June 25, 2016

Why "Euro-skeptic" instead of "Euro-phobic"?

In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, we're hearing the usual accusations that such voters were xenophobic, Islamophobic, and everyone knows those voters were probably also homophobic.

Why don't the multiculturalists, then, accuse those voters of being Europhobic? Instead they say Euroskeptic.

Something distinguishes the European Union on the one hand, and foreigners, Muslims, and homos on the other hand. One is simply unwanted, while the other is felt to be disgusting. We only fear what threatens our well-being on a visceral level.

The multicultis would say that they're only using different terms to describe, without endorsing themselves, the differential treatment that those mean old racist voters show towards the EU vs. foreigners, Muslims, and homos.

However, multicultis don't use these terms ironically, and they don't wink when they use the lighter term Euroskeptic, to signal that it's only the awful nationalists who feel such a distinction.

Multicultis themselves use Euroskeptic casually, as though they too believe that the EU is nowhere near the primal threat to the multicultis' survival as are foreigners, Muslims, and homos, and therefore deserve a lighter term with "-skeptic" rather than "-phobe".

Multicultis also love to use hysterical language like xenophobe, Islamophobe, etc. So why, when dealing with nationalists, would they shrink away from hurling another "-phobe" slur at their enemies, and never tire of calling them Europhobes? The "-skeptic" term sounds much weaker, and they don't mince words when attacking their enemies.

What this all shows is that the multicultis realize on a deep level that the groups they're pushing for normalization are threatening to an orderly society, at least in the West. They know that a normal person will have a gut aversion to them, suggesting the term "-phobe".

But, they assure us, we're just going to have to get over our visceral distaste for hostile alien cultures that are colonizing our society. Just as they will have to get over their distaste for us (j/k, they can continue hating, since you need to hold power to qualify for racism).

Normal people don't overcome visceral reactions to such hostile forces without the use of a magic wand. Lacking a magic wand, the multicultis are also aware of the fact that they're setting up the conditions for one of the two antagonistic sides to blow up at the other.

Their goal is to maintain the pressure-cooker atmosphere for as long as possible before the inevitable blow-up -- which will be blamed on the hot-headed blower-uppers, not those cold-blooded social engineers who set up the conditions by forcing hostile groups to compete with each other for subsistence.

The rise of the Farage and Trump movements is to attempt reverse social engineering so that those hostile forces are not locked in a pressure-cooker any longer, each living in their own area of the world undisturbed. It is not, as the multicultis propagandize, to encourage or carry out what would otherwise have been an inevitable pogrom.

Of course the multicultis will never thank us for defusing their pressure-cooker bomb, securing the well-being for all groups concerned, but we don't need their gratitude. We're going to do the right thing, whether the elites appreciate it or not.

15 comments:

  1. http://thebaffler.com/salvos/withering-vine-tom-frank:

    “We were promised, all during the time we worked at Caterpillar, that when you retire, you’re going to have a pension and full benefits at no cost to you,” Solomon recalled. He told about a round of contract negotiations he and his colleagues attended in the 1960s during which a management official complained, “We already take care of you from the cradle to the grave. What more could you want?”

    Today, it is inconceivable that an American official of any kind, public or private, would utter such a phrase. In this age of disruption and innovation, everything pushes in the opposite direction. For the generation coming up now, the old social contract is gone—or at least the part of it that ensured health care and retirement for blue-collar workers. Now, as Solomon sees it, companies can say, “We want your life, and when your work life is over, then goodbye. We thank you for your life, but we’re not responsible for you after we turn you out.” At which point, presumably, they head east for a relaxing summer on the Vineyard.

    Frank seems to be coming to Jesus about what a fraud the Boomer liberals perpetrated. If you read the whole article, he lashes out at elites and wannabe elites who feign a social conscience but are too vain and smug to ever really fight alongside the rednecks. It's also interesting that Frank doesn't toss the obligatory liberal derisive slurs (like saying that they are ignorant racists or Christo-Americans stuck in the 50's) at the white working class.

    And when he talks about the "new" generation being alienated by decadence, he's obviously concerned about the Millennial children of Boomers. Such is the disdain for X-ers that Frank forgets to even mention their mostly low status in the striving wars which have produced many Silent and early Boomer winners. For example, the Caterpillar worker who started in '63, agitated against ownership, and still was able to retire with a sound pension. The two-tier wage system gets mentioned too, a thing that many companies began using in the 80's that gave the finger to some late Boomers. And by the time early X-ers were working in earnest (the later 80's/early 90's) it had become damn near impossible to start out with a decent wage.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "what a fraud the Boomer liberals perpetrated"

    This changes began during the dawn of organized conservatism, not liberalism, and were pioneered more by the Silent Gen.

    Boomer liberals didn't take over the reins until the '90s.

    It's about elites vs. common people, globalism vs. nationalism, not liberal vs. conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey ag, I heard about that dumb petition demanding a second referendum with ridiculous standards for victory getting 2 million virtue signalling signatures. Some shitlibs are protesting Brexit in London, and an MP has openly called for ignoring the referendum.

    What do you think the odds are they'll try anything?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Now that the expectation is that it won, they can't do anything to change it. There'd be bloody revolution.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Plus there's strong evidence that the petition was manipulated by hackers anyway (for example, tens of thousands of votes placed from Vatican City even though the population there is only a few hundred):

    http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/8939-brexit-brexpress/page__st__460#entry274991

    Unless they can prove fraud or manipulation of the actual Brexit vote (which no one is even alleging) then they have no basis to try to turn back the clock.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't recall Eurosceptic in much usage among my Tory friends until after Maastricht in the early '90s.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "An MP has openly called for ignoring the referendum."

    David "milk dud" Lammy

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Agnostic, so you read AMERIKA.ORG? I stumbled upon it recently and think you'd appreciate it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. How tone-deaf can cyber-nerds get -- all dozen of them -- dripping disdain for democracy during the rise of populism?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Eh, I'm inclined to be halfway charitable:

    "We have no leaders, but we make choices in groups, and in theory, we always choose correctly. In reality, the complexities of governing even a small community are more complicated than can be communicated to a group and vastly more so than what can be understood by that group. That creates a new group of leaders who have less power than kings, but also less oversight by the capable, and this group sets about “civilizing” the rest of us. Worse, it does so under the aegis of the voters, because it has the pretense of being the will of We The People.

    If you wonder why we have bureaucrats in the EU who like to pass down petty little rules on everything from what toaster you can use to how thick your toilet paper can be, this is why: they enjoy the sensation of power because it removes ambiguity from life, and they have no oversight from the voters except in periodic elections when many thousands of little acts are summarized by a few token issues. It is like when the teacher leaves the room and gives that annoying teacher’s pet kid the authority to punish, discipline and command others. Of course you get abusive nerds! It is Lord of the Flies writ in documents, speeches and Nordic-style positive policing instead of a pig head, but the psychology is the same.

    But the open-mouthed nodding heads of the “sensible” people are always there to tell us how great democracy is. “Oh, no, we could not have a king, that would be uncivilized, like cavemen,” they say. “We need process. And laws, and rules, and procedures, to protect all of us.” They are convinced that they are smarter than the rest of us, smarter than nature and wiser than God. Nevermind that they are basically nerds… masters of a narrow domain, oblivious to the wider picture, like the computer programmer who writes compilers but cannot boil an egg, mow his lawn or make conversation with a lady.

    The grim fact is that the feral, atavistic doubters called this one correctly. Our notion of being “civilized” is mere pretense that allows us to put our egos in the drivers seat, arranging every piece of our lives into neat blocks so we feel in control of it and therefore, powerful. When we do this in groups, we get democracy, which produces tyrant-nerds who promptly miss the point on every issue, ruin quality of life and make us all hate each other, at which point civilization fragments."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Random Dude on the Internet6/26/16, 8:25 PM

    An alternative hypothesis: At the time of the creation of the term "eurosceptic", there was a sizable left wing anti-globalist sentiment. For the UK, the biggest objections for bringing the UK into the EU in the 1960s and 1970s came from Labour rather than the Tories. If euroscepticism was exclusively right wing, then I think the term would be a lot harsher against the eurosceptics, such as europhobes.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Now that the expectation is that it won, they can't do anything to change it. There'd be bloody revolution."

    By whom? The younger you are in Britain, the more pozzed you are. My greatest fear at this point is that they'll manage to effectively negate the vote via layer after layer of bureaucratic duckspeak until the older generation has died off enough for referendum 2, electric boogaloo.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The age at which Leave became a majority was early 40s -- still able to kick someone's ass, fire guns, etc., especially when organized into a large mass.

    "Young people" these days are Millennials and couldn't land a single blow without shattering their bones. Drudge linked a study showing how low grip strength has become for youngsters, too, so Millennials can't wrestle well either.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Maybe that's a subconscious motive for dogmatic New Left support for immigration: importing hired muscle?

    ReplyDelete
  15. It's "euroskeptic" because you can't be "phobic" of white people in leftist psychology.

    ReplyDelete

You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."