Thank you to anyone who has already donated - your generous donations helped make three months of treatment possible.
My brother Nate continues to fight stage IV Hodgkin's lymphoma. He's just 31, with a wife and baby girl. They have no active income (since he's been unable to return to work), no insurance, and cannot afford the treatment he needs. Nate and his family need your help. Please consider a donation, every dollar helps. Thanks.
From the main page's description: We can't stand them, because they're different. All the time they're nagging and, never satisfied, they demand their "Rights": Minorities. But, as every child knows: The egotistical demands of the minorities are damaging to the Greater Good, because they dilute our leading culture. We mustn't tolerate this! The goal of this games is there to silence as many minorities as possible. The most effective way to do so is to assimilate them, without warning, into our societal values [Note: literally values-society; not sure how to translate best] and to mock them with second-class rights. Since the largest [values-society] is always right, the winner is the player who collected the majority of minorities. The game contains 24 minorities from these categories: Religions, ethnicities, sexuality, radicals, the disabled and demographics. They can be played against each other in these 6 aspects: Level of education, wealth, population share, homogeneity, social acceptance and sense of shame. Action, society and booster cards will get the minorities to really break into sweat! From the "What's it all about?" Germany is suffering from a chronic debate on foreigners. That's why hysterical people regularly meet on TV to go nuts about minorities they don't actually belong to themselves. Then they go home, misunderstood, to write an angry newspaper article the next day, finish a book or design a law. In the evening, they meet again on TV and speak of what they know. For years now, this cycle makes do without any sort of rationality, indeed it profits from its irrationality. The time has more than arrived to, for once, approach the German minority and integration debate completely soberly and examine the form of the debate itself. What we found was far worse than our worst imaginations. But let's start at the beginning... Whenever minorities are drummed up as the big topic on title pages or the best broadcasting slot, the important question of integration comes up too. Both of these terms seem to be indivisably connected and there's one main reason for that: Minorities are always seized upon as a latent problem. After all, as a fringe group they're always halfway outside of society and therefore suspicious. The solution to this "problem" is then the integration of the particular minority into the majority society. How the sought after integration is to succeed, now that even the integration-mad traditionally cannot agree on. One side prefers the model "integration through adaptation" where the minority should get rid of their unwelcome customs, in order to then live like those who don't welcome them. The other side rather prefers to leave the minority in their indigenous ways and demand aceptance for their annoying habits from the populace; not least because of the ominous history of the country. Both ways of thinking are based on the assumption that minorities are groups of people who are, on one hand, radically "different" in a difficult to explain way and on the other hand completely homogenous. And so we get "the Muslims" and "the Gays" about whose will to integrate or fitness as parents, respectively, one can so wonderfully top-down, via tele-diagnosis, decide in a christian, heterosexual group of talkshow attendees. It's not too rare that the worst stereotypes have to stand in as arguments to express the personal, most deeply felt alienation. The social leech "Beat 'em up-Hakan" and the effeminate exhibitionist tranny would like to say "Hi!". The fact that these "discussions", held under the pretext of free speech, are, for reasons of getting views, mostly based on populist stereotypes is hardly surprising. Much more surprising, to us, was the realization that even highly formally educated people, in key positions of society, have no qualms playing to these stereotypes. As happened on the 21 of April, 2010 in the law commitee of the German Bundestag during a hearing about a change to the Grundgesetz [Constitution, basically]. The topic was the expansion of article 3, whose third paragraph contains explicit discrimination bans. This paragraph was to be extended to include sexual identity. The expert called upon by the Union [a party, not the state] Prof. Dr. Winfried Kluth, presumably board member at Opus Dei and furthermore judge of the constitutional court of Sachsen-Anhalt, obviously vehemently opposed the protection of sexual minorities. His argumentation: If sexual minorities were to be considered and thus protected by the constitution, it would hinder, if not prevent the integration of muslims living in Germany. Because, according to Kluth, among muslims acceptance of non-heterosexual lifestyles is "poorly developed". Apparently the Union has realized very astutely that one can use the available clichés about various minorities according to the current state of hysteria and profit by simply playing the presumed interests of different minorities against each other. This way, at least, one does not have to explain that one thinks gays are pieces of shit and that one is not even remotely thinking about giving them equal rights. This opinion is only expressed camouflaged as concern for the integration of muslims and is apparently a good enough argument to withhold another groups rights. To achieve this, one'll gladly accept presenting all muslims as xenophobic, backwards morons. At least one can refer to the media for this. This incident was the initial spark for the development of the minority quartet in the end. Our goal was to show the madness and nonsense of a social discourse, frequently based on pure fiction and advanced stereotypes. The end result is a game which, without regard for the ruling dogma, makes comprehensible the oppressive senselessness of the boulvardesque minority and integration debate.