The right seems to be permanently confused about why the left believes the things they do. It's actually a quite simple, principled, and non-contradictory combination of ideas that most people these days take for granted. The world is governed by the leftist arguments provided below:
Human suffering is bad.
Therefore, we should do anything we can to reduce human suffering.
One of the largest causes of human suffering is bigotry. Between-group conflicts are absolutely irrational, relying on chimpanzee like primitive instincts that randomly hate anyone not-like-you, for no actual reason, except in the deep past this sort of primitive tribalism was a good idea evolutionarily. Eradicating bigotry, having no actual benefits but only costs, is therefore one of the easiest ways to reduce human suffering on Earth.
Just imagine how nice the world would be if there were no wars, no dirty looks, no insults, no laws preventing people from living ordinary happy lives just because they happen to be homosexuals, women, blacks, Muslims, etc.
On the other hand, if bigotry wins, the result is extermination chambers that systematically wipe out millions of innocent men, women, and children, the most heinously immoral act humanity could ever perpetrate. Why tolerate bigotry when it can only lead to results like this? Why allow even a single child to be exposed to such a heinous belief, which might poison their minds forever?
Specifically, historically oppressed and disadvantaged groups are the most vulnerable to bigotry. People like Amerindians, blacks, women, aborigines, and Jews who have already been the victims of bigotry need to be protected from future bigotry the most. Groups that have never been oppressed or disadvantaged in the past need no such protections, because they're obviously doing just fine and can take care of themselves. Abuse directed at historically advantaged groups can just be laughed off as a bunch of silliness, since there is no actual threat to groups who still hold so much economic, political, and cultural power. Specifically, whites, Asians, men, straights, and Christians are so obviously dominant and well off that bigotry against them, though perhaps misguided, poses no serious threat to human welfare.
It doesn't matter if blacks, Jews, or gays are behaving badly and thus garnering a merited bad reputation, bigotry against them still isn't excusable. This is because A) bigots are indiscriminate and will attack innocent blacks, Jews and gays right alongside the misbehaving ones, just like the Nazis who killed every last Jew they could get their hands on, whether they were communist agitators or not. B) Bigots are too cruel and punish misbehaving groups too harshly precisely because their bigotry/hate towards said group clouds their judgment and makes them less merciful. For instance, it may be true that a black thief should have to serve probation for his crime, but a bigot will suddenly demand the death penalty or that the black be drawn and quartered, just for a simple thing like shoplifting, because they will seize on any excuse, even bad behavior, to hurt the groups they hate. Therefore anyone who claims they only dislike a group because of their actual bad behavior is lying, and just searching for excuses to exterminate the entire group they hate when the time is ripe.
Because certain groups are behaving badly, they need to be protected all the more from the extermination plans of the bigots. The worse a historical-target-of-bigots behaves, the more protection they need from the bigoted masses so that death chambers aren't set up again and final solutions aren't proposed anymore. Therefore, we can't report that a black did a crime, but only two 'youths' or otherwise meaningless terms, because if we were constantly reporting the truth about blacks behaving badly, the bigots would win out and extermination chambers would be sprouting all over America. We can't allow basic nonfiction facts to be disseminated, like crime rates or welfare rates or illegitimacy rates, because this would help out the bigots. Nor can we show in fiction blacks ever behaving like actual black people, for instance as violent/stupid/lazy, but must always show blacks who break said stereotypes, so that bigots are kept in check and people keep in mind all the innocent, noble exceptions to the norm that would be hurt if bigotry were unleashed into the world again.
The fact that the Nazi party in Germany came to power is proof that bigotry lurks in the breasts of at least every white male on Earth as a genetic instinct. It is also proof that bigotry = extermination, and will not stop short at any other goal. The Nazis were not a particularly evil group of whites, they were just as civilized as the rest of Europe, and their genes were no different from ours. In fact, Britain and thus America is primarily peopled by German ethnicities. They were simply normal people who didn't have the proper programs in place to stop bigotry. Any country which doesn't use a full frontal assault on bigotry 24/7 365 days a year will succumb to the siren song of bigotry, just like Nazi Germany did. White people are born evil bigots, scientific studies show their latent racism still lurks in the recesses of their vile brains, and only the triumvirate of media-education-law codes that constantly suppresses bigotry can save us. The natural state of whites, if unprocessed, is Nazi Germany. Whites are born Nazis and must be trained, day and night, forever, to stay liberals.
Any argument that could possibly be marshaled in favor of 'realism' over 'anti-discrimination' is meaningless in face of the moral imperative to prevent the next Auschwitz. Even if it doesn't come to that, the benefits of discrimination, for instance increasing local employment or strengthening marriages, could never match the costs visited upon the unfair victims of discrimination, like crushing poverty, not being able to marry the person they love, being constantly called names, etc. And even if potentially the benefits did outweigh the costs, it still isn't right to gain any benefit at the expense of someone else, who only pays the price. Everything should be a fair and equal exchange, such that no one is worse off systematically in a society, even if this somehow prevents the additional well being of said groups, it's still worth the price for fundamental fairness to prevail.
* * *
The problem with this argument isn't the logical steps from point A to B, or B to C. It starts with the original premise that all groups deserve to survive and thrive equally. The superior *should* supplant the inferior, while the inferior *should not* supplant the superior. Life is like a basketball tournament. The winners should proceed to the Sweet 16 while the losers should go home. Everyone, winner and losers alike, should NOT proceed to the next round as though no game were ever played. Fairness is NOT as important a consideration as merit. Only by rewarding success with tangible benefits can humanity ever progress into further stages of evolution, both culturally and genetically. And the prime reason humans suffer at this time is not due to bigotry, but our own inadequacies, cultural and genetic, which must be overcome through more evolution.
Bigotry is not a big deal because once all the hated groups are eliminated the bigotry is eliminated too. It's a self-solving 'problem.' The real problem is what a shambles the human race is, how weak, dumb, and pathetic they are, every day of their lives. This problem can never be solved by stomping out bigotry. In fact, only bigotry can ever shape humanity up, by insisting on higher standards and not granting equal treatment to the human detritus holding the best of us down.
If life were like a basketball tournament and merit were rewarded, the winners of life -- the people who can support themselves financially, who can find a spouse and create stable homes where children can be born and raised, who can defend themselves in war and can't be fooled by liars or tempted by vices into losing everything they've worked hard for -- would be the only ones allowed to proceed to the next round -- ie, the next generation of humanity, ie, have kids. The losers would have to 'go home,' ie, they should not be allowed to have children because they have shown their inner natures, whether transmitted genetically or culturally, are not fit enough to be included in the next stage of our evolution. This would obviously have dramatic repercussions on groups with disproportionate numbers of losers, and could even mean their total extinction, whether it's blacks or gays, but that doesn't matter because we already discovered through objective measures that they were worthless from the start.
Steve Sailer recently created a graph showing who was voting for Romney, and who was voting for Obama. Obama's top constituents were transgendered single black mothers and the like riffraff. Romney's biggest constituency were Mormons, people known for having almost no vices, being well-to-do, married for life, and successful in every way. Most of Romney's voters were married, relatively wealthy whites or people who assumed they would join said group in the near future. The graph was clear as night and day. Those who wanted merit to succeed in life voted Republican, and those who wanted the worst detritus of humanity to drag down and eventually overwhelm the country into total social and financial collapse voted Democrat. It is absurd that the trash that supported the democratic party should share a 'one person, one vote' with the superb specimens of mankind that voted Republican. It is absurd that they can have unlimited children at the expense of the successful people who have to pay taxes to support all of these demonspawn. And the absurd future where incessant breeding plus incessant voting by the underclass grinds human progress to a dead halt is far worse than anything the Nazis ever did.
The worst case scenario of hatred is far more benign than the worst case scenario of love, equality, or fairness. If the Nazis killed off everyone except themselves, they'd still have intact families, have a high standard of living, create fantastic art and invent rockets that got mankind to the moon. But if the ape people liberals so love to champion actually won out, it is unimaginable how bad life would become for the rest of mankind's future. The slums of India, where children's eyes are dished out with spoons so they can make for more effective beggars, isn't even the bottom of the barrel. Maybe it's the sex slaves of Cambodia, where recalcitrant 11 year olds are stuck in barrels of feces and scorpions until they recant and willingly start serving their customers again. Or maybe it's something even more barbaric, where the vast majority of people are eunuchs or part of harems, and only a tiny few 'big men' live their heavenly lives of sex, booze, and drugs at the top. There is no bottom to how bad humans can become. Their lowest moral state is far beneath the wild animals or even the plants that we live beside. Humans can be the most disgusting, most degraded atoms in the whole whirling universe. And the only thing that can stop them is bigotry, ie, judgmentalism, ie, discrimination, ie, standards.
No comments:
Post a Comment