Some Random Thoughts on Social Issues
Below a box of crayons is used to explain the difference between segregation and integration. Also, discussed are the praise of Blacks and women, the idea that all collectives are socialists at heart, Martin Luther King, the future of the American Negro, eugenics and dysgenics, and the rape of a transgender.
A Box of Crayons
A box of crayons contains unique colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple, etc. It is a representation of diversity.
A segregationist-separationist preserves the uniqueness of each crayon by keeping all the crayons apart. Although the segregationist-separationist has a reputation of animus for diversity, his policies preserve diversity by protecting the unique color of each crayon.
An integrationist-amalgamationist destroys the uniqueness of each crayon by mixing them together. Although the integrationist-amalgamationist has a reputation of adoration for diversity, his policies destroy diversity by reducing all colors to a monotonous oneness of motley gray.
Praising Blacks and Women
The way some people, especially White progressives, liberals, and Democrats (almost a redundancy, but not quite) fawn over Blacks and women for performing tasks that Blacks and women do not normally perform is insulting to Blacks and women. These people act as though Blacks and women are incapable, or at least have great difficulty in performing such tasks. Moreover, these people behave like people who see an animal performing tricks — especially tricks that are unusual. In short, these people degrade Blacks and women, while in their minds, they think that they are praising them. (Such sycophancy is especially noticeable during Black history month and women’s history month.)
Also, most of these people speak with a Janus-face — thus, showing their hypocrisy. With one face, they preach “judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” With the other face, they praise Blacks for performing tricks, tasks, that they seem to believe that Blacks are not capable of doing or do with great difficulty. They reveal this belief by the way that they emphasize that the person is Black. (Their view of women shows the same thing.)
Are All Collectivists Socialists?
Some claim that “racists,” nationalists, and others who believe that their membership in certain groups or collectives is important and valuable and that such collectives should be protected and preserved is a socialist at heart. They are all collectivists. Is this assertion true? Yes, they are collectivists, but their collectiveness is social and not economics. However, such collectivism does not make one a socialist.
For example, some people identify themselves as Americans and believe that the United States and Americans are important and should be protected and preserved. Consequently, they are collectives. According to the “all collectivists are socialist” proponents, Americans who believe that the United States and Americans are important and worthy of preservation are socialists. If true, how do the “all collectivists are socialist” proponents explain why the more socialist a person is, the less likely he is to believe that the United States and Americans are worth protecting and preserving?
Likewise, Christians who believe that Christianity is worthy of protection and preservation are collectivists. Are these Christians socialists? They are if the “all collectivists are socialist” proponents are correct. Yet, most socialists want to destroy true Christianity.
Furthermore, Blacks who believe that the Negro race and the American Negro are worthy of protection and preservation are collectives. Are these Blacks socialists? They are if the “all collectivists are socialist” proponents are correct. (If these Blacks truly believe that the American Negro and Negro race are worth saving, they would oppose miscegenation and interracial mating and support people of other races who also opposed interracial mating.) However, except as a tool to advance their Marxist agenda, most socialists do not care about the Negro race or the American Black.
Because one believes in noneconomic collectives, such as country, nation, religion, and race, does not mean that he believes in a collective economic system, such as socialism, fascism, and communism.
Martin Luther King
A liberal friend once told me that King’s assassination was the best thing that happened to him. Being assassinated, King died a martyr. If he had lived much longer, most people would have recognized him as the rabble-rouser, scumbag, and hustler that he really was. Instead, his martyrdom led to his deification, and now he is revered more than Jesus, the Son of God.
By 1968, the illuminists, ruling elite, insiders, establishment, or whatever one calls them knew that they had ridden the King horse as far as it could go. They concluded that King was more valuable dead than alive. Therefore, they sent out the word, most likely indirectly rather than directly, that King needed to die — and, thus, he was murdered. His death, they used to provoke race riots. Moreover, they martyred him and then deified him to bring down Jesus, the heart of Christianity, which they despised. Now, almost everyone, from the far right to the far left worships King.
The Future of the American Black
Why do common Blacks continue to follow their self-appointed leaders, who promote open borders and unlimited immigration? Is it because nearly all these immigrants (or, more correctly, colonists) are “people of color”? Do common Blacks believe that these “people of color” will support the cause and agenda of the Black man? If so, their ignorance deceives them.
Nearly all these people of color are from Latin America, East Asia (Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Filipinos), and the Indian Subcontinent (Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis). Rare is any of these people who care anything about Blacks. For the most part, they despise Blacks, and many consider them subhuman. Most esteem Blacks less than the stereotypical Klansman does. (Even the Melanochroi of the Horn of Africa and along the Sahara have an extremely low opinion of Negroes.) They only ally themselves with Blacks when convenient to advance their cause.
After they have driven the pariahlike White Americans into insignificance, one of these three major factions (Latinos, Asian Indians, and East Asians) will rule the territory of the former United States. Most likely, after the Whites are driven to the status of the American Indian, these three factions will divide the country among themselves — probably, after a bloody war. Regardless, the American Negro will fare far worse than the remnant of Whites.
Blacks cannot and will not cower and control any of these people of color with guilt as they do Whites with white guilt. Smearing these people of color with the accusation of “racism” will not work because, unlike most Whites, they are proud of their race and believe that it is the best. Unlike Whites, people of color are not cowardly wimps who despise their race and want it to vanish. Indeed, having race consciousness, they defend the interest of their race, which is why Blacks will fare poorly when the Latinos, East Asians, and Asian Indians take over the country.
The few surviving Blacks will look fondly at the good old days of Jim Crow when they were at least allowed on the bus. If Blacks want to see their future, they only need to look at Los Angeles, which is a paradise compared with what is coming.
If Blacks want to survive and prosper with a relatively high degree of freedom and prosperity, they need to jettison their self-appointed leaders and demand real immigration reform. They need to demand that no more “people of color” be allowed into the United States until the racial composition of 1920 is achieved. Hopefully, most Blacks will realize that being 10 percent of a White dominated country is better than being 1 percent of a non-White dominated country. Unfortunately, most will not — and, thus, they doom their race. (Ideally, Blacks would govern themselves in their own independent country.)
Eugenics or Dysgenics
During the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, eugenics rose in popularity. In the forefront of the eugenic movement were the progressives. With the rise of Hitler, eugenics began to fade, and dysgenics began to rise. Today, dysgenics has completely replaced eugenics.
Based on their words and actions, nearly everyone from one end of the political spectrum to the other, from the far right to the far left, prefers dysgenics to eugenics.
Gene pools of races, ethnicities, nationalities, and other groups are not static. They are either improving, eugenics, or disimproving, dysgenics.
Since 1930, both the United States government and State governments have adopted policies that promote dysgenics. That is, they have instituted programs that degrade the gene pools instead of improving them. Examples are the welfare state and civil rights.
The welfare state subsidizes people with low IQ having large families while penalizing families with moderate to high IQ by requiring them to support not only their own families, but also the families of low IQ people. Generally, low IQ families are larger than high IQ families. Thus, low IQ people are out breeding high IQ people. Low IQ people are also out breeding even moderate IQ people, who have even more difficulty than high IQ people, in supporting two families: their own and that of a low IQ person.
Civil rights promote miscegenation, which degrades the gene pools of both the White race and the Black race. In reality, from the progressive’s perspective, miscegenation is a covert form of eugenics for the Negro race because progressives believe that the Negro race can only be improved by a large infusion of White genes, which cause Blacks to cease being Blacks. More important, progressives see miscegenation leading to the destruction of the White gene pool, which is dysgenics, and will eventually kill the White race. As most progressives intensely hate the White race, they support the genocide of the White race, although most progressives are White. Unlike the progressives of the early twentieth century, who promoted eugenics, the progressives of the early twenty-first century promote dysgenics, and so do most conservatives and libertarians.
Raping a Transgender
Can a man rape a man who claims to be a woman without the rape being a homosexual rape? Would such an attack be more hideous than raping a real woman? After all, the attack is against a person with a double privilege status: female and transgender (triple, if the transgender is Black; quadruple, if a Hispanic; and quintuple, if also handicapped). On the other hand, would such an attack be considered a badge of honor for the victim because he has convincingly passed as a “she”?
Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.
More social issues articles.