Imagine that you and 200 of your closest friends land on a nearby planet as part of a space exploration plan. Five other groups do the same. They are just as smart and as downright suburban nice as you are. However, each group does something differently than you do.
Some have different holidays. Some make certain sexual practices taboo. Some will not eat certain foods. As a result, they all disagree on what “The Good Life” is, because of these different practices point to different values and underneath that, different biological needs for the group.
Our temptation when viewing the practices of another group is to assume that these things are trivial. However, the group that does not eat spicy food understands that for it, the temptation toward treating the physical as more important than the goal of a harmonious order begins in the stomach. This is not trivial.
At some point, it becomes clear that these groups are wired differently on a biological level because of how they have adapted to see life as positive. Each group, in order to believe life is good, sets up a way of understanding that is compatible with its genetic root. It then refines this over time.
You quickly realize that these groups will fight to the death for their different cultures because they have no choice. Culture is how they maintain genetic and thus biological health; you know that for natural species like pumas and eagles, failure to maintain genetic health means a population crash. Humans are the same.
On the other hand, your staff economist reminds you that culture is expensive. It is inefficient, and requires expenditure. If you can do away with it, you can reap that “extra” energy and use it to enrich yourself. For this reason, the temptation to declare equality and merge cultures is great because the profit is great.
The same is true of social classes, you find. Each class does things a certain way because for its genetic makeup — and they are different, as The Bell Curve proved — it has to engage in some behaviors and avoid others. These are different than what other classes need.
For example, upper middle class kids need to be arty, literary, and other fru-fru stuff to develop depth of thought. They come out of the box with superior analytical skills and need to refine them. Kids from working class families need basic focus-on-reality type stuff and consistent, ironclad values. These different needs do not overlap much.
What does this metaphor tell us about race in our current time? For starters: the Left does not understand “racism.” They see it through a social lens, from a working class perspective, and are oblivious to its importance in establishing the values of a society. As a result, you get terminal neurosis on race from the Left:
One time, when I was a kid, when some local idiots drew a swastika on our driveway, I could see how shaken he was. He was a strong guy. An artillery officer from World War II. He did not fear much. But I think he always saw the possibility that this kind of hate would re-emerge.
It has. We see it now across Europe — in Russia, in Poland, in Hungry, and with the rise of ethno-nationalists across the EU. It is fostered by the Russians as they seek to divide our societies. But they are abetted by the alt-right everywhere.
Perhaps the worst of these haters are just a tiny fraction of society. But large segments of the population have embraced them by degrees because they express their political views. And even larger segments remain silent.
Rothkopf, the writer, is talented but also is a classic Dunning-Kruger case: he is intelligent enough to write personable text, but he lacks the ability for greater insight into the topic. For him, life is one-dimensional, composed entirely of surface interpretations.
As a result, for him it is a foregone conclusion that our society consists of multiple ethnic, racial, and religious groups because he wants that profit from giving up on culture. He wants an anarchic society without shared values so that he can engage in whatever behaviors he wants, including culture, without the overhead of a society-wide culture.
However, he answers his own question. Why are “even larger segments” remaining silent, and “large segments” embracing nationalism by degrees? They see the utility of race, ethnicity, and religion in defining their group. They realize that no two groups can coexist, no matter how many starry-eyed idiots want to believe it.
Once the Hollywood Nazis got kicked out of the way, and more thoughtful nationalist movements arose, ordinary people who see the value of culture in making moral choices began to elect to get out of the cultureless diversity system where the only source of order is government and economics. We want choice to come before rationalization in the form of “it keeps order” or “it makes money.”
He goes on:
Race-hatred and prejudice are not new in America. We have institutionalized racism before — with slavery, through segregation, through voter suppression, and in a thousand other ways.
Let us, for the sake of clarity, take this to an international level. Is diversity working there? Luckily, the BRICS — Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — are showing us that diversity cannot work.
First, we start with South Africa, where allowing the black majority to rule has resulted in the law enforcement in that country encouraging murder, rape, and theft from white farmers for the sole reason that these farmers are white. Nevermind that South Africa was unused land before the whites came.
Brazil is sitting this one out, and India seems to be taking its own path, but let us look at Russia and China. The Left thinks that Russia is a threat, and now Donald Trump agrees, which he has demonstrated by enacting sanctions and expelling Russian diplomats. But Trump and his team recognize that China is a bigger threat.
Most Americans are “educated” by public schools and therefore do not know that we have already fought two wars against China in the modern era. Not just in Vietnam, where China provided most of the weapons and training for the North Vietnamese and manipulated international politics in their favor, but in Korea where a Chinese troop surge created North Korea after the Korean Communists began losing to the Americans.
Like their Mongol ancestors, the Chinese swarmed over the Yalu river with crafty and clever warfare that relied on a human wave rather than individual combat as was the European style. This introduced the West again to a fear of warfare in Asia where our lack of hive-mind makes us an easier target.
China does not buy into the racial harmony that Rothkopf urges, mainly because they are realists. Instead, they are aggressively pushing for war with America through indirect means, so that they can play the victim if we retaliate:
In recent years, China has gone to school on the impressive record of U.S. economic statecraft and sanctions and has followed suit. Yet as Peter Feaver and I noted in a report for the Center for a New American Security in fall 2015, Chinaâ€™s sanctions strategy is often more subtle; instead of applying blanket sanctions against target states to coerce changes in their behavior, China creates coercive leverage with regulations, purchasing decisions, the refusal to allow the import of certain goods into Chinese markets, and limiting exports of strategic materials to the markets of its adversaries.
…But Chinaâ€™s use of economic coercion â€” and the threats it may pose to U.S. interests â€” is not limited to sanctions-like measures that prevent access to Chinese markets.
In recent years, Chinese direct investment into the United States has increased significantly, and while the vast majority of this investment is innocuous and ultimately a boon to the U.S. economy, there are reasons to be concerned. For one, China has tried to engage in notable purchases of property on or near U.S. military installations, such as when the Chinese-owned Ralls Corporation attempted to acquire a facility located next to a U.S. naval weapons systems training facility in Oregon. Second, Chinese state-owned companies have attempted to purchase elements of our alliesâ€™ critical infrastructure, raising concerns about leverage that Beijing could exert on our partners during crises and conflict. In one recent example, Australia blocked a Chinese state-owned enterpriseâ€™s attempt to purchase a majority share in Ausgrid, the Australian state-owned power grid. The Australian government, when reviewing the sale, concluded that in the event of a conflict, Chinese ownership of critical infrastructure could seriously undermine Australiaâ€™s national security.
In recent weeks, legislators on Capitol Hill and administration officials have begun seriously thinking through how to blunt threatening Chinese strategic investment into the United States.
American firms are now discouraging Chinese investment, blocking mergers and acquisitions, refusing to use Chinese-made gadgets because of privacy concerns, and taking Chinese-made devices out of stores because of Chinese government interference.
In the meantime, China continues to press for US-China conflict over Taiwan:
A widely read Chinese state-run newspaper said on Thursday China should prepare for military action over self-ruled Taiwan, and pressure Washington over cooperation on North Korea, after the United States passed a law to boost ties with Taiwan.
Beijing was infuriated after U.S. President Donald Trump signed legislation last week that encourages the United States to send senior officials to Taiwan to meet Taiwanese counterparts and vice versa.
…The Global Times said in an editorial China had to “strike back” against the law, for example by pressuring the United States in other areas of bilateral cooperation like over North Korea and Iran.
Is this “race-hatred and prejudice,” or simply a group proactively defending itself and its values? And if it is the latter, why do we expect things to go any differently within our borders?
Civic nationalists — the Leftist equivalent of patriots — hope that they can obliterate the differences between different groups and replace their values systems with indoctrination. United by ideology and economics, they argue, we can make the same nation out of different ingredients.
History and current events show us that not only is this unlikely, but it is unjust. People take great pride in their national identities because these reflect different methods of adaptation specific to who these groups are. Attempting to abolish these differences amounts to an erasure of parts of the personalities of these individuals.
When the Cold War ended, the brainwashed West assumed that our differences were primarily ideological, and not that ideology was used to justify and further the goals of culture, itself an expression of genetics and demographic self-interest. Now we see that this was not the case.
The future belongs to those who can view humans through the same lens that we use for animal populations. Each group is genetically different, has different abilities, and wants to differentiate itself from others so it can further improve itself qualitatively through selective breeding.
Our only hope for “peace” lies in each group having its own sphere of influence under the guidance not of some collective of nations, but a superpower, so that those spheres of influence are kept separate and the various competing parties are kept from attempting their own schemes to conquer the world.