A Politically Correct person sees the white race as the only barrier to his world. China and parts of Southeast Asia are Communist, Japan had a large Communist Party vote for decades after World War II.
The only flags that still have a hammer and sickle on them are in Africa, and there are still several “People’s Democratic Republics” there.
No predominantly Protestant European country had a large Communist vote at any time since World War II, even in the catastrophic conditions immediately after the War.
In the 1960s the New Left had lots of support on campus, of course, but its firmest opposition came from the American working class, the class it claimed to represent.
The only real democracy that ever voted itself Communist, by the way, was San Marino. San Marino, population about 13,000, is a real country in the middle of Italy, but unlike Liechtenstein, which is rich, San Marino is dirt poor like the rest of south Italy.
Oddly enough, Mussolini allowed San Marino to be Communist. An invasion would have made the Vatican nervous, and SMOM, another independent country located on the second floor of a Rome office building and recognized by several countries, represents a lot of money that would not have liked it either.
But when Germany invaded the USSR, San Marino loyally declared war on Germany but not on Italy, so Mussolini gave GERMAN troops leave to cross its territory and occupy the place.
Sometime in the 60s there was what the media called a “counterrevolution,” only leftists had revolutions, in San Marino that overthrew the Communists. I have no information on it except that the fighting largely took place in a warehouse, so the front line was not very wide.
Adherents of the Politically Correct faith see the white countries as the only real obstacle they face.
Others love the little colored folk because they are adherents of Classism rather than Wordism. William Buckley was a Wordist Catholic. Another factor is that he spent his childhood in Mexico, and my guess is that he dreamed of a world that was not only made up of brown little sincere Catholics, but a world in which would-be Uppah Clahss people like himself would rule over a passive brown population.
All forms of enslavement, dreams of truly obedient masses who will do the Wordist’s will without question, see non-whites as the ideal.
Ancient Greece cities were all based on a huge slave population, but they condemned Sparta for its slavery. The helot slaves of Sparta were GREEK. It was the enslavement of GREEKS that was the subject of so many orations against Sparta.
European Catholic countries had enormous Communist votes. Like the universities, the film industry in all European Catholic countries was solidly Communist. For the Moron Minimum, I guess I have to except Franco’s Spain and Salazar’s Portugal.
It would be interesting to correlate the Communist vote in Catholic countries to the color of its skin. The Mommy Professor Factor would have produced them in the more college-educated white population, but even with that, there was a solid and undeniable correlation between living standard and color of skin throughout Europe in the 1950-1990 period before colored immigration got going.
A book called Importing Revolution talks about how the Left gave up on white working people by the time we got what even the media suddenly called “Reagan Democrats” instead of “Wallace Democrats” in the wake of the 1980 landslide.
But the instinctive preference for the slave makers , their gut preference, is that white skin disappears.
That didn’t begin with the Reagan vote.
#1 by Epiphany on 06/30/2011 - 6:11 am
Americans seem to forget all about Communism!
#2 by Dave on 06/30/2011 - 8:27 am
Anti-white whites have succumbed to dereliction.
And that is what a lot of churches are. They are edifices for the propagation of dereliction.
Mommy Professor is a schemer. The Internet has exposed her. She can no longer hide behind her neologisms (the coining of new words), in order to receive a fine living without having to produce anything real.
The hordes of nonwhites out there don’t get this at all, hypnotized as they are by fancy words and Mommy Professor’s pretenses of sophistication. At the end of the day, we are going to have to put the hordes of nonwhites down. And the paternalism that Mommy Professor relies on, but doesn’t want to talk about, isn’t going to cut it.
#3 by BGLass on 06/30/2011 - 9:19 am
“….the paternalism that Mommy Professor relies on, but doesn’t want to talk about, isn’t going to cut it….”
The underlying motivation is the creation of a slave class they think they can control, a group in which mommy professor really is certain, in his infinite weakness, he can compete. Exposure of this is his deepest fear, maybe. But it’s totally unconscious. In his own self-concept, he thinks he is “a nice person.’ Better than the others who are not doing such nice things so visibly. A “strong” person, in fact, b/c he is so without any form of self-hood.
He believes: if he thinks about others, and does things for others, and is a public servant, HE MUST be nice! (generous, kind, thoughtful, self-sacrificing, etc, etc…)
But there is the matter of “secondary gains”—which he will not look at. What is Mommy, himself, getting out of the deal? The elevation of ego, the supposed status in the public salary that he, himself, voted to give himself, the puffed chest of the moralist, the prideful glance as he institutes the highly visible social program that says “I am self-sacrificing” and therefore great!
Frankly, one reason whites help non-whites is b/c the help is then highly visible, maybe, and makes a better photo op. A theologian talking theology to white christian heretics (seen as heretics from their point of view) bc they sincerely think they have god’s only deal, offers not nearly the payoff of the standard mother teresa stock photo-op, barefoot in some dusty village surrounded by hungry looking indians.
It’s just more visible, and moralistically, mommy prof gets more bang for her buck. Everyone can see the goodliness and sacrifice at a glance, right there in a photo, or the aisle of a grocery store, or whatever. There’s much less moralistic payoff for what remains invisible.
At exposure, such people can lash out. Their self-concept of being great, good, thoughtful, kind, benevolent, self-sacrificing, crumbles in the face of being called out for moralism, (pride, self-aggrandizement, ego, etc.). In identity politics, the self dis-integrates, and the lashing out is trying to hold onto this grand self-idea of who they are.
It’s the move to realizing the self-concept has absolutely nothing to do with who you are in the larger context, that how you affect others might be of some consequence, too. That thing called “other people” might have a label for mommy prof that he’s never even heard of.
mommy prof is the ultimate xenophobe, (even as she labels others this)
Well… even serial killers bake brownies. In fact, they usually bake even more than the average joe, since it shows what a great person they are.