I seem to remember reading a book in high school about a future society in which the historical record kept changing according to political whims. I forgot the name of it...1983? 1985? It was something like that. Anyway, I don't see what the big deal is. Thank god we have people like Jack Krotcheck in charge of keeping AI safe, so nobody gets triggered by racist content! At least good people will be in charge of throwing dangerous ideas in the memory hole, where they belong.
I also seem to remember real life governments that suppressed or even erased events and people from history. But it was all for the greater good and this power was never abused, so what could possibly go wrong?
So what do you do when certain races underperform? Stay blind to it? Ignore them when they vote to blame you? You can’t have a blind multiracial society.
Colorblind != stupid. You can in fact have a multiracial society that tries its best to move people into power based on merit, and that simultaneously supports the less sucessful to achieve more, without falling for group/identity-based reasoning. You just need to be dedicated to it, which the current society very much isn't. Western societies in particular used to be really good at it; They aren't anymore because they overcorrected away from Nazism/Fascism. Saying "this group underperforms despite tremendous support, so it needs to do better" is the correct stance in a functional society unless there is good evidence of a level of discrimination corresponding to the difference, but it sounds kinda like a Nazi saying "blacks are inferior" if you squint hard so nobody is willing to stand their ground.
They overcorrected for Nazism/Fascism, and also the non-white immigrants which increasingly make up higher % of Western populations don't seem to hold values such as merit and individualism in such high esteem, presumably due to different evolutionary histories. The future is not looking very libertarian or liberal.
You are part of the liberal delusion that is destroying our heritage.
Where in history has multiracialism been successful? Why should it work? Why should people be dedicated to something so unnatural as a “colorblind” society? Why is “blindness” good?
“The West” is white. These other races have no business sharing our culture. Where in “Asia” or “Africa” do you see these other races offering merit & equality to white people?
You might as well insist that men & women share the same bathroom as insist races share the same territory. Diversity = conflict. Always has been always will be. That reality, not your delusion of what should be.
As a matter of fact, I lived and worked a lot with Asians from various countries, and none of them are in any perceptible conflict with "us" whatsoever. In fact, my former PhD supervisor, whom I'm still working with occasionally, is an Asian who married an European and they have a kid together. Similarly, I know several Europeans working & living in Asia just fine.
In particular there are obvious, simple differences between groups that overperform (who are consistently conscientious, do not engage in crime even when they are poor and have an internal locus of control where they try to change themselves if they fail) and groups that underperform (who are disproportionally impulsive, engage in crime even when they're relatively well off and always blame others for all their own problems). It's just plain stupid to throw all non-whites into one bucket.
White people becoming a minority in every country their ancestors founded is not justified by your personal experience.
Couple years ago an Asian woman in California became CEO of a tech company then replaced all the white workers with Asians. It’s old news. Anecdotes like this back the statistics. Yours does not.
Chinese are colonizing the West coast of USA and Canada. Their foreign students are driving up tuition and many of them are spies.
The more immigrants & workers, the lower the wages, & higher the housing prices.
Asians commit less crime than other groups in part because of their genetics. Their cultures are naturally more collectivist not individualistic. They are more passive. The majority of Asians also vote democrat, and on the whole they don’t value the American traditions of free speech & gun rights. They did organize as a group to fight affirmative action which discriminates against them on behalf of blacks. Affirmative action being an effort to lift up blacks and give them a better chance, a failed strategy.
Blacks and Asians hate each other. Asians move into black neighborhoods & run small businesses displacing blacks which results in racial violence. “Stop Asian hate” are black people assaulting Asians. They assault everyone. Blacks will always be at the bottom of society when they have to compete with other races and they will always blame racism rather than admit they’re just less competent.
A few white people living/working in Asia is not the same as whites colonizing their land taking over their companies, & government, changing their laws. When his happens it’s called colonization and it is rejected. We are being colonized by the entire world & being made a hated minority & it’s being done intentionally.
Asians can live in Asia and we don’t need them here.
Even George Floyd robbed a connivence store run by an Asian who called white police which resulted in race riots.
No Muslim immigrants = no 911.
You support a recipe for conflict and ugliness.
Almost everyone hates diversity no matter what they pretend otherwise. People want to be around others like themselves. This is clear if you look at who lives where.
All the news about race is news about conflict because diversity sucks.
The US was founded on the "all men are created equal" view -- that's not a liberal delusion, but actually reflects what the founders who wrote the US founding documents believed. They wanted a future society in which the government, at least, was colorblind. They were clear about that in their writings, for example:
Jefferson: "the insertion of ["Jesus Christ" to the law] was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions45.html
Technically that's about religion, but especially back then, they may as well have been about ethnicity too. Clearly his ideal society was one where groups were treated equally under the law. Jefferson wasn't some crazy outlier, either, and as he notes, "a great majority" went along with him on that wording.
If you read the founders more broadly, that's what they wanted to move toward, even as they were very un-PC by modern standards, and disliked slavery but still codified it temporarily for political/practical reasons.
Anyway, this is relevant because the US has been diverse by historical standards for a very very long time. At the time of the founding, the debate was around mixing Germans in with the British. Obviously the Germans came in, and it was fine. Then the same happened with Irish, then Italians, then pretty much everywhere in Europe. Back then, it was all considered a radical experiment in multi-culturalism. And it all basically worked out.
Since the 1960s there have been massive new waves of migration from all over the world. The US is still the economic powerhouse of the world, likely even assisted by some of that migration. Often, immigrants from all kinds of races meld and work well with US society.
Now in recently years there's the "woke" phenomenon, which is toxic and which -- precisely because it's the opposite of colorblind -- could poison the multicultural experiment and cause "diversity = conflict" to become true. But that certainly doesn't have to be true, as history has shown.
And as far as your specific points,
1) multiracialism / multiculturalism has been successful in the US in previous eras
2) "blindness" is good because people have a natural bias of being too obsessed with superficial differences, so society gains if people blind themselves to those things, which makes people more tolerant and focused on positive-sum interactions
3) The United States is not inherently white, and the most influential founders of the country didn't envision it as being inherently white. Also look at the present demographics.
I think sometimes the left/woke have gone so nuts that it causes an opposite reaction on the other side of the anti-blindness spectrum. But the moderate color-blind position is actually still strong and very defensible, especially in the United States -- other countries, whether Israel or Mongolia or Switzerland, have much more business in being ethno-states (if they want to be such.)
They didn’t want a colorblind society 🤣. They didn’t allow anyone to immigrate & vote who wasn’t a white man of good character much less own land. Much less women.
This was a 90% white country until the 1964 “Hart–Celler Act”, which changed immigration policy from Europe to the 3rd world. Hart & Celler are the last names of two congressmen, two communist Jews. The goal was always to displace white people and use such “minorities” to take power and the woke culture you see today is the fruit of that labor.
And you’re referencing Jefferson, a slave owner, to justify multiracialism, which is the fundamental problem. Cheap labor & votes is the reason for mass 3rd world immigration legal or illegal.
Now the millions of illegals will be given voting rights turn the county blue forever and you’ll have a totalitarian communist state that encourages oppression of whites who are the natural inheritances of Western civilization.
What evidence do you need to see what is really going on?
“more than half of the new states in the U.S. allowed free black adult men to vote, although that vote was typically implied rather than made explicit. Most states began to roll back that right in the late 1700s and early 1800s, just like New Jersey.”
They didn’t expect white people to become a minority much less absurdities like importing Muslim refugees, whatever some historical quirks. Some Chinese railroad workers at one time doesn’t justify what is happening now. The Chinese Exclusion Act & Operation Wetback vs. the current mass invasion of our country are real differences in attitude not historical oddities like a few freed blacks who also owned slaves.
This is not going to be solved by individualism & merit.
It’s absurd that white ex-pats with technical citizenship in a country like Japan would identify with “Japan’s founding” and talk about “our heritage” when the reality is they just work there. The same is true for those immigrating here. They don’t identify with “our heritage” because they don’t share it. It’s silly to pretend otherwise.
America is just a nihilistic shopping mall full of fast food & obesity at this point. Its largest export is LGBTQ trans-kids.
I seem to remember reading a book in high school about a future society in which the historical record kept changing according to political whims. I forgot the name of it...1983? 1985? It was something like that. Anyway, I don't see what the big deal is. Thank god we have people like Jack Krotcheck in charge of keeping AI safe, so nobody gets triggered by racist content! At least good people will be in charge of throwing dangerous ideas in the memory hole, where they belong.
I also seem to remember real life governments that suppressed or even erased events and people from history. But it was all for the greater good and this power was never abused, so what could possibly go wrong?
So what do you do when certain races underperform? Stay blind to it? Ignore them when they vote to blame you? You can’t have a blind multiracial society.
Colorblind != stupid. You can in fact have a multiracial society that tries its best to move people into power based on merit, and that simultaneously supports the less sucessful to achieve more, without falling for group/identity-based reasoning. You just need to be dedicated to it, which the current society very much isn't. Western societies in particular used to be really good at it; They aren't anymore because they overcorrected away from Nazism/Fascism. Saying "this group underperforms despite tremendous support, so it needs to do better" is the correct stance in a functional society unless there is good evidence of a level of discrimination corresponding to the difference, but it sounds kinda like a Nazi saying "blacks are inferior" if you squint hard so nobody is willing to stand their ground.
They overcorrected for Nazism/Fascism, and also the non-white immigrants which increasingly make up higher % of Western populations don't seem to hold values such as merit and individualism in such high esteem, presumably due to different evolutionary histories. The future is not looking very libertarian or liberal.
You are part of the liberal delusion that is destroying our heritage.
Where in history has multiracialism been successful? Why should it work? Why should people be dedicated to something so unnatural as a “colorblind” society? Why is “blindness” good?
“The West” is white. These other races have no business sharing our culture. Where in “Asia” or “Africa” do you see these other races offering merit & equality to white people?
You might as well insist that men & women share the same bathroom as insist races share the same territory. Diversity = conflict. Always has been always will be. That reality, not your delusion of what should be.
As a matter of fact, I lived and worked a lot with Asians from various countries, and none of them are in any perceptible conflict with "us" whatsoever. In fact, my former PhD supervisor, whom I'm still working with occasionally, is an Asian who married an European and they have a kid together. Similarly, I know several Europeans working & living in Asia just fine.
In particular there are obvious, simple differences between groups that overperform (who are consistently conscientious, do not engage in crime even when they are poor and have an internal locus of control where they try to change themselves if they fail) and groups that underperform (who are disproportionally impulsive, engage in crime even when they're relatively well off and always blame others for all their own problems). It's just plain stupid to throw all non-whites into one bucket.
White people becoming a minority in every country their ancestors founded is not justified by your personal experience.
Couple years ago an Asian woman in California became CEO of a tech company then replaced all the white workers with Asians. It’s old news. Anecdotes like this back the statistics. Yours does not.
Chinese are colonizing the West coast of USA and Canada. Their foreign students are driving up tuition and many of them are spies.
The more immigrants & workers, the lower the wages, & higher the housing prices.
Asians commit less crime than other groups in part because of their genetics. Their cultures are naturally more collectivist not individualistic. They are more passive. The majority of Asians also vote democrat, and on the whole they don’t value the American traditions of free speech & gun rights. They did organize as a group to fight affirmative action which discriminates against them on behalf of blacks. Affirmative action being an effort to lift up blacks and give them a better chance, a failed strategy.
Blacks and Asians hate each other. Asians move into black neighborhoods & run small businesses displacing blacks which results in racial violence. “Stop Asian hate” are black people assaulting Asians. They assault everyone. Blacks will always be at the bottom of society when they have to compete with other races and they will always blame racism rather than admit they’re just less competent.
A few white people living/working in Asia is not the same as whites colonizing their land taking over their companies, & government, changing their laws. When his happens it’s called colonization and it is rejected. We are being colonized by the entire world & being made a hated minority & it’s being done intentionally.
Asians can live in Asia and we don’t need them here.
Even George Floyd robbed a connivence store run by an Asian who called white police which resulted in race riots.
No Muslim immigrants = no 911.
You support a recipe for conflict and ugliness.
Almost everyone hates diversity no matter what they pretend otherwise. People want to be around others like themselves. This is clear if you look at who lives where.
All the news about race is news about conflict because diversity sucks.
The US was founded on the "all men are created equal" view -- that's not a liberal delusion, but actually reflects what the founders who wrote the US founding documents believed. They wanted a future society in which the government, at least, was colorblind. They were clear about that in their writings, for example:
Jefferson: "the insertion of ["Jesus Christ" to the law] was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions45.html
Technically that's about religion, but especially back then, they may as well have been about ethnicity too. Clearly his ideal society was one where groups were treated equally under the law. Jefferson wasn't some crazy outlier, either, and as he notes, "a great majority" went along with him on that wording.
If you read the founders more broadly, that's what they wanted to move toward, even as they were very un-PC by modern standards, and disliked slavery but still codified it temporarily for political/practical reasons.
Anyway, this is relevant because the US has been diverse by historical standards for a very very long time. At the time of the founding, the debate was around mixing Germans in with the British. Obviously the Germans came in, and it was fine. Then the same happened with Irish, then Italians, then pretty much everywhere in Europe. Back then, it was all considered a radical experiment in multi-culturalism. And it all basically worked out.
Since the 1960s there have been massive new waves of migration from all over the world. The US is still the economic powerhouse of the world, likely even assisted by some of that migration. Often, immigrants from all kinds of races meld and work well with US society.
Now in recently years there's the "woke" phenomenon, which is toxic and which -- precisely because it's the opposite of colorblind -- could poison the multicultural experiment and cause "diversity = conflict" to become true. But that certainly doesn't have to be true, as history has shown.
And as far as your specific points,
1) multiracialism / multiculturalism has been successful in the US in previous eras
2) "blindness" is good because people have a natural bias of being too obsessed with superficial differences, so society gains if people blind themselves to those things, which makes people more tolerant and focused on positive-sum interactions
3) The United States is not inherently white, and the most influential founders of the country didn't envision it as being inherently white. Also look at the present demographics.
I think sometimes the left/woke have gone so nuts that it causes an opposite reaction on the other side of the anti-blindness spectrum. But the moderate color-blind position is actually still strong and very defensible, especially in the United States -- other countries, whether Israel or Mongolia or Switzerland, have much more business in being ethno-states (if they want to be such.)
They didn’t want a colorblind society 🤣. They didn’t allow anyone to immigrate & vote who wasn’t a white man of good character much less own land. Much less women.
This was a 90% white country until the 1964 “Hart–Celler Act”, which changed immigration policy from Europe to the 3rd world. Hart & Celler are the last names of two congressmen, two communist Jews. The goal was always to displace white people and use such “minorities” to take power and the woke culture you see today is the fruit of that labor.
And you’re referencing Jefferson, a slave owner, to justify multiracialism, which is the fundamental problem. Cheap labor & votes is the reason for mass 3rd world immigration legal or illegal.
Now the millions of illegals will be given voting rights turn the county blue forever and you’ll have a totalitarian communist state that encourages oppression of whites who are the natural inheritances of Western civilization.
What evidence do you need to see what is really going on?
The history is more complicated than you suggest. It’s not true that they limited migration to Europeans (that was just due to geography and commerce.) There were a handful of non-Europeans and many free blacks for example, who at various times could vote: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-black-people-and-women-lost-vote-new-jersey-180967186/
“more than half of the new states in the U.S. allowed free black adult men to vote, although that vote was typically implied rather than made explicit. Most states began to roll back that right in the late 1700s and early 1800s, just like New Jersey.”
They didn’t expect white people to become a minority much less absurdities like importing Muslim refugees, whatever some historical quirks. Some Chinese railroad workers at one time doesn’t justify what is happening now. The Chinese Exclusion Act & Operation Wetback vs. the current mass invasion of our country are real differences in attitude not historical oddities like a few freed blacks who also owned slaves.
This is not going to be solved by individualism & merit.
It’s absurd that white ex-pats with technical citizenship in a country like Japan would identify with “Japan’s founding” and talk about “our heritage” when the reality is they just work there. The same is true for those immigrating here. They don’t identify with “our heritage” because they don’t share it. It’s silly to pretend otherwise.
America is just a nihilistic shopping mall full of fast food & obesity at this point. Its largest export is LGBTQ trans-kids.
Mr Krawczyk is mentally ill.