As I have mentioned directly and indirectly in many of my previous posts, one of the most disturbing aspects of white behavior is a certain type of hypocrisy which I will call the ‘pretense of objectivity’. So how is the pretense of objectivity different from garden variety hypocrisy? and why is it especially repulsive?
Let me begin by acknowledging that the behavior of all human beings, including myself, is hypocritical to some extent. The real question then becomes- what are the levels and types of hypocrisy exhibited by any given individual?
Let me explain the idea that not all varieties of hypocrisy are equal with an analogous example. You might have seen ‘human interest’-type news reports which “show” that some household items which we consider clean are covered in germs and the ones labelled as dirty are in fact quite clean. But is that true and does it matter? Are all bacteria, fungi or viruses equally bad? The answer is- NO! Experimental evidence from the past suggest that anywhere between 1-10 smallpox virons could cause infection and disease in non-immune human beings with an average mortality of 20-40%. Compare that with getting a gastro-intestinal infection due to non-human specific species of Salmonella from eating an inadequately cooked piece of chicken which requires anywhere between 1 million to 1 billion bacteria to cause clinical illness. Also note that salmonellosis only kills a very minuscule percentage of those who develop symptoms. Similarly water from a lake in a sparsely inhabited area of the rocky mountains is much safer to drink than one from a lake of similar size in England- even if they have the same bacterial and even the same coliform count. The type of microbes are therefore as, and often more, important than their quantity.
So how does that relate to types of hypocrisy? Are all types of hypocrisy just as bad or are some much worse and despicable than others?
Let me use another example of illustrate this concept. People, irrespective of race and language, try to convince themselves they are better than others by measuring things that have no obvious relation to reality. Many “religious” Hindus might label beef-eating as bad because it makes them feel better than those who do. Similarly, most Han Chinese want to believe that they are the original civilized humans inspite of the lack of, or contrary, evidence. One can also think of the sports culture in the USA eschewing games in which people from other countries might win as another example where people pretend something is true to make themselves feel better. But such ‘self-lies’ are not particularly harmful. I am not aware of devout Hindus fighting wars over the right of non-Hindus to eat beef, chinese don’t go to war over the discovery of ancient archaeological sites in present-day Turkey nor has the USA attacked another nation to make them stop playing games in which Americans suck.
In garden-variety hypocrisy people “promote or administer virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc. which they do not actually have and are also guilty of violating”. For example, a gay preacher who marries a woman and preaches against homosexuality while having meth-fueled sex with a male prostitute is a hypocrite- albeit of the more traditional type. However the hypocrite knows that he or she is a hypocrite. Infact that self-knowledge is what separates traditional hypocrisy from double-think. In double-think, the individual accepts two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts, without the self-knowledge that characterizes garden-variety hypocrisy.
While some consider hypocrisy as distinct from double-think, I see it as the first step on the continuum towards double-think. For me the crucial difference between the hypocrite and double-thinker lies in the hypocrite having some residual awareness of their deceit. So how does the ‘pretense of objectivity’ come into the picture and why is closer to hypocrisy than true double-think.
The ‘pretense of objectivity’ is far more common in the west since it has become progressively harder to justify human abuse, torture and death by invoking a god, prophecy or tradition. Justifying the continued abuse of blacks sounds more “rational” if you call it “War on Drugs‘ rather than Slavery 3.0 or Jim Crow 2.0. Similarly blaming the high levels of poverty and social dysfunction in blacks on “genetics” sounds much better than addressing the multitude of institutionalized barriers faced by them through no fault of theirs.Justifying income inequality on the basis of ‘IQ’ scores,’PISA’ scores or performances at the ‘Math Olympiad‘ is easier when you ignore that the truly rich got so by some combination of birth, luck and deceit. What is the extent of overlap between MENSA membership and the list of people who are worth more than 10 million dollars in the USA? There is also the rather vexing issue of women choosing ‘low IQ’ men over these ‘high IQ’ nerds.
The ‘pretense of objectivity’ does however resemble double-think in that most of those who believe in it want it to be true- regardless of evidence to the contrary. For example- many white men want to believe that white women are the most beautiful and desirable inspite of evidence to the contrary. Having had sex with scores of escorts of all races and racial mixtures, I cannot say that sex with white escorts (even the really hot and professional ones) to be any better than comparable non-white escorts. Since beauty in women is largely about how badly want to nail her and how it feels when you do it- I can honestly say that wanting to and fucking a hot blond chick is equivalent to doing that to a hot black or hispanic chick. And yet you will find tons of blogs and comments on them in which men try to find all sorts of ‘scientific sounding’ and ‘rational’ reasons why white chicks are the most beautiful. The autistic morons who believe in HBD seem especially susceptible to the desire to believe in that crap. To this end they will try to create tables of data which supposedly validate their belief. I cannot resist pointing that men who indulge in such data collection and analysis don’t seem to be getting laid with even plain-looking white women, let alone with hot women of any race.
Similarly we see a lot of bullshit about “evolutionary psychology” and how some social classes or races are more deserving or better than others. However I am not so sure that evidence backs that argument. A greedy, egoistic or stupid physician can and does kill more people than your median serial killer- while getting a nice amount of money for doing that. Furthermore physicians or surgeons almost never make any worthwhile medical breakthrough that saves even a few more lives. Would you therefore not say that ‘IQ’ test results or the ability to get into and complete ‘competitive’ medical schools fails to screen out the significant minority of physicians who cause more problems and deaths than they prevent. I should also point out that serial killers who are captured are proud and aware of the result of their actions unlike the physicians who have convinced themselves of their innocence.
I will write more about this particular topic with far more specific examples and names in the next part of this series.
What do you think? Comments?