|
||||||||
|
Sans Serif
|
Social Rights Versus Equality of Races
 |
| Nottingham miners in 1948 |
UN Covenant on Social Rights
These social and economic rights, however, were first formulated within the context of the nation states of Europe intended for the native population. The key rationale in their formulation, by socialistic liberals in the late 19th century to early 20th century, was that civil rights on their own (equal rights to freedom of expression, equal treatment under the law, religious freedom) were inadequate since many members of the nation were too poor to make full use of these civil rights, and only government assistance would it be possible for all citizens to enjoy a level playing field in “the full development” of their “human personality”.
But in the aftermath of WWII, Western liberals began to argue for the extension of these rights to humans across the world, leading to the formulation of this treaty in 1966. Although this was an international covenant, the proponents of these rights were Westerners. Non-European nations, to this day, have generally ignored these rights. And those nations like Japan, which developed the wealth necessary to afford them, could not care less whether other nations live up to these rights. Only Western liberals have made it a matter of principle and conscience to work for the successful application of these rights around the world.
The New Ideology of the Equality of Races after WWII
This new ideology, which is not intrinsic to the concept of social rights, found full expression after WWII in three major political movements:
- “the struggle for decolonization” in the period from about 1948 to 1965, that is, the demand by colonies of the West to be granted national self-determination;
- the struggle against racial segregation in the United States, or the civil rights movement for equality under the law between Whites and Blacks from about 1955 to 1965;
- the struggle for the elimination of White-only immigration policies in the settler states of Canada, America, and Australia during the 60s and 70s.
All these movements were driven by the new ideology of the equality of races. This is not to say that the right of all peoples to national or ethnic self-termination, the movement against the division of the world into colonized and colonizer nations, can’t be supported without acceptance of the ideology of the equality of the races. Just as the concept of social rights is conceptually independent from the notion of racial equality, so is the principle of national self-determination conceptually independent from both social rights and the equality of races. One can agree that all peoples have a right to self-determination on the grounds that the racial and ethnic differences of peoples is a good thing. One can accept, on liberal principles, the notion of civil rights and economic rights within a nation, and argue for separate territories for different races. One can also argue that there is nothing in the principle of civic and social rights that calls for racial integration.
Likewise, there is nothing in the concepts of civic and social rights that precludes nations from excluding foreigners from enjoying these rights. It was only with the spread of the idea of the equality of the races that Westerners came to think that to be a true liberal believer in civic and social rights requires one to extend these rights to all humans across the world. The notion of the equality of races would transform the meaning of civic and social rights into human rights to be enjoyed by all humans regardless of nationality. Misusing Kant’s concept of “cosmopolitanism”, Western liberals in the last decades have brought about this conceptual change without any nationalist opposition.
One of a number of liberals involved in this conceptual transformation is the Turk Seyla Benhabib, Professor of Political Science and Philosophy at Yale University. In The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens (2004), she redefines the notion of civic rights to mean human rights, from which point she then argues that insofar as everyone on the planet has human rights, it is “impermissible from a moral standpoint” to deny incorporating aliens and strangers, immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers into the existing liberal polities of Europe. Europeans, if they are to live up to the principles of civic and social rights, must extend these rights as human rights to immigrants wishing to come to Europe. The Europeans who reject this extension are fascists.
This is what socialists are arguing today. Socialists used to be for the protection of nationals against the importation of cheap labour; but now they have accepted the notion that all humans have human rights as equal members of the same human race, and that insofar as they have human rights, they have a right to migrate to Western nations and enjoy the same social rights as the natives.
This evident in David Abraham’s article, Immigration, Majority Rights, and Welfare State Solidarity, which is an assessment of Liav Orgad’s right wing “liberal theory of majority rights”. Abraham, Professor of Law at Miami University, has an extensive publication record dedicated to the promotion of economic rights for immigrants, against “neo-liberal globalization”, as the best way of integrating diverse ethnic groups within Western nations. Abraham wants his readers and students to believe that this extension of social rights to immigrants is what the liberal tradition calls for.
In what follows, which is a continuation of my assessment of Liav Orgad’s right wing “liberal theory of majority rights”, I will counter Abraham’s claim by relying on the “Anglocentric” socialist ideas of T.H. Marshall (1893-1981), a first formulator of the concept of social rights. The principle of social rights was never intended, and does not in principle entail, social rights for humans across the world and for immigrants. The latter is a cultural Marxist idea that was infiltrated into Western socialism by hostile elites.
The Flaw in Orgad’s Theory — Again
Orgad’s thesis is that the peoples of Europe have a legitimate right to restrict immigration in order to protect their majority culture. Orgad is correct that in the face of mass immigration, and the ever demographic growth of minorities, and the projected reduction of European majorities into “majority-minority” status, it would be absurd to keep pressing for the rights of minorities.
But Orgad’s theory amounts to no more than a call for the assimilation of immigrants to those cultural attributes of the majority culture that bespeak currently of tolerance, diversity, and constitutionalism.
Not long ago, roughly before WWII, one would be hard put finding calls for diversification in the Western liberal tradition. But liberalism has now been thoroughly colonized by hostile concepts; and so what Orgad, associated with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, is defending is a cultural Marxist version of liberalism. His theory of majority cultural rights basically says that Western nations can continue to be immigrant nations as long as they protect the majority liberal culture, and that this is the best way to fight off “extreme nationalism”.
We believe at CEC, to the contrary, that civic rights were postulated in the context of highly homogeneous European states, and that these rights are being threatened by diversification and extension into peoples lacking a history and a disposition for these rights. Civic rights presuppose European ethnic self-determination, which is not inconsistent with the acknowledgement of the rights of historically rooted minorities to the degree that these minorities have shown a natural predilection to live up to the principle of civic rights. By the same token, liberal rights are consistent with the separation of peoples into different territories within which they may find their own national means of ethnic self-determination.
David Abraham’s Multicultural Social Rights
David Abraham’s objection to Orgad is simply that it is preferable to emphasize additional socialist spending as a way of integrating everyone within the nation’s multicultural setting, rather than promoting the cultural rights of majorities. A more open, broader, and tolerant sense of “we”, he argues, can be nurtured more effectively through “social equality” measures than through “normative principles, values, and institutions”. The best medicine, which would encourage the majority culture to feel at home, in their increasingly diversifying nations, is to fight neoliberal economic policies, which weaken immigrant integration.
In other words, what the majority tax-paying culture needs to do is fork out more money for the growing immigrant populations. The massive welfare states of Europe should forego whatever “neoliberal” economic policies they adopted in recent decades and expand welfare spending. Orgad’s call for greater majority protections, Abraham warns, is “very slippery” and can quickly create a climate in which illiberal views, such as those of Viktor Orbán in Hungary, become acceptable. The way to overcome the illiberal immigrants is to support them economically, educate them, given them pride in their heritage, and make them feel a home in Europe.
Many may think that Abraham is arguing in a consistently socialist manner; a social liberal who believes that welfare rights are essential to the integration of previously excluded groups into a common national culture, a patriot calling for national integration and loyalty. The truth is that all the welfare states of Europe were created for the sake of making the native White working classes feel that they were part of the national culture, by integrating them into the national economy and the educational system, in order to nurture a sense of ethnocentric identity with the heritage of their nation.
T.H. Marshall’s Anglocentric Social Rights
 |
| T.H. Marshall |
One of the theoretical strategies early socialists used in justifying the creation of welfare programs was to argue that liberalism was consistent with the inclusion of “social rights” into the concept of civic citizenship. The best known proponent of social rights in England was T.H. Marshall; an idea he first espoused in his 1949 essay Citizenship and the Social Class. Marshall observed that the British working classes lacked a sense of identity, national in scope, because they were existing on the margins. He further argued that the best way to nurture a British national identity was to afford workers with social rights, by which he meant a modicum of health care and educational facilities. Civic rights were not enough for workers since they lacked the means to participate fully as co-creators of the national culture beyond their localities.
It should be noted, if we are to keep Marshall’s ideas in historical perspective, that state spending on education started in Europe after the 1850s, on compulsory and free education for children, and on public health and sanitation, focusing mainly on the lower to middle classes, but then growing and benefiting the less skilled working classes through the first half of the twentieth century, though it was only in the 1950s and 1960s that Western countries saw full fledged programs, guaranteed income supplements, pensions, child welfare, disabled person’s benefits, etc, to establish an “adequate” living standard beyond bare subsistence.
Marshall was advocating ideas that would rationalize this expansion in the 1950s and 1960s. But he was not original in this respect; socialists had been arguing for these policies for decades. What was new about Marshall was his effort to argue that civil rights were not enough to integrate the working classes into the nation’s culture. Liberal theory needed to be expanded to include social rights as a matter of principle to give workers a sense of identification with the nation’s culture by giving them a fairer chance to develop themselves as individual members within the nation.
Marshall did not frame this argument in economic terms, in trade-union or Keynesian terms, but insisted that social rights would work to integrate the working classes into the national liberal culture of Britain. Moreover, when he spoke of the working class in Britain he meant the native-born English, by ethnicity, religion, and culture generally. Not surprisingly, as liberalism was taken over by cultural Marxists in the 1960s, and a new breed of feminist/anti-White liberals was born, Marshall’s conception of social rights was “criticized by many for only being from the perspective of the white working man”. Members of the hostile elite, in full control of academia in the 1970s, announced that Marshall was too “Anglocentric” (PDF) and no longer a “true” liberal.
This is a subject requiring further study; suffice it to say that major conceptual alterations and additions transpired within liberal theory after WWII, from the time of Marshall to the time of Abraham.
One can certainly find reasonable objections to Marshall’s concept of social rights on economic grounds and on libertarian grounds. The point at hand is that the concept of social rights is not inconsistent with a nation that believes in civic rights, freedom of expression, separation of church and state, representative institutions, and at the same time opposes open borders and encourages ethnic pride in their citizens. What is inconsistent is the notion that social rights presuppose the creation of nations dedicated to the integration of foreigners as immigrants with social rights. The historical and theoretical evidence does not support this extension.
Arabic writing on police cruiser in Ontario
We’re finally getting information on some of the costs for Justin’s “refugee rush” and it’s outrageous.
We said repeatedly that this was an ill thought out plan that would end up costing Canadians even more due to the rushed nature that overwhelmed settlement services and immigration officials.
What makes this even worse is that these people weren’t living in Syria, or in refugee camps. They weren’t in harms way but now they find themselves stuck in hotels with no connections, no access to language services that could help them with employment, instead relying on food banks. No wonder some have been saying they want to go back.
It wasn’t as if he wasn’t warned but Justin had to do his refugee rush his way at all costs. And it was costly.
Here’s just a sample: $1M for the Four Points Sheraton in Victoria, $1.94M for the Travelodge in Dorval, $2.5M for the Quality Hotel at Dorval Airport and $3M for the Quality Hotel in Toronto, $1.995M for theSheraton Guildford in Vancouver.
All of this for what? It was never about helping people. It was about Justin Trudeau and his vanity – looking good for the selfie and the T.V. news that night.
Now that many of these people are left on their own, the government is just letting them remain on their own because the time for photo ops is over.
 |
Hungry Canadians move over! here come the Syrians looking for free foodby Ann Corcoran |
According to CBC Canada, almost 27,000 Syrians have arrived in Canada since November and already (in 6 months) their private sponsors are falling down on the job and even government-funded refugees are scurrying to local food banks because they have no jobs and no money.
In photo op, Canada’s boy wonder, Justin Trudeau, greets Syrians at the airport. But, has he invited any home for dinner or planned how to feed them all so they aren’t running to the media with tales of woe? Photo and sickening propaganda video:https://www.thestar.com/CBC Canada (begins by describing the plight of one hungry family dependent on food banks for indigent Canadians), then this:
“When we come here, we didn’t expect we get any kind of help, and, unfortunately, that was the ugly truth,” she said. “So, we are alone, and we struggle still.”
[….]
Demand is growing for food banks and the organizations that supply them.
From February to March, Daily Bread, which supplies its own food bank and 200 other food programs in Toronto, including the Scott Mission, saw a 20 per cent jump in the number of clients using its services.
[….]
It was the largest increase in recent memory, said head of research Richard Matern, and most of it was because of the influx of Syrian refugees.
“We are being overwhelmed at the moment,” he said.
Across the country in the Vancouver suburb of Surrey, more than 700 government-sponsored refugees have used the local food bank since February. [of the 1,500 resettled there—ed]
Canada has a bifurcated system. Some refugees are government-funded (like in the US) and some are privately sponsored. Clearly they didn’t screen the private sponsors very well! But, as reported above, even the government-sponsored refugees are devouring the supplies at local and regional food banks.
Under federal guidelines, private sponsors are legally required to cover the cost of food, rent and other living expenses for up to a year, a minimum of roughly $27,000 for a family of four, according to government estimates.
But in Asoyan’s case, her family’s sponsor, Sarkis Shaninian, is unemployed.
He had a job when he signed up to sponsor the family but has been without work for three months.
“Money, I don’t have money to help them, no,” he said in an interview with CBC News.
[….]
At last count, 26,921 Syrian refugees had arrived in Canada since last November, and thousands more whose applications are still being processed are expected to arrive by the end of this year.
Can Canadians impeach prime ministers (just wondering)?
After ‘living for 10-years in Canada’ and only having a ‘permanent resident status’, one part of this press release means that ‘a citizen of a foreign country’ will be able to, legally arrest or legally shoot and kill Canadian citizens in their own country.
It may sound ‘unbelievable’, bur it’s very sadly ‘true’.
Today, under ‘PM Trudeau-2’, these non-citizens can now become Members of our once-proud RCMP.
To degrade our national police force even further, “physical abilities will no longer be tested as part of the application process”.
“RCMP changes ‘outdated’ recruitment process; permanent residents can apply” (CTV NEWS)
VOTP: Please excuse this apparently ‘non-liberally-hip’, obviously ‘ignorant’ and apparently-‘stupid voice’, but who could had ever imagined that such things would have ever been allowed to be done to the world-recognized and much-respected, ‘high standards’ of Canada’s RCMP’?
Still, even more unbelievable, it’s amazing that the battered, clapping-seal-like remnants of the former, Harper Party’s Government’, have yet to say one word on this degradation of our RCMP – a piece of Canadian citizen ‘s heritage.
Bending over and breaking one’s back, all in the name of ‘diversity’, ‘accommodation’ and ‘multiculturalism’, eventually not only break one’s back, but the fabric of one’s country’s heritage.
No, Voice Of The People Canada (VOTP) IS not talking about the growing numbers of ‘refugee, non-citizens’ in today’s Germany.
VOTP is talking about what happened this week in your and my Canada.
in Canada.
Crude Sikhs Should Be Apologizing to Canada
A group of crude Sikhs has hijacked the entire Sikh group and has succeeded in getting our naive Prime Minister to announce that he will formally apologize to Sikhs in Parliament on May 18, 2016. The apology is supposedly for denying Sikhs the right to enter Canada in the Komagata Maru incident of 1914.
If anything should happen on May 18, crude Sikhs should apologize to Canada. Here are more reasons why :
(1) Uninformed Sikhs refuse to recognize that Western countries had no obligation in 1914 (nor do they have in 2016) to accept the excess populations of India (as well as of China and Japan). For example, around 1900, China had around 400 million people, was overpopulated and poor and was sending workers overseas. Japan was doing the same. Of the three countries, only Japan admitted that Canada had a right to defend itself, particularly its unemployed, from unnecessary job competition. China was in political chaos and had little control over its workers. Ironically, China and India eventually got rid of their colonizers and re-gained their independence. In contrast, Canada, after developing a society which until the late 1970’s was the envy of many countries, has since allowed itself to be colonized by such models of civilization as China and India’s Punjab. Douglas Todd of The Vancouver Sun has described the behaviour of recent Chinese as parasitic. A large group of Sikhs has behaved in the same way.
(2) Parasitic behaviour is not the only issue. In 1985, a group of Sikhs committed the greatest mass murder in Canadian history (329 people killed when Sikhs bombed an Air India plane). Thanks to a culture of intimidation of witnesses, the Sikhs who committed the mass murder, have never been convicted—– in spite of Canada spending around $130 Million to prosecute them. When a Surrey Sikh publisher probed too much into the Air India bombing, he was shot, paralyzed and finally murdered. That bombing, not the 911 Muslim attacks, caused the first mass security checks at Canadian airports. Are all the airport delays and costs of screening (some of which are now done by Sikhs !!!) that resulted from Sikh bombings to be thought of as a benefit to Canada of immigration? In the entire world, that Sikh bombing is second only to the 911 attacks in scale of people killed in airplane terrorism. Furthermore, if Sikh conspirators had been successful in detonating another bomb on a plane leaving Japan, the death toll through Sikh air plane terrorism would have been even higher. It takes enormous arrogance for some Sikhs to now pressure our government to apologize to them when this mass murder firmly placed them in the category of some of Canada’s worst immigrants. If any apology should be made, it should be crude Sikhs apologizing to Canada
(3) The shameful story does not stop there. Not long after former Prime Minister Jean Chretien opened a new consulate in the Punjabi city of Chandigarh in 2003 as a reward to Sikhs for voting for him, a Canadian consul official, witnessed a huge amount of fraud at that Consulate. In fact, he described the consulate as the fraud capital of all Canadian Embassies / Consulates in the world. But Canadians don’t have to go back to PM Chretien for precedents of a PM corruptly “paying-off” Sikhs. Prime Minister Trudeau recently appointed four Sikhs to his 30 member Cabinet. That means Sikhs, who represent about 1% of Canada’s population, comprise about 13% of Trudeau’s Cabinet. The overall intention of the crudest of the Sikhs is to have Canada maintain or increase its immigration intake. Trudeau has obliged by yet another “pay-off”. For 2016, Trudeau has increased Canada’s immigration intake to over 300,000—a significant number of whom will be elderly Sikhs who will be a burden on Canada’s healthcare system. In addition, Immigration Minister John McCallum, who has ironically and wrongly stated that Canada needs high immigration because of its aging population, has stated that immigration will rise even more in 2017 !!! It is no exaggeration to say that Canada’s contingent of crude and aggressive Sikhs believe they have Trudeau on his knees and that they believe he will commit even more degrading acts for their votes.
(4) The crude Sikh saga continues to this day in the Surrey area of Metro Vancouver. Surrey is notorious for a large number of shootings and drug trafficking offences. Young Sikhs have long been disproportionately represented in this criminal activity. Politicians say that they need more police, but the real answer is that Surrey needs less crude Sikh (and Somali) immigration.
(5) And that’s not the end of the story. The Sikhs have used intimidation to get exemptions for wearing a turban and carrying a kirpan. They know that a turban is not compulsory in their religion, yet they have duped many Canadians into believing it is. Similar intimidation / aggressive demands have resulted in Sikhs being allowed to carry a knife (the kirpan) into Parliament, other legislatures and public places. Recently, a Quebec high school student was expelled for having a jackknife in his backpack. He had used the knife to do his farm chores. Meanwhile, other Sikh students carry kirpans to school every day and go unchallenged.
(6) When Canada seeks to get rid of Sikh law violators, crude Sikhs rise to the occasion. Canadians should recall the case of Laibar Singh, a Sikh who had made a fraudulent refugee claim and been ordered deported. On the day scheduled for his deportation, hundreds of Sikhs demonstrated at the Vancouver Airport and intimidated enforcement officers into abandoning their efforts to deport this man. Canada eventually succeeded in getting rid of Laibar Singh, but not before having to put up with this disgraceful and shameless display of Sikhs championing fraud. That display has been accompanied by a disproportionate amount of other refugee fraud and marriage fraud—-all of which demonstrate that crude Sikhs have outright contempt for Canada and that they have become so emboldened that they believe they can get away not just with mass murder, but almost anything.
(7) The economic damage that many Canadians have suffered from unnecessary Sikh and other ethnic immigration is huge. For example, low-wage Sikh truck drivers have forced most Canadians out of the trucking industry in British Columbia. When the Sikhs later discovered that they could not live on the undercut wages they received, they staged a lengthy strike which cost the Port of Vancouver millions of dollars. By cheating, Sikhs have also taken over much of the detached house construction industry in B.C. According to former Sikh MP Ujjal Dosanjh, “Several years ago a report on the front page of the Vancouver Sun stated that close to a billion dollars of unaccounted and undeclared money was circulating in the construction industry in Surrey. Such massive fraud did not elicit even a peep from the usually loud public voices. It was well-known that almost all of the residential and a portion of the commercial construction was in the hands of Indo-Canadians. Complete silence reigned in the political sphere.”.The “Indo-Canadians” Dosanjh referred to were crude Sikhs. Like other Asian immigrants, the Sikhs have compounded the problem of unnecessary immigration by pressuring government and private industry to give hiring preference to Sikhs and other Asians.
We repeat : Canada’s Sikh population has been hijacked by a crude, grasping element which is exploiting Canada. It is long overdue for PM Trudeau and all of our other politicians to give this crude collection the back of their hands, investigate them, put them behind bars or deport them.
We repeat : The skepticism Canadians felt toward aggressive Sikh migrants on the Komagata Maru in 1914 has been shown to have been justified. Sikhs should be apologizing to Canada. Canada should never apologize to them. — IMMIGRATION WATCH CANADA
__________________
[To learn the truth about the “Komagata Maru”, send $7.00 to
C-FAR Books,
P.O. Box 332,
Rexdale,. ON.,
M9W 5L3
for a copy of Robert Jarvis’s booklet The Komagata Maru Incident: A Canadian Immigration Revisited. Read about the assassination by a Sikh extremist of William Hopkinson, a Canadian immigration agent and undercover operative. The memory of this intrepid and brave man has been thrust down the memory hole by the politically correct.
20 Degenerate “Cultures” That Have Formed The Dystopia We’re Living In
Enjoy the freak show while it lasts
Welcome to the depraved new world. Forget the books and movies, because you’re already living in a dystopia. Take a moment to familiarize yourself with the following progressive cultures of our society that will show you what a wonderful world we now live in.
1. Victim Culture
Victim culture is the mother of all other social insanity that we are witnessing today.
But being a victim today is not without its perks. In one victim package you get: attention, sympathy, ego-boost, the right to censor other people, the right to attack people with impunity, freedom from criticism, financial support from the government and moronic sympathizers, an elevated status, plus other privileges. It’s no wonder so many people today are scrambling to claim their own victim status lest they find themselves at a disadvantage.
And if you ever wonder why these professional victims are so aggressive, you have to understand that victim playing is a zero-sum game where the winner is the biggest loser. There is only so much prize to be won and far too many competitors to play nice. Anyone who engages in victim Olympics must shove their opponents off the stage lest they lose the spotlight.
2. PC Culture
You know you’re living in a dystopia when cry-babies are policing your language.
We live in a toxic PC culture with an unprecedented level of control being imposed upon our daily lives.
While some of the most repulsive men and women are free to roam around naked in gay pride parades and slutwalks, scientist Matt Taylor was bullied until he apologized in tears for wearing a ‘sexist’ shirt his female friend made for him as a gift. And that’s just one of many examples of the politically correct terrorism we’re witnessing on a daily basis.
The most frightening aspect is that there is no knowing what you’ll be guilty of until it happens, for the PC police is always on the lookout for new things to get offended by and new ways to ruin your life. You are to conform and submit in fear, not knowing when or where the next blow will come.
3. “Rape Culture” Culture
Number of rapes has been free-falling while rape hysteria and false rape accusations are soaring.
Spreading lies about the “rape culture” is vital for the feminists to propagate their narrative of eternal victimhood. You can tell how obsessed they are with maintaining this fantasy with the way they spend more time bitching about it than doing anything to solve it, even going as far as shutting down police campaigns to prevent them.
4. Hypersensitivity Culture
In our infantilized society, just about everything is offensive and triggering. It can be anything from Halloween costumes, a priest in a robe, pro-Trump messages scrawled with chalk, differing opinions, to the word “upset.”
I’m surprised that social justice cowards are even able to muster up the courage to scream at people’s faces while they themselves have to snap their fingers because clapping is too triggering.
5. Shameless Culture
Giving tips on self-improvement? “Stop shaming me into marriage! I want to play my video games!”
Imagine yourself as an obese woman with no self-discipline. Do you:
A) Decide to be healthy by eating right and working out.
Or,
B) Bitch at everyone to accept you for who you are and call them fat-shamers if they gag in disgust from looking at your pile of lard.
“A” kind of requires effort, so…
6. Zero-Responsibility Culture
Why am I not surprised to find out that she’s a feminist?
Everyone today is perfect and nothing is ever their fault.
“It’s not my fault I’m fat, It’s my genes.”
“I feel like a slut after having drunk sex with him. It’s not my fault, I must’ve been raped.”
“I can’t attract women because [insert your usual excuse].”
“My life sucks and it’s all because of [select favorite scapegoat: Patriarchy, big government, evil white men, feminists, discrimination, Obama, etc.].”
7. Sexual Deviancy Culture
Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing compared to the sexual degeneracy of today. Now with homosexuality normalized and transsexuality also going mainstream, the door as flung open for all other sexual degeneracy to follow. Expect more furries, bestiality, pedophilia, and other biology-defying sexual deviance in the near future.
8. “Empowerment” Culture
Feminist terror movement needs government force like fish needs water.
“Empowerment” is a code word for all the losers who desperately need to compensate for their insecurities. The truth is that the only way these leaches are able to “empower” themselves is by shoving others down while sucking off society’s sympathy and resources.
9. Oppressor Guilt Culture
“I’m so sorry for being white, just please don’t call me a racist again!”
When the victims start oppressing their “oppressors,” the wimps among them will break down and start feeling guilty for their very existence.
10. “I’m Disgusting, So I’ll Bring Everyone Else Down To My Level” Culture
Feminist role model for today’s dumb and shallow American girls. The future certainly looks sparkling.
When feminists can’t improve themselves (which is always), they need to start poisoning everyone and everything around them. This is especially prominent among the sluts who feel the need to turn all other decent women into drunken whores. Go to a feminist site like Jezebel and you’ll see how they openly teach women to corrupt themselves.
11. Special Snowflake Culture
“Look! I dyed my hair blue and got retarded tattoos, now I’m unique and special like the other attention-whores!”
Everyone is so unique and special like everyone else, and we have to respect their individuality no matter how stupid and repulsive they are. If you don’t have any real accomplishments to speak of, your self-perceived uniqueness is the next best thing.
12. “You Can Be Anything You Want” Culture
If you’re still innocent enough to think that male and female are the only sex identities, consider yourself spared. You’ll be surprised to know that we now have a dozen or more different types of sexual identities (I lost track of them after trans-whatever), along with other batshit made-up identities. Our world has gone completely insane with mentally sick individuals coming up with new ways to identify themselves just to see how low they can go.
13. Infantilized Culture
Adults in New York paying up to $1000 to be in preschool again.
It’s not just the cry-babies in colleges who are infantilized, but the adults as well. This sort of degeneracy, along with the others on this list, only seem to be prevalent in large cities, which is why I now refuse to live in one.
14. Diversity For The Sake Of Diversity Culture
Excellent photoshop job by the Canadian Socialist Republic’s Ministry of Truth.
Everything, everyone, and every space must now be
enforcedenriched with diversity, which is our strength (whatever that means)—everything except our political opinions, of course.15. Go Cry To The Authorities Culture
Nothing says strong and independent woman like crying to the UN for help.
Want to make easy money? Play professional victim and beg people to crowd fund you.
Is someone making fun of you on Twitter? Whine about sexism and get him censored or fired from his job.
Want to get back at your ex-lover? Cry rape and get him kicked out of school or jailed without a shred of evidence. Even if he doesn’t get convicted, his life will still be ruined.
16. Nanny-State Culture
The professional whiners of today complain that they even have to go cry to the government to receive the pampering they seek. They believe Big Brother should turn the entire society into a giant safe space while being spoiled with freebies until they die.
17. Knee-Jerk Hostility Culture
When identity-politics gets out of control, people start to develop knee-jerk reaction to those who they consider their enemies:
White male? “Your opinions are worthless, cis-scum. Go kill yourself.”
Skin colour is a shade browner than an Ivory soap? “Filthy muslim kebab, wait till we exterminate you.”
Not excited about having multiculturalism and pansexuality shoved down your throat?“You ignorant, Nazi piece of shit! Intolerant assholes like you need to disappear from the world!”
Not enthusiastic about putting anyone left of Pinochet into gas chambers? “I’m going to punch your mouth you cultural-Marxist filth! Calm down? Don’t try to censor me you Leftist faggot!”
18. The “-ist” Culture
Person A: “Oh, you’re just a _____-ist, so your opinions are invalid.”
Person B: “Shut up, _____-ist! You’re just delusional.”
19. Labeling People With Political Mental Illness Culture
Not only are the patients running the asylum, but they’re also diagnosing YOU with mental illness.
“You don’t like gay Muslims? Since I’m a doctor with a PhD in Social Justice, I’m going to diagnose you with homophobia and islamophobia. My treatment is going to be to shame you for your mental illness you until you shut up.”
20. Emasculation Culture
Emasculation of men starts early in today’s America with feckless parents who enable it.
When feminists, government, and the entire culture is harping for female empowerment at the expense of men, the result should be obvious: the systematic emasculation of men at all ages. Today, men are starting to talk like women, more men are turning homosexual, and more of them are changing sex. For the wimps, when it’s too difficult to be a man, it’s far easier to just abandon ship.
The Verdict
It’s the only way to be sure.
I realistically don’t see any hope of peaceful return to a patriarchal (or just normal) social order even if Trump becomes dictator for life. Nothing short of violent upheaval will reverse the cultural decay we’re witnessing today. Our society is going on a downward spiral and it can’t burn down fast enough.
