Glibertarians.com 2018 Archive

Category: Immigration

  • On Political Extremes (And What to Do About Them)

     

    A Polarizing immigrantIt seems the word of the last two years, if not the last decade, is “polarizing.” The media runs countless stories about how polarized the country has become, with each segment of the media casting political opponents as the cause of the polarization. I do not deny that some people in our society espouse extreme or outrageous viewpoints; such is a known risk when freedom of speech and freedom of conscience make up the framework of our governing philosophy. But despite a few oddballs and whack jobs, I think we find that most people, whether conservative or progressive, hold beliefs that are not irrational. The polarization, then, comes from opponents misrepresenting the other side’s views to their own bases. So rather than finding common ground to have a dialogue we are left with hysterical screaming in defense of or against some view or another. This is my attempt to cut through some of the screaming to help each side understand the other a little better in three specific areas: immigration, education, and wealth/poverty gap.

    I read a story like this about MS-13 attracting girls to their ranks–and yes, it’s Salvadorans and not Mexicans–and the very real truth is that there are violently-minded people illegally immigrating to the United States. To deny that is naïvete at best and utter mendacity at worst. Some of these girls are driven to MS-13 or affiliated gangs because of some past trauma, but only a dyed-in-the-wool progressive would argue that assimilation to American culture radicalized them.

    Still, not every immigrant that comes to this country illegally is ready to behead someone or stab a man 153 times with fellow gang members watching and laughing. In fact, many come here in spite of the danger that illegal entry presents because the opportunities continue to be far better than what they can achieve in their countries of origin. Even the risk of deportation and a lifetime ban from re-entering the United States (which means leaving other family and even offspring behind) does not deter many who just want to provide for themselves and their families. A new documentary series on Netflix called Ugly Delicious, produced by renowned chef David Chang, explores this very issue in its second episode on tacos.

    In a similar vein, but on the topic of education instead of immigration, my wife and I were discussing some of the students in her class last week. She seems to have quite a few bad apples this year, but one girl in particular stands out. This girl failed sixth grade last year and was actually held back to repeat the sixth grade again (shocking in Chicago Public Schools!), and is now in danger of failing again. My wife says the girl’s mom has to work 2-3 jobs and crazy hours just to provide for her daughter, and the mother was in tears about what to do since she can’t be home to watch the girl do her homework every night. The girl attends a magnet school but chooses to hang out after school with kids that go to the much worse neighborhood school. Basically, the girl is a textbook case of total apathy toward education (and life in general), even with a mother who wants her to become something more.

    Many people believe education is so important that it should be provided for free to students at taxpayer expense. And I agree that education is vitally important. But progressives who demand public subsidizing of education deny the existence of students like the one in my wife’s classroom. When my wife has to focus more attention on this girl and other students who are not interested in learning, it holds back the potential of many others in the class. The “Education is a Right!” crowd would have us believe that every student has an innate desire to learn and the only thing preventing them from doing so is a lack of money or profit-seeking charter schools. (In fact, the latter may actually address the needs of apathetic students more by giving them a school to be proud of. See The Ron Clark Academy, for example.)

    I think the other side, however, plays up the apathy or entitlement a bit too much. There are plenty of students who grow up in homes where education is not valued, but with the right teacher or educational environment they could thrive. Unfortunately, our system rewards teachers based on tenure and not on merit, creating a structure that chews up and spits out young and inspiring teachers who can reinvigorate apathetic students with a passion for education. Meanwhile, thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of jaded teachers clock in at 7:30 and clock out at 2:30 just so they can collect a paycheck and employee benefits that are funded by the taxpayer, and care little for the time and attention it takes to nurture a student’s desire for learning.

    With public education, most families are at a complete loss when assigning value to their kids’ education because they do not have any direct costs. On the other hand, they know how much their groceries cost; they can see how expensive refueling the car is. They even know, for the most part, how expensive a new car or cell phone is (although there are a lot of hidden fees in those contracts that can ensnare the unsuspecting buyer). But when it comes to education, people have accepted the belief that education is “free,” and therefore they assign no value to it. It’s just something one has to do, going through the motions from K-12 and beyond because society tells us its important.

    A final example of the polarizing extremes that people ascribe to their opponents comes from personal finances. One side believes that all wealth is inherited and every millionaire only got where he or she is by stepping on others. Dave Ramsey, on his national radio show, disproves this theory regularly with a segment he calls “The Millionaire Theme Hour.” He asks millionaires–those whose net worth is over one million dollars–to call in and asks a series of questions about how they obtained their wealth. Only a tiny fraction of callers received any inheritance, and for those who did it was a paltry sum from a family member who died well after they were already self-made millionaires. By and large, the secret to success is, wait for it… spending less than you make!

    The other side, however, categorizes the poor and downtrodden as lazy, dumb, or victims of divine judgment. There is a common perception that because most successful people have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, anyone who is struggling must not be working hard enough. Although free markets and laissez faire government offer the best economic opportunity for people to rise from nothing to something, reality intrudes on that idealistic worldview in that some people just get bad breaks. Whether they are immigrants whose options are limited because of their legal status, or they come from a family of under-educated individuals, or they just have unplanned expenses continue to assault their monthly income, life has plenty of people who can’t get ahead.

    Ultimately, the solution to all of these situations–immigration, education, poverty–lies not in either of the extremes, but in looking past the collective and at the individual. A system that cares more about enabling hungry, driven, and dedicated individuals to thrive will prosper far more than one that seeks only to sustain a lower class in poverty. If we focus on providing incentives to make good decisions rather than making decisions for others, we will prosper. This means that some people will continue to make bad decisions, and we have to be okay with that. We–as individuals–can show them grace; we can show them compassion and mercy; we can even show them charity and generosity. But if we–as a society–continue to enable people to coast instead of strive to succeed, everyone suffers.

  • Beyond the Pale

    Not long ago I saw an article that amused me. It was a bunch of eggheads puzzling over the mystery of how humans were able to domesticate dogs. I had to laugh. Clearly none of those guys had ever domesticated a wild animal. Any mammal that lives in social groups, and some birds, domesticate easily. Don’t hit them with a stick and give them food. I dare you to try and get rid of them after that. I have rescued and raised cottontails, raccoon, and red squirrel. I know people who have had pet flying squirrels, grey squirrels, foxes, and I once dated a girl who raised a whitetail doe. The damned thing lived in the house and slept in the bed with her every night. Don’t ask.

    Anyway, the real question is not how did we domesticate dogs, but why. My wife jokes that we did not domesticate dogs, they domesticated us–or as she says dogmesticated. I think it is closer to enslavement. Hold on while I check my grocery list. I think they need more chews and treats, maybe even a bag of food that runs around $50….

    I’m back. The answer, of course, is simple. Having a pack of wolves hanging around your paleolithic camp at night is a good idea when you live in a world where all manner of beast and man are trying to eat you. It is nearly impossible to sneak up on a camp of sleeping people without sounding the alarm by waking the wolves. They were the original burglar alarm. In that world, people didn’t move around all that much. Wander outside your tribe’s territory and you were likely going to be put on a spit. Contemporary primitive cultures live within strict boundaries. Many people I have met in the more backward parts of the world live out their whole lives never traveling more than a few miles from the spot where they were born. I once tried to explain to a Bolivian who wanted to know where I was from by telling him how long it would take to get there by canoe. “Two years that way,” and I pointed north. That made sense to him.

    Beyond the pale. Ever wonder what that means or where it came from? Europeans didn’t have the extinct Eurasian wolf to domesticate, so they would build a fence around their village that was bristling with sharpened sticks or thorns. That was called the pale. Try to get past it and you were likely to be impaled. It was often whitewashed, which is why we use the word ‘pale’ to describe a color. At night, if someone got inside the pale, their silhouette could be seen more easily against the white background. The expression ‘beyond the pale’ refers to going outside the safe zone or going too far.

    I am saying that there was never a golden age of gamboling about the fields and dales. Throughout all of human history, people lived within strict boundaries. Go outside those boundaries and some dude named Trog was going to bring your nutsack home to his wife so that she could tan it and make a little purse out of it. Travel has always been restricted. In fact, I would contend that people have more freedom of movement today than at any time in history.

    I have heard people blame travel restriction on the rise of nation states and the modern idea of borders. Human history is mostly a chronicle of ethnic or cultural groups invading their neighbors. Travel restrictions were always there; nation states arose from the need for greater security. Borders were not drawn arbitrarily. They mark the edges of cultural territories. Restricting who may or may not cross those borders was and is a matter of life or death.

    The open borders advocates around here have gotten me on the fence once or twice, but looking at contemporary events around the world got my feet back on the ground. I agree that freedom of movement is an inalienable right. One has freedom of movement so long as they do not trespass. If one believes in self-ownership, that every person’s mind, body, and conscience are their own property and no one else’s, then by logical extension they must accept that the fruit of one’s labor is their own property also. I decide who is welcome to set foot on my property and who is restricted from doing so. If a group of like minded people own property collectively, then they decide who may or may not set foot on it. I have no problem with the principle or practice of a nation preventing trespass so long as they do not restrict movement out of those borders or prevent one of the collective owners from re-entering.

    There are other factors at play besides security, of course–the welfare state being the largest of those. Ideology is a concern of mine, as well. I am not a multiculturist. All cultures are not equal and the spectrum is quite wide. Flooding our country with people who do not accept the principle of inalienable rights or private ownership is worse than a bad idea. There are many individuals despite being from inferior cultures that would be a great credit to our country, and we should allow them in, even encourage them. Allowing just anyone based solely on their culture or ethnicity on the other hand is…unwise. A merit based system really is the only sensible policy in my mind.

    I know this is one of the more contentious subjects around here, so y’all have at it. I’ll make popcorn.

  • May You Live in Fortean Times

    We’re not even halfway into 2018, and we already have our first female, vegan, Baha’i, animal rights activist, immigrant, who assaulted YouTube HQ in the name of ‘free speech’ as part of her larger grievance against their demonetization campaign just after YouTube banned a whole swath of channels focused on firearms.

    All this while ticking off both the “crazy” and “hot” boxes on her census form as well!

    https://youtu.be/0kQgAwfdz7Y

     

     

    Not only did this event happen within spitting distance of April Fool’s Day, but the three victims were taken to Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center.

    The many forms of Huehuecoyotl are just manifestations of the one true God, and Charles Fort is his prophet.

    He’s also where Furries come from.

  • Borders and immigration: a view from Romania

    To start, I do not write from the perspective of an American. My country has more of a problem with emigration than immigration, and it is not out of the question that I might want to leave myself. So I can see myself on the other side of the border to many from the States. I live under a sort of double jurisdiction, Romania and the European Union, and of a nationality that has been often the object of attack and mockery as immigrants in Western Europe. We are all lazy thieves, beggars, gypsies, wanting to take both the good jobs and welfare of the British chav. I have been bullied on this very website by, to my greate shame, Canadians of all people.  I am aware of the collectivist generalization most Western Europeans are prone to – despite the fact that without Eastern European doctors and nurses, their fabulous state medicine would have collapsed a while ago. And if you want trained doctors and engineers, some riff raff will inevitably come along. Although, after influxes of immigrants of late, Romanians no longer seem so bad.

    Damn Picts taking all the good gladiator jobs
    The Picts payed for this

    I am a reasonably moderate libertarian, in that I am a bit of minarchist plus. So I do not write or think from an an-cap perspective. I am also the kind of libertarian who believes you have to advocate for both ethical, principled libertarian positions – regardless of their chance of being implemented – and policies that are fit for purpose, good enough, and move things to the right direction while being more palatable to others. I see little point to the “Fiat justitia, et pereat mundus” of libertarians, purity to the exclusion of everything else, who only recite philosophy and ignore the real world. And I am well aware of the danger of compromise but find it acceptable when the alternative is nothing. To complete, I am not a nationalist, I am not a patriot and dislike patriotism in most cases, and I do not feel any particular affinity for certain people over others just because there is a border between us. I can see I have more in common with the fine people on this fair website than with the vast majority of Romanians.

    So I am starting with what I consider to be some basic facts: states and governments exist. Debating whether they should is meaningless at this certain point in time, for the purpose of this discussion. These governments have jurisdiction over state borders and have citizens and residents and temporary visitors, with the former having additional prerogative and responsibilities, especially in politics. Governments more or less (usually less) are – should be, to be more accurate – accountable to the citizens. Governments, having jurisdiction inside certain borders, have powers over and responsibilities towards people inside those borders. The US government should uphold the rights of people – including temporary visitors – in areas it has jurisdiction over – by libertarian standards this is its only job – and not the people of, say, Romania. The exceptions to this are American citizen abroad, towards which the government has certain responsibilities.

    So a government treats insiders differently than outsiders. The question at hand is in what way the latter should become the former. Has government the right to control who crosses the border? My view is yes, up to a point.

    The most often libertarian view for open borders is, paraphrased, the state has no right to impede peaceful people from traveling where ever they wish on public property, and to where ever they are invited on private property. The state has no right to stop people from freely associating.  It is the right of humans to travel where they choose. Or to go bleeding heart about it (which I do not recommend), we should care more about humans than borders.

    This is all very feel-good, but has some issues, in my view. I would in first instance. replace people with people under the jurisdiction of said state. In my view when talking about rights – freedom of speech, assembly, religion in the context of government – we are talking first and foremost people who happen to be within those border.  In a better, non-interventionist world, government should not be able to influence non-residents, outside letting them in or not.

    From a pure libertarian an-cap / minarchist point of view, many immigration issues would not be issues at all. With most property private and fully protected, the issues of public lands / areas would be minimal. With no government support at all for immigrants and refugees and with the perspective of being shot if you aggress the locals, a good number of problems would not appear. But that is not the world we live in.

    There are several utilitarian reasons for some immigration restrictions. There is a risk posed by a large number of people with radically different values moving into an area, if these values can lead to breaking the Law. Any area has limited capacity to absorb newcomers and exceeding this will cause conflict. Police doing their job plus an armed citizenry could be a reason this problem would not appear in certain societies, but overall it can be unpleasant to have constant conflict in a community that needs to be addresses with violence.  How about deontological ones?

    Sadly the keep moving
    Lines are important

    Libertarians who do not want to become caricatures understand liberty is not defined as do whatever you want, but within limits. First and foremost, your fist my nose, as the saying goes, but even beyond, there are certain elements of living in a society that will curtail liberty – just the difficulty of defining boundaries between my liberty and yours, and compromises necessary to live in a community.

    The libertarian argument is this should be as little as possible and for very good reason. It is, of course, a vulnerable argument, like all arguments in politics – where to draw the line. (Bugs step over this line.) This always applies to human dealings and there should be a constant attempt to swing things in libertarian direction, err on the side of freedom and all that. Even anarchic communities have rules about behaviour, written or not, and probably debate them. But in the end, the community needs a very good reason for any intervention. That is the basic argument.

    I usually ignore the every square inch of land privately owned school of libertarianism. This is not the case. Not how humans function. Commons always exist, the village green was rarely privately owned, many roads and lanes likewise.

    While no libertarian would deny the right to associate on your property – as long as you are not doing something to affect others’ property – you will not have an immigrant solely on your property (except that 15 year old Russian girl you buy on the dark web and keep in your basement, but this is an exception). The community will have a role in deciding what happens in the commons. So unless you can teleport people onto your private property and then teleport them away, immigration will not be a solely private property issue.

    Similarly there is not always an absolute right of free association. I cannot associate with convicted murderers whenever I choose. So here I go back to an earlier paragraph “the state has no right to impede peaceful people from traveling where ever they wish”. So I would say a state can at the very least restrict access to non-peaceful people.

    Let the right one in

    I talked above about Romanians in Europe. To be completely fair, plenty of Romanians went West with mischief on their minds and some locals were rightfully annoyed. Especially in small towns and villages in which people were not used to rude, loud foreigners making a mess and stealing whatever they can. Romanians eating sunflower seeds and drinking beer on the street while spiting the seed husks is not something a Swiss mountain town wants to see – although these can be mere tourists, not immigrants. So the problem here can be simply of generalizing immigrants, not all immigrants. Some Romanians are, I assume, good people.

    So I can say that a government may restrict access of people with high probability to engage in violent or illegal acts, or deport those who do engage.  Another class of people with restricted access beyond the violent may be the very diseased. A government may refuse access to people with dangerous, contagious diseases.

    I find it difficult to make the freedom of association argument for completely open borders, let any and all in just in case I might want to associate with one of them. One solution to the freedom of association standard might be a resident should vouch for immigrants he want to associate with, a member of community with skin in the game and possibility of redress of wrongdoing.

    In a world of government welfare – which I am not happy about the locals getting but there at least is some limit to them – and in which government does not properly protect the locals from immigrants, open immigration will not work.  A main argument against this along the lines of two wrongs do not make a make right argument, or just because we have welfare does not mean we should restrict immigration. I do not agree with this argument. If a needs b to work, then you can’t have a before b, is my view.  So yes, in libertopia immigration self regulates. To a point. Rapist and thieves may want to come anyway, but they would be dealt with without all the politics involved in current governments. We do not live in libertopia.

    To be clear, I am not saying build a wall or kick all immigrants out. I am for as much immigration as possible within limits of safety, with some clear rules. No criminals would be a basic one.  You cannot really bring the thieves of the world to your country. It is not in order to protect jobs, not racial or cultural purity. Just keeping a certain control of dangerous criminal elements is not too much to ask. You can still get all the good people you need while restricting the very violent. And I would also add no government aid to new immigrants for at least a couple of years in which they earn income and pay taxes. Giving no aid at all is not an option.

    Ok, thoughts? Let me have it in the comments. (I did write this post because my last few were kind of light on the comments, and it is sort of an experiment to see if I can get an good old fashioned argument going like on you know which site.)

  • The Unbearable Whiteness of Being

    The Unbearable Whiteness of Being

     

    This will be quite a bit less thorough than my last writing, primarily because of the subject matter.  The earlier piece was easier to come up with examples for, as it is so transparently obvious that the metric system is more overrated than any other system, with the possible exception of Urban Meyer’s spread.  [Note to editors, please remove that bit if Oklahoma gets crushed in the first round of the playoffs.  Likewise, if the Sooners take the whole thing before this gets published, feel free to add “Booya!” or “Oh no he di-in’t!” or similar.  Also, definitely include this clip. Editor’s note: I have no idea what happens in sportsball-world, so I left this in for the lulz].  At the end of this article I expect to receive an offer for a tenured position in Whiteness Studies.1

    I hereby proclaim my theory of whiteness based on two indisputable facts:  first, that whiteness (as specified below) increases over time (at least until very recently) and second, that “mighty white of you” was a compliment.  Now when I am talking about whiteness, I mean that term as it applies to the United States (sorry Rufus).  I doubt I need to recap but maybe for Pie, there was a time when in America, the White Race was the English Race.  Even the Germans were considered non-white by Ben Franklin.  Ponder that for a moment.2  Even as late as the 20th century, “true whites” were also referred to as WASPs (anyone else find it odd how that term seems to have completely vanished?) or White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (remember how the KKK hated Catholics).  Now here is the thing:  “white ethnics” never went away.  Which leads me to my first point:

    Whiteness is not an ethnicity; it is a meta-ethnicity.

    I didn’t see this much growing up in Indian Territory, but when I moved to upstate New York, I entered a place were white ethnic enclaves are still a thing.  The local paper’s sports section has a story titled “Danes Defeat Dutchmen” and as God is my witness, I can tell people from those towns apart by sight.  Ditto those descended from Poles.  And the Irish, and the Eye-ties and…  There is enough endogamy going on up here that the various white ethnicities maintain their physical and cultural (expressed through styles of dress) differences that I never expected to see from my few decades living in the south-central part of the country.  There is no conflict between someone being “white” and being “Italian,” because they are separate categories of taxonomy.

    A helpful guide to tracking your white heritage

    But what about me?  I am a white man[citation needed].  I don’t really have access to an actual ethnicity.  I’m all mutted up.  I have a German (maternal) grandmother (Northern German, she would stress, not one of those silly southern Germans), but all I really have of a heritage from her is a smattering of verbal imperatives and the ability to play this on the accordion.  (Side note:  none of the women in my family descending from that grandmother, including my sister and her daughters have pierced ears.  Proper German girls don’t piece their ears.  That’s for those Polish trollops.)  My father’s mother’s mother’s mother was of the (((tribe))).  That left me the ability to correctly pronounce “kibitz” and “chutzpah,” but the inability to remember more than half of the Sh’ma Yisrael at any given time.    One of my grandfathers managed to do a genealogy going back to the Norman invasion, but the other only made it back a few generations since most of them were actively trying to change their identities as they *ahem* sought greener (or at least less jail-filled) pastures.  Yeah, they pretty much fucked anything that would let them.  Oh, and in my only defense of Elizabeth Warren ever, I can confirm that every child born in Oklahoma is told that they are descended from a Cherokee princess.  Apparently they looooved the D.3

    Anyway, if Albion’s Seed is correct, the Borderers (Scots-Irish, Border Reavers, “Scum of Two Nations,” whatever) brought their tendency to eschew any cultural identity with then when they settled in the US.  I’d guess this would be why there is a large portion of the country that has no real interest in an ethnicity and therefore are “white by default” as Ozy Franz would never say.

    Now about this mutting process, is it the case where I do have a “real” ethnic identity, but I just don’t identify with it?  I… don’t think so.  My mother almost never made strudel.  I think she made spätzle once.  She did make pork meatballs in sauerkraut on a fairly regular basis and liked to cook pork ribs with onions and apples, but you couldn’t really call her cuisine “German” outside of some ironclad rules on meal preparation (each supper needed a starch, a meat, a yellow vegetable, a green vegetable, and a salad).  She cooked pots and pots of chili.  Mountains of meatballs with enough spaghetti to consume the entire harvest of Ticino.  Corned beef and cabbage.  Pinto beans and cornbread (did I mention she was born in Milwaukee?).  And those unfortunate culinary relics of the pre-Carter era which need not be spoken of.  The point is, my culinary “heritage” is a hodge-podge of things that tasted good to my mom that she learned to cook, just as my genetic heritage is a hodge-podge of those people my ancestors liked to bang.

    So how is it that nowhere people like myself and also pureblood ethnics all fall under the rubric “white?”  Because…

    Whiteness does not refer to your ethnicity; it refers to your relationship with other ethnicities

    If your ethnic culture is in a state of mutual intelligibility (and I would say respect) with the dominant ethnic culture, you are white.  That’s it.  If the WASPs understood and tolerated the way another group lived, and that group reciprocated, they became less “other,” especially in comparison to TGOT.  This is not to say that this understanding is deep or even accurate.  It’s just enough that the other cultures are grokked as being comprehensible, even if not currently comprehended.  This is why whiteness expands.  Groups experiencing a cultural exchange (appropriation!) and especially those living close enough to intermarry will inevitably gain mutual understanding.  Unless, of course, you make an effort not to.

    Any group that does not actively resist becoming white, will become white

    “I can has culture?”

    There is a good example of a (((group))) that made an effort to keep itself separate and isolated from the larger society that it lived in, and it worked in maintaining otherness for a couple of millennia.  In the US, that’s rapidly changed.  I can’t speak for other parts of the country, but in Austin, people of Mexican descent are white.  So are Vietnamese, though the average gringo in Austin knows a lot fewer words of Vietnamese than they do Spanish.  I think this trend may be happening nationwide, as I’ve heard Jews and Asians referred to in the derpverse of reddit/twitter/tumblr as “Schrödinger’s POCs.”  About that term–POC, I absolutely loathe it.  It is as wrong as a term could possibly be.  It creates false connections where none exist and disregards those similarities that do.  Any mindset that can claim that my US-born and raised coworker of West Indian descent has less in common with me than he does with a subsistence yak farmer in Tibet is simply diseased.  It’s as insulting as telling a political lesbian that her sexuality is defined by her lack of desire for penis4.  I do understand why the term exists, though; it’s a deliberate attempt at destruction.  Everyone got their aluminum foil ready?  *takes a drink of water, inhales* Whiteness expands, since it’s just the ever-increasing understanding of one’s neighbors.  Capitalism expands because it works.  A certain worldview which has a penchant for red flags and brass ornaments equates both of these as hegemonic movements.   *Voice changes to O’Brien’s.*  Action needed to be taken to stop the cisheteropatriarchical  albumkyriarchcapitalistic5 forces.  Whiteness is a state of mutual understanding.  That needed to be broken.  So, break the culture.  Eliminate the canon.  Make sure that the only books that an entire generation has read is Harry Potter.  Make the educational system focus on literature that is recent, so there won’t be any intergenerational touchstones.  Ensure that the only common references available are from mass media, and ensure that you can determine what makes it into the mass media.  Emphasize differences.  Emphasize slights.  Emphasize hurts.  Let nothing pass unremarked, no aggression is too micro to not demand an apology for.  Make sure that apologies demand humiliation so that you may inspire resentment.  That’s the genius of POC.  Whiteness is a state of commonality.  POC is the definition of difference.  It’s an identity based on opposition to that idea of mutual understanding.   Prevent cultural exchange, make it a new sin, call it “appropriation.”  Abolish the word “normal.”  Everyone’s identity must be broken down to as many different axes of oppression as possible, for each axis is another attempt to demonstrate just how alien we are to each other, another potential fault line.  Eventually, the only thing that people should have in common is their subservience to the state.

    I can has grant monies nao?

    1 I do not actually expect this to happen.

    2 “You know who else didn’t consider Germans white?” may be the first time where the game cannot actually be answered.

    3 An alternate interpretation is that there is just a whoooole lot of inbreeding going on.

    4 Do not actually attempt to do this.  It will not go well.

    5 Fun fact:  randomly mashing on a keyboard generates leftist academic concepts.