Globalism loves diversity

As mentioned in a previous post, globalism is an extension of liberalism, and since 1789 it has been re-making the world in its own image.

Globalism is a method by which individuals unite into a crowd to demand no oversight, no social hierarchy, no shared values and no requirements for interacting with civilization except the bare minimum (job, rent, don’t murder). It’s an empire of selfishness made of the fears of many individuals whipped into a mob.

When analyzing globalism, it is important to be wary of what it says it is versus what it is. It says it is a movement for the equality of all people everywhere, and that is true, but it wants that equality so that no other system of power can exist.

Globalism is the ultimate evolution of control because it bases its power on the absence of leadership and ideology, not on a particular leader or ideology. It is controlled anarchy: we all agree we should be equal, and after that every other decision is made by convenience.

In other words, globalism is a contradiction that hoodwinks us because it is schizophrenic. It says one thing on the surface, but that thing is the cause to an effect, which is the actual goal. In this case, individual equality creates a chaotic society that then demands strong leaders.

It also demands strong social, as opposed to values-based, cultural codes. It is no longer about agreed-upon values as in “What should our legacy to history be?” but the type of kindergarten-teacher logic that asks “How do we all get along?”

There is no goal. The only possible direction is more equality. Except that, like all social reasoning, this surface attribute creates unintended consequences in its wake.

A recent Vatican estimate suggests that 100,000 Copts may have fled the country since Mubarak’s fall. If Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood consolidates political power, that figure could grow exponentially.

This is a familiar story in the Middle East, where any sort of popular sovereignty has tended to unleash the furies and drive minorities into exile. From Lebanon to North Africa, the Arab world’s Christian enclaves have been shrinking steadily since decolonization. More than half of Iraq’s 1.5 million Christians have fled the country since the American invasion toppled Saddam Hussein.

More important, though, this is a familiar story for the modern world as a whole — a case of what National Review’s John Derbyshire calls “modernity versus diversity.” For all the bright talk about multicultural mosaics, the age of globalization has also been an age of unprecedented religious and racial sorting — sometimes by choice, more often at gunpoint. – The New York Times

Democracy destroys diversity, but not in the way the article above suggests. Democracy insists on a single compromise which is acceptable to everyone, and thus forces a settling on the lowest common denominator.

In the middle east, right now, that’s Islam and free AK-47 ammo for everyone. In another two years, it will be Coca-Cola, strip clubs, fast food and cable TV. The people will grow just as fat and bloated as Americans. That was always the plan: neutralize the opposition by exporting our own disease.

The goal of globalism has always been to enforce uniformity through conformity. It hopes to achieve this by wrecking any idea or thing that makes one place separate from another. Culture, religion, language, heritage, social class, hereditary roles, customs, values… they all must die. For equality!

In fact, the notion of equality itself is toxic because it creates an inherent enmity between people and their society, and individuals against individuals. Society can never make us physically equal, including equal abilities which are the consequence of mental wiring. Thus we say one thing, mean another, and create from the tension between the two a state of constant internal warfare.

Today’s mixing of peoples, cultures and ideologies, whether resulting from world trade and immigration or improved communication and social fission, is moving our world closer in important ways to the one Ibn Khaldun knew than the more cohesive one with which we have long been familiar. Such changes will affect our politics profoundly in ways his writings can illuminate for us.

If there are no strong overarching loyalties, mixing of populations causes men to lose the social cohesion required for the self-rule of a free society and to withdraw into small groups in which they can maintain a coherent and predictable way of life. Common loyalties firm enough to create the civic order of Western Europe needed time and stability to evolve. It took 40 kings to make France, and no less time to grow what Burke once called the British oak; in the parts of Europe subject to invasion from Asia or North Africa nothing similar arose.

The gifts of the past may not be ours forever. Common loyalties make a people, and the common culture and history that support a people’s identity are needed to make loyalties endure. Success in transplanting a British society to America and absorbing European immigrants into it is no sign that the American civic order will survive abandonment of a common or at least dominant identity; a social setting like the one Ibn Khaldun knew will be a more likely consequence. Immigration and the end of national boundaries could bring about similar results within the European Union by replacing ordered diversity with bureaucratically- administered chaos. – Turnabout: thoughts in and out of season

The point here is made succinctly — you have two choices of society:

  • Managerial. In this, people share no values except wanting to make money and not get murdered. As a result, a strong government is needed to impose values through penalties, bribes, and propagandistic education starting at a young age.
  • Organic. In this civilization-type, society is organized around shared values, beliefs, customs, language, heritage and tradition. There is less of a need for police and no need for propaganda; the culture is inherent to and arising from the people.

In other words, nationalism is not about disliking x religious, political, ethnic, racial or social group — it’s about wanting to have an identity of one’s own so that society is held together by something other than a police state/Nanny State.

When we give up on that ideal, we follow many other empires into slow but inevitable decline.

It really doesn’t matter what race you are or what your national identity is. What matters is the cultural adaption immigrants make once they arrive. In America in the 21st century, we make it far too easy for immigrants not to assimilate, taking on the values and language of what has been a common and uniquely American culture for most of our history.

He also rightly points out that the America of tomorrow, demographically speaking, will closely resemble today’s California. Having lived in California for 25 years before fleeing, I can tell you that is a very scary thought.

California is a basket case. There the population has figured out that they can vote themselves benefits and sustenance and all kinds of goodies without any personal consequences – because only a tiny minority of Californians, as well as other Americans, are responsible for picking up the costs.

Can you imagine what America will be like when its demographics more closely resemble today’s California? – World News Daily

Globalism loves diversity because diversity shatters national culture and ensures that we need a strong nanny/police state to rule over us. It would be best if it were international, because that way all people would be equal and uniform, and there would be no barriers to commerce (McDonald’s) and the nanny state.

We have a choice about our future every second of our lives. The same is true of our civilization; we can choose the nanny state or the organic society. But are enough people still intellectually awake enough to tell the difference?

8 Comments

  1. crow says:

    “Organic. In this civilization-type, society is organized around shared values, beliefs, customs, language, heritage and tradition. There is less of a need for police and no need for propaganda; the culture is inherent to and arising from the people.”

    What happens when those of us who still remember these things, have gone? As it is, younger people see things as they are now, as normal. They have little to compare it to. When the last survivors of the old order have died, what values, morals, traditions will there be to organize around?
    You can’t just manufacture such things; they take centuries to become established.
    I wonder, sometimes, why we care at all, about such things.
    I know we do, but why do we? And should we?
    When a great whale beaches itself, we want to “rescue” it.
    The whale, itself, generally has other ideas.

    1. Decimator says:

      Crow, these are exactly the questions that confuse me. My sons will be my contibution to this cause. The hardest part of that is wondering if it is fair for me to put such a burdon on them. I say yes. If they ever ask me why they have to be this way while everyone else is that way. I’ll simply ask them,”what better would you do with your life?”

      1. If they ever ask me why they have to be this way while everyone else is that way. I’ll simply ask them,”what better would you do with your life?”

        This is an important point, I think. The ways we advocate are not only common sense, but provide a better way of life. Everyone else may be busy working on their stupid, but who really wants to go down that path? Children need more experience (much of which, but not all of which, can be gained from listening to their elders) to understand this.

    2. Globalism is the usual attitude by people who are afraid of conflict. It is obvious from history that Russia will try to take over Europe again, and that Asian countries will also try to take over Europe.

      People are really afraid of that so they have invented this “one big happy” mythos called globalism. In this fantasy, the nice white people of Europe and America are really nice to the feces-smeared illiterate third worlders and so everyone decides to be equal and not have a big war.

      What’s going to make the decision for us is that those wars are inevitable and for once, society is probably going to force these pencil-neck geek hipsters and their fat yappy girlfriends to go fight. Everybody’s gonna be an ex liberal really fast.

  2. Globalism is a method by which individuals unite into a crowd to demand no oversight, no social hierarchy, no shared values and no requirements for interacting with civilization except the bare minimum (job, rent, don’t murder).

    This is exactly what I detest about modern society. The only rules we have are boring ones. They are designed to save idiots from themselves. We have no positive and affirming rules or customs, only warnings and threats. “For your own best interests.”

    1. They are designed to save idiots from themselves.

      Our society loves Darwinism, except when you suggest it’s still going on.

      1. crow says:

        Lol :) Classic line!

      2. If I were going to reform this place, I would start by re-introducing predators to the cities.

        If wolves patrol the streets after dark, we won’t have many muggers and parents will not let their kids loose to run wild.

        I would also ban all laws and court cases that side with the stupid who injure themselves through being oblivious to the obvious, and then blame someone else for their problem. If you spill McDonald’s coffee on your groin and it sterilizes you, we give McDonald’s $38 million to continue the practice of serving hot coffee to people who can’t think.

        Finally, we need to bring back Darwinism in the classroom. Start testing kids in fifth grade and segregate the ones who will not have the biological basis for intelligence to handle college level work at a place like Trinity or Oberlin. Send them to technical training. Do not let them write articles, vote, pontificate, protest, yap, squeak, howl, bitch, moan, or otherwise express an opinion. They don’t have the brains.

        Even better, sterilize them. If all of humanity was capable of doing real college-level work, we would have as much equality as we could ever need.

        Darwin saw the wisdom of nature which was to set up a feedback loop between predator, prey and environment. This shaved every population down to the animals that could use their environment to protect themselves from predators and could then spit out offspring would could do the same. It was like a filter to remove idiots that also gave an extra boost (more offspring) to those who figured out how to work the system.

        Liberals break out the pom-poms when the Christians get upset that you are teaching Darwinism in schools. Otherwise, they don’t care. It upsets them to think of a world where we are just meat and our deaths don’t matter. Because after all to a liberal there’s only one important person and that’s them.

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.698 seconds