I am a sexist and think that is good and proper,
because, as stated above, nobody should be surprised that sex and sexual species are sexist. It's a no-brainer.

I want to have slaves.
Slavery is having people who are forced to work for the benefit of others. Slavery is bad, yes? So they say, but I think that is hypocrisy:
Do people, do YOU, want to be really rich? Like, having won 100 million dollars in some lottery? Yes, they and you do.
Why? Of course, one must not longer work and is free to buy all the goods and services one wishes.
But what truly happens here?
There is no exchange of goods and services anymore - like the butcher, with the small complication of money as a medium of exchange, effectively changing his sausages for the
bread of the baker. If one side has, effectively, unlimited money ("being really rich") - one side has to do all the work, while the other side has to do nothing anymore.
And this is exactly what slavery is: People being forced to work for other people, the latter needing to do no work, by the mighty magic of huge monetary wealth.
In our modern societies, there are no whips and iron balls on chains affixed to ankles anymore,
but being really rich is in effect the very same thing, slavery. Some may say that the people do not HAVE to work - but this is fallacious, we all know we NEED money to live and do well,
otherwise we would stop working as wage slaves immediately.
Therefore, I want slaves - because I dream of and desire to be rich. I want to be free of the suffering of being forced to work, and I want to enjoy the slavery of others for my pleasure.
Some say, of course, this is wrong; but this is not the matter here. I think most people prefer being superior and slavers to being "equal" and being wage slaves, I think most people dream
of being rich, and being rich has only a real advantage, an actual point, when others are not rich and have to serve those being rich.
So, look into yourself and find out if you desire to be rich. If that is so, you want to have slaves, too.


I am a homophobe and think that is good and proper.
As the word says, this is about fearing homosexuals, gay men specifically. Actually it is about rejecting gays, more or less - less so by being merely disgusted by them, more so by trying to
get away from them passively or actively.
All heterosexual men feel disgust at homosexual displays of other men. While this is universally so, the degree of this instinctive emotion varies from mere disgust and trying to keep a distance,
to attacking gays or, in the most extreme cases, even trying to kill them.
Why? Because gays hinder the successful reproduction of heterosexual men by making them infertile and killing them. How?
Gays have significantly more sex, more promiscuous sex than heterosexual men. This is because there are no constrains on their libido like in heterosexual men: Women are quite picky and reluctant
about having sex with men. No such constrains exist in gays - they are having sex with each other as much as they desire, and they desire usually a lot, and they usually have a lot of it
(imagine what would happen to the sex life of hetero men if all women suddenly would be as willing to have sex as them!).
To give a quantitative indication about the promiscuity of gays: "Patient zero", the gay man who was thought to be the first human carrying the HIV virus, had unprotected sex with 2000 different men before he
was even 30 years old; this was and is not very uncommon, but the average is lower (there are, of course a lot of gays who never had sex or had only a few sex partners) - but the average is nevertheless a high
multiple of the average number for hetero men. So, where is the problem?
In disease. Gays infect themselves and others at much, much higher rates with venereal and all other sexually transmittable diseases than heterosexuals - for their sheer numbers of different sex partners, and
also by the nature of the intercourse (depositing sperm in the rectum is vastly more infectious than vaginal intercourse).
Just one example, HIV: About 80% of new HIV infections happen in gays (who are a small part of the population), and (drug users injecting excluded) are the vast majority of all humans being infected with HIV (outside Africa).
Of course they infect themselves with many other diseases, too, at much higher rates, but those are curable or well treatable today, so these do not register as much of a public  problem.
Not so in the past, in humanity's evolutionary past of many millions of years:
Attracting a venereal disease meant evolutionary extinction for an heterosexual man, because there was no effective treatment - he either died from it, or became infertile, or very unattractive to women - either way his genes did not make it in the next generation.
Those men who carried genes for having a strong disgust emotion at gay displays therefore had a much lower chance of being infected with diseases, and therefore much higher chances for successful reproduction
and carrying their genes, and with them their instinctive gay-disgust, into the next generation.
"But wait!" you say and ask how the gays could infect the hetero men, for they did not have sex with each other? The answer lies in the bisexual men - who had sex with men and women alike (and who are more numerous
than gays). Human nature being what it is, females had sex with bisexual men before having sex with hetero men, or cheating their hetero men with them - and this is the vector the gay's venereal diseases
spread into the families of heterosexual men and to heterosexual men themselves, killing them.
This is the evolutionary origin of the instinctive "homophobia" in hetero men. It protects heterosexual men from being killed by homosexual men.
And therefore I think that homophobia is a good thing. I do NOT think that gays should be attacked or otherwise be disadvantaged if it can be avoided - they did not chose to be gay and are not
responsible for it, it is just another defect like a mental or physical disability, a sexual disability.
But I think heterosexual men have a right to instinctively fear gays and being disgusted by them. And because gays are such prolific disease carriers, I think they should be discriminated against where such
action protects the rest of society, for example blood donations from gays being not accepted.



I am a racist, and I think racism is something good and proper.
I checked and there are many different definitions for what racism actually is, quite a few even contradicting themselves. I've heard that even math or physics is racist, or that "ableism" is racist and
so on - I think all such makes no sense and I am going to ignore it.
In current discourse "racism" seems to be universally used as an derogatory word for people or concepts some do not like - they often can't define clearly what they mean by it, other than that it is to be
immoral or "evil", and, curiously, is meant as an universal accusation that is somehow expected to end all meaningful discussion by rhetoric defeat of those who are accused to be "racists".
Like "hate-speech" it is used as a subjectively-applied, universal tool to shut down any further discussion by anyone who is only able to utter that word.
I offer a different view:
Generally, racism is about genetic difference/similarity:
The more different another human is to our own genetic setup, the worse, the more unfriendly, the less altruistic we treat him, the more we discriminate him negatively.
Is this a bad thing? I think it is a thing most good;
because this racism is the exact foundation of family bonds and even motherly love:
The preference for ones blood relationship, children, siblings, parents, grandparents and so on - compared to all other humans is based only on genetic similarity!
Imagine a situation you can only save one of two children in time from drowning - another human's child, or your own child - then you decide obviously to save your own child. This is discrimination of the highest degree, for
you sentence the other, from your perspective "racially inferior", child to death, just because it is genetically less similar to you!
By discriminating our own genes and their carriers, our own blood relationship and kin, positively, we discriminate all other humans negatively. And exactly this is what racism is about.
I welcome this; I am thankful that my parents discriminated all other children negatively by preferring me to invest their resources in.
This is also true for the extended family, relatives, and in a certain sense also for "my people" as in "nation", because I share more genes with other Whites than I do, for example, share with Black people.
Notice that this is not about skin color or other superficial trait - it is about the general principle of kinship by genetic similarity.
And from this follows that I am much rather willing to assist or feel close to anyone who shares more of my genes, and that just happens to be other white people mostly - just like with family, by discriminating those
people more positively, I logically must discriminate other people more negatively, as I am not willing to treat all people equally, because I insist to treat my family, and other people who are genetically closer to myself,
better than everybody else: I am much more willing to altruistically give help to a German, Polish, French, British etc. human, I feel much more secure and comfortable close to these people, because I share much more genes with them,
I feel much more secure and comfortable  with them as neighbors than with people who differ from my genetic setup much more, for example, Black people.
Why? This is an instinct to spread one's own genes - an instinct all humans have, and the emphasis is on ONE'S OWN genes - human nature being what it is, having more people of different genetic setup close by will hinder the spreading of
one's own genes - called reproduction, which is a human right for everyone. This is exactly what it is about: Spreading one's own genes, for this reason we evolved preferential treatment for our own family, this is the reason we chose
genetically similar reproduction partners whenever we can - we don't want to have sex with organisms of different genetic makeup, be it a horse or a human with very dissimilar genes.
Especially white men often feel uneasiness from, for example, Arabs and Blacks living near them - biologically, those feel threatening like conquerors who take (according our male territorial instinct) our own "tribal lands" away from us,
our "gene spreading sphere", we feel threatened by them to some degree on these grounds - in the end they will indeed to some degree have sex with "our" women, "take them from us", to spread their alien genes, from our perspective - thereby
negatively influencing the spread of our own genes (generally, all humans underlie natural and sexual selection, which means trying to spread one's own genes as wide as possible in competition with all other humans  - this is one of the most basic
motivations humans have).
Our instincts tell us that we are only safe if those "gene invaders" stay far away from us.
This is of special import because Africans' genes are mostly dominant over Whites' genes - mixed race children resemble always much more Blacks than Whites. If Whites obediently allow this it will lead to the extinction of many of Whites' genes.
Just like family preference or motherly love are nothing  but genetic egoism - for our highest, life-supporting benefit - racism is the same kind of advantageous instinct towards our genetic egoism.
Otherwise motherly love would be something bad, "racist" as the word is used by some, and this can't be true.
It goes without saying that the same is true for all other humans - Asians, Blacks, Eskimos, whomever.
All of those, everybody, humans of any kind of phenotype, all have the same right to be "racist" in that sense, to prefer their own genes by preferring their own kin, their own family, to those who are of more different genetic setup, like, for example, me. I see nothing wrong about a black mother saving her black child, but not a white child, if she can only save one from drowning.
To speak in more political terms, I as a White person am racist against Blacks, and I am convinced that Blacks have the same right to be racist against me. This does absolutely not mean more than that (for example, of course, all "races", or if you want to call it phenotypes or whatever, should have the same rights before the law) but also not less.
Who tries to forbid racism therefore also forbids family bonds, preferential treatment of family members, motherly love toward one's own child (and not someone elses' child) - without that kind of racism we all would be really more equal - because families would cease to exist. I do not want that, I want racism, because I see it as a foundation of humanity.
I want the right to discriminate my children, my family, and as their extension, my people, over others.
I not only consider that something good, but also my natural right.