialism in all its forms.
The Party of Race makes everything out to be about race, just like they always have. It’s cover for the horrible things they like, and it’s a convenient boogeyman to unite their supporters.
They don’t even have to deny that things are bad – just by making it about race, they can keep anything useful from being about a problem, because all the proposed “solutions” aren’t solutions to the *actual* problem.
The easiest example to me on this is policing, where it’s made out to be all about race… but the police can *AND DO* kill white people unjustly and get away with it. And Asians. The problems are systemic.
But since it’s all about race, all the stuff proposed is about race, so nothing useful is done. It doesn’t help that bad-faith complaints “flood the zone”, making police supporters (and even with my honest complaints about the system, I still very much count myself as one) find it easy to dismiss the real complaints with the fake ones, making it hard to get anything done there, either.
And the different treatment of the complaints by race ALSO make things much harder. George Floyd wasn’t the first George Floyd – there was a case down in Texas a few years before George Floyd that was almost the exact same fact set, and nothing was done about it, because the guy wasn’t black. (Of course, largely, there’s really not a lot that should be done about it… person of any kind ODs on fentanyl in public, resists the police, dies of fentanyl OD. Lesson: don’t OD on fentanyl, yeah?)
Yes and no.
Yes, people are individuals, and it’s good to treat them as such. But group averages do exist, and we have pattern matching skills for a reason. Also, if all the other races / ethnicities are playing by race-team, and your race/ethnicity is not, you will lose out over time, guaranteed. Empathy and tolerance is fine, until it becomes self-destructive because it is not reciprocated. Adding low-trust, low-IQ, high time preferences people into a high-trust, high-IQ, low-time preference city / state / country is a recipe for disfunction and disaster.
Game theory says that being “nice” and cooperating scores more points if everyone does it, but tit-for-tat is needed to keep people honest. That has largely been removed from our justice system.
NOPE.
Please explain your response in language understandable to the quarter-million + white girls in England who were raped, tortured, and sometimes murdered by Pakistani rape gangs in the last couple of decades. Feel free to clarify to their parents why diversity was worth it, too.
Note that Rolf just made the same ‘argument’ as Southern Whites made against black men and rape. Because some Pakistani rape, ALL Pakisani must be treated as rapists.
THAT is why I said NOPE before. And that NOPE stands just as validly now.
Contrary to Rolf’s VILE declarations, the PROBLEM with the rape gang situation is that the State REFUSED to prosecute (and SOME members of the State actually PARTICIPATED in) those rapes. In other words, the State REFUSING to treat the children as INDIVIDUALS with rights to their OWN lives and their OWN effort is the problem. IF the State had DONE ITS JOB of DEFENDING the children’s RIGHTS, the gangs would have been destroyed LONG ago. That is why the truly OBSCENE number of rapes of children over the DECADES rests upon the State and its refusal to do its job.
SCAPEGOATING races instead of attacking the State is your EVIL – an evil which not only PERPETUATES the violation of children but the violation of innocent adults as well.
But, like the police and the State, Rolf doesn’t care about that fact. Indeed, like the State PARTICIPANTS in the rape of the children, Rolf RELISHES the idea of VIOLATING other human beings as well. In fact, he is gleefully RIGHTEOUS about VIOLATING the innocent, just like the Pakistani and the State officials who raped and raped and raped these children without mercy.
NOPE is the most “polite” way of addressing the DEMONIC evil Rolf SHARES with those unspeakable creatures.
You should really just say NOPE a lot more. It’s totally convincing and stuff.
The issue you are leaving out in your dishonest blame displacement is that there are significant cultural and religious differences behind these problems. EXCEEDINGLY few people have any problem with *genetically* Pakistani people. That’s not what the complaint is about.
YOU are scapegoating people as racist, when race isn’t the issue – behaviour is.
And part of that behaviour is an entire culture that thinks it’s completely fine for non-muslim women to be raped (and muslim women aren’t treated all that much better). Everyone who supports that behaviour, looks the other way, etc, is participating in that behaviour.
And that behaviour is unacceptable. The excuse used BY THE STATE (and yes, PLENTY of people in the British government should never live another moment outside of incarceration again, and for a not small chunk of those people, that shouldn’t be very long) was race. If they can’t trust the government not to use race as cover for mass rape of children, one of the most direct responses TO that racism (the racism OF THE STATE and its officials) is to remove that excuse.
YOU are blaming the victims and supporting the perpetrators. That’s sick. No amount of self-righteous “NOPE” changes that.
Random CAPITALIZATION aside, quite the slanderous way to misrepresent what I said.
No reply button on Deoxy’s post, so can’t respond to it directly.
>> “The issue you are leaving out in your dishonest blame displacement is…EXCEEDINGLY few people have any problem with *genetically* Pakistani people. That’s not what the complaint is about.”
Since the TOPIC of Joe’s post and the TOPIC of the remarks I made to which Rolf responded was RACISM, it is HE who conflated race with any issues of culture et al. In other words, it is Rolf who EXPLICITLY linked race and the content of men’s minds.
Go talk to Rolf, not me, if you don’t like that fact.
>> “race isn’t the issue – behavior is”
You apparently FAILED to read Rolf’s post before you started attacking me for refuting it. He EXPLICITLY declared that race IS the issue here and declared if OTHERS are racist, then YOU must be racist too. And AFTER that, HE pointed to the rape gangs as an EXAMPLE of his principle.
>> “part of that behaviour is an entire culture that thinks it’s completely fine for non-muslim women to be raped”
And, if you PAID ATTENTION to what Rolf wrote, you’d know that he did NOT wish to limit the response to ONLY those who support and/or engage in this “behavior”. His was a call for COLLECTIVISM – for treating ALL Pakistani and other such races et al NOT on the basis of EACH individual’s OWN behavior but on ‘Pakistani’ “behavior”.
>> “The excuse used BY THE STATE … was race.”
As I explicitly pointed out, and you apparently didn’t bother reading, the Gang Rape Inquiry Report identified the fact that this has been going only far, FAR longer than the contemporary “progs”, “woke”, and “anti-racism”/diversity push of the last one or two decades. So race is only the latest excuse by the State.
“one of the most direct responses TO that racism (the racism OF THE STATE and its officials) is to remove that excuse.”
Did you even READ my post before you charged in here? My point is that the problem was the STATE and its REFUSAL to defend the individual’s rights. And My FURTHER point is that Rolf was NOT trying to ELIMINATE racism by the State. He was trying to get the State to simply REVERSE which race it was FAVORING – from Pakistani to whites. In other words, EXACTLY like the so-called “ANTI-Racists”, he wanted the State to KEEP using race as its standard. He was just SQUABBLING over WHICH race should be on top and on bottom of the two-tier system. He WANTED racism – exactly as I stated and you IGNORED completely.
So Rolf is the one who did NOT want your “direct response” of removing the racism OF THE STATE, not me.
Given that fact, you REALLY need to retarget your guns here. They are WAY off course!
“YOU are blaming the victims and supporting the perpetrators.”
*I* supported the Pakistani and the State? At this point, I have to say you simply don’t comprehend the English language, because that is the OPPOSITE of everything I’ve written thus far.
And *I* blamed the girls (the victims) for being raped? Talk about a baldfaced LIAR!
You are “sick” indeed!
No reply button on Rolf’s post either, so can’t respond to IT directly either.
>> “quite the slanderous way to misrepresent what I said.”
Note that Rolf can’t rationally DISPUTE, let alone rationally REFUTE a SINGLE word I wrote. Instead he can only vomit a single EMPTY accusation.
What a surprise!
:eyeroll:
Dude, you read WAAAAYYYY more into what I wrote, than what I said. WAY more. So why should I waste time disputing with you when you appear to have a serious reading comprehension problem?
And technically, it would be libel, not slander, as it was written.
>> “Dude, you read WAAAAYYYY more into what I wrote, than what I said. WAY more.”
No I didn’t, as Rolf KNOWS full well – which is why he STILL can not rationally dispute, let alone logically refute, a SINGLE thing I wrote.
NOT ONE!
NADA!
ZIP!
ZERO!
Instead he’s STUCK – unable to respond with anything but his same EMPTY claim.
Put simply, the ONLY thing Rolf can do here is repeat his kindergartner’s “Nu uh! You a poopie head!” retort.
That certainly says ALL one need say about Rolf’s posts at this point.
Please quote the specific part of what I said that you understood to mean “ALL Pakisani (sic) must be treated as rapists.”
Please quote to me the specific part of what I said that you understood to mean “Rolf RELISHES the idea of VIOLATING other human beings as well. In fact, he is gleefully RIGHTEOUS about VIOLATING the innocent, just like the Pakistani and the State officials who raped and raped and raped these children without mercy.“
>>>> Please quote the specific part of what I sad that you understood to mean “ALL Pakisani (sic) must be treated as rapists.”
That’s easy:
>> Joe: “judge people as individuals, not as a group.” (in this case, EXPLICITLY not by “skin color” aka “race”)
>> Rolf: “yes and no. … group averages do exist, and we have pattern matching skills for a reason.”
This is Rolf declaring that it is not only PROPER but a part of physiological-based human nature to judge people NOT as individuals but as a group (again specifically by race, or as Rolf also explicitly put it “race/ethnicity”). Moreover Rolf said it is ABSOLUTELY required to NOT treat people as individuals if THEIR race is not treating YOUR race as individuals:
>> Rolf: “if all the other races / ethnicities are playing by race-team, and your race/ethnicity is not, you will lose out over time, guaranteed.”
And then Rolf EXPLICITLY identified THE race he is referring to in these statements – the Pakistani:
>> Rolf: “white girls in England who were raped, tortured, and sometimes murdered by Pakistani rape gangs”
This is Rolf declaring it is NOT only PROPER to judge and treat Pakistani as a group [of rapists in this case, as opposed to a group of rights-respecters] instead of as individuals, but that it is NECESSARY to judge and treat Pakistani as a group of racists, instead of individuals because the Pakistani rapists do not treat their victims as individuals but as a group (whites).
——–
>>>> “Please quote to me the specific part of what I sad that you understood to mean “…he is gleefully Righteous about VIOLATING the innocent, just like the Pakistani and the state officials who raped and raped and raped these children without mercy.”
Also easy:
>> Rolf: “if all the other races / ethnicities are playing by race-team, and your race/ethnicity is not, you will lose out over time, guaranteed.”
Again, this is Rolf saying if you do NOT judge and treat the Pakistani as a group (a group which includes NOT only those Pakistani guilty of the crimes in question, but all the Pakistani who are INNOCENT of those crime as well), then the white race in England is going to “lose” to the Pakistani “race/culture”.
Rolf then re-emphasizes this point:
>> Rolf: “Empathy and tolerance is fine, until it becomes self-destructive because it is not reciprocated. … Game theory says that being “nice” and cooperating scores more points if everyone does it, but tit-for-tat is needed to keep people honest. That has largely been removed from our justice system.”
Here Rolf is declaring that treating Pakistani as individuals is “fine” UNLESS there are Pakistani who do not reciprocate (as in the Rape Gangs choosing their victims by race). As he makes crystal clear, when THAT happens, one must be have NO “empathy” for the innocent among the Pakistani BECAUSE some Pakistani have NO “empathy” for whites in England. Instead, one MUST return racism WITH racism. It is a MORAL and EXISTENTIAL IMPERATIVE. With gleeful RIGHTEOUS *not* mournful RELUCTANCE – *because* the existence of the white English race itself is at stake – one must NOT be “nice” to the innocent Pakistani but instead treat them the same as the Pakistani rapists have treated the innocent white girls.
Pure “tit-for-tat”: Vengeful “Justice” MUST be carried out – with NO “empathy” and “tolerance” for other races (not to mention the individual’s rights; no I mean literally NO mention of the individual’s rights ANYWHERE – because, of course, rights are the OPPOSITE of treating the individual as an individual rather than part of a group, as Rolf has attempted to RATIONALIZE here. Treating the individual as a group [of racist rapists in this case] is the VIOLATION of the individual’s rights).
Of course, tit-for-tat racism is NOT any part of a system of “justice” because – again – that is the violation of the individual’s rights. But Rolf has NO qualms in violating rights in the name of treating individuals as nothing but part of a group. In fact he is ANXIOUS and EAGER to do so in order to STOP what HE sees as the whites in England “losing” to the Pakistani BECAUSE the whites are NOT being racist while the Pakistani ARE.
For Rolf, being racist is literally a REQUIREMENT to succeed against racists.
THAT racism to meet racism – that injustice to meet injustice – that victimizing the innocent to meet the victimization of the innocent – is the DEMONIC evil Rolf EXPLICITLY shares with those unspeakable Pakistani gang rape creatures.
QED, as requested.
As I said, you are making a gross misinterpretation of what I said. A much more accurate reading would be:
Recognizing group averages: When you see a group of immigrants not fitting in and integrating (such as committing numerous and grotesque crimes against the local indigenous population, justifying it by pointing to their holy book), YOU STOP LETTING MORE OF THEM IN Or, at the very least, subject them to a higher level of scrutiny and policing.
Tit-for-tat, specifically given in a game theory context: When an individual commits a crime, it is imperative that they are held to account for it, and punished accordingly. This acts to dissuade them from future crimes, and gives a deterrent example to their group, and best done within the rules of the game / in accordance with law.
Together, in context, means “do not let people off the hook for committing a crime because they are in some way part of a special or different group (especially if it’s just to avoid being called RACIST), and if a group actively protects their own tribal identity individuals from justice for crimes committed against another group, then the group is told in no uncertain terms they need to police their own, or they will be collectively punished or expelled.”
Group vs individual game: Not a value judgement, just a factual observation from game theory. The west is generally fairly individualistic. Most of the people in the world are not, and they explicitly play a group-identity political game. So those are the rules THEY are putting forth. As outlined above, telling them they must allow law-breakers to be held accountable or they will vigorously police their own, or they will be treated as a group as that is how they have chosen to act, is nothing more than holding them to their own standards of behavior.
Limits on empathy: suicidal, civilization-ending levels of empathy are not a good thing. To claim otherwise is to say you’d rather have your daughter raped then deport colonists invading your country because you are afraid of being called RACIST. Failing to prevent colonization by incompatible foreigners can be a problem; just ask a Native American… like, maybe, this one: https://x.com/Lawton_Braves/status/2065030729688555743
You appear to be acting like a collectivist, grouping me in with others who have said something vaguely similar in the past, and assuming the worst because you disagreed with them. Maybe ask for clarification, first, next time.
>> “As I said, you are making a gross misinterpretation of what I said. A much more accurate reading would be: … a group of immigrants not fitting in and integrating (such as committing numerous and grotesque crimes against the local indigenous population, justifying it by pointing to their holy book), YOU STOP LETTING MORE OF THEM IN”
One thanks Rolf for PROVING the LIE of his WILD “misrepresentation” claims – ie for PROVING that I got his EVIL ideas EXACTLY right. Rolf just EXPLICITLY declared that when SOME Pakistani are gang rapists, he RIGHTEOUSLY demands ALL Pakistani be treated as gang rapists. In other words, Rolf the RACIST here demands the ‘right’ to treat the innocent Pakistani the SAME as the Pakistani treat the innocent white girls).
Rolf is just a racist Crip to the Pakistani racist Bloods – BRUTE THUGS who REJECT the individual’s right to his OWN life and his OWN effort and instead treat the individual as their PROPERTY, to be disposed of as THEY see fit, to satisfy THEIR desires.
SHARED DEMONIC EVIL indeed!
‘Nuff said about SELF-identified racist Rolf.
Again, you misrepresent my words via selective omission, thereby sounding like a bot, a fool, a moron, a person with a serious reading comprehension problem, heavily vaccinated, or an ideolog. Either way, you appear to be bent on destroying western civilization, the type for whom committing racism is the worst crime of all.
>> “Again, you misrepresent my words via selective omission, thereby sounding like a bot, a fool, a moron, a person with a serious reading comprehension problem, heavily vaccinated, or an ideolog.”
And Rolf the SELF-identified RACIST is back to form. He makes an EMPTY assertion then ABUSES. In other words, he AGAIN is UNABLE to dispute, let alone rationally refute, my ACCURATE identification of his ideas. So he is again STUCK with his kindergarten “Nu uh! You a Poopie Head!” retort.
Put simply, the reason WHY Rolf the SELF-identified RACIST – the creature who EXPLICITLY demands to treat innocent Pakistani the SAME way the Pakistani rape gangs treat innocent white girls – is IMPOTENT to provide ANY argument or evidence for his EMPTY assertion is because he can identify NOTHING in what was ‘omitted’ from his quote which CONTRADICTS a SINGLE word I wrote.
One thanks Rolf for confessing that FACT so crystal clear hear. 🙂
“You apparently FAILED to read Rolf’s post before you started attacking me for refuting it. He EXPLICITLY declared that race IS the issue here”
I read his stuff before. I read it again now.
Excessive capitalization does not make up for poor reading comprehension. Go read his stuff without thinking you already know what he is saying, and try to understand it.
Until you are willing to do that, there’s no reason to keep wasting time talking to you while you make up what people said and then castigate them for it with gratuitous self-righteous capitalization thrown everywhere.
Good luck with life. Hope you learn to read and understand.
>>>Rad: “He EXPLICITLY declared that race IS the issue here”
>>> De: “I read his stuff before. I read it again now. Excessive capitalization does not make up for poor reading comprehension.”
Thanks for confessing the fact that you can NOT rationally attack the SUBSTANCE of a word I wrote, so you toothlessly attack the STYLE of what I wrote. Talk about the DEFINITION of ‘Style over Substance’! You can take the time to attack the PERSON but no time to attack the actual IDEAS.
In other words, thanks for confessing the FACT you can NOT dispute, let alone rationally refute, a SINGLE idea presented against Rolf and your EMPTY ‘defense’ of him. Thanks for confessing the FACT you can ONLY spit the kindergartner’s ‘Nu uh! You a Poopie Head!” – exactly like Rolf.
I appreciate you proving the fact that you’re both peas of the same DELIBERATE irrationality pod. It’s always helpful when evil SELF identifies.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And for those readers who are not WILLFULLY blind and have more than a kindergartner’s epistemology (ie reason not childish abuse), here is the PROOF of MY claim (ie here is what De can’t provide for ANY of HIS claims.
(I point this to others because De ain’t going to read it, let alone rationally respond to a SINGLE argument presented. She’s just going to REPEAT her kindergartner’s ‘Nu uh! You a Poopie Head!’ – ie she’s going to DISHONESTLY evade it all, as she just did.)
>>>>>> Rolf: “Please quote the specific part of what I said that you understood to mean “ALL Pakisani (sic) must be treated as rapists. Please quote to me the specific part of what I said that you understood to mean “Rolf RELISHES the idea of VIOLATING other human beings as well. In fact, he is gleefully RIGHTEOUS about VIOLATING the innocent, just like the Pakistani and the State officials who raped and raped and raped these children without mercy.“”
——————–
>>>> Rad:
>> Rolf: “Please quote the specific part of what I sad that you understood to mean “ALL Pakisani (sic) must be treated as rapists.”
That’s easy:
>> Joe: “judge people as individuals, not as a group.” (in this case, EXPLICITLY not by “skin color” aka “race”)
>> Rolf: “yes and no. … group averages do exist, and we have pattern matching skills for a reason.”
This is Rolf declaring that it is not only PROPER but a part of physiological-based human nature to judge people NOT as individuals but as a group (again specifically by race, or as Rolf also explicitly put it “race/ethnicity”). Moreover Rolf said it is ABSOLUTELY required to NOT treat people as individuals if THEIR race is not treating YOUR race as individuals:
>> Rolf: “if all the other races / ethnicities are playing by race-team, and your race/ethnicity is not, you will lose out over time, guaranteed.”
And then Rolf EXPLICITLY identified THE race he is referring to in these statements – the Pakistani:
>> Rolf: “white girls in England who were raped, tortured, and sometimes murdered by Pakistani rape gangs”
This is Rolf declaring it is NOT only PROPER to judge and treat Pakistani as a group [of rapists in this case, as opposed to a group of rights-respecters] instead of as individuals, but that it is NECESSARY to judge and treat Pakistani as a group of racists, instead of individuals because the Pakistani rapists do not treat their victims as individuals but as a group (whites).
——–
>>>> “Please quote to me the specific part of what I sad that you understood to mean “…he is gleefully Righteous about VIOLATING the innocent, just like the Pakistani and the state officials who raped and raped and raped these children without mercy.”
Also easy:
>> Rolf: “if all the other races / ethnicities are playing by race-team, and your race/ethnicity is not, you will lose out over time, guaranteed.”
Again, this is Rolf saying if you do NOT judge and treat the Pakistani as a group (a group which includes NOT only those Pakistani guilty of the crimes in question, but all the Pakistani who are INNOCENT of those crime as well), then the white race in England is going to “lose” to the Pakistani “race/culture”.
Rolf then re-emphasizes this point:
>> Rolf: “Empathy and tolerance is fine, until it becomes self-destructive because it is not reciprocated. … Game theory says that being “nice” and cooperating scores more points if everyone does it, but tit-for-tat is needed to keep people honest. That has largely been removed from our justice system.”
Here Rolf is declaring that treating Pakistani as individuals is “fine” UNLESS there are Pakistani who do not reciprocate (as in the Rape Gangs choosing their victims by race). As he makes crystal clear, when THAT happens, one must be have NO “empathy” for the innocent among the Pakistani BECAUSE some Pakistani have NO “empathy” for whites in England. Instead, one MUST return racism WITH racism. It is a MORAL and EXISTENTIAL IMPERATIVE. With gleeful RIGHTEOUS *not* mournful RELUCTANCE – *because* the existence of the white English race itself is at stake – one must NOT be “nice” to the innocent Pakistani but instead treat them the same as the Pakistani rapists have treated the innocent white girls.
Pure “tit-for-tat”: Vengeful “Justice” MUST be carried out – with NO “empathy” and “tolerance” for other races (not to mention the individual’s rights; no I mean literally NO mention of the individual’s rights ANYWHERE – because, of course, rights are the OPPOSITE of treating the individual as an individual rather than part of a group, as Rolf has attempted to RATIONALIZE here. Treating the individual as a group [of racist rapists in this case] is the VIOLATION of the individual’s rights).
Of course, tit-for-tat racism is NOT any part of a system of “justice” because – again – that is the violation of the individual’s rights. But Rolf has NO qualms in violating rights in the name of treating individuals as nothing but part of a group. In fact he is ANXIOUS and EAGER to do so in order to STOP what HE sees as the whites in England “losing” to the Pakistani BECAUSE the whites are NOT being racist while the Pakistani ARE.
For Rolf, being racist is literally a REQUIREMENT to succeed against racists.
THAT racism to meet racism – that injustice to meet injustice – that victimizing the innocent to meet the victimization of the innocent – is the DEMONIC evil Rolf EXPLICITLY shares with those unspeakable Pakistani gang rape creatures.
QED, as requested.
———————-
>> Rolf: “As I said, you are making a gross misinterpretation of what I said. A much more accurate reading would be: … a group of immigrants not fitting in and integrating (such as committing numerous and grotesque crimes against the local indigenous population, justifying it by pointing to their holy book), YOU STOP LETTING MORE OF THEM IN”
Rad:
One thanks Rolf for PROVING the LIE of his WILD “misrepresentation” claims – ie for PROVING that I got his EVIL ideas EXACTLY right. Rolf just EXPLICITLY declared that when SOME Pakistani are gang rapists, he RIGHTEOUSLY demands ALL Pakistani be treated as gang rapists. In other words, Rolf the RACIST here demands the ‘right’ to treat the innocent Pakistani the SAME as the Pakistani [rapists] treat the innocent white girls).”
Rolf is just a racist Crip to the Pakistani racist Bloods – BRUTE THUGS who REJECT the individual’s right to his OWN life and his OWN effort and instead treat the individual as their PROPERTY, to be disposed of as THEY see fit, to satisfy THEIR desires.”
——————–
That EXPLICIT racism is what De here is DEFENDING by FRAUDULENTLY trying to deny it’s existence with NOTHING but the kindergartner’s “Nu uh! You a Poopie Head!”
That says all one need say about the epistemology and morality of the evil philosophy De and Rolf here BOTH practice and preach.
Rad4Cap:
You are at the “screaming at the sky” phase, and we are all in “nod, smile, and back away with no sudden movements” phase.
Several people have now told you that you are actively misrepresenting what they have said or that your reading comprehension is poor, and your response is to scream harder.
I do not expect this to convince you on any of your points, as you are not listening to anyone on anything related to any of that. Yes, yes, I know you’ll take that as vindication. Yay for you.
I’m just asking to you to lower the frothing-at-the-mouth level and stop shouting at us, please.
>> “You are at the “creaming at the sky” phase, and we are all in “nod, smil, and back away with no sudden movements” phase.”
Note that De here has NOTHING but ABUSE to offer. I thus thank him for PROVING my point here. 😉
>> “Several people have now told you that you are actively misrepresenting what they have said”
TWO people have made the same EMPTY declaration ‘Nu uh, you a Poopie Head!’
Those SAME TWO people have been IMPOTENT to rationally dispute, let alone logically refute, the arguments presented against their EMPTY claims – ie those TWO people have made NO arguments WHATSOEVER, nor provided EVIDENCE, to back up their kindergartner ‘Nu uh!’. They have simply ARBITRARILY asserted it.
THAT is what De identifies as RATIONAL behavior here.
EVIL epistemology and philosophy indeed!
Some honest reader get back to me if De EVER presents a SINGLE – RATIONAL – ARGUMENT against what I wrote – ie if De EVER does ANYTHING else but toothlessly SNARL ‘Nu uh! You a Poopie Head!’
Well, I tried.
Yes, yes, I’m a horrible evil person, and you are utterly justified in not bothering to read what I write and instead screaming at me for the evils that I am obviously committing. None of us are nearly as intelligent or capable of understanding as you, and you should tell us what we are really thinking as we would obviously not know what we are thinking otherwise, as we are far too stupid.
I will admit that seeing you deliberately introduce typos into what you are quoting from me is even lower than I thought you would go, so good job surprising me. Always an overachiever, you are!
Enjoy a good scream back at me, as I’m an evil person who clearly deserves it (as, no doubt, all your targets are), but I’m afraid I’m so evil that I will no longer be reading your wonderful and enlightening prose, which is yet another evil crime on my part, evil person that I am. Have no mercy on me, for I am irredeemably evil and deserve all your caps locks.
Citation needed.
Also, what if only a few races/ethnicities are playing by race-team?
Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » SHARING IN THE HOPES OF CREATING AN INFINITE FEEDBACK LOOP! The Real Enemy Is Collectivism.
Humans are a victim of our own success. Our technological achievements have made it possible for untold numbers of morons to not just survive but to thrive and propagate. And as more and more of them exist the average IQ of society drops consistently. And these morons want…no, they DEMAND that they be given whatever the hell they want…at someone else’s expense. And as long as we allow these useless parasites to exist our problems will not go away but will instead increase.
In other words … Idiocracy has been instantiated.
As long as “we” keep near-universally accepting Altruism/Collectivism/Statism, “they” (aka “parasites”) will always exist and increase.
In other words, the problem ain’t technology. It’s philosophy.
Socialism appeals to the selfishness, covetousness, pride, psychological insecurity and fear of the young, the ignorant, and the weak, who, all together, constitute something of a majority.
It’s a trick. Most people, when they hear, “From each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs”, will imagine themselves, not as the able ones who give up the fruits of their life-long efforts and are never thanked or appreciated but rather maligned, impugned, and spat upon so as to justify the confiscation. Instead they see themselves as the needy, who uplifted in sympathy, and who receive the forcefully confiscated loot. And so they will support and demand forceful confiscation no matter what, and many will go to the grave supporting it, even thinking themselves righteousness for it.
“”And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
“That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” Second Thessalonians 2:11-12
Our public education industrial complex, in confederacy with the legacy media, popular religion, the entertainment industries, fraternal organizations, trade unions, and the political classes, et al, has turned our youth into, essentially, Marxist revolutionaries (or Romish Crusaders, if you prefer. One is as devilish as the other). You cannot reason with them. They’ve been programmed to hate reason, seeing it as a tool of oppression, or a mind-trick used by their enemies.
If you want to do something about this, then you’d best study up on the processes of phychological de-programming and counter hypnosis. You cannot help them until you begin to understand what has infected them, and the processes by which said infections, the spiritual and psychological inoculations, if you will, were accomplished.
Also, and more importantly, pray to God, our almighty creator and deliverer, who sent us his son to extricate us from sin and death.
But this is well above most people’s pay-grade, so to speak, unless they are knowledgeable in and well familiar with the Scriptures;
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:12
And this sad and brutal repetition of history that we are now living does NOT go on and on forever. There is a final warning;
“And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
“For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
“And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Revelation 18:2-4
Please continue reading through chapter 22. It takes only a few minutes.
So it will all be done away with, entirely. But which side will you be on?
Life’s funny.
I used to sort of chuckle at your posts, Lyle. Not mocking, just not believing. Things change. Covid revealed a lot of evil.
Now I go to church regularly, and teach at a Christian school.
Keep on preaching, my man. All will learn eventually, and the best we can do is try to get them to learn before it’s too late.
And thanks to our kind blog-host as well, who puts up so admirably with people he doesn’t agree with on everything.
“If you judge people as an immutable group you, in some sense of the word, are a collectivist.”
Not in “some sense of the word”. In THE sense of the word:
“Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group – whether to a race, class or state does not matter.”
“Collectivism holds that, in human affairs, the collective – society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc – is the unit of reality and the standard of value”
“Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage – the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the character and actions of a collective of ancestors.”
“Like every other form of collectivism, racism is a quest for the unearned. It is a quest for automatic knowledge – for an automatic evaluation of men’s characters that bypasses the responsibility of exercising rational or moral judgment – and, above all, a quest for an automatic self-esteem (or pseudo-self-esteem)”
— The Ayn Rand Lexicon
How to tell when someone has never actually traveled and met different people.
>>” How to tell when someone has never actually traveled and met different people.”
Thanks for confessing the fact you cannot dispute, let alone rationally refute, a word I wrote. So instead you ABUSE.
Not a surprise from someone defending racism as valid and those who reject that EVIL philosophy haven’t “met different people”.
Yet if you’ve traveled and lived abroad you’ll discover culture has a lot to do with it. And most nations are far more ethnically homogeneous than the USA.
Does that mean an individual must share the culture and cultural values of the majority of their ethnic group in which they were raised? No, not at all.
But it’s going to take time and effort to learn the new culture and it’s values.
LK here just declared that “most nations” are supposedly much less racially diverse than the US. And LK takes this supposed fact and ARBITRARILY declares that judging the individual on the basis of his skin color, NOT the content of his character, is somehow validated by that supposed fact.
Talk about the non-sequitur rationalizations of the RACIST!
Put simply, LK just made the Southern Racist’s ‘argument’: ‘You run across a darkie and he be likely to loooove him some fried chicken and watermelon. That’s just the culture uhv dem colored folk.’
In other words, you’ve certainly PROVEN the quote: ““Like every other form of collectivism, racism is a quest for the unearned. It is a quest for automatic knowledge – for an automatic evaluation of men’s characters that bypasses the responsibility of exercising rational or moral judgment”.
“LK here just declared that “most nations” are supposedly much less racially diverse than the US. ”
Having traveled ***extensively***, yes, they are. That’s not some kind of weird, wacko conspiracy theory, it’s just true.
It’s less true than it was 20 years ago, with the intentional mass-migration from 3rd world countries being used as an attempt to damage western nations, but it is still true.
And LowKey’s point wasn’t “OMG, the racism, I loves it!”, it was … well, he said it very bluntly: “it’s going to take time and effort to learn the new culture and it’s values.”
The non-native population is less likely to be part of the native culture. That’s not a race thing, it’s a history thing (well, in some places it is a race thing, because the natives are tremendously racist – Japan, China, France, plenty of examples).
Until quite recently (on the historical scale), race was a fairly decent proxy for culture… if you understood “race” at the level used by people in history, which was a LOT more detailed than “black, white, yellow, red”.
One of the last gasps of this detail-level racism on display in the United States was against the Irish, arguably the whitest of all white people (the Scandianvians would be the only challengers there, I think). It wasn’t because of their skin color, it was a stand-in for culture. As the Irish immigrants assimilated, that hatred against “the Irish” faded away… because it was no longer useful, even to the haters.
I’m not black, but I do love fried chicken and watermelon. The origin of that particular thing wasn’t that “black people like this stuff”, it was a smear that black people, given political power, would abuse that power to give themselves good things, things everybody agreed were good… just on the expensive side (good fried chicken is made with a young chicken, so you give up a lot of egg-laying… that makes it expensive). The “racism” part wasn’t the fried chicken or the watermelon, it was “It’s wrong for those subhumans to have nice things!” It was “they can’t be trusted with political office” (as opposed to…… uh…….. let me get back to you when I find any group anywhere that has trustworthy politicians). Ignorant idiots make it about the watermelon and the fried chicken.
Edit: The France comment above is a joke – they actually are a pretty good example of *cultural* supremacism over racial supremacism. As I heard them described once long ago and found to be fairly accurate (well, in Paris and the snooty parts of France), “The only thing worse than not speaking French is speaking French with an American accent.”
Jeez – the reply button seems to have disappeared from most new comments.
>> “LowKey’s point wasn’t “OMG, the racism, I loves it!”, it was … well, he said it very bluntly: “it’s going to take time and effort to learn the new culture and it’s values.””
You do the SAME thing here you did with Rolf. You declare this is about “culture” when both Joe’s post and mine were about RACISM – and it is in the CONTEXT of RACISM that LK has made his post.
In other words, YOU and Rolf and LK are ALL treating race and “culture” as interchangeable (and treating every individual in a country as possessing the same ideas because of their national origin – ie you are NOT judging and treating each individual according to THEIR ideas/behaviors. You aren’t even INVESTIGATING any particular individual’s ideas or behaviors. You BEGIN with the cultural stereotype (because you’ve “traveled” which somehow VALIDATES stereotyping :eyeroll:) and then paint ALL those in/from a country with that SAME collectivist brush.
YOU are exactly the type of person to whom Joe was speaking. And you’ve MISSED that point entirely.
You also missed the historic source and meaning of the “fried chicken and watermelon”. It wasn’t about blacks wanting to vote themselves expensive things (which is the OPPOSITE of what both chicken and watermelon were; BOTH were CHEAP – and BOTH were ‘uncouth’ – ie you ate them with your hands – which was used to portray blacks as “unclean, lazy, childish, and simple-minded” NOT greedy for expensive values! It was NOT to show them as avaricious).
Put simply, instead of actually READING the history of the smear, you just MADE UP whatever you felt like – as you have throughout your posts here.
You should try having FEELINGS which get LESS triggered and try having FACTS which get you MORE understanding about reality.
The “Reply” button disappears every time the thread depth reaches a certain point.
I’m not bothering with rest until you have better reading comprehension.
Toning down the all caps shouting would be nice, too. I recommend asterisks to simulate bold and occasionally underscores to simulate italics.
I still use all caps for a few things, but it’s really helpful to minimize it with other methods.
OK, I will respond to one other thing:
“You also missed the historic source and meaning of the “fried chicken and watermelon”.”
No, I did not make that up. That is the history of it that I have read, from multiple sources. Your own historical ignorance (good fried chicken was *more expensive*, as I explicitly pointed out, even including why that was the case) does not make others wrong.
Hmm, that seems like a theme from you.
>>”You also missed the historic source and meaning of the “fried chicken and watermelon”.”
No, I did not make that up. That is the history of it that I have read, from multiple sources. Your own historical ignorance (good fried chicken was *more expensive*, as I explicitly pointed out, even including why that was the case) does not make others wrong.”
LOL!!! This is completely FALSE.
The stereotypes linking blacks to fried chicken and watermelon originated in the post-Civil War era (esp during Reconstruction and Jim Crow) as a racist BACKLASH against black economic self-sufficiency and freedom.
https://nmaahc.si.edu/explore/stories/popular-and-pervasive-stereotypes-african-americans
WATERMELON STEREOTYPE:
After emancipation, many formerly enslaved blacks in the South grew watermelons on their own land as a CASH crop (an extension of what many of their masters had allowed them to do for themselves with watermelons and chickens while they were slaves). It was relatively EASY to cultivate, provided income, and SYMBOLIZED liberation, independence, and entrepreneurship. Black farmers sold them at markets, turning the fruit into a SYMBOL of autonomy.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/how-watermelons-became-a-racist-trope/383529/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermelon_stereotype
Naturally, there was a racist BACKLASH against this POSITIVE view of blacks. White Southerners, THREATENED by the blacks’ economic progress and control, TWISTED the association. They portrayed watermelon as evidence of blacks being “unclean, lazy, childish, and simple-mided” because watermelons were depicted as messy (eaten with hands) and suited to “pickaninnies”. Not to mention that the negative TROPE about watermelons existed “BEFORE emancipation” not even RELATED to blacks:
> “In the early modern European imagination, the typical watermelon-eater was an Italian or Arab peasant. The watermelon, noted a British officer stationed in Egypt in 1801, was “a poor Arab’s feast,” a meager substitute for a proper meal. In the port city of Rosetta he saw the locals eating watermelons “ravenously … as if afraid the passer-by was going to snatch them away,” and watermelon rinds littered the streets. There, the fruit symbolized many of the same qualities as it would in post-emancipation America: uncleanliness, because eating watermelon is so messy. Laziness, because growing watermelons is so easy, and because it’s hard to eat watermelon and keep working—it’s a fruit you have to sit down and eat. Childishness, because watermelons are sweet, colorful, and devoid of much nutritional value.”
This STEREOTYPE was spread through postcards, cartoons, advertisements, sheet music, etc. They showed exaggerated CARICATURES of blacks (often with dark skin and red lips) STEALING, FIGHTING over, or gleefully eating watermelon in STREETS. This shamed black merchants and reinforced notions of INFERIORITY during Jim Crow.
So, contrary to De’s ANTI-FACTUAL declaration that watermelons were “things everybody agreed were good … just on the expensive side”, watermelons (and fried chicken) were “CHEAP” and (before being racially TWISTED) “Americans were just as likely to associate the watermelon with white Kentucky hillbillies or New Hampshire yokels as with black South Carolina slaves”. In other words, they were NOT – as De FRAUDULENTLY declares – associated with “nice things” but were associated with BEING “subhuman” (to use De’s terminology).
FRIED CHICKEN STEREOTYPE
Historically, chicken was a staple of and had practical value for black slaves – it was CHEAP, was EASY to raise, and was something most blacks were PERMITTED to own and raise for themselves, which provided them with meat that they would otherwise not have gotten in a lot of cases. The black slave cooks often prepared fried chicken as a means of making it a “portable” food, and post-emancipation, black women sold fried chicken at train stops as a form of economic opportunity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fried_chicken_stereotype
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/05/22/186087397/where-did-that-fried-chicken-stereotype-come-from
https://lifeandthyme.com/food/fried-chicken-isnt-a-punchline-its-part-of-the-black-american-story/
https://dialog.puchd.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/7.Heba-Thankam-Varghese-The-Unpopular-History-of-the-Black-Food-African-American-Food-Stereotypes-in-Popular-Media.pdf
Of course, like watermelon, fried chicken was WEAPONIZED to MOCK black people. Eating with hands was used to SYMBOLIZE uncouthness, uncleanliness, and LACK of civilization. And it was used to present blacks as UNFIT for power or civilization. This was POPULARIZED in many of the same ways as the watermelon STEREOTYPE, with one of the most effective at the time being DW Griffith’s RACIST film “The Birth of a Nation” which GROSSLY depicted a black politician GROSSLY eating his fried chicken while in legislative session as an example of DISGUSTING black character traits, the SAME as another black politician throwing his feet up on the legislative desks and taking his shoes and socks off to scratch his feet and otherwise GROTESQUELY prove his BARBARISM.
Put simply, De’s claims about “chicken and watermelon” being examples of what “black people, given political power, would abuse that power to give themselves good things, things everybody agreed were good” is PURE, UNADULTERATED CRAP.
Chicken and watermelon were used to STIGMATIZE blacks as PRE-CIVILIZED creatures who should NOT be allowed to participate IN civilization (ie ‘chicken and watermelon’ was just a SHORTHAND for the view which the racists had ALWAYS used to justify black slavery: blacks are INFERIOR creatures to the white man.
Chicken and watermelon were simply EXPLICITLY, CONCRETE examples of that INFERIORITY.
Chicken and watermelon were NOT, as De claims in CONTRADICTION to the FACTS of reality, about CIVILIZED people – ie they were NOT EXAMPLES of the ‘good’ things in life EVERYONE wanted.
Chicken and watermelons were a STEREOTYPE for the UNCIVILIZED.
De ARBITRARILY declaring the OPPOSITE is simply De taking HIS “love [of] fried chicken and watermelon” and projecting HIS current view of them as ‘good things’ A-HISTORICALLY onto a past where the OPPOSITE was the case.
And THAT is an example of what De has been doing in his EVERY post here. IGNORING what ACTUALLY happened/was written and instead SUBSTITUTING his WISH in place of those FACTS – ARBITRARILY declaring his WISHES *are* the FACTS.
A “theme” from De indeed!!
Testing a reply with multiple links here, because my refutation of De’s ANTI-Factual claim about “Chicken and Watermelon” NOT being based on portraying blacks as uncivilized barbarians but instead as politically greedy for the “nice” things in life (which had numerous links to PROVE the FACT that De’s claim was a blatant FALSEHOOD based on his OWN “love [of] chicken and watermelon” as ‘good things’ in life which he A-HISTORICALLY projected onto the past in question) has vanished.
Trying to see if the inclusion of multiple links is the issue or if it was something else – like the inclusion of terms which automatically triggers the filtering of posts (not the n-word but other terms the auto-censor might not like but were part of the quotes from the time which PROVED my claim and DISPROVED De’s)
These are some of the links I provided to prove my case:
https://nmaahc.si.edu/explore/stories/popular-and-pervasive-stereotypes-african-americans
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/how-watermelons-became-a-racist-trope/383529/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermelon_stereotype
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fried_chicken_stereotype
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/05/22/186087397/where-did-that-fried-chicken-stereotype-come-from
https://lifeandthyme.com/food/fried-chicken-isnt-a-punchline-its-part-of-the-black-american-story/
https://www.theguardian.com/food/2020/oct/13/ive-always-loved-fried-chicken-but-the-racism-surrounding-it-shamed-me
Let’s see if the post stays (meaning it was the terminology) or if it disappears (meaning the links aka PROOF of the claims are the problem)
But can there really be a “collectivism” when there is always a Wizard behind the curtain?
>> “But can there really be a “collectivism” when there is always a Wizard behind the curtain?”
“Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group…and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whims to its own interests.”
Who speaks FOR the “Collective” (because there is NO organism with one mind and one mouth which can speak), identifying HOW they wish to dispose of their human PROPERTY, doesn’t change this fact.
But can there really be “collectivism” when there is always a Wizard behind the curtain?
For the people who “BELIEVE”, the wizard behind the curtain is an invention of the counterrevolutionaries and saboteurs, the Kulaks, who are all lying about how much the collective really does think and act as one. To the extent that any individual dislikes the decisions or actions of the collective, he or she can make some excuse as to how the needs of the many, blah blah blah.
>> “For the people who “BELIEVE”, the wizard behind the curtain is an invention…”
So you “BELIEVE” lt’s idea here that there is NO such thing as “collectivism”?! In other words, you believe that there is NO such thing as a system which “holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group … and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whims to its own interests”?!
I plan to restrict or eliminate reading the comments section for a while. I expect to save a lot of time by avoiding the word vomit that has shown up to take away the utility of the minds that normally comment here. Looks like a bot to me…
>> “the word vomit that has shown up”
You smear ALL the comments here with your intentional refusal to identify what you arbitrarily declare are supposedly invalid arguments being made here.
In other words, you just ‘vomited’ ABUSE all over everyone. Interesting example of “the utility of the minds that normally comment here.”
The current one, is merely another of the several crackpots, or a bot programmed by one, that have, from time to time, infested the commentary here with blog post length rants, possibly because in their insipid and boring life, they have no one else paying attention to them, so they seek to get it by ‘rage bating’
The best course is to treat them like any other troll i.e. ‘Don’t Feed The Trolls™’ and eventually they’ll become bored from being ignored and go away.
>> “current ONE”
Well, that identifies the target for ABUSE.
>> “crackpots…rants…insipid and boring life….rage baiting ….troll”
Thanks for identifying the fact you can’t rationally dispute, let alone logically refute, a word that was written. Instead you can only ABUSE.
Interesting that ABUSE is considered the appropriate behavior here (by apparent ‘regulars’), not rational arguments presented in support of Joe’s post or against those who contradict his post (regardless of “length”) as was done here.
Is THAT the intended type of person Joe is aiming his commentary at here? If so, there is indeed no point for anyone NOT interested in ABUSE to return to the site.