Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Is Multiculturalism a Form of Hate?

  1. #1
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    5,821
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    65
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    595
    Thanked in
    352 Posts

    Is Multiculturalism a Form of Hate?

    Anthropologists have noticed long ago that in countries with a multicultural background, like Latin America, a strange phenomenon invariably appears, which they call Pigmentocracy.

    Pigmentocracy means literally ‘a rule of color’, in which the whiter you look like the higher is your status. The interesting part of this phenomenon is that we are talking about racially mixed people; for these guys money is the most important thing, but as another important criteria, they take very seriously their level of admixture in order to determine their identity, and even if most of them look non-White, they discriminate out of the subtlest physical marks (a half-White-half-indian mestizo despises a two-thirds indian mestizo and so on).

    This kind of discrimination is unthinkable in racially healthy societies. Racially homogeneous societies don’t pay attention to small differences (they are all of the same race) while showing great hospitality and goodwill toward other races. This appreciation disappears only when their homogeneity is being threatened by anti-natural forces.

    We see that racial hate and multiculturalism are twin brothers, which appear only when our healthy racial identity is being attacked. This should actually be obvious because even the most peaceful animals will react violently when their integrity is being threatened, and a racial identity is as necessary for survival in the long run as is food in the shorter run.

    It seems that once a people loses their identity and roots they become cruel and elitist, no matter how mixed they are and no matter how much their race has been watered down by admixture. Racial mixture produces anti-social individuals who fear contact with other members of the society in a desperate attempt to defend the last bit of identity they have left.

    We see that the effects of racial mixture are devastating for the human psyche, showing analogous symptoms to post traumatic stress disorder as seen, for example, among child-rape and prostitution victims, although in a collective level. Is not racial mixing some kind of genetic rape? In Mexico for example, the greatest insult is not to be called ‘son of a prostitute’ but rather ‘son of the raped one’, in reference to the miscegenation which occurred during Spanish rule where the difference between willingly having sex with strangers and being raped was blurry.

    We could say that one of the most basic necessities of a human being is belonging to a race and the right to be with your race-mates. Denying a society the right to remain racially homogeneous is analogous to forcefully taking away a child from his mother, and such a violation of human relationships (which took millennia of evolution to arise) can only be accomplished with great amounts of violence. This violence reminds me of what happens with an atomic bomb, when we forceful;y separate atoms, ignoring their natural preferences in the service of war-profits.

    The central question now is: What kind of perverse mental state makes a White person prefer to live among non-Whites? A good starting point would be to imagine a child who doesn’t want to be with his parents and seeks the company of ill-willed strangers. Someone like that we would consider as having a severe handicap in creating intimate bonds with people (even with their own parents).

    We could also talk about addictive or even border-line disorders, in the sense that the person feels attraction to self-destructive behaviors. But, do all racially mixed people look crazy? As puzzling as it might seem, many racially mixed persons look pretty normal or happy on the surface.

    It seems that they have adopted consumerism as their identity and as long as they have access to material goods and useless entertainment they can maintain a façade of stability, while avoiding real introspection and real involvement with most of society. This situation is valid not only for race-mixed individuals, but also for White people who date or befriend other races. A White woman who married a black man will suddenly find him repulsive if, for example, the economic system collapses and her survival depends on human relationships instead of money.

    Her real relationship has been with the economic system which sells her a fantasy. This artificial system acts as an intermediary between her and her black husband, enabling her to live and have children with him, etc. without ever realizing who he really is.

    When this Hollywood fantasy goes away together with the economic system, she is left with a Zulu, who outside an artificial economic system is unable to provide her with Beauty or even sustenance. Only a united race can organize itself, cooperate and produce culture outside the artificial breeding of Jewish finance.

    And now let’s tackle the question that is the title of this article; is multiculturalism a form of hate? The answer is to be found once again in race mixed societies like Latin America. There’s nothing that people in a Pigmentocracy fear the most than homogeneity. Their diversity is a token of their elitism and ‘supremacism’ (You will notice that it is typically Jewish to adjudicate to us their own pathologies), and almost paradoxically (for the naïve observer) these same people believe in an orthodox, religious equality of men (elites in Latin America are the most Christian you will find) and are as proud of their mixed-raced culture as any person can be.

    Thus, we realize that narcissistic, elitist, even ‘racist’ people with a pathological complex of a Hollywood-star, love living in multiculti, enslaved countries and profess a religion of ‘all men are equal’. If that weren’t enough, they are also proud of the ‘diversity’ in their countries, even if that means that all their country-men live in miserable, unhuman conditions just to serve these multicultural elites.

    When I mention ‘racist’ here in connection with these elites I mean a sick form of racial consciousness, a materialistic, narcissistic one as opposed as a healthy sense of belonging. Sick forms of racial consciousness are actually typical of race-mixed societies, whereas an idealistic form of racial consciousness is to be found in homogeneous ones.

    But we shouldn’t stop our research right there; we find confirmation of this diabolic morality even in America (and very probably in Europe too):

    ‘The largest up-to-date survey of changes in value in America was conducted in 1995 by American LIVES Inc. Based on cumulative surveys involving 100,000 adult Americans and 500 focus groups, it enabled the identification of three different subcultures in that country.

    […]The Modernists automatically consider as “modern” (treated as synonymous with “sophisticated, advanced, urbane and/or inevitable”) the values, technologies, interpretations that oppose themselves to the “backward”, “under-developed” societies that preceded it. They kept intact, however, one of the key premises of the previous religion-dominated world-view: the biblical premise that Man is to be Master over the rest of creation.

    There are two different domains where this interpretation is active:

    • At the personal level: Modernists tend to value universal norms and secularity (as opposed to provincialism and religious dogmas). Nevertheless many maintain an orthodox religious practice (40%), but do not necessarily translate that into altruism (only 32% do so). Instead their top priority lies in personal freedom and achievement, leading to upward mobility (important for 36%) and specifically financial materialism (82%). Their values are centered on personal success, consumerism, materialism and technological rationality.

    • At the collective level: Organizationally, they believe in the management and technological practices that have arisen from the Industrial Age, including traditional economic theory (see below). They believe that technology will ultimately prevail over the negative consequences of the existing practices. They tend to belittle these negative consequences (environmental, societal disruptions).

    ***

    The bulk of conventional economic theory is embedded in the Modernist viewpoint. Although a growing number of economists are breaking through the old molds, this Modernist backdrop has resulted in the following tendencies to over-simplify the analysis of economic reality:

    • Everything that cannot be or is not measured does not exist. For example, a woman taking care of her children is not part of GNP, while someone whose job it is to do the same thing – i.e., gets paid in dollars – is measurable and, therefore, exists.

    • Exploitation of non-renewable natural resources is not measured and, therefore, is not a problem; etc.. In the specific monetary domain, the implication is that only economic exchanges that use the official national currency are considered “real.” Even the economy itself is simply defined as the space where the transactions involving that particular national currency occur.

    • This blindness to what we do not care to measure results in what the BritishAmerican economist Kenneth Boulding has described as “cowboy economics.” Cowboys use the range for their cattle to graze, and when the land has deteriorated, they just move on to the next area, leaving other people in the future to take care of whatever they abandon. Much of our resource and land use, and many of our urban landscapes, shows the scars of these practices.

    • Another consequence is what President Carlos Andres Perez from Venezuela, an economist himself, coined as “Economism.” It refers to the use of economic criteria as the only criteria to justify decisions. It simply denies the existence of other domains, or the relevance of their contributions or insights into the issue at hand. Economism is in fact only the application to economics of a reductionist tendency sometimes exhibited in Modernist science.

    It is the manifestation in economics of what I called the hyper-rational Apollonian viewpoint. Short: “Not everything that counts can be counted. Not everything that can be counted counts.”

    One of the ironies of history is that Economism and other forms of reductionist science is today playing the identical role that religious dogma used to play when Modernism went to battle against the Medieval mindset.

    (The Mystery of Money by Bernard Lietaer, Section: Where are we now?, The Modernists.)

    Thus, from this survey we can equate modernists with most multicultis. Their inhumane indolence toward an agonizing planet crying for help (‘they tend to belittle these negative consequences: environmental, societal disruptions’) shows us that their moral claims are only superficial, even self-serving, because they don’t really give a shit about the offspring of the same refugees they claim to help, (finding a totally destroyed planet) they also don’t give a shit about their own grandchildren living in a world completely devoid of animals.

    They also support an economic ideology of further destruction and unnecessary growth in a planet where every second(!) more than 12 million liters of waste are being thrown in American rivers; a planet which according to scientists can support with modern American life standards at most only 2 Billion people, but nevertheless has currently almost 7 billion humans.

    But multicultis want even more people and to give them all an American lifestyle. It is pretty obvious we should abandon consumerist lifestyles and focus more on social matters and culture (things which are invariably connected with race), but these world-parasites are not willing to sacrifice anything, and in order to sanctify their unnatural, destructive way of life they claim wanting to share it with all the world.
    http://www.renegadetribune.com/multi...ism-form-hate/

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Online
    Friday, June 22nd, 2018 @ 09:47 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Lowland Scots, Pennsylvania German
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Washington Washington
    Location
    Pugetopolis
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pixels
    Politics
    Public Lands Libertarian
    Religion
    Gnostic
    Posts
    301
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    28
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    76
    Thanked in
    55 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Out of Germania View Post
    Pigmentocracy.
    I saw this first hand when I lived in Mexico... I remember I once complimented a girl on her looks (wasn't hitting on her), and she got embarrassed and said, "no, me veo indios".

  3. #3
    Senior Member Theunissen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 8th, 2019 @ 12:49 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    North Western Europe
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    State
    Transvaal Transvaal
    Location
    South Africa
    Gender
    Posts
    472
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    144
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    236
    Thanked in
    127 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hammish View Post
    I saw this first hand when I lived in Mexico... I remember I once complimented a girl on her looks (wasn't hitting on her), and she got embarrassed and said, "no, me veo indios".
    It's the same with Coloureds in South Africa. The more lighter ones are also the higher-ups socially. The emulate Whites also more, which leads me to say they try to be more Catholic than the pope.


    The bulk of conventional economic theory is embedded in the Modernist viewpoint. Although a growing number of economists are breaking through the old molds, this Modernist backdrop has resulted in the following tendencies to over-simplify the analysis of economic reality:

    • Everything that cannot be or is not measured does not exist. For example, a woman taking care of her children is not part of GNP, while someone whose job it is to do the same thing – i.e., gets paid in dollars – is measurable and, therefore, exists.
    True that. I call this Mathemathism in Economics. It's with the Classical, but also with the Marxist or Keynesian approaches the case. This also make "economic growth rates" deceptive. (Problematic) social change can lead to "economic growth" in the stats that way. Not to forget that you can't compare a subsistence farming economy with a highly specialized industrial or service economy. The subsistence farmer uses his own or unpaid labor to plant some food or build his house, while a specialist buys all those products from a salary he gets for providing a specialized service.

    There is non-mathematical approaches to economics like the Austrian School or Historical/Institutional schools with the Austrians still emphasizing deductive logic. The historical school still used a lot of empirical statistics, while considering Institutions and cultural practices interacting with the economic phenomena.

    I count those still under Modernism. Multiculturalism and the Feel-good-politics and economics I'd count into the postmodernist bracket. They may go as far as to deny mathematics, logic and reason.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Friday, January 5th, 2018, 09:03 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, November 16th, 2017, 01:38 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, November 1st, 2017, 10:37 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •