Pubescent “white” girls, of all sexes and ages, find the slogan “Diversity Is Our Greatest Strength” appealing. Why? Because they instinctively get a kick out of men going mano-a-mano in a fair contest over them. Gotta see whose genes would make the best sons, after all. What their paleolithic instincts don’t get is this isn’t the Pleistocene, so they’re dooming white men to being picked off, one-by-one – not by another man in a fair contest, but by ethnic nepotist gangs imported and protected by a foreign gang called “The Federal Government”.
These graphs aren’t very detailed. Can I assume that the closer to the left of the graph the lower the rating?
60% Left lower bound
90% Right upper bound
Of course they should have put the confidence interval bars on each of those points.
Maybe I will look around for the Raw data.
Okay I see now. Why do whites have such a low opinion of themselves? Looking at it blacks, Hispanics, and Asians think highly of their own but not the others. My guess is generations of being taught multiculturalism and self loathing.
My working hypothesis (more than a mere educated guess) is that whites are more heritably individualistic than other groups and that means not only that they produce more wealth to consume per capita which attracts the attention of other groups to take it, but that they possess an instinctive moral disgust with collectivism e.g. ganging up on an individual – which means collectivists are going to portray whites to whites as ganging up on individuals from collectivist groups so that collectivists can gang up on individual whites and take their stuff – lots of stuff to take there being.
This preempts any attempt by whites to defend themselves by forming a group – which they must do.
Source for the graph: How racial groups rate each other
Some other interesting charts are hosted there.
Here is the question respondents were asked:
Please enter the rating number in the number box. Ratings between 50 degrees and 100 degrees mean that you feel favorable and warm toward the group. Ratings between 0 degrees and 50 degrees mean that you don’t feel favorable toward the group and that you don’t care too much for that group. You would rate the group at the 50 degree mark if you don’t feel
particularly warm or cold toward the group.
How would you rate:
A related question: Why are whites so uniquely pacifist in response to racial hatred against them?
The pubescent “white” girls of all sexes and ages hold white men in evolutionary psychological contempt. There are two, contradictory, sides to this contempt by them:
- White men don’t stand up for themselves so they must have inferior genes yet still are trying to get laid, which is just disgusting to pass on such inferior genes.
- White men gang up on innocent men who are non-white – probably because they can’t compete in a fair contest due to those ICKY genes of theirs.
White men are beneath HATE but not CONTEMPT to these “girls”.
Hate, after all, is the impotent emotion of the powerless toward insular power. Contempt is the emotion of potent insular power toward the hate of the powerless.
Men who hate are icky to these “girls”. Only losers “hate”. Contempt on the other hand is almost a sexual display of fitness (power) in the current environment. One must notice the takeoff in mentions of “hate speech” with Reagan’s 1986 immigration amnesty.
And of course, any white man who noticed that traitors in the Republican party had just doomed himself and his posterity in the name of the Constitution would notice that he was alone in a world of gangstas and be reduced to impotent HATE as just one of many individuals who had been told by movies for decades that they were evil because they were inherently gangstas.
Total and complete demoralization.
Interesting theory but there was much national pride amongst groups within “white” States prior to WWI. A reading of Kipling shows that prior to the Great War there was a great sense collectively among the British of British greatness. Is it possible your theory is true as a product of the cultural rot brought on by the 60s? (If the question is not clear please let me know as I am using shorthand by saying “the 60s.”)
It’s really all just more reason to pray Jesus comes back sooner rather than later so all of these wicked people—the “white” girls you mention as well as the colored who exploit the dumb winches—can get their desserts: eternal damnation.
Note: I am not saying Heaven or Christ are only for whites. But certainly those seeking to genetically destroy are agents of Satan.
Nor, of course, am I saying the moral superiority of those who abide in that still small voice which valorizes individual integrity over group integrity, is the sole possession of “whites”. Indeed, individual integrity is the very essence, the patrimony of all Sexual Being – the connotations of that phrase demonstrating we’ve been deprived of a word for “sex” by the Uncreator thereof.
Why crucify The Individual: First born son of Mare’s waters?
When the essential characteristic of the current order is centrallized imposition of social theory on all populations, with nowhere to run, and the “new order of things” is to let people decide locally what social theory under which they wish to live, it is improper to speak of it as “new”. This is especially true when the current order is relentlessly, for decades on end, changing the current order of things aka “The Current Thing” in a manner opposed by more than a supermajority while claiming they all “consented” to these changes. Not even Machiavelli had words to describe this nightmarish nonsense.
“It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.” Machiavelli, The Prince (1513)