Author Topic: Homo Hubris  (Read 3174 times)


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7344
    • View Profile
Re: Homo Hubris
« on: March 24, 2021, 12:40:58 am »

Research confirms what I intuitively predicted a decade ago about how backlash politics works:

‘Overrun,’ ‘Outbred,’ ‘Replaced’: Why Ethnic Majorities Lash Out Over False Fears
That dynamic, sometimes known as a majority with a minority complex, is thought to be a major factor in the rise of right-wing populism in Europe, religious nationalism in Asia, and white nationalist terrorism in the United States and New Zealand.
These dynamics are rising globally, and not only when one group is a majority nationally and a minority regionally.

Asked in 2013 about Buddhist violence against Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslim minority that would later culminate in genocide, Aung San Suu Kyi, the country’s de facto leader, responded by warning darkly of “global Muslim power.”
And the rise of democracy, long considered a force for ethnic harmony, may be provoking majority backlashes instead, according to research by Jack Snyder, a Columbia University political scientist.

As democracy became the global norm, dominant ethnic groups found themselves under growing pressure to share power with minorities. They even lost the occasional election.

Anxiety around losing status can manifest as fears, however unfounded, of becoming outnumbered. In countries with weak institutions, that can lead to violence, possibly contributing to the stall in democracy’s once-rapid spread.

“We often see this phenomenon at moments of increasing democratization and increasing enfranchisement,” said Kate Cronin-Furman, a University College London political scientist, citing “horrible violence against the Rohingya breaking out at a time of increased democratization in Burma.”
Muslims, we hear at rallies for the Alternative for Germany and France’s National Front, will soon outnumber non-Muslims in Europe and impose Shariah law.

A leader of Vox, the Spanish far-right party that just won its first Parliamentary seats, warned at a September rally of an “Islamist invasion.” The party supports policies to increase Spanish birthrates.

Many whites welcome pluralism and multiculturalism. But for those who see the decline of white dominance as destabilizing, any increase in the minority population is perceived as an attack.

A growing body of research suggests that this sentiment may be driving significant political change in the United States, which is projected to become “majority minority” — with whites less than half of the population — by 2050.

A study by Maureen Craig of New York University and Jennifer Richeson of Yale University found that white Americans who so much as read a news article on these demographic changes will express “more negative attitudes toward Latinos, blacks, and Asian-Americans” and “more automatic pro-white/anti-minority bias.”

The effect disappeared when the authors told participants that whites were expected to remain politically and culturally dominant

And yet many of them do not like to be called "white supremacists" even though this is precisely what they are.

(By the way, "white American" is an oxymoron.)

Other studies find that when white Americans learn about these demographic trends they become less supportive of immigration, affirmative action, welfare spending and health care spending, and more supportive of military spending and of President Trump.

In a 2016 poll, 57 percent of whites said “discrimination against whites is as big a problem today as discrimination against blacks and other minorities.”

Fears of ‘Replacement’

Whites are subject to the same forces as any other demographic group. Fears of being outnumbered can lead to violence.

A rising wave of white-nationalist terrorists repeatedly cite “replacement theory,” in which Jews are said to be orchestrating mass immigration in order to destroy the white race.

At the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, white power activists chanted “Jews will not replace us” during their torchlit march on the University of Virginia campus.

Brenton Tarrant, who murdered 50 people in two Christchurch, New Zealand, mosques, described immigration and low white birthrates as “an assault on the European people that, if not combated, will ultimately result in the complete racial and cultural replacement of the European people.”

Jews indeed will not replace you: they - the ones who deliberately set up your backlash - obviously want it to succeed in creating additional ethnostates in the near future (whereupon Israel will acquire a much politically safer position by ceasing to be the only ethnostate in the world).

We, who defy the Zionist agenda to make ethnostates the norm in the 21st century, are the ones who will replace you.


This is very clear in the colonial context. People defended that Middle Easterners were uncivilized barbarians, but at the same time not only seemed to admire their way of life seemingly free of Western formality, a more honest and noble way of life, but also actively projected Western fantasies and obsessions on them. That's how the Middle East (the "Orient," as they called it) became a place of unrestrained debauchery and violence. It became the imaginary place where the West could finally live out and fulfil its deepest, most repressed fantasies. The sad thing is that this had very real consequences for the real people living in such places. But that's okay for the West, because at the end of the day they're not really people.


A photo of Western civilization:


Feed them to the lions.


More Western thinking revealed:

We need to get off the planet and establish permanent, self-sustaining bases elsewhere in the solar system and even the galaxy.
The money spent pursuing the unachievable goal of equality should have gone on the eminently achievable goal of permanent bases in outer space. ... And we could have been there by now, if we weren’t spending so much in the vain pursuit of equality. Indeed, right now we’re spending huge sums to increase the drag on progress and postpone the conquest of space.
While South African Blacks were killing albinos for their magically potent body-parts, South African Whites were building nuclear weapons.

Our enemies are now literally declaring that "whites" are superior because they build nukes..... You cannot make this **** up.

Seriously, if you were given a choice between either a world with no albino-killing or a world with no nukes, which would you choose? Albino-killing is just ordinary homicide that we can leave the police to deal with. In contrast, were the bombers of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or, for that matter, those who left behind all the depleted uranium from manufacturing nukes) ever arrested, put on trial and punished? And albino-killing can end as soon as no one wants to kill albinos any more. In contrast, nuclear disarmament cannot occur even when all nuclear-armed states want to disarm, because no one is willing to be the first to disarm. So which is worse?

And one more thing. "Black" South Africans are not proud of the freaks among them who kill albinos. Yet "white" South Africans are proud of the freaks among them who build nukes. Which group is the real problem here?

I’ve never seen a feminist or an anti-racist write about the threat of an asteroid strike or another kind of mega-catastrophe. Why not?
Indeed, if it had been up to women and non-Whites, we wouldn’t even know about those threats and the repeated catastrophes that have visited the Earth. Modern science is a White male invention and White men have been the most successful and active explorers of our vast and ancient universe.
On their own, women and non-Whites would never have discovered the “iridium anomaly” that helped explain the extinction of the dinosaurs. But then women and non-Whites would never have discovered iridium or dinosaurs either. We owe our knowledge of that element and those animals to White men.
one species of mammal learnt about dinosaurs and the asteroid that had wiped them out.
Or rather: one sex of one race of that mammalian species learnt about those things. The species was Homo sapiens, the race was Whites, and the sex was male.

Why must we discover iridium or dinosaurs? Were earlier people who had never heard of iridium somehow deficient compared to later people? Does knowing about dinosaurs make one a better person compared to not knowing about dinosaurs? And even if so, then how much more that we currently don't know about must we also discover before we are considered "good enough" (whatever that means)?

the White race is travelling somewhere. We have a destination. And I fear that, like Lee Pomeroy, we will never get there, thanks to non-White dysfunction.

No, Homo Hubris, you do not have a destination. No quantity of discovery will ever satisfy you. You will simply move on to discovering the next thing, on and on without end. It is only those who realize the endlessness, and hence the fundamental valuelessness, of accumulationism who can speak of having a destination.


"To see those… monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes!"

They are correct to be uncomfortable wearing shoes!

Feet that have never worn shoes rarely exhibit problems such as bunions, corns, and "fallen arches",[109][110] are not prone to more than ordinary foot eversion on standing and walking due to the associated weakness or stiffness of the joints of the foot and weakness of the muscles controlling them,[111] as well as having a much reduced incidence of problems such as callouses.[112]

Walking barefoot results in a more natural gait. People who are used to walking barefoot tend to land less forcefully, eliminating the hard heel strike and generating much less collision force in the foot and lower leg.[113] A 2006 study found that shoes may increase stress on the knee and ankle, and suggested that adults who walked barefoot may have a lower rate of osteoarthritis,[114] although more study is required to elucidate the factors that distribute loads in shod and barefoot walking. A 2007 study examined 180 modern humans and compared their feet with 2,000-year-old skeletons. They concluded that, before the invention of shoes, humans overall had healthier feet.[113] A 1991 study found that children who wore shoes were three times more likely to have flat feet than those who did not, and suggested that wearing shoes in early childhood can be detrimental to the longitudinal arch of the foot.[109] Children who habitually go barefoot were found to have stronger feet, with better flexibility and mobility, fewer deformities like flat feet or toes that curve inwards, and fewer complaints.[115]


It gets worse:

Liverpool Lord Mayor and patron of anti-racism charity stripped of title after sharing racist video
the video made comparisons between a black person and a monkey.

Cllr Brennan is a patron of the Anthony Walker Foundation - the charity set up to promote racial harmony in the memory of the shocking racist murder of black teenager Anthony Walker in Huyton.

Anthony was killed by Michael Barton on this exact day in 2005.
“This appalling video was circulated 14 years to the day since the promising and talented Merseyside teenager Anthony Walker was brutally murdered in a horrific racist attack.


How Westerners pose for photos: