Monday, April 6, 2020

The What-If-Most-People Game: An Easy Way to Tell if YOUR IDEAS & VALUES are Sound and Valid for Most of Society

What would be the simplest way to test as to whose ideas, values, attitudes, and mindset are best or most ideal for society as a whole? One of the easiest way would be to theorize as to what society would be like IF most people think, feel, and do as YOU do. After all, while any society can tolerate, weather, and overcome some degree of bad behavior and destructive tendencies, NO society can last for long if too many people indulge in wrong kinds of behavior. So, a sane, sound, stable, and healthy kind of society is one where most people do what is good, right, responsible, and constructive.

For example, suppose there are two people: Bob and John. Bob doesn't use illicit drugs whereas John is into drugs. Now, which is better? Not using illicit drugs or using them? Bob says it's better to forsake drugs. John says it's better to use them. So, who is right? First, imagine a society where most people are like Bob and don't use illicit drugs. Then, imagine a society where most people are like John and use plenty of illicit drugs. I think most of us can agree that a society where most people don't use drugs functions better than one where most people indulge in drugs. Does anyone want to live in a society full of meth-heads, heroin addicts, and the like? Even most druggies will likely admit that they don't want to live a society run by druggies. Even as they argue for legalization of many drugs, they surely don't want engineers, managers, and other essential workers to be druggies.

Now, take gambling. Is gambling good or bad for society? Suppose Jerry doesn't gamble and finds it to be wrong. Suppose Billy thinks gambling is awesome. What would be better? A society of Jerrys or a society of Billies? Would it be better if most people don't gamble or do gamble? My guess is that even people into joys of gambling would agree it wouldn't be such a great idea to have a society where MOST people gamble. Gambling is not only a vice but mass theft by oligarchs(who in the US happen to be Jewish) from the middle class and working class(and even from senior citizens and poor folks who don't know any better and become addicted to the habit).

Or take prostitution. Suppose Sarah is against it while Skankura is for it. Who would be right? Would society be better if most women are NOT prostitutes? Or would society be better if most women are prostitutes. Even among proponents of legalization of 'sex work', can they honestly say that a society where most women are involved in the sex industry would be better than one where most women aren't? Would it be good for families if most mothers were hookers on the side? Would it be good for society if fathers raised their daughters to be slut-skank whores? Would it be a better society if your mother, sister, cousin, aunt, niece, and daughter were into stripping, porn, prostitution, or S&M for money? Seriously? While we can understand the logic of libertarians who argue for legalization of 'sex work' on grounds of individual choice and free enterprise, surely even most of them know full well that it would NOT be good for society if most women were skankass whores.

Now, take homosexuality and tranny-stuff. Granted, this has less relevance to reality since most homos were born that way and only a handful of kooks are trannies. The fact is most people will never be homo. Even with all the gender-confusion pushed by MSM and academia, most men and women are not going to declare themselves homo. Still, there is the PC notion that homosexuality and trans-genderism are just as valid as real-natural-normal sexuality. They insist that 'heteronormativity' is some kind of mentally sick social construct. They say 'gender is fluid' and anyone can declare himself or herself to be anything, and all these various 'genders' are equal in value and validity. Okay, that being their premise, suppose there is Cary and Nico. Cary is real-sexual and believes a society where most people are proudly real-sexual is best for society. In contrast, Nico is a homo and believes his fruitishness to be just as valid as real-sexuality, aka heterosexuality. Nico believes homo fecal penetration is just as valid and 'natural' as real-sexuality between men and women. So, who is right? Imagine Cary's Society where most people are straight real-sexuals where men and women procreate to produce kids. Then, imagine Nico's Society where most people are fruitkins who bugger each other in the ass or tranny freaks with their dicks and balls cut off and equipped with fake vaginas. Seriously, which society would be better? Which society has better chance of mental health, moral equilibrium, and chance for continuance & survival? Is it really true that all 'genders'(as social constructs) are equally valid? (Also, if 'gender' is a social construct, why does PC say homos are biologically born that way? Is there any consistency in the logic of so-called 'woke' folk?)

How about gluttony? Some argue for 'Body-Positivity' Movement. They say that being a fatty fatkin is glorious and a badge of pride(and lard of honor). But is it really good to eat like a pig and be grossly obese? Suppose Jack believes in eating moderately, exercising, and staying slim. He believes a good society is one where people watch what they eat and watch their weight. In contrast, Otis believes people should eat all they want and there's no shame in being a fatty fatso. So, which society would be better? A society of Jacks or a society of Otises? One where people eat healthy and stay slim, or one where people eat grossly like hippos and look like hippos as well? Again, the answer should be obvious. Then, one wonders why the media, via fashion magazines and the like, push the notion that Fat is Beautiful and just as okay as being slim and trim around the weight?
How about Open Borders? Would it be better for society for most people to oppose the Great Replacement or welcome it? Would it be better for Hungary if most Hungarians were against the Hungarian Nakba or if most Hungarians were for it? For those who are unfamiliar with the term 'Nakba', it was the national tragedy that befell Palestinians when they were colonized, expelled, and replaced on their native territory by European Zionist-Immigration-Imperialists. (As you all should know, Endless Immigration = Genocide or Nakba. If just a trickle of Jewish Immigrants had entered Palestine, Palestinians would still have owned their land and would have tolerated a small Jewish minority. But Jewish Immigration was endless and came to replace the Palestinians... just like endless non-white immigration turned whites in California into a minority. Endless immigration also turned native Hawaiians into a minority in their native ancestral islands.) Anyway, suppose there are two Hungarians. Viktor is opposed to the Hungarian Nakba. He says NO to Endless Immigration, or Replacement Immigration. He believes Hungary will fare best if MOST Hungarians agree with him. Against him is Miklos who sucks up to Jewish globalists like George Soros and welcomes Endless Immigration, one that is sure to lead to the Hungarian Nakba where the native folks are turned into a minority in their own ancestral lands by Africans, Arabs, Muslims, Asians, and others. Miklos wishes MOST folks would agree with him and welcome the Hungarian Nakba. Now, which Hungary will be better off? One where most people think like Viktor or one where most people think like Miklos? If most people think like Miklos, the fate of Hungary will be like the fate of Palestine where the native Palestinians were replaced by European Zionist-immigration-imperialist Jews.

How about Jew-Worship? Would it be better for society if most people said NO to Jew-Worship or if most people said YES to Jew-Worship? Suppose there are Kevin and Lindsey. Kevin thinks it is dangerous for goyim to mindlessly worship and obey Jews who, though smart and creative, tend to be cunning, hostile, vicious, nasty, contemptuous, and exploitative over 'dimwit goyim'. Kevin thinks society would do best if most goyim, while not going full-Nazi, remained wary and cautious about Jewish narratives, agenda, and power. Don't dehumanize Jews but don't deify them either.
In contrast, shabbos goy Lindsey says Jews are oh-so-wonderful-great-awesome-wise-holy-oustanding-and-etc. in every way and then some. Jews are the most sacred, most tragic, most tremendous race of noble folks that ever existed on the face of this planet(and maybe the entire cosmos). If Jews want it, we must give it. If Jews demand, we must fulfill. If Jews command, we must obey. Lindsey believes goy society will be best off if MOST goyim were committed in blind faith to serving, honoring, and appeasing Jews on grounds that what Jews want for themselves and for us must be the BEST thing.
Now, which society would fare better? One where most goyim are like Kevin and remain skeptical of Jewish claims and criticize Jewish abuses OR one where most goyim are like Lindsey and grovel at the feet of Jews as the god-race? Especially since the end of the Cold War, the US embarked on Lindsey-ism and look at the results. Have they been good? The Wars for Israel, bailouts of Jewish banksters, the pornification of mainstream culture, the spread of interracism-jungle-fever-and-ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), anti-white PC propaganda, feminist wedge between white men and white women, Christianity replaced with Globo-Homo Queertianity, White Nakba & Replacement Immigration, new 'cold war' with Russia, and etc.? Has Lindsey-ism been a blessing for America?

And we can go on and on with the game of What-If-Most-People. Given that the health of society depends on what MOST people do, a good society is one where most people do what's right while a bad society(soon to be no-society at all) is one where most people(or enough people) do what's wrong. Needless to say among those cognizant of HBD(human bio-diversity) truths, this isn't only a matter of morality but biology. Some races are more prone to do the wrong thing given their genetic inclinations. Blacks, having evolved to survive in a state of savagery, are hardwired to act against civilizational norms. So, freely left to their own devices, most(or too many) of them will act wrongly and turn once-fine cities like Detroit into hell-holes. White people are genetically hardwired to make more civilized choices while blacks are genetically hardwired to make more savage choices. Whites tend to Europeanize, blacks tend to Africanize. So, a healthy modern society is one where most people are white than black; indeed, blacks in the West can enjoy modernity ONLY BECAUSE they leech off whites; even black achievements under slavery in the Americas owed to white supervision as, after all, black slaves under black rule in black Africa wielded no great results. Though, hypothetically speaking, it's possible for a society made up mostly of black people to have righteous Negroes who act responsible and moral, real-world results invariably show that too-many-blacks lead to 'savagerization'. Likewise, while we can hypothetically imagine a society full of Japanese where most act like jive-ass jiggerish savages, the likelihood is that a society full of Japanese will act in a cooperative and stable manner.
Another factor to consider is that one mustn't confuse 'most' with 'all'. While society is best off if MOST people act in a certain way in accordance to certain values and norms, it wouldn't necessarily be good if ALL people or each-and-every-person acted that way. This is especially true in science and the arts. Certain talents and abilities are inseparable from certain neuroses and eccentric(and often troublesome) tendencies. Many great artists tend to be half-mad or nutty in some way. So, while it wouldn't be good for society if most people had the personalities of Beethoven, Richard Wagner, Brian Wilson, Bob Dylan, and John Lennon, creativity and artistry have benefited from the presence of a small minority of mavericks, rebels, outcasts, and eccentrics. Indeed, this is why homosexuality has been beneficial to civilization as a creative outlier. While homosexuality is biologically useless, morally troublesome, and culturally problematic, the 'gay' sensibility has a way of seeing things that has contributed greatly to the arts, design, and perspectives. So, just because society is best off if MOST people act such-and-such, it doesn't mean ALL people should be that way. Certain social rewards are inseparable from the problems that surround them. It's like there's no honey without the bee stings, there's no championship in boxing without getting hit many times. The good can be attained only through the bad.

Still, for MOST people, there are certain values and standards that are best for society-as-a-whole, and it is essential that the great majority of people adhere to certain values and attitudes. But in our sick, decadent, and degenerate order, such sane-majoritarianism is looked down upon. Fashion magazines push fatties as idols of beauty and health. Cities put on massive globo-homo parades and children are read to by trannies on the premise that 'gay is sacred'. The once-Christian West totally bows down to the demands of Jewish Supremacism as if Jews are deities than flawed humans. Once proudly white nations welcome the Great Replacement or White Nakba. Even though blacks are the most destructive race(by their genetics), the White West worships blacks as demigods and celebrates ACOWW. Even though drugs are harmful for the most part, they are pushed on everyone as soma, soma, soma. Gambling went from a vulgar vice to a 'moral' industry that provides 'reparations' to American Indians. Women get their values from shows like SEX AND THE CITY and GIRLS by Lena Dunham. Skankery has been made the New Normal by Disney run by Jews. Under Jewish Power, society is made to push MOST people to choose the Wrong over the Right. Apparently, Jews fear any notion of majoritarian morality because they are a minority-elite and, as such, fear majority values as threatening to Minority Privilege. So, Jews are hellbent on making the majority accept minority-deviance as the New Normal. This is a terrible thing for the West(and the Rest that still looks to the West to lead the world).

No comments:

Post a Comment