This is a piece written by Andrew Anglin at The Daily Stormer.
Besides reproducing the text of the article in full below, I am supplying the link below:
The Left has taken so many divergent positions on things in the last 10 years that it is increasingly easy to single out one of their stances and agree with it “for all the wrong reasons”. Recently I had just such a conversation with a female college student whose politics are very much what you might expect. I warned her ahead of time that my ways of looking at things are very different than her own, but I emphasized that if she will simply accept that my position come from benevolence, she might see something good in them. At length, mostly by being gentle-spoken and “agreeing with the left for all the wrong reasons”, I was able to get her to agree with re-segregating the races and to somewhat agree with me on race realism and the problem of miscegenation!
My wife and I are working on getting her to give up career ambitions and pursue family life.
Anyways, I think Anglin’s article here does a great job of showcasing this phenomenon, but also of shedding light on how the Leftist hierarchy of values is taking a new form where everything is placed under the feet of women and gays.
February 27, 2020
I know I say it all the time, but it really is staggering the way the liberal establishment feels comfortably openly pushing a social engineering agenda on third world countries.
The reason it is so shocking is that these same people will talk about cultural relativism and how every culture has its own unique values. Or at least they used to talk about that – I’m not sure they do so much anymore.
I am actually a believer in cultural relativism. I have spent enough time traveling the world that I simply cannot buy the theory that it is possible to determine a global standard of what is right or wrong. The problem that the establishment faces with that theory, however, is that it necessarily leads to the formation of opinions that certain cultures are better than other cultures. Because it is not possible to recognize two things as fundamentally different without making a value judgement in comparing and contrasting them.
It used to be preached by liberals that if you judged another culture for their differences, you were engaging in ethnocentrism. But now, we have Donald Trump attempting to force people in Africa to engage in man-on-man anal, and the entire program of UNESCO and the World Bank being to force the promotion of women and homosexuals in the third world. So the global establishment is making an absolute value judgement that Western female-dominated society is superior to the patriarchal norms of every third world country. That is clearly their own definition of ethnocentrism in action.
Their view of “cultural relativity” is that some women will choose to watch the latest Marvel movie in a hijab.
I know that this is a really basic and obvious observation, but it really is fundamental. These are, after all, the very same people who rail against the evils of colonialism, even while it is a matter of historical record that British, French or Dutch colonists did little to nothing to change the cultures of the primitive areas they colonized, but instead focused almost exclusively on technological improvements. (The level of technology used in a society probably should be considered a cultural norm, but it usually isn’t because technological development tends to be accepted universally by all cultures.)
What adds a layer of extreme bizarreness to the project is that we are forcing these foreign cultures to abandon social norms that we only abandoned a few short decades ago, and there is absolutely zero sympathy for the people in these societies who do not want to undergo an extreme cultural revolution in the name of a value system that they have no conception of and no connection to.
International development experts say the federal government must boost its foreign-aid spending toward the UN target if it wants its feminist agenda to have a meaningful and sustained impact.
The government unveiled its feminist international assistance policy in 2017 as a cornerstone of its foreign agenda. The policy, which focuses on improving the lives of women and girls around the world, came at a critical time for the sexual- and reproductive-health and rights sector. In January of that year, President Donald Trump reinstated the global gag order prohibiting U.S. government financial support for international organizations that provide abortions or give abortion advice, leaving a US$600-million global funding gap.
Yeah, he did do that.
Which really just makes it all the weirder that he is shamelessly promoting man-on-man anal globally.
I will note that in some fantasy world, promoting gay sex and abortion could be considered a callous and cynical way to reduce the population of the third world, but it would be extremely inefficient and the fact that the West is ignoring so many much more obvious ways to reduce third world populations proves that this is not their agenda.
(Furthermore, homosexuality doesn’t really reduce the birthrate, given that one heterosexual African man can impregnate hundreds or thousands of women in his lifetime.)
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced plans last year to gradually increase international funding for women and girls’ health and rights to $1.4-billion annually by 2023, up from the $1.1-billion the government currently spends. The money will mostly come from the international assistance budget, which the government promised to increase by $2-billion between 2018 and 2023.
In Mozambique, Canadian aid funds a rare service: safe abortions
The Globe and Mail recently visited an $18-million project in Mozambique, where Canadian funding has trained four doctors at the Manica District Hospital to provide safe medical abortions. The hospital now provides an average of six or seven procedures a month and has seen a decline in cases of complications from abortions.
It’s very morbid to celebrate spending billions of dollars to murder African infants.
Mozambique is about as primitive as anywhere you’re going to find on earth.
So assuming your goal is not to reduce the country’s population – and as I say, there is no reason at all to believe that is the goal – then this idea of going there to kill their children is really like something out of a horror movie.
Even if the goal were to reduce the population, this would be ghoulish, given that you have a situation where a large portion of women would accept cash payments of $500 to be sterilized (especially if they already had one child). You could use that $1.4 billion to sterilize nearly 3 million women with cash payments.
This would also not involve using economic incentives to pressure primitive people into abandoning their morality.
But it seems everything we do has to be tinged with the satanic.