Today is Victory Day for the Left, since they can announce that America is nearly minority-majority. When that happens, Leftists believe, they will rule forever. As is usually the case with Leftists plans, the only response can be “yes but” because things will not turn out exactly as the Leftists have planned.
Watching Leftists try to wield power reminds me of the old warnings about dealing with the Devil: the harder you want it, the harder you will get it, but not in the way that you thought. What the Devil promises you will come true, yes, but the Devil like lawyers follows the letter of the law.
For example, if you sell your soul to the Devil for riches and to be surrounded by beautiful women at all times, you may find yourself getting hit by a tanker truck. Paralyzed in your hospital bed, you will be surrounded by beautiful nurses and richer than your wildest dreams.
But good luck confronting the Devil with that. He is the ultimate bureaucrat.
Paralyzed man: I didn’t intend for you to paralyze me. I just wanted to be rich and get laid.
Devil: Eck-shy-u-al-ly, it says here that you asked to be (a) rich and (b) surrounded by beautiful women. This appears to be the case, so our contract is good.
Paralyzed man: But I can’t enjoy any of this. I’m a nub in the sheets with an enema tube!
Devil: (scans contract) I see nothing here other than rich and beautiful women. You have those, so we’re done here. I’ll be back to collect your soul later, even though now, it’s all you have.
If you place “rich and surrounded by beautiful women” in to the prime position, which means that it takes precedence over everything else, then nothing else gets considered. After all, your prime goal is always more important than questions of method or consequences.
Your objections that you are crippled and hospitalized do not mean anything because they come secondary to the prime position. You wanted to be, above all else, rich and surrounded by beautiful women; technically — in the insectoid, zombie, and robotic way of the law — you have achieved this and everything else comes secondary.
The Left does not understand this risk because they are blind to quality. They have simple minds and Dunning-Kruger arrogance; for them, life is simple simply because they refuse to consider more than what relates to them personally right now.
This makes their message appealing, since it takes a complex world and reduces it down to a single question: are we equal yet? If not, it gives us meaning, at least in a false quest, and lets people “be important” by achieving their part of the quest for equality.
Eventually, it appeals to intellectuals for the same reason the blues, Christianity, or imitating Gypsy lifestyles to become Bohemians did: it is simpler, and offers clarity where life itself offers ambiguity. As a Bohemian, you have it made when you have wine, sex, food, and “art”; in real life, things are more complex, and you never know if you have done as well as you could have or not.
We all like simple answers. They make us feel powerful. However, the curve we need tells us something about simple answers, which are usually generalizations that roughly approximate reality:
The more you know that something is likely to happen, the less information is conveyed by the event. If Donald Trump orders a burger with extra ketchup every day for lunch, then the fact that he is having one today offers very little information.
In fact, the only useful information there occurs if he does not have a burger, but until some clear pattern emerges, that data serves simply as chaos. One day, he ran late and had a club sandwich. Oh well, so it goes.
This means that the more we simplify a complex reality, the less information about reality it gives us, but we get more certainty. That certainty then is an illusion, and represents the type of pitfalls that occur when unintended consequences rear their ugly heads.
Then we look at the French Revolution, which impoverished the country and turned it into a dictatorship, or the Bolshevik Revolution, which (deja vu) impoverished the country and turned it into a military dictatorship, and we see why simplified models look strong but are in fact weak: they self-destruct.
Humans become self-destructive when we attempt to simplify reality to fit our minds, instead of fitting our minds around reality. We either destroy ourselves with the results of our simplified, cartoonlike reality based in the desires of the self, or out of denial that it is not working so well.
This is the Devil’s bargain of the Left: you will get what is promised to you in word-tokens and images, but it will not be the whole story. This is why Leftist plans succeed radically and then fail even more radically, every time.
Leftists have a simple plan. They will take whatever is there and ruin whatever defenses like sanity, morality, and realistic thinking that you have which might cause you to reject your new parasite. They will use social pressure to take over by wielding a variant of the false dilemma fallacy against you:
Bill: “Jill and I both support having prayer in public schools.”
Jill: “Hey, I never said that!”
Bill: “You’re not an atheist are you Jill?”
When a society establishes and succeeds, it becomes dominated by the need to continue that success by doing what worked. Over time, it becomes less clear which parts of those methods are specific to its original situation, and which are eternal.
This quickly divides society into those who want to defend doing it the old way, and go too far by including the specific methods alongside the eternal, and those who want to make a name for themselves by being “different, unique, and iconoclastic” therefore advocate anything but the old ways.
In a sane world, the response to both groups is to say, “Fine — you do it your way, but over there.” This is where the Leftist fallacy comes in: they respond with feigned hurt and outrage, since as they tell it to us, they were just trying to make the world a better place for everyone.
The false dilemma fallacy carries a number of names — binary fallacy, false dichotomy, bifurcation fallacy — because it fools us by presenting an option to which we must say yes or no, and then allowing our fixation on the present tense to blind us to the fact that there may be other options.
For example, if a dragon is attacking our town, I leap up first and say, “We must attack this dragon with a giant knitting needle!” Here we have goal (remove dragon) and method (attack with knitting needle) intertwined.
A logical analysis shows we can disentangle them. We could remove the dragon with a laser, a bribe, or a strongly-worded letter (dragons hate legalities). But to the people listening in a social situation, the two are one and the same. They see:
Obviously, the second one will not solve the problem, so they opt for the first. Every scam, confidence man, tent revival preacher, etc., uses this type of rush attack on their victims: “Either do it my way right now, or do nothing and suffer! Do you want to suffer?” It overwhelms their victims, like propaganda or spam.
You may recall that the Devil does this implicitly. You ask him for something, but he reserves the choice of method. When you ask the Devil to remove the dragon, he will do so, but he might remove your town as well, since you effectively told him “I want X by any means (that you choose) necessary.”
Whenever a crisis arises, then, we see a few human groups spring up:
No wonder humanity sabotages itself as soon as it starts getting anywhere: almost no one is thinking about what actually needs doing, but instead, how to make themselves feel better about the situation or get ahead by taking advantage of the chaos.
Not represented are the “Silent Majority,” or people who tend to consider all options just like they do in their jobs, volunteering, and hobbies where they have to make critical conditions. They think forward instead of backward; instead of looking at the situation as it presents itself and saying yes/no to the options offered, they consider all of the choices that are possible which have not yet been mentioned, and will hold out for a good one.
We are going to see the same split in response to Leftist Demographic Victory Day. Since the early days of America, it became clear that the way to take over the place was to import foreigners to vote against the majority, since diversity creates anti-majority feeling among all other groups.
They started with the Irish in the 1800s, and expanded so much over the course of the next century — including Chinese, Italians, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Spaniards, Greeks, Mexicans, and newly-liberated Africans and Amerinds — that by 1924 a worried America passed the Johnson-Reed Act:
The Immigration Act of 1924 limited the number of immigrants allowed entry into the United States through a national origins quota. The quota provided immigration visas to two percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States as of the 1890 national census. It completely excluded immigrants from Asia.
They realized, back then, that the fast-growing Asian populations would quickly gravitate toward anywhere with wealth and consume it like a plague of locusts in a tragedy of the commons scenario.
Consequently, they geared their Act toward the immediate threat — a combination of goal and method — instead of looking at the goal alone. If we look at the goal alone, the question becomes, “What sort of people do we need in America?” and then we find ourselves realizing that, by the numerous examples of history, it only makes sense to import those who are genetically the same as the founding group (English, Scots, German, Dutch, northern French, Scandinavian).
However, this impeded the Leftist goal of taking control, so in the hands of the same 1930s intellectuals who thought Communism was the future, the US reversed course with the Hart-Celler Act which was designed by its Irish sponsor, Ted Kennedy, to bring about a permanent non-WASP majority that would vote Leftist and therefore create a Leftist one-party rule in America. In other words, we wanted to do Communism the American way, both including free markets and the pretense of a free society. It was our version of Communism, but the goal was the same.
Keep in mind that it was not the Baby Boomers doing this; the Act passed in 1965. It was the people who were born in the desolate 1920s after the First World War tore the heart out of the West, who grew up in despair, and were motivated by revenge and a mania for power in fury at the utter betrayal that their society had shown toward them. They wanted to crush, dominate, subjugate, subvert, sabotage, sodomize, and destroy, since their inner rage came from the futility of living in a dying society. Instead of accepting that their society had taken a path and needed to change, they scapegoated Hitler and achieved world democratic victory, then used that mob rule to cement their power forever at home, much as they had scapegoated the Germans in the first world war and the Confederates during the Civil War for the crime of “noticing” that the diverse, consumer-driven democracy model had produced a miserable, pointless existence through its insatiable desire for control of everything so that it could reduce it to products.
Instead of accepting that our model had problems and looking toward other options, people went into denial and doubled-down on the path we had taken; after all, the sunk cost fallacy afflicts human thinking as much now as it did in the past:
Sunk cost trap refers to a tendency for people to irrationally follow through on an activity that is not meeting their expectations. This is because of the time and/or money they have already invested. The sunk cost trap explains why people finish movies they are not enjoying, finish meals that taste bad, keep clothes in their closet that they’ve never worn and hold on to investments that are underperforming.
If we admitted that things were going back with our democracies as early as the first decades of the nineteenth century, we would have to admit that perhaps overthrowing the monarchies of Europe was a stupid idea. Instead of doing that, we doubled down, which meant casting our lot with the Communists but demanding our own version — ironically a multicultural version of the National Socialist and Fascist ideal of pairing free markets and big corporations with the socialist State — which would tip-toe up to the perimeter of the precipice of Communism (Social Security, welfare, Medicaid/care, union protection) but never quite go in. When the Communists collapsed in the 1990s, all of those ideas went away, and the popularity of Communism with the Hart-Celler crowd soared, so it also rose with those who cater to that group, which they see as the future consumer base of America and therefore, the foundation of American economic power and through that, the funding for its military power.
The obvious weakness of this is that it pairs capitalist economic thinking with egalitarian social thinking and therefore considers all people as equal warm bodies to be cogs in the machine, ignoring the differences in the qualities of people that social hierarchy recognizes. In this sense, our system carried forth an aggregate of socialist, democratic, and capitalist thinking, but in order to make them work together, relaxed the standards of each, ending up with a collection of easy answers (methods) instead of a structure or order, which requires a goal. What is the goal of the West? For several centuries, we have had no answer.
We got to this place by removing culture; when you introduce multiple cultures to a society, it turns out that you do not get pluralism, or each culture represented in parallel, but anti-culture, where each culture becomes part of a lowest common denominator over-culture. As outrage incidents happen, where someone does something that offends some member of one of these cultures, other words, symbols, activities, and attitudes become taboo. Eventually this anti-culture settles on the human minimum, or a culture that agrees that each person should be able to earn money and do whatever they want so long as they follow the laws. At that point, your citizens believe in nothing more than piling up cash and getting out of the system.
As our anti-culture chortles on, then, it reduces citizens to being economic units alone, which causes them to make progressively worse decisions for two reasons:
This means that once any diversity appears, culture goes away, and in that void comes naked self-interest even in non-capitalist systems, which means that society will make horrible decisions such as adding more diversity.
White non-Hispanic Americans now make up less than 60% of the population. About 57% if you count Puerto Rico or a little less than 58% not counting it. The latter is down from about 64% after the 2010 Census. It’s also down from the 69% recorded at the 2000 Census.
The share of the population becoming less White non-Hispanic is not just something that is happening in one state. It’s happening across most of the country. In fact, there is just one state (Maine) in which 90% or more of the population is White Non-Hispanic.
Indeed, there are now six states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico where non-Hispanic Whites make up less than 50% of the population. This includes California, the country’s most populated state, where Hispanics are now the plurality at 39%.
Responses to this vary. The usual spin is that it is a good thing, and our industry had better hurry up and gear itself toward using these nü-Americans so that it can succeed and dominate the world. Egalitarianism has made us insane, since this denies the need for capable people.
However, our overlords do not think of tomorrow, like most Leftists. They think of today, and today they see themselves winning every election with the minority vote, then ramming through more socialism to buy off the proles, and using that popularity to rule through proxies like NGOs and international business.
They will happily become a vassal state to China as long as they are able to remain in control. To them, the loss of national autonomy and superpower status merely serves the goal of becoming a business community, cutting out some of that military power.
In reality, things will not go as they intend. China will never be happy with mere vassal status, and the country that loses its high-IQ native population will replace them with those from other populations who are content to leave their homelands, meaning the predatory and parasitic, not the talented, will be those who come.
Those are hard denialists, meaning those who will carefully ram through whatever China-led Communist reforms the ruling cadre desires, will argue that White genocide is a good thing:
One survey conducted shortly after the election found Trump voters were over four times more likely than Clinton voters to say white Americans face “a lot” of discrimination (45 percent versus 10 percent, respectively); other polls also consistently showed that Republicans and Trump’s 2016 supporters saw racial discrimination against white people as a bigger problem than unfair treatment of racial and ethnic minorities in American society. Those views have only grown more pronounced in Republican politics.
Meanwhile, the reverse is true among white Americans who don’t think there’s much anti-white discrimination: Support for the Republican presidential candidate has steadily dropped. The same pattern holds even after accounting for several factors that are also strongly correlated with presidential vote choice, such as partisanship, ideology and racial resentment.
Some of us drank the Kool-Aide and believe that no matter who they are, people will stop behaving as their ancestors have for generations in Kabul, Chichen Itza, Buenos Aires, Ulan Bator, St. Petersburg, Kingston, and Manila.
They also believe that our “culture” is a political one, consisting of our Constitution, economic system, and belief in The Enlightenment™ values like equality, liberty, freedom, and respect. In their view, it does not matter if we are dead, so long as our ideology lives on.
To them, the idea that we are all autonomous individuals who owe nothing to any order outside of ourselves except to work and pay taxes represents a kind of human liberation, and they crave the power that it gives us by separating us from nature.
Others want to keep in denial and believe that everything will turn out OK despite obvious historical parallels in Haiti, South Africa, and Mexico:
But there is a far simpler solution, and one that promises better success in the long run. It can be achieved through three simple words: “I am non-racial.”
For the past 20 years, CRT has achieved enormous success in placing race at the center of public discourse and convincing otherwise rational people that their race is the most important facet of their identity. If a substantial mass of Americans refused to identify as any race, the whole project would collapse.
Identifying as non-racial is morally right, politically expedient, socially advantageous, and it has the added benefit of conforming one’s identity to the racial reality of America.
After all, if you can choose your gender arbitrarily, why not reject racial identification? This will lead to comical failure because while the person in question may want to be post-racial, others will see them as their biological race, and kill them just the same.
In reality, we know how this goes: the tyrants seize power with their new foreign voters, then the foreign voters eliminate the heritage population, at which point they turn on the tyrants and replace them, then vote for whatever they think benefits them.
If you did not have a third world country before, you do now, regardless of its racial composition. Imagine an East Germany but more thoroughly entrenched in Communism, with a population that does not remember and will not consider another way, since that belongs to another group.
Biden, Obama, Clinton, and their cronies in the world of international finance want to drive America to a minority-majority state so that the Left can rule forever. They will be able to achieve what they really want, which is direct power that only an authoritarian regime like Communism can provide.
While all of the useful idiots of the democratic wasteland will celebrate how open-minded and enlightened they finally are, those who have some clue about the patterns of history will be doing everything they can to escape.
China will find it too easy to take over and accomplish its objectives using its American vassal.
What stands in the way of stopping this future? We are blocked by conservative individualism, or the tendency of those who are on the Right to believe that they can advance themselves without a functional civilization behind them.
They forget that much of what makes them successful comes not from our political system and economic system, but from the people that built this nation. You cannot forget Mother Nature, and she selected a group of hardy pioneers to build this place as its heritage population.
Conservatives have a nasty habit of, having given up on ever winning, choosing some stance that makes them seem wise and powerful to their friends. While the country goes down the path to third world oblivion, they will be telling us to worship Jesus or work harder.
On both sides, White denialists refuse to see how bankrupt and suicidal this system has become, and from seeing that, to realize how our only hope of survival lies in recapturing this country and repatriating them diversity. Oh no, say the conservatives, that violates liberty and stuff!
(intense flag waving goes here)
At the heart of our modern decay we find individualism, which goes by numerous names like narcissism, hubris, and solipsism. This idea tells people that nothing matters but themselves, and is what holds people back from building and maintaining civilization.
When we scratch the surface, we see a desire for control, or an ability to have power over others for the sake of having that power alone. Everyday people are tyrants, only kept in check by their lack of power, but if given a chance, they will seize it and be incompetent at wielding it.
At the very heart of this idea we see a revolt against nature, mortality, and the short span of our lives. People detest being powerless, but have no plan other than to take revenge on nature by obliterating any shred of it from our lives.
That includes their ultimate goal, which is to force all people to be “equal” or so degraded in abilities, wealth, status, and popularity that they have no choice but to serve those in control. What the centralized masters say becomes absolute, and we simply ignore any signs of its failure.
To achieve that end, they are willing to seize power and then run the country into a state of disaster. This should bother them, but apparently it does not, since they do it again and again.
Humanity must get over this hurdle. When we start to succeed, in come the lunatics who ruin everything, and instead of allying against them, all the conservative individualists focus on building up their retirement plans instead of mobilizing to stop the insanity.
This means that we are in quite a pickle: whatever succeeds will be torn down, and our species will languish in perpetual misery, simply because we are too afraid of social pressures to stand up and say, “no one is equal”!