It’s interesting how many men yearn for the right to speak freely–at the hate speech trial of their enemies. The fact illustrates how useful an agreement of terms would be for contemporary discourse. For instance, when I’m talking it’s free speech. And when you’re arguing, it’s Hate speech. This solipcentric model of morality might have been contested by Copernicus, who thought neither Earth nor the men who walk upon it occupied the center of the universe. But I’ve already explained what opposition to me represents, so keep it up Nicolaus and see where it gets you.
Though speech is far from the only area where man’s principles extend very little beyond his own nose. By historical observation, it seems the only human impulse more powerful than forming oppressive multi-racial empires is the desire to not live under one. This friction is no where more vividly displayed than in the mutual hostility between EU technocrats and the mere citizens being pulverized by their Eurafrican ambitions. Of course it is the hoi polloi who are guilty of Hate which, as we know, is defined as opposition to the state’s agenda. It’s almost if as you can guess who’s benevolent and who’s the bigot by whether their head is wearing a crown or a boot heel.
All of which makes Our Values a poor base from which to premise political loyalties. Fortunately for their many enemies, conservative goobers do not readily grasp this. While whites worry about angels and abstractions, the 90% global minorities pursue their own tangible interests. Though hopefully in our absence they will conscientiously nurture those values we perished to uphold. I’m sure of it.
But there’s more and more chips appearing in the paint. People are beginning to comprehend that our modern pieties are merely a platform of attack. The question increasingly asked in response being: How many more mosques, traitor? If you’re looking for a near certain profit, invest heavily in the continuing upward trend of this chart.
Another response already alluded to above is the desire to avoid the broad petri-dish societies men eternally try to erect as a homage to their own vanity. You’d obviously struggle to find a dish more diverse than Brazil. Though once there, you wouldn’t struggle at all to find a willing assailant.
But what’s so predictable as to be baffling to the media is how stratified the prevalence of crime is in that country. The Economist, for one, labored to understand the carnage in the north compared to relative tranquility in the south. The only factors its learned writers could speculate upon were a 1.1% difference in the proportion of young men, disparate appetites for crack consumption, and “better policing.” That’s insightful commentary, and well worth the cost of a subscription. My similar theory is that Denmark benefits from ‘better countrying.’
And perhaps it’s that general, mysterious betterness that has hundreds of thousands of southern Brazilians yearning to separate from their crack indulgent northern countrymen.
Hundreds of thousands of people in the south of Brazil have voted in an unofficial plebiscite to separate from South America’s biggest nation and form their own country, organizers of the ballot said.
Counting of the 617,000 votes cast on Oct. 1 in the “Plebisul” finished on Tuesday. Organizers said 96 percent had voted to create a new country out of Brazil’s three most southern states, arguing they pay too much in taxes to the central government and get too little in return.
While it was not possible to independently verify the count, Brazilian media reported ballot boxes had been set up in cities throughout the region for the vote, which occurred the day before nationwide elections for mayors and city councils. Organizers had said their target was a million voters — or 5 percent of those eligible to vote in the three states. Even though the vote has no legal value, and they failed to hit that target, the message sent was unmistakable.
“We in the south have the conditions to sustain ourselves and generate riches. Today we generate a mountain of riches in taxes and benefits which are exported, and there is no counterpart,” said José Gonçalves, a business manager voting in favor of independence in the southern city of Porto Alegre, in an interview posted on YouTube by the city’s Jornal do Comércio newspaper.
We have the conditions to sustain ourselves and generate riches. That’s thoughtfully diplomatic language. You’ll note how frequently those same conditions proliferate (or not) according to consistent demographic profiles.
And whether more than a handful of people understand their own internal motivations, so much of the intensifying angst in Western peoples results from one visceral sentiment: We don’t have to live like this. We don’t have to be beaten, belittled, and parasitized for the sake of another man’s morality just because his is attached to a megaphone. We don’t have to subsidize the contempt of others. We’ve wallowed in alien charity and cultural masochism long enough to see the results. It’s time to invest in our future. That’s the emerging sentiment.
Real national borders are made by people, not geography. And many are going to be redrawn over the coming years. Some of these will be cheered and others bitterly denounced. Which is which will be strictly a matter of who and whom.