Archive for June 9, 2010

On Bad Faith: 6

June 9, 2010 23 comments

After your enormous response to the ‘Lisa D’ posts, it would be worthwhile to explore an issue at the core of that problem, namely- race.

If you have read all three post about ‘Lisa D’, it will be obvious that she was flirting with me. A woman lucid enough to talk about her life and smiling while your hand is rubbing her bare butt and playing with her G-string is attracted to you. So why did her attitude change the next day? and what does it have to do with this post?

The short answer is: She acted in bad faith (expected), and I returned the favor (unexpected).

The reasons behind her behavior are complex, but driven by one factor- perceived status. So what aspect of my status was not good enough for her after sobering up? While ‘race’ may be the simpler answer, the more complex answer is: She is part of a society that is still invested in the idea of a perpetual and ‘natural’ white supremacy. Even though measurable and quantifiable evidence says otherwise, she believed that a mediocre white guy with a retail-type job was socially desirable over one who had more education than both her parents combined and was attractive to her (note physical escalation and approval).

Such behavior cannot be explained through reason, because it based on magical thinking. But it is hardly a monopoly of gals like ‘Lisa D’, and is found in people ranging from ‘scientific experts’, ‘historians’ to ‘famous thinkers’ etc. Read about the convoluted logic (or lack thereof) that characterizes HBD, or how facts are manipulated, altered and misrepresented to present a more white-friendly interpretation of events.

Gals like ‘Lisa D’ are only mindless low-level followers of an ideology espoused by more educated people.

But the universe operates irrespective of human wishes, and transitory luck + chance are not indicative of real ability. I have touched on this before.. so let me talk about the consequences of this behavior by starting with an anecdote.

Consider my attitudes towards the inhabitants of three countries: UK, Germany and France. More than a few of my ‘unpaid’ gals were brits, 2-3 were german and none were french, inspite of hitting on an almost equal number of gals from those countries. There are reasons why brit gals had little problems with my race.. but that is not the issue.

The real issue is: When you are getting it on with reasonably sober ‘unpaid’ gals, and enjoying it, your attitude about them changes.

You no longer see them as stereotypes, numbers or caricatures. The mutual vulnerability makes it almost impossible to see them as less than human. You may dislike them, hate them later or even want to smack them around. But you can no longer ignore that they are essentially human, just like you (even if you saw them as caricatures before).

It is hard to dehumanize a gal who is biting a pillow, and curling her toes, when you doing her from behind. It is just as hard to dehumanize a girl who drools over your neck, when she is asleep, after an exhausting session.

Any consensual sex, beyond a one night stand or very brief STR, makes it almost impossible to ever see the other person as not human.

So how does this play into the future of the west, attitudes of white women etc? Easy.. think about the converse. If you cannot get reasonably easy ‘unpaid’ sex with a member of an identifiable group, you can dehumanize them with ease.

Once you dehumanize a group, you will not (and cannot) act in good faith towards them.

As long as whites constituted the majority of the working age population of western countries, they could get away with pretty shoddy treatment of non-whites. The technology gap between the west and other countries also contributed to this behavior. As some of you might have realized, that era is over. But attitudes have not kept up with reality.

I have said before that the resilience of a system, not its hardness, determines survivability. Most whites still think that non-white behavior (towards them) will not change in an abrupt manner. While they may offer a number of clever reasons to support this viewpoint, all of their mental models are based on a steady-state assumption. Let me rephrase that: Many believe that the changes will be gradual, instead of sudden and unpredictable with multiple tipping points.

It is my prediction that unconscious/low-level bad faith by non-whites might be a far bigger problem for the future of the west than outright conflict. The former are far more corrosive and harder to detect/ confront than the later, because they slowly degrade the system. A rigid system without resilience/cohesion cannot withstand unexpected events or behave in a predictable manner.

Simply put: A non-white guy or woman having average ‘unpaid’ sex with a white woman or man is far less likely to see them as dehumanizable adversaries.

Any comments? More in a future post..