Go pave a road, asshole.

Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
117,565
Earth-Salter Apartheid

https://www.takimag.com/article/earth-salter-apartheid/

David Cole

October 05, 2021

Sometime in the early 1990s a friend suggested that I watch a movie called The Handmaid’s Tale. I was vaguely aware of the book…I knew it was authored by some ugly old bat from Canada, and honestly you couldn’t have paid me enough to read it. But I have a fondness for dystopian sci-fi, and my friend was like, “The movie’s really good! Give it a try.”

As it was on cable and didn’t cost me anything, I figured, sure.

I’m going on memory here, but this is what I recall. Most of the world’s women have been rendered infertile by the Evils of Man, a theme incredibly common in dystopian sci-fi but that withered old bag probably thought she was the first to think of it. And the movie starts with women being processed to sort the barren from the birthing.

Okay, fine. It’s no After the Fall of New York (the last fertile woman on earth is protected by a mutant gorilla named Big Ape and a robot named Ratchet—now that’s sci-fi). I made it about ten minutes in…until the scene where the fertile women are being bused from the sorting complex, and the shot widens to reveal chain gangs of infertile female laborers paving a road (or clearing a road or something similar). And that’s when I snapped. I couldn’t imagine how this future America went from women becoming infertile to women being used as slaves to do manual labor.

How’d that Point A get to Point C?

(Woman speaking to her husband) “I have terrible news, honey. I can’t have kids.”

“Well go pave a fuckin’ road, bitch.”

That road-paving thing broke my mind. I couldn’t get past it, so I turned the film off.

As a fan of speculative dystopian fiction, and as someone who’s studied real-life historical apartheids and exclusionary societies, I consider it a perverse privilege to be able to document exactly such a transitional period—that “B” between Point A (old America) and Point C (“You’re white? Go pave a road”). Because make no mistake—that’s where we are right now: on the path to an antiwhite racial dystopia. We’re not there yet; we may in fact be at the last juncture where the brakes can be applied. But the car’s only moving in one direction, and it’s toward that dystopia, not away from it.

For those of us who see this period as a novel’s prologue, it’s vital to not fall victim to the grandiose alarmism that affects the work of bad scribes. There’s not going to be a race war, or a civil war, or secession, or “national divorce,” or racial “homelands.” It’ll be a banal apartheid. Most whites will just keep on keeping on. Never underestimate mankind’s capacity to absorb a beatdown.

And that’s especially true of apartheids in which the elite members of the group getting beaten down are in on it. That might be the only thing that old hag got right with Handmaid; from what I recall of the film, elite women were the most brutal enforcers of the female slavery system. There are multiple historical examples of members of an oppressed group collaborating with their oppressors, and by studying those precedents, we can better understand what makes our coming dystopia so much worse.

At the start of the European conquest of North America, it was common for this or that Indian tribe to ally with the white man. The MiqMoqs are warring with the Chikawikas, so the MiqMoqs strike a deal with the whites whose advanced weaponry can help their tribe prevail.

The British promise the UngaBungas that British rule will end the slave trade, and the UngaBungas, tired of being enslaved by the AliAkbars, are like, “Heck, maybe you’re the lesser evil. We’ll help you out!”

As Hitler pitted Aryans against Slavs during his short-lived attempt at white-on-white apartheid, Slavs would try to prove their racial worth to join the winning side (“Lookit my forehead; it’s not sloping! I’m a Mozart, a Mozart, I tells ya!”).

Hell, during the early years of Hitler’s reign, even some Jews collaborated in order to facilitate the transfer of prosperous German Jews and their gelt to Palestine.

But (in the words of every Fox News guest ever) “here’s the thing”: In all of those cases, the apartheid planners, from their perspective, thought they were forging something better.

The European conquerors of Injun country believed that they were taking the raw dirt of a bunch of thong-wearing featherheads and turning it into a nation of modern marvels and unparalleled might (spoiler: They were correct). In Africa, the British claimed they were bringing infrastructure to the most backwards place on earth (while coincidentally getting rich off diamonds). Hitler genuinely believed that a continent run by Aryans would spark a renaissance and last a millennium. And the Jews who collaborated with the Nazis were themselves trying to build something better, “making a desert bloom” while instituting a bit of apartheid themselves against a gaggle of barbarous camel-fornicators.

In apartheid South Africa, the whites saw their racially tiered system as necessary in order to maintain the only First World nation on the continent (spoiler: They were correct). You can dismiss South African apartheid as “racial hatred” (a meaningless phrase in an age in which everything a white person does is considered “racial hatred”), but you can also see SA apartheid as a bunch of people who built something successful and who knew that the racial tiering was needed to keep their successful thing from falling to shit (spoiler: They were correct).

The point being, the people behind all of those racially tiered or exclusive systems believed, right or wrong (and Hitler was certainly wrong; the Poles have proven more capable stewards of Europe than the Germans), that they were building better.

Call them racists, “supremacists,” or monsters, but their goal was to create, not destroy. It doesn’t make them good people; it just means that their intentions, their beliefs, were in the service of building up, not tearing down.

Our incipient American apartheid is based solely on tearing down. On being antiwhite for the sake of it, as opposed to being antiwhite because others believe they can “build better.” That’s why this incoming apartheid is dystopian and dysgenic. Again, say what you will about the brutality of SA apartheid, Nazi Germany, British colonialism, and Manifest Destiny, but those things were carried out by people who genuinely believed that they deserved the reins because they could forge something greater.

American blacks don’t deny that they’re disproportionately arrested and incarcerated. They don’t deny that they disproportionately score low on standardized tests. They don’t deny that they can’t achieve employment or college admission without the “extra help” of affirmative action and diversity quotas. In fact, they wallow in these ills; they’re the first to cite them as proof of their “oppression.”

There’s some vague notion that as whites are cut down to size—silenced, excised from high-skilled jobs, subjected cradle-to-grave to messages on autoplay loop about how “whiteness” is the root of all evil—somehow this will make blacks more capable, more adept at trigonometry and neurosurgery, and less likely to lean toward criminality. But I’m not really sure how many blacks, or the whites and Jews guiding and empowering that message, actually believe it.

This is a vengeance apartheid, not a “vision” apartheid.

And it’s an antiwhite apartheid with massive white participation. Unlike other groups that joined in their own oppression, there’s no clearly defined upside for white collaborators. Yet we see huge numbers of college-educated whites, and millennial whites, backing the whole “white is evil, stop us before we genocide again” platform.

You can blame blacks as the primary beneficiaries, and you can blame Jews as the intellectual thought-leaders, but the simple fact is, this crap would not be on the fast track to dominant national dogma if not for the complicity of so many non-Jewish non-Hispanic whites. These are the people voting for critical race theory, defund the police, decarceration, elimination of single-family residence zoning, open borders, asylum for every Third Worlder, and antiwhite job quotas.

Who do you think buys Robin DiAngelo’s books? Detroit blacks? NYC Puerto Ricans? Please. Those books are primarily bought by “enlightened” whites like Jimmy Fallon who (as he said in his interview with DiAngelo last year) read them and exclaim, “Boy, we sure do suck.” These are often whites with no real-world skills, yet they have useless degrees that give them a feeling of superiority over the “other” whites, the blue-collar, non-college-educated ones.


And 2016 showed that this despised working-class demographic still has enough influence to elect a president, if his platform is strong enough.

So the “elite” whites are all-too-happy to salt the earth to keep other whites disenfranchised and in their place. To relate this to the comedy world, when you see Sarah Silverman, Jimmy Kimmel, Howard Stern, and David Cross—people who became hugely successful doing racial or bawdy material—working so aggressively (via cancel culture) to prevent young comics from having the freedom to follow in their footsteps, what they’re doing is preserving their own privileged position, and their legacy. Sarah Silverman knows that she can never again do race comedy. So she wants to be the last female comic who ever did. It’s her only conceivable ticket to immortality. If younger, funnier people could still do “nigger and chink” jokes, Silverman, who can’t be funny without being racial and who flopped in her attempted segue to “serious actress,” would be lost to history.

The white earth-salters who are helping to usher in the coming apartheid are fine with being the last generation of whites to not have to live under the codification of the things they’re promoting, at the moment, as “voluntary” or “free market” exclusionary antiwhite policies. Because that’s what’s in the cards. Not a race war, not a “balkanized America.” Simply put, everything that’s de facto right now will become law. The apartheid will be a formalization of what will have already been the norm for a decade or two. A cap on the number of whites in boardrooms, entertainment, and STEM. A racially tiered grading system in schools. Racially tiered policing and incarceration. Race-based standards for who gets to be on social media, or the internet entirely, and who doesn’t. Race-based standards for who gets priority medical care. 1619 cultism taught K-through-12. A ban on white people being visible in a business transaction (yes, that’s currently a thing).

It’s not that the earth-salters aren’t thinking about the future; they are, and that’s the problem. It doesn’t trouble them that future generations of American whites might curse their name.

They’ll be remembered.

Remembered as people who didn’t build a reich or an empire, but ended one.

And they’ll be remembered bitterly by every white guy twenty years from now who’s told, “Sorry, you can’t get this STEM job, because you’re white and your IQ is over 80…but hey, here’s a shovel. Go pave a road, asshole.”
 
With "road" in the thread title, I thought this was going to be a "who would build the roads?" discussion and was going to skip it, but the wording was provocative enough that I had to look.

Interesting piece, this is certainly a possible, if not probable, future. It's consistent with the frog boiling that's been going on my entire life.

... Never underestimate mankind’s capacity to absorb a beatdown.

^spot on. This is one of the major factors in my decision to retire from political activism.

....
And they’ll be remembered bitterly by every white guy twenty years from now who’s told, “Sorry, you can’t get this STEM job, because you’re white and your IQ is over 80…but hey, here’s a shovel. Go pave a road, asshole.”

I've been trying to steer my kids towards starting their own businesses or simply becoming self-employed. I've done both and wish I left the "job" world long ago.
 
Good article.

David "Cole" is an interesting one.

I'm pretty sure that most of his writings indicate that he is a friend, but he has waivered enough under pressure for me to not want to share a foxhole with him.
 
(Woman speaking to her husband) “I have terrible news, honey. I can’t have kids.”

“Well go pave a fuckin’ road, bitch.”

That doesn't make sense to me either. Seems like they'd be better utilized cooking & cleaning.

Perhaps the ones that talk back, or can't cook well, can go pave roads.
 
I watched about 15 minutes of the TV show on a flight a few years ago. I had no idea what it was actually about. I heard all the hype, and at the time I pretty much watched everything in the Delta catalog that I had any desire to.

It's completely transparent abortionist propaganda. It implies if we somehow don't make the right to kill babies part of the bill of rights, there will be this dystopian future where woman are sex slaves.
 
What jumped out at me was the sheer hopelessness of the future.

None of us, most certainly me, want to admit it, but he's absolutely right.

Because that’s what’s in the cards. Not a race war, not a “balkanized America.” Simply put, everything that’s de facto right now will become law. The apartheid will be a formalization of what will have already been the norm for a decade or two. A cap on the number of whites in boardrooms, entertainment, and STEM. A racially tiered grading system in schools. Racially tiered policing and incarceration. Race-based standards for who gets to be on social media, or the internet entirely, and who doesn’t. Race-based standards for who gets priority medical care. 1619 cultism taught K-through-12. A ban on white people being visible in a business transaction

A banal apartheid is exactly right.

There’s not going to be a race war, or a civil war, or secession, or “national divorce,” or racial “homelands.” It’ll be a banal apartheid. Most whites will just keep on keeping on. Never underestimate mankind’s capacity to absorb a beatdown.

One of things that I recall from people that had visited the old USSR as being a universal observation, was how drab, dreary and broke down everything was.

Nothing worked right, nothing held together, the most modern of buildings leaked, cracked, was out of square and plumb, the cars were shit, the food even worse and so on.

Combine that with a suffocating police state and you got a population that was "beatdown"...hopeless, shuffling, wary, skittish.

As the Marxist revolution continues, that is what the future holds for us.

He's right about how there will be no real resistance or revolt...look at what they are doing to us right now regarding gene injections against people's will.

That is how they will disarm us as well: nothing as over the top as troops marching house to house, although that may happen in certain places.

No, it will be much more mundane and banal: refusal to turn in weapons or ammo that the government already knows you have, will result in banning you from travel or work or banking or commerce. Insurance agents will check homes for compliance, not jack booted thugs.

How very dreary.

But he's wrong about this:

Most whites will just keep on keeping on

Yes, white people in this country are never going to get their shit together to resist in any meaningful way.

But we will stop "keeping on".

A saying from the old USSR: "As long as they pretend to pay us, we'll pretend to work".

There will come a day in the Banal Apartheid era, where whites will decide that there is no point, no reward, no reason and no motivation to "keep on" any more.

And that will be the last chapter, as the whole mess devolves into Full Retard Haiti.
 
And it’s an antiwhite apartheid with massive white participation. Unlike other groups that joined in their own oppression, there’s no clearly defined upside for white collaborators. Yet we see huge numbers of college-educated whites, and millennial whites, backing the whole “white is evil, stop us before we genocide again” platform.

The “upside” is emotion based. Their hearts bleed for the victim of the day, and they feel morally superior that they care so much. They are on a righteous crusade. It makes them feel good to both feel empathy and hate at the same time. That is their reward.

And when the reality is the exact opposite of what they claim to want, they either can not or refuse to admit that they themselves caused it. Prejudice, violence and hate increases. Standard of living drops. Their bleeding hearts will never connect that they are the cause. It’s like a crazed old cat lady who has a house filled with stray cats and shit, and it’s her firm believe that the only solution is more cat food.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cjm
Brain Drain: Gain or Bane?

https://www.takimag.com/article/brain-drain-gain-or-bane/

David Cole October 12, 2021

Last week’s column covered America’s ongoing march toward a dystopic antiwhite apartheid from the perspective of quisling whites. This week, I’ll stick with the apartheid theme, but from a different angle.

Let’s take a trip back to Nazi Germany. There was a period between 1933 and the start of the war when German Jews were basically living under Jim Crow-style exclusionary laws.

During this period of “Jim Crohen,” Jews could live freely…to an extent. Much like blacks in the American South, there were laws against intermarriage, there were property ownership proscriptions, and most important, Jews were excluded from a host of jobs. They couldn’t own media outlets, and 1933’s Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service purged Jews from a wide variety of professions, including schoolteachers, university professors, doctors, judges, and a slew of other white-collar endeavors.
“By the time the U.S. brain-drain purge bears its fetid fruit, the damage will have been done.”

During this period Jews could still own their little shops, their kosher restaurants, their religious schools; they could still marry their own kind and have kids, they could even travel freely. They just couldn’t engage in activities that the Nazis saw as likely to “influence” the German public (Jews: the first people to be banned from being “influencers.” The schmucks who gave us Zuckerberg got Zuckerberg’d fifty years before the bastard was born!).

Initially, many German Jews thought they could ride out what they considered a temporary inconvenience. As Professor William Rubinstein notes in his underappreciated 1997 book The Myth of Rescue, over 16,000 Jews who fled Germany in 1933 returned the next year (although many more would leave as things got worse in the late 1930s).

I mention all of this because the topic of Nazi exclusionary laws came up last week when MIT canceled a lecture by a renowned University of Chicago professor because of something he’d written in a Newsweek op-ed back in August. Dorian Abbot, a geophysicist, was invited to MIT to talk about boring ol’ planets, but the race mob got him canceled because in that Newsweek piece, Abbot had compared Nazi Germany’s exclusion of Jewish intellectuals to the current exclusion of whites via “diversity” quotas:

Ninety years ago Germany had the best universities in the world. Then an ideological regime obsessed with race came to power and drove many of the best scholars out, gutting the faculties and leading to sustained decay that German universities never fully recovered from. We should view this as a warning of the consequences of viewing group membership as more important than merit, and correct our course before it’s too late.

Imagine Planet Man thinking he could write that and survive! Get yer head outta Uranus, prof.

Still, Abbot’s points deserve further exploration. Because among Western Jews, it’s indeed taken as canon that the professional exclusions during the Jim Crohen period badly debilitated Germany as a nation. You’ll find this 1930s “brain drain” discussed at length in hundreds of Holocaust books, essays, and lectures. There are too many to list, but a fine condensation of the “German brain drain” literature can be found in a 2011 IZA (Institute of Labor Economics) paper, “The Long-Term Direct and External Effects of Jewish Expulsions in Nazi Germany,” by Mevlude Akbulut-Yuksel and Mutlu Yuksel of Dalhousie University.

The Yuksels assemble an exhaustive collection of quotes and data from Jewish scholars that support their paper’s thesis: The removal of Jews from German academia, science, and other “intellectual” professions dumbed down the poor Germans to such an extent that German children who received their formative education during the purge years became derp-a-derp morons, because Jews are just so damn smart that removing them as teachers led to a generation of Reichtards.
exp-player-logo
Read More

But wait…I’m confused. Leftist Jews (i.e., most Jews) are the primary intellectual and financial movers and shakers behind the notion that nothing is lost when Americans use quotas and diversity bullying to replace skilled workforce whites with Third World immigrants. In theory, the Jewish elites tell us, there’s nothing a white can do that Umbabwe the Ghanaian ditch-digger, Ixtpatl the bare-assed Peruvian tree-dwelling Indian, or Al-Suqdiq the Afghan pedophile can’t do as well or better.

Yet as the IZA paper outright states, the removal of a high-IQ people led to severe negative consequences because some groups are just better than others—smarter, more skilled—and if that group dominates a particular field it’s because of the natural order, and when you monkey with that natural order by removing the members of that group to satisfy racial quotas set by political leaders, your nation suffers.

Well, son of a bitch. Who knew?

The IZA paper is missing only one thing: an explanation of why this principle only applies to 1930s Germany but not anywhere in the present-day West.

Don’t expect that explanation anytime soon.

This is just one of those things you’re not supposed to notice. Because it’s a question the average leftist Jew can’t answer. If Germany suffered from the removal of skilled professionals from an academically successful high-IQ group, why are we supposed to believe that the U.S. won’t suffer when antiwhite “diversity” caps and quotas lead to the removal of skilled professionals from an academically successful high-IQ group?

If ongobongos from da Congo can easily pick up what’s needed in order to seamlessly replace whites in, say, science and medicine, why weren’t native Germans able to just as seamlessly fill the gaps caused by the removal of Jews?

And speaking of questions no mainstream journalist will ever ask…

A few months ago, when Amazon Studios announced an official hiring cap on white actors and below-the-line crew (and diversity hiring quotas for nonwhites) on all of its in-house movies and streaming shows, I had a question I wanted to ask Amazon’s diversity department so that I may (in Carl Showalter voice) “be in full compliance.”

My question was a simple one: Is the employment of Jews capped because they’re categorized as white, or are they part of the “diversity quota” of “underrepresented minorities”?

Amazon is forcing producers to list the race/ethnicity/gender of all cast and crew. Are they cis or trans? Male or female? White or nonwhite? These are real rules, and Amazon won’t touch a project if they don’t get “the list.” So you’d expect that Amazon would provide elucidation when prompted.

You know, to help producers “be in full compliance.”

I asked the Amazon Studios bigwigs, “In what column do I put my Jewish actors and crew? Are they in the white column, and therefore part of the capped talent, or are they in the nonwhite column, therefore counting toward the mandated quota?”

When I didn’t hear back, I waited a month and asked again using a producer friend’s email.

But of course the people I emailed—and they deserve to be named as they’re such colossal scumbags: Amazon Studios diversity commissars Latasha Gillespie, Jennifer Salke, Julie Rapaport, Jamie French, Albert Cheng, Tiffany Shinn, Leanne McClaflin, and PR flacks Alana Russo and Kendall Wright—once again didn’t reply.

Because they can’t. There’s no good answer to my question. Every name on every Amazon Studios production must be entered into one of those columns. That’s their rules. But no matter which column they assign to Jews, there’ll be “problematics” aplenty. If Jews are supposed to go in the “underrepresented minorities” category,” that’ll piss the living hell out of blacks and Hispanics, who know damn well that if there’s one group that’s not “underrepresented” in Hollywood, it’s Jews. Yet here are Jews filling spaces in the underrepresented column that should be going to blacks ’n’ “Latinxes.”

Yet if Amazon’s answer is that Jews should be put in the capped “white” column, well, Amazon would have the dubious honor of being the first major corporation since the heyday of Nazi Germany to put an official, explicit cap on Jewish hiring in media.

So Amazon has to avoid the question.

Hell, they were probably hoping no one would ever ask it.

I never get more hate mail than when I criticize Andrew Breitbart’s legacy (one Breitbart-critical column of mine led a certain “familiar” rightist author to call for my hanging! I’ll tell you that story…someday). One way in which Breitbart was less than helpful was his obsession with tactics. “Read Alinsky! Use leftists’ own tactics against them!” Yes, but in service of what? I knew Andrew, and he was all over the map, as were his acolytes. “Yay Iraq War! Yay foreign intervention!” “Boo illegal immigration” but also “Staple green cards to diplomas!” Yes, he was steadfastly “for America,” but what the hell does that mean if you’re not more specific?

That’s why in the end Andrew was not as successful as his leftist counterparts. Leftists get “horse before cart.” Goal first, then tactics.

The white West must be brought down. That’s the left’s goal. And the tactics are in service of it, which is why they so often seem contradictory. In Germany, you convince the indigenous whites that they ruined their nation by removing the people with the good genes. Irrational Jew-hatred blinded the Germans to the fact that they should’ve recognized the natural skills of Jews and respected them. Now that Germans have dumbed down their nation, they must import millions of immigrants, because the detrimental effects of the 1930s purge show that Germans can’t hack it on their own.

But in America, you say the opposite. There are no “good genes.” In fact, there are no genes at all, and there’s no such thing as a “naturally skilled” group. Replacing skilled workers is fine. IQ is a myth, as anybody can do anything as well as anyone else. All groups are interchangeable, so caps and quotas in the name of equity do no harm.

For leftist Jews, in Germany you make sure you’re front and center, because it’s your suffering that allows the manipulation: “You Holocausted the Jews, you Jim Crowed the Jews!” But in the U.S., you hang back, as it’s black suffering that allows the manipulation: “You slaveried the Blacks! You Jim Crowed the Blacks!”

In Germany, assert that removing skilled workers for racial reasons led to disaster. In America, assert that removing skilled workers for racial reasons is the only way to avert disaster. In Germany, claim that labeling everything bad as “Jewish” (“Jew math,” “Jew media,” “Jew science”) led to a dumbing-down of the nation. In America, claim that labeling everything bad as “white” (“white math,” “white media,” “white science”) will lead to a smarter and more prosperous nation.

And again, do your best to make sure that nobody sees the contradictions and asks the wrong questions.

And if they do, just ignore them or get them banned from social media. Or cancel their lectures.

Problem solved!

For now. By the time the U.S. brain-drain purge bears its fetid fruit, by the time everything collapses like that “diversity bridge” a few years ago that was championed as proof that engineering requires neither white males nor engineering know-how, the damage will have been done.

Let the skeptics ask their questions then; it’ll be too late.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top