Polina Posts XXII: Why You Must Die For The Affluent Liberal

(Source)

The question of why society must bear the burden of every problem the affluent and decadent and effete bring on it and import. Every single problem that has no positive offset to anyone but them. You know how the left talks about becoming complicit in and defending your oppressors? When what they do offer not benefit to you but you protect it anyway? Well the left has never really liked what it sees in the mirror anyhow. Eventually enough become aware of that question, which then multiplies into many questions.
That multiplication is why kings die.
Why expulsion and purges happen.
Why empires fracture and consolidated into Nation States.

Why the “World City”, diversity, societal fragmentation and wanton sexual degeneracy and all consequences there-in proceeds the fall. Symptoms of weakness and/or an insulated and hedonistic ruling class.

You die so the transient liberal can flaunt his ego in diversity for his transqueer, mixed race, foreign belief system holding puppet “office holder”. Like a fucking cardboard cut out, just there to make him look good.

You die so he can eat ethnic food he knows nothing about and is probably just a poor imitation of a thing he does not know. A traditional cultural aspect.

You die so he can pretend to sample traditions of foreign cultures.

The question of “Why?” rings.
You’ll be at the right place you need to be when you realize that there is no answer.
And that is why it has to end.


Polina Post Boilerplate

Polina Posts XI: Race & Politics

(Source)

Regarding a few things about race and politics, juxtapositions in this and direct and indirect. When demographics are mentioned they are usually done so in the Civic Nationalist stance. That there is no reason for concern because the coming generations will be American. This applies to many place just swap out american for another. This is a commentary on something I think may have gone unnoticed.

There is of course the contradiction of this in the fact of Identity politics. Inherently a manifestation of Race overtaking Culture. These minority interest groups however are considered to be symptoms of a condition in a society. That there is a societal injustice or imbalance against them and thus they arise. They are afforded existence on this belief. It has been entertained with the intent of fixing said injustice. But now we have come to the larger issue. For example:
It is said whites do not need an identity politics group because they are the dominant race of the society as they made it and the system is their system, built by them and that because of this, there is an inherent favoritism of them built into it. Systematic Racism. That it also manifests outside the political structure itself into all aspects of society and thus Institutionalized Racism.
Let’s take this as total fact for the moment.
Let’s say this position of the left is true. Absolute truth.
Is this not simply a very round about way of saying Race plays part in politics if not directly then indirectly?

If a system built by a race favors said race, even unintentionally, by simple way of it being made by them, does it not then follow that race, in fact, has a hand in the creation of political systems and the politics there-in? The question is currently one of “does race have anything to do with politics?” For the sake of my own tangent, I say this is wrong
The question is wrong.

The question is instead, does race have relation to politics directly or indirectly?
To which, the left has given it’s own answer.
To which the right (somewhere in there) that believes race plays part in politics, would likely agree with.

The left just takes a very long time along a detour through social constructs and culture to arrive at the same answer. Thaat it does so indirectly even when not done directly. In a sense this gives the perspective that, instead of undoing the concept of Race, the left has instead, composed a new one. One that is inherent in all actions and indirectly affects everything is some way be it socially or otherwise.
So the question has to be asked.

What is the real difference?

To answer one has to go to a zero null start point. The blank slate builds the society. Does he build a society with, or without, racial components worked in indirectly?

Problem

This question is within their context, that is, provided the person has no nature but is socially built. If what came before us could be called this “nature” of some form, then did he not build this racially tinted society, blankly?
Is the argument one that man has moved past this and can now build a society without that?
But if it is so subtle that everything he does is tinted in it, how can he?
How does this play out then when all you have done is create the same concept as a non-concept in your quest to erase said concept?

My point is, what has the left actually said with it’s thinking besides the same things it denounces, albeit through a detour of culture? And if this racial tint is so inherent that it works even when one is aware and working to not do so, could be said this is just “natural”? And then there is the promise of the construction of a new, tolerant society that exists post-current. Yet, it is flawed.
It still requires man before his “post-racial” form to build it.
And, indeed, one can see this in history.
Attempts have been made.
And they always fail.

Because when man would seem to have lost his race the most, one race finds it again. The Arabs know who. They attempted this, back in the old ages when the Europeans were waging campaigns to push them from Europe. The black africans would not stand for it. They found themselves and asserted as much. But I guess if historical precedence really meant anything to the left, they might have figured out by now why communism keeps ending up “not communism”

The left says race has no connection to politics yet says the very system in which one lives is Systematically and Institutionally Racial and via indirect and unintended means and there can be no fixing this without deconstructing it and building a new one.
No such system is name or laid out.
Their dialectic and rhetoric indicate race is inherent in systems of politics no matter what one does and thus follows through the minority interest groups and identity politics because they are not native to the system but the whites are and thus it favors them.

Yet the system cannot be made “not racist” and instead must be destroyed. Yet, so inherent is the racial aspect, it cannot be avoided. So through culture and Social Constructs the left redefines race rather than erasing it and, looking at the final product, ends up with something that is inherently for all intents and purposes, exactly the same as what it started with. It just avoids the word biological and explains biological inclinations via culture and society, yet says, it must be present in all action. “Race” in this sense can never be eliminated because everything one does with be influenced by it no matter what even attempts to erase it. Hence the compromise on race against whites. Having come up dry it seems the only hope is the idea that if they’re gone, something will change. Anyone who knows history outside of what a college with teach about WHITE PEOPLE GOT UP ONE DAY AND FUCKING BUTT RECKED THE WORLD knows that hope is total bullshit and the opposite will occur. Like, it’s already happened. We have examples of this. Happening. Present tense.

“They may be total shit and genocide may be occurring and they may have degenerated into ruins of an advanced civilization in just what like 20-30 years? but at least they aren’t racist in Africa anymore. so it’s allllllll good”

If Africa is the test bed for replacing an inherently racist system with a new system the test has bombed so hard they are back in huts.
Nah bruh.
Nah
Cycle
[Note, Polina links to the start of the thread this is sourced from at this point]

Oh right, THE PUNCHLINE
South Africa’s Black run system ended up with it’s parties actually just being it’s different ethnic groups of the nation. The Zulu who hold the most power use it to oppress the other tribal ethnic groups. This formed naturally as they had a pre-established connection with each other and quickly consolidated into parties based on ethnicity. Now they get nothing done because they bicker and call each other racist all day in the government and racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination are rampant and ten times worse. Non-zulu are oppressed, Colored are oppressed, white are oppressed and the white people voted for it all to happen so they could make a new system and that’s what they got and it’s so much worse. So all the problems got ten K times worse it’s just that now it harms a group the left hates so it’s okay.

See that part?

now it harms a group the left hates so it’s okay.

That’s all it’s about.
Don’t do that.


GN’s Commentary:

For those who don’t get the last part, I want to make it explicit: The things that were happening before in South Africa before the end of Apartheid are still happening. Now they’re happening worse,and now it’s hurting white people too. That makes it ok to the left. That is how monstrous this all is. It’s not even a zero sum game, it’s a negative sum. They want everyone to lose. Then at least almost everyone will be equally miserable.

Today there are miserable people, and non miserable people. People are being lifted out of grinding poverty at a rate never before seen, it’s thousands per year, or so I’m told. That’s incredible, and great. Yet that’s not what the left is looking for, they don’t care about that. All that they care about is that there are people with more than them.

As Jordan B peterson has said, most Socialists aren’t motivated by compassion for the poor, they’re motivated by hatred for the rich. It’s evil, and they can and will pull everyone down into misery just as long as the people they hate are down there with them.

Polina Boilerplate