The Parochialism of ‘Diversity’
James Taranto, Wall Street Journal, June 5, 2013

White liberals’ preferred habitat.

One is tempted to chuckle at their naiveté and leave it at that. But it’s important to understand the way these people think, because their way of thinking has wide cultural influence. And naiveté isn’t the only problem with the ideologues of “diversity” or “multiculturalism.” They’re also quite frequently hypocritical, which is to say that they are selectively and sometimes harshly intolerant even as they extol tolerance. Anyone who’s spent time on an American college campus in the past 30 years–and that includes a large proportion of Cambridge residents–is familiar with that phenomenon.

The naiveté and the hypocrisy both are the result of a parochialism that is at the heart of this supposedly cosmopolitan ideology.

{snip}

Multiculturalists are no less prone than other human beings to be hostile to out-groups. It’s just that they are willing to accept almost anyone foreign, or otherwise identifiably different, into their in-group. The only out-groups they readily recognize are familiar, domestic ones, like the “other communities” that, according to Rae Binstock, “don’t have to deal with the idea that lots of communities of different people have to coexist.” It all goes back to oikophobia.

A more abstract form of this parochialism is the multiculturalists’ frequent insistence that “only white people can be racist.” In this view, racism is perhaps the greatest moral failing of which human beings are capable–but nonwhites are absolved of moral responsibility for their racial prejudices.

But moral responsibility is the essence of humanity. It is what sets Homo sapiens apart from other animals. Assigning moral responsibility to whites while denying it to nonwhites is therefore a way of dehumanizing the latter. Multiculturalism turns out to be a disguised form of white supremacy.

http://www.amren.com/news/2013/06/the-p ... diversity/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtDh93ByBI8

Take, for example, this screaming hyperactive barefoot gay atheist Jew who nearly gives himself a stroke as he harangues a calm and genial Christian on Sproul Plaza at the University of Berkeley. For nine minutes he foams and flails, saying “dirty Goyim” are responsible for slavery, homophobia, anti-Semitism, misogyny, and war crimes and thus should be imprisoned for their collective generational wickedness. He claims to be from the South, but despite his anti-Christian and anti-Southern animus, his fevered gesticulations are nearly indistinguishable from that of a deranged, snake-bitten Bible Belt preacher from the Alabama hills. Despite his hysterically avowed atheism, he has the moral certitude of a religious fanatic and seems convinced that anyone who even calmly disagrees with him is not only wrong—they’re evil.

As government and popular culture continue to dismantle organized religion’s influence on American life, a new breed of emboldened atheists is emerging, one that ironically seems every bit as militant, evangelical, hostile, and ideologically rigid as the religionists whose hatred they hate so fervently. As the movement gains power and rises in the social pecking order, it becomes more dogmatic and more eager to forbid and punish words and actions that obstruct its path. Rather than representing a passive lack of belief, this virulent sub-sect of modern atheism in many ways represents an aggressive belief system, an increasingly intolerant secular religion. It is becoming difficult to distinguish the True Believers from the True Disbelievers.

I’m not talking about all atheists, mind you—only the pushy and hateful ones. Not all Christians are pushy and hateful, either, but you wouldn’t know that by listening to some of this new herpetic breed of in-your-face deity-deniers.

What I find most loathsome about them—besides their personalities and, in extreme cases, their personal hygiene—is that despite all their chest-thumping about being rational skeptics, rare is the neo-atheist who dares question one pubic hair upon the corpus of our dominant cultural dogma, AKA the Cult of Equality. Almost down to the very last soulless soul, every one of these alleged “skeptics” gullibly gulps down every dumb, implausible, impossible, and unscientific tenet of liberal creationism. There is nothing remotely reasonable about blank-slate equality, but they treat anyone who dares challenge it as a heretic.

Even as they push for legislation that forces Christian bakers to squirt frosting atop same-sex wedding cakes and for Catholic healthcare agencies to provide birth control, they staunchly deny there is anything coercive, aggressive, overbearing, militant, or evangelical about their stance. As they preach it, religion en toto is an oppressively violent belief system, and once humanity is freed from religion’s shackles, we will have evolved together under one big shiny bubble of state-sponsored social harmony and borderless tranquility. They say that unlike Christians and Muslims, atheists don’t force their beliefs on anyone, that atheists don’t harm anyone. Look at history, they say.

http://takimag.com/article/the_underbel ... z2Xn6B0GNW

Oni koji za sebe tvrde da su tolerantni.

Over a year ago, CNN tried and failed to prove that Zimmerman had used the word “coons” in his 911 call before he killed Martin. It has reached the point in America where white-on-black racially motivated violence is so supremely rare, the media is forced to call Hispanic men “white” and to hire sound technicians to search for nonexistent racial slurs on audio tracks as if they were fanatical Christians playing Judas Priest records backwards in the hope of finding satanic messages.

Being identified as a “cracker” in Florida can get you killed. But the American media was largely silent about that double murder of two “crackers” by a black gangbanger. They also didn’t whip up the slightest bit of moral hysteria about a recent home invasion caught on a nanny cam where a burly black man savagely beat a white woman in front of her three-year-old daughter.

http://takimag.com/article/the_week_tha ... z2Xn9YBJwY

I onda reci da su oni normalni.

So instead of manning up and admitting that the only evidence so far of racial animus in George Zimmerman’s murder trial allegedly came straight from Trayvon Martin’s lips, panicked prog pundits scrambled last week to explain that “cracker” is not a racist term. After all, that’s what Rachel Jeantel claims, and even though the thick-necked, heavy-lidded she-beast appears to be barely sentient, white people are too stupid to understand her. We are lectured by the same people who incessantly lampoon white Southern accents that crackers are simply too “ignorant” to comprehend the rich vibrant nuances of Miz Jeantel’s prehistoric verbal grunts and clicks. White people should quit whining, or at least that’s what the laughably white staffers at Gawker—who never cease whining about the innate sinfulness of whiteness—recommend.

http://takimag.com/article/the_week_tha ... z2XnBD9ogJ



Isplati se pročitat cijeli članak.


Witnesses who testified last week contradicted themselves and one another multiple times. But for a depressingly high quotient of Americans, the facts of the case seem entirely irrelevant. Racial prejudice is a two-way street, and most Americans seem to have prejudged this case the moment they heard of it.

The only sympathetic—pitiable, rather—character is America itself. This nation is fatally divided along racial, ideological, intellectual, and economic lines, the whole mess likely preplanned and engineered by culture-busting globalist forces from on high. But even to suggest such a thing will have you labeled “paranoid” by the same blinkered tools who are constantly hallucinating racist demons where none exist.

When O. J. Simpson was acquitted of murdering two white people, white Americans did not riot. When four LAPD officers—three who were white and one who was Mexican, although the press habitually referred to them all as white—were acquitted on charges of using excessive force against serial fuckup Rodney King, LA’s ghettos erupted in solar flares of violence that left 53 dead. Two decades ago, the press carefully sculpted a narrative of institutional racial hatred and King’s abject victimization that consistently sidestepped crucial details, such as the fact that King had two partners with him that night who obeyed police orders and didn’t get beaten.

http://takimag.com/article/the_week_tha ... z2XnBUnCi7


Ovo ludilo se tiče i nas. I bolje bi nam bilo da ga shvatimo i pripremimo se.

Ako jednog dana nećeš biti optužen za ubojstvo u Hrvatskoj zato jer si Hrvat.

Nezamislivo? I u Americi je bilo.

Vremena se mjenjaju.

Iz ovo nešto malo komunikacije s lijevima i desnima, napose u anglosferi- a sudjelovali su i razni "drugi" kao Finci, Kinezi, Indijci, Nijemci, Korejci,..- dođoh do nekoliko zapažanja (koja su možda trivijalna):

* liberali u anglosferi su ljevičari, zapravo ideološki nasljednici
komunista. To nisu liberali u smislu 19. st. (J.S. Mill, Dickens itd.).
Pravi su nasljednici starih liberala "libertarijanci".

* konzervativci se, ugrubo, dijele u dvije vrste: pravi tradicionalisti
povezani s religijom (kršćani) i socijal-darvinisti (uglavnom ateisti, "nacisti",
preživljavanje jačeg)

* ti ljevičari u anglosferi su zatucani kao politkomesari u nas u
"zlatno doba" komunizma. Njihova je idejna okosnica jednakost
u rezultatu- ne samo u šansi: oko spola, rase, svega...
Smeta ih bilo što što je ljudski u punom smislu- a to je individualnost
i pojedinca, i grupa. Zato mrze i naciju i religiju- a o njima imaju uglavnom
idiotske predočbe- ne zato što navodno tlače duh pojedinca, nego zato što
pojedincima daju "okus" posve individualan- jedno je Nijemac, drugo Talijan.
A to zadrte ljevičare smeta, u njihovoj upravo maoističkoj strasti
za uniformnošću.

* lijeva ideologija prožima, uza sve ispušne ventile koji su
dani desnima ili konzervativcima, sve sfere života. Tko se
suprotstavi, uglavnom ostaje bez posla ili biva demoniziran.
To je totalitarizam bez gulaga.

* n.pr. lijevi blogovi i novine kao New York Times ili Huffington post
uvijek imaju cenzuru- moderatura je takva da se upis-ako si
i registriran- ne može pojaviti ako ti ga ne prošnjofaju
kroz nekoliko sati. Naprotiv, "desni" kao Taki mag ili American renaissance-
tu možeš pisati i odmah se pojavljuje. Ne samo zbog disqusa, nego i inače.
Ponekad se i tamo izbriše, no nešto vrlo, vrlo suludo,
a i to iznimno rijetko. Na Huff puffu sam imao iskustava
da mi obični komentar bude odbačen, i to samo zato
jer bi bio "clinch", potpuno obaranje neke ljevičarske dogme-
oko nacije, rase, feminizma, Izraela i sl.

* desnih ima na lijevim situsima malo, i to zato jer ih blokiraju pa ljudi odustanu.
Lijevi pak dođu na desne situse bahato- jer navikli su da
im nitko ne protuslovi, pa se bahate. Osim uobičajenih imbecila i
vrijeđanja, pravi je šok za njih kad ih većina uvuče u ozbiljnije rasprave
oko njihovih svetih krava (afirmativna akcija, religion bad, bad,..
politika rasnoga pitanja i useljeništva,.). Tu onda nešto procvile i kidnu.
Ljevičari ne znaju diskutirati. Oni samo prosiplju parole i
ako ih moraju braniti- preglupi su da bi to mogli.

* već rekoh- ljevičarenje je kao komunizam komesara.
Feminizam-to je AFŽ i slične parole, a tu su i ostali.

* jedino nekoliko iznenađenja ili odstupanja
od stereotipa sam vidio kod homića (normalnih i obrazovanih, ne
raznih đilkana) i bivših lijevih koji su progledali
nakon iritacije komesarskom atmosferom na sveučilištu i sl.
Najviše zdrave pameti ima radnička i srednja klasa inženjerskoga
tipa, a najgluplja je inteligencija humanističkog i društvenog
tipa (povijest, umjetnost, literatura, razne izmišljene
budalaštine kao ženske studije,..)

* glede godina, odprilike najviše pameti ima u
rasponu od 35 do 60 godine. Najindoktriniraniji su
do 25, a od 25 do 35 se možda kolebaju. Ovisi i gdje žive.

* stereotipi uglavnom stoje, uz iznimke:

a) Amerikanci su jako orijentirani na materijalno, pa
bi stalno tu nadmetali oko plaće i dr. (naravno, dio vjernika nije).
Brakovi im propadaju zbog svađa ako jedan parner počne zarađivati više
od drugoga, pa onda tko će koga ... Također, dobar dio
raje prati te zvijezde (pjevači, glumci, sportaši,..) kao
neke polubogove i zna sve o njima- iako srednja klasa ima
dosta realističan stav, ponekad.

Oni su, što god netko rekao, provincijalci. Ne samo iz Hochkultur,
nego i ostaloga što se tiče širega svijeta. nemaju pojma o nogometu
ni metričkom sustavu. N.pr., oko filma nemaju pojma
ni o čem osim američkih filmova, koji su većinom zaqratz.
Naravno, ima iznimaka, ali to je u mikronima.

b) žuti (Azijci) su žuti mravi koji puno rade, ali
su štreberi i dosadni. N.pr. američki inženjeri su utvrdili
da su slabiji (Kinezi i Indijci) kao inženjeri
i predavači, ali ih vlada uvozi da srušili plaće domaćima. Domaće školovani
Amerikanci bijelci su, kao inženjeri, među najboljima na svijetu. No zalud
ti to, pogotovo kao bijelcu muškarcu, kad će staviti obojenoga
lika koji se ne će snaći kod neočekivanih situacija.
Taj viši IQ kod Azijata je realno bez pokrića.

c) većina je žena normalna, no komesarska manjina
od nekoliko posto gura feminizam kao muškomrzačku ideologiju,
i onda je tu trenje. Vjerojatno su feministice iskrene-
osobno mislim da se radi o ženama s "muškim tipom mozga"
(znamo o čem pričamo) - no one bi htjele nametnuti svoj
svjetonazor velikoj većini.
Naravno, za taj je manji dio materinstvo anatema, i to mrze.

d) o crncima sam sve rekao, i tu nemam što dodati

e) i o Hispanicima

f) homići su raznovrsni. Ima dosta napornih, no isto nemali
broj pravih faca i patriota. I kojima uopće nije stalo do homosex
brakova.

I da- zapadna je civilizacija u krizi. Od SAD do Poljske.

To je nešto novo?

No, this pattern of behavior in culture, especially among whining racial minorities (emotional blackmail) & suicidal loony leftists (guilt trip) does exist- but this has nothing to do with Marx or Marxism. Why call it "Cultural Marxism" instead of, say, "degenerate western egalitarianism", "Western ethno-masochism", "Marcuseism" or "postmodern pathological Occidentophobia (PPO)". Be as it may, this cultural climate is averse to Marx's central ideas. You might as well call Mormons "Cultural Catholics".

Inače dobre ideje za nazive.

E baš si špijun. "U svetu špijuna ništa nije kao što izgleda".
(Balkanski špijun).

Inače, zamorih se pomalo od tih situsa, a i ostalih gdje sam bio
(n.pr Huff post, NYT, ponekad crnački Topix, Yahoo,...).
Imam 1000 pdfova knjiga, i dosta onih u papiru, a to je stajalo
predugo- OK, čitao sam, ali sporije- jer sam se dao uvući na te
novine i situse. I prođe vrijeme, a zapravo bez veze.

Usput- još uvijek ne znam je li posrijedi srpski lobby, njihovi simpatizeri
ili nešto treće. U nekoliko navrata, kad je bila na Yahoo-u diskusija
o ratovima u ex-Yu, primilo se- dakle, nije bilo tehničkih poteškoća-
ovo:
------------------------
Let's get some facts straight. Year 1991: Serbs are 11% of Croatia's population. They support Slobodan Milosevic's pan-Serbian movement which took JNA/Yugoslav Army under Serbian control. This Army has been financed by all Yugoslav republics (Serbia plus Montenegro 36%, Croatia 28%, Slovenia 19%,..). So, Serbs literally “stole” all these planes, tanks, ships, rockets, guns, howitzers, … and, via their fifth column, Croatian Serbs, embarked upon their provincial imperial expansion: they wanted to occupy the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina & ca. 70% of Croatia. This was a combined aggression: Serbia proper + Montenegro +JNA + Croatian Serbs.
During expansionist aggression against Croatia, JNA deployed 4 out her 6 armored brigades, and 11 out 12 mechanized ones Thanks to president Tudjman's wise manoeuvres, Croatia has, by the end of 1991., partially armed herself, so after the truce, Serbs began their butchering in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Year 1995: Srebrenica massacre had happened & the world was tired of Serbian savagery. Croatia, now armed & ready, launched a two-pronged assault (160,000 against Serbian para-state “Krajina”, 55,000 dug in Eastern Slavonia as the deterrent against Milosevic). The rag-tag Army of Croatian Serbs (40,000 of them) virtually collapsed in two days & fled, along with them their families- perhaps 120-150.000 people. In the meantime: from 1991-1995 Serbs in the UN protected zones in Croatia (the so called UNPA zones of Krajina) murdered more than 600 elderly and incapacitated Croats, mostly peasant women- while Danish, Dutch, Kenyan and Jordanian troops just looked by; during Operation Storm, in the sector where general Gotovina was in charge- they just fled, even before Croatian troops arrived. Let's be frank: the Haguaroo court tries to compensate Serbs, emotionally, for the loss of Kosovo. And that's all.
-------------------

Ovo je izbrisano u preko 10 navrata u 3 situacije na Yahoo-comments.
Nekoga očito žulje podatci ...

Možda sam samo luđak koji sve čita i proučava.

Dobro nisam, špijun sam.

Moram se vježbat.

Jedan zanimljiv komentar jednog manjinca na temu.

EastAsianNationalist

Victimhood is the core tenet of leftism. Without victims, they have nothing left to stand on. That's why they need to exaggerate every case of victimized minorities, even importing more victims if the supply is running short.

I am gay. I am also a minority. Up until two years ago, I still called myself a liberal. This was until I realized that their vision of egalitarianism is incredibly naive, persecutory, almost like a high school popularity contest. One trip back to my ancestral homeland (China), and I came back a nationalist.

See, leftism perpetuates the impression that "dominant identities" are more evil, greedy, hateful etc. than the so called "oppressed identities". In America's case, that means people who are white, rich, straight, male, or even just good-looking.

Leftist ideologues don't want to admit that their followers are not more tolerant or loving than the hated oppressors, they're simply following the ideology that best serves their interests. They refuse to face the fact that while a minority within every group may truly believe in love and compassion, most others are just acting in self interest. Even the few who do understand this will not speak or act like people are equal in regards to self interest, hence the ridiculous double standards when it comes to racism, bigotry, etc. These are the types who will claim they don't hate success, they're just fighting against oppression. This is not what happens in practice.

Most minorities are blinded by short term interest and resentment towards the dominant identities, and it is with these emotions that leftists use to garner support for their ideology. Minorities should realize that leftism only leads to two self-defeating conclusions.
1) You become a winner. The leftists abandon you for a more victimized group. You are no longer worthy of empathy, you have become the oppressors, the enemy, and they will agitate the have-nots against you.
2) You remain a loser.
I'm not asking people to become right wing. But even if you do feel oppressed, at least realize that leftism, despite shrouding itself in compassion and high sounding values, is not in fact a pathway to success, but rather a codified form of complaining and self righteous moral outrage.

Postoji više scenarija razrješenja, no ne mislim da će ići bez nekog većeg
rata ili niza ratova.

Ono što ohrabruje je da smo mi kao narod podosta zdraviji. Najviše zahvaljujući periferiji, ali ima i drugih komparativnih prednosti. Vidjet ćemo doduše kako ćemo se držati kad uđemo u ring. Sa strane smo jako pametni što treba, ali unutra bi mogli pobrati brzi nokaut.

No ipak je taj ekstremni liberalizam proizvod Anglo civilizacije. To jednim dijelom i jest izraslo iz njihovog narodnog duha. Kako netko napiše 1870ih godina su svi ti fenomeni o kojima danas pišemo kao degradiranom liberalizmu bili zastupljeni među elitom u Bostonu i okolici. Kršćanstvo je već 1920 u Engleskoj bilo mrtvo cijelu generaciju među elitom. Naravno trebalo je pola stoljeća da se to izrazi na van. Nije to došlo preko noći. Samo tu dođe to smjene, par postotaka se okrene pa govorimo o konzervativnoj Bushevoj Americi ili o liberalnoj Obaminoj. A zapravo je to pola pola. Naravno omjer bi bio 60-65% za desne da nema imigranata.

S druge strane mi nemamo usađene u narodno iskustvo niti njihove ideje, niti povijesno iskustvo imperija i kolonija, niti grižnju savjesti zbog maltretiranja potlačenih kad smo i sami bili potlačeni. Također zadnji rat nas je još više homogenizirao i učinio sumnjičavijim i opreznijim prema stranim utjecajima, useljavanjima, manjinama. Tu je još i jaka uloga tradicije, Crkve što oni nemaju. Utjecaj medija kod nas nije ni približan njima gdje mediji mogu oblikovati javno mnijenje. Kod nas se povijest ipak uči kraj obiteljske vatre ili kamina, a u školi dobiješ potvrdu toga ili ti druga verzija samo ojača tvoje viđenje jer to doživljavaš kao napad na nešto što je postalo dio tebe.

Nije slučajno da 10 godina oni demoniziraju Gotovinu, a 90% ljudi ga smatra herojem i gotovo svi se vesele oslobađajućoj presudi.

Mi zapravo imamo problem degenerirane, protunarodne "elite" koja se veže sa moćnim crnim, zelenim i žutim vragovima kojima ih nije problem financirati, dati tih par milijuna da ovi rade veliku štetu. Zapravo je naše društvo kao ih 50ih godina Amerika sa vladajućima koji provode raspale ideje današnjih liberala.

Očito je da je taj poremećaj dobrim dijelom uvjetovan jer vidimo te idiotske izjave Kekina ili Trbovićke s kojom oni strašću pričaju kako je nevjerojatno da u 21. stoljeću, nećemo valjda u mračni srednji vijek, katolična đamahirija, zadrtost, bla bla. To je zapravo infantilna ideologija zatucanih ali vođenih velikim strastima.

A osjećaji su jači od razuma. To mi nikako da naučimo. Oni vjeruju srcem, glupi jesu ali intenzivno ostrašćeni. A takvi ne slušaju razumno uvjeravanje. Poput bjesnih pasa su.

Na kraju ćemo ili mi početi osjećati intenzivno kao oni kad nas dovoljno ugroze ili će oni potpuno nadvladati i uništiti nas sve skupa.

Recimo čitam na naslovnici večernjeg o huliganskom sukobu u Danskoj.

"Fino. Vrijeme je da Zapadnjaci postanu malo više prirodniji i brutalniji ili ih neće biti. U manjinske četvrti domaći ne mogu više ni ući. Mislite da su oni civiliziraniji ili još više primitivni? A mi ako ćemo biti civilizirani neće više nikoga biti u budućnosti da to kaže. Došli divlji, otjerali pitome. Zato kažem, dobro je da imaju i manje pitome. A vi koji ste protiv toga i koji se ovdje zgražajte otiđite u bilo koji manjinski kvart u glavnim europskim gradovima pa da vidimo jel bi tamo htjeli živjeti. "

"Bravo, malo se dečki razmahali, civilizirano, pomogli ozlijeđenima, bez pretjerivanja.. Svaka čast"

"Svaka čast, čista šora bez oružja. Ak su se sami dogovorili nema im se kaj nit prigovorit nit zamjerit !!!"

http://www.vecernji.hr/komentar/578347/


Što je podosta osvježavajuće.



"Our country won't go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won't be any America—because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race."

Laku noć Chesty Puller, gdje god da jesi.

The Diversity Illusion


Indeed, there has essentially been no debate at all. As Mr. West notes:

Everyone in a position of power held the same opinion. Diversity was a good in itself, so making Britain truly diverse would enrich it and bring ‘significant cultural contributions’, reflecting a widespread belief among the ruling classes that multiculturalism and cultural, racial and religious diversity were morally positive things whatever the consequences. This is the unthinking assumption held by almost the entire political, media, and education establishment. It is the diversity illusion.

Mr. West might as well have called his book The Diversity Religion: “A belief in the benefits of a multicultural, multi-racial society is an article of faith in today’s largely atheist society; to not believe is to not be in communion.”

Of course, diversity’s devotees seldom practice it: “If diversity is such a good thing, why do so many people vote with their feet to avoid it?”

Mr. West has a clear view of the evolutionary reasons why mass immigration does not work:

The universalist ideal rests on the belief that human beings are willing to share such a collective system with the rest of humanity. But evolutionary psychology suggests that humans have developed kin selection, those tribes with the strongest sense of in-group altruism being the most likely to survive. . . . No universal altruism has evolved because a sense of universal altruism would have no evolutionary advantage. Garrett Hardin argued in a 1982 essay, ‘Discriminating Altruisms’, that a world without borders or distinctions is impossible, because groups that practice unlimited altruism will be eliminated in favor of those that limit altruistic behavior to smaller groups, from whom they receive benefits.

And further:

Racism, or what anti-racists understand as racism, is a universal part of human nature, ‘as human as love’ as novelist Thomas Keneally put it. . . . One might regret that, just as one might regret that greed, lust and violence are part of human nature, but building a society based on the assumption that they can be driven out through re-education is an optimistic idea.

Mr. West recognizes that ancient nations like Britain have deeply-rooted assumptions about how society should be organized, and how its members should behave. The following passages recognize the threats to those assumptions of massive immigration by people who may not share them:

The creation of nations, under which common law ensured that Justice was dealt out by disinterested magistrates, allowed the radius of trust to expand and, even where the authorities were not close at hand, mutually-understood norms of behavior were built up. And so, with enormous increases in social capital, people living in nations, social solidarity maintained by a deliberately-encouraged patriotism, we were able to speed ahead of societies where men still owed their loyalty and protection to clan and tribe.

The basis on which you can extract large amounts of money in taxation, and pay it out in benefits, is that most people think that benefit recipients are people like themselves facing difficulties which they too could face. If values become more diverse, lifestyles more differentiated, it is harder to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state.

Social capital, just like any other kind, requires generations of careful saving and hard work, and can last long after its original source dries up. Perhaps we are currently running on the reserves that were built up by our ancestors.

Mr. West notes the difference between the free movement of goods and the free movement of people, a distinction lost in fashionable praise for “globalism:”

Globalism has many benefits, but mixed with universalism it can become an ideological dogma that ignores the human consequences. [British economist] Phillippe Legrain asks: ‘Why can computers be imported from China duty-free but Chinese people cannot freely come to make computers here? Why is it a good thing for workers to move within a country to where the jobs are, but a bad thing for people to move between countries for the same reason?’ That is because human beings are not computers. Goods can be freely moved about only because they can be discarded when they are no longer useful; humans cannot. Immigration is long-term and has permanent effects for everyone involved. . . .

An extreme example of this [globalism] is the white liberal environmentalist who decides, for the good of the planet, that he or she should remain childless—the result being that future generations will contain fewer white liberals.

Mr. West also notes the double standards that are almost universal:

Writing about Tibet, [a] liberal blogger . . . once stated that China ‘has resettled Han Chinese colonists there to the point where Tibetans are at risk of becoming a minority in their own homeland.’ On his own country he declared that ‘further mass immigration obviously has the potential to rejuvenate the population of this island once the politicians can get their head around the idea.’ Tibetans becoming a minority in their country are a threatened species; the English are being ‘rejuvenated.’ Of course the Tibetans have no choice in becoming a minority, yet when the British express their opposition to ‘rejuvenation’ they are condemned as racists.

http://www.amren.com/features/2013/06/t ... -illusion/

New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg caused much shrieking and swooning when he addressed the issue of his police department’s stop-and-frisk policy.

“One newspaper and one news service, they just keep saying, ‘Oh, it’s a disproportionate percentage of a particular ethnic group.’ That may be. But it’s not a disproportionate percentage of those who witnesses and victims describe as committing the murders….I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little. It’s exactly the reverse of what they’re saying. I don’t know where they went to school, but they certainly didn’t take a math course, or a logic course.”

Bloomie was referring to the fact that nine percent of NYPD stops in 2012 were of whites, while only seven percent of the city’s murder suspects were white. So he was right: Too many whites are being stopped.

But…math? Logic? Aaaarrrghhh!—Ice People witchcraft! Tools of oppression!

http://takimag.com/article/the_weeks_ra ... z2Y5J0jM5I

Koliko god da politika bila rasistička, činjenica je da se od njenog uvođenja stopa kriminala smanjila skoro tri puta, a tu prestaju svi argumenti o ljudskim pravima...

O čemu pričaš?

Normalni vjernik,musliman, to uopce nece reci.

Malo je takvih muslimana kao što je malo i takvih katolika i drugih. Osim ako ne prešuti.

Jel čitaš ti uopće ovo što stavljaš??
Stop-and-frisk, irski policajci zaustavljaju mlade Hispance i crnce, uz pozitivne posljedice...

Pa dobro. Bezze je sad usporedjivat Sarajevo po tom pitanju.. Al realno gledajuci, katolicanstvo u SA nije bas nikakva prijetnja i mislim da 99.9% muslimana to i znaju..
Al ja mislim na one koji nisu opsjednuti vjerom. A ima ih poprilican broj. Pa nisu svi ljudi isti.

Daj se skoncentriraj. Upravo taj prvi dio rasistička mi je bio sporan.

Ako su žrtve opisale da je kriminalac crnac koga bi trebali tražiti i zaustavljati, židovske bakice ili azijske stutente?

Upravo je fora da politika nije rasistička. Nego su kriminalci neosjetljivi na želje liberalnih mlatimudana pa ne poštuju jednakost.

More Americans View Blacks as Racist Than Whites, Hispanics

Rasmussen, July 3, 2013

Americans consider blacks more likely to be racist than whites and Hispanics in this country.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 15% consider most white Americans racist, while 18% say the same of most Hispanic Americans. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

There is a huge ideological difference on this topic. Among conservative Americans, 49% consider most blacks racist, and only 12% see most whites that way. Among liberal voters, 27% see most white Americans as racist, and 21% say the same about black Americans.

{snip}

Among black Americans, 31% think most blacks are racist, while 24% consider most whites racist and 15% view most Hispanics that way.

Among white adults, 10% think most white Americans are racist; 38% believe most blacks are racist, and 17% say most Hispanics are racist.

Overall, just 30% of all Americans now rate race relations in the United States as good or excellent. Fourteen percent (14%) describe them as poor. Twenty-nine percent (29%) think race relations are getting better, while 32% believe they are getting worse. Thirty-five percent (35%) feel they are staying about the same.

{snip}

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _hispanics

Zanimljivo.

Kolo sreće se okreće.

New York Police Prohibited from Identifying Suspects by Race

The intellectual giants of the New York City Council have managed to do away with “Stop and frisk.” Police are now prohibited from saying ‘be on the look out for a black male in a white shirt and jeans.’ He can now only be described as a male in a white shirt and jeans or they risk being sued. Why they stopped at race I have no idea? Why not just a human in a white shirt and jeans? Nor can the police stop someone if they suspect he is carrying a gun. If they do stop the person and they have no gun, once again, they can personally be sued. The police have now been relegated to a reactionary force. New York City is about to elect for a mayor either a pervert (Anthony Weiner) or a lesbian (Christine Quinn) and has now done away with “Stop and Frisk.” The lunatics are running the asylum. Looks like the 1970s and 80s are about to make a comeback in New York in a big, big way.

http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/201 ... s-by-race/



Znači svjedok izjavi da ga je napao crnac, policija ne smije objaviti preko medija ili tjeralica da traži crnog muškarca nego samo muškarca (pretpostavljam da se to može reći, jer prema novoj ideji jednakosti muškarce se smije pljuvati i obezvrijeđivati, osim ako su crni, smeđi, žuti ili crveni)

Vrli novi svijet.

Pravda, jednakost, napredak.

Ma Putin zna znanje.

Dana 4. veljače 2013, Vladimir Putin, ruski predsjednik, obratio se Dumi (ruski parlament,), te je održao govor o napetosti s manjinama u Rusiji:.

"U Rusiji žive Rusi.
Bilo koje manjine, u bilo kojem mjestu, ako žele živijeti u Rusiji, raditi i jesti u Rusiji, trebaju govoriti ruski, i trebaju poštivati ruske zakone.
Ako oni vole šerijatsko pravo, onda ćemo ih savjetovati da idu na ona mjesta gdje je to državni zakon.
Rusija ne treba manjine.
Manjine trebaju Rusiju, a mi im nećemo dati posebne povlastice, ili pokušati promijeniti naše zakone kako bi odgovarale njihovim željama, bez obzira kako glasno viču 'diskriminacija' .
Na nama je da se naučimo, gledajući samouništenje u Americi, Engleskoj, Nizozemskoj i Francuskoj, ako želimo preživjeti kao nacija.
Ruski običaji i tradicija nisu kompatibilni s izostankom kulture ili primitivnih načina života u većine manjina.
Kada časno zakonodavno tijelo razmišlja o usvajanju novih zakona, mora prvenstveno imati na umu nacionalni interes obzirom da manjine nisu Rusi."

Jel ovo onaj tekst za koji je Ministar ustvrdio da je lažan?

Sumnjan i ja da je ovo iz pera Putina, i ako ima sigurno dodirnih tocaka. Jednostavno ne bi da hrane onima koji bi ga svrstali u radikalniji kut. Stari KGB-ovac se dobro krije, izpo' radara.