The powers that be — democratically elected, of course, by the fear and compliance of our people — are more racially realistic than any readers of this site. Like the Clintons, they know, but they simply do not care; for them, the point is to import anything foreign so that they can break up culture and replace it with ideology.
Such people might be called xenophiles, or those who love what is foreign and strange but by the converse hate what is familiar and normal. Like most Leftists, they are such egomaniacs that for them the world holds no interest except as a means to make themselves more important, and so they are fatalistic and possessed of an impulse to destroy everything but themselves.
This gives rise to the term Xenophile Occupation Government (XOG) for the condition of diversity in which we find ourselves. Most European-descended people, knowing that merciful gentleness is appropriate except in cases of obviously bad actors, are unwilling to attack other groups or do anything to harm them. That gentleness however is balanced with an increasing awareness that diversity intends to kill European-descended people.
We got our first real mainstream coverage of this recently when South African farm murders of white farmers rocketed into the news:
The white nationalist lobbying group AfriForum says that when lawmakers passed a motion last month which could see land being seized from farmers without compensation, it sent a message that landowners could be attacked with impunity.
It said there have been 109 recorded attacks so far in 2018 and 15 farm murders, meaning that this year, one white farmer has been killed every five days.
In a statement, Ian Cameron, AfriForumâ€™s Head of Safety said: â€œOur rural areas are trapped in a crime war. Although the South African government denies that a violence crisis is staring rural areas in the face, the numbers prove that excessive violence plague these areas.â€
This is happening in rural areas. The people in the cities with private security are fine, just as they are in Brazil or Russia, sealed behind gated communities. Their food most likely comes from distant nations anyway, so why should they worry about farmers?
However, people have long memories even if those memories are selective. They know that pogroms do not stop until one side has been dissolved; they know that ethnic violence, unless something changes, merely accelerates. This means that violence against white farms will soon enough spread to the cities.
Even more, they realize that similar situations with similar principles result in similar outcomes. If whites are resented in South Africa, soon they will be resented in America; since most of the world is enmeshed in ethnic tension, that means that being in a first world societies does not change the rules.
White people are realizing that they are looking at their personal Rwanda. Then they look at other ethnic groups and see the tensions between minority groups and within them, and realize that those groups — Asians, Arabs, Indians, Hispanics — want each other dead, and they want whitey dead too.
For years we assumed that our constitutions, laws, welfare states, police, and sense of fair play could hold back the snarling animal spirit of humankind. Now we see that it cannot, and so the horrors that we once heard on the radio about distant lands are coming home to us, and sooner rather than later.
In other words, what made our countries safe and good has been destroyed, and by our own hands. We voted for this, or at least voted for the clowns that did it and then could not seem to replace them. We used it as a symbol of our own virtue, relied on it for our future, and thought ourselves intelligent for supporting it.
South Africa may seem different from America, but a similar path of colonization was followed, with the colonists succeeding through organized agriculture that then took over the land:
The first Portuguese ships rounded the Cape of Good Hope in 1488, their occupants intent on gaining a share of the lucrative Arab trade with the East. Over the following century, numerous vessels made their way around the South African coast, but the only direct African contacts came with the bands of shipwreck survivors who either set up camp in the hope of rescue or tried to make their way northward to Portuguese settlements in present-day Mozambique.
The Dutch East India Company, always mindful of unnecessary expense, did not intend to establish more than a minimal presence at the southernmost part of Africa. Because farming beyond the shores of Table Bay proved necessary, however, nine men were released from their contracts with the company and granted land along the Liesbeek River in 1657. The company made it clear that the Khoekhoe were not to be enslaved, so, beginning in that same year, slaves arrived in the Cape from West and East Africa, India, and the Malay Peninsula.
In the initial years of Dutch settlement at the Cape, pastoralists had readily traded with the Dutch. However, as the garrisonâ€™s demand for cattle and sheep continued to increase, the Khoekhoe became more wary. The Dutch offered tobacco, alcohol, and trinkets for livestock. Numerous conflicts followed, and, beginning in 1713, many Khoekhoe communities were ravaged by smallpox.
The groups inhabiting South Africa were hunter-gatherers who did not rely on fixed settlements, replacing a great civilization that once existed to the north, and had good relationships with Europeans at first:
Although the origin of nomadic pastoralism in South Africa is still obscure, linguistic evidence points to northern Botswana as a probable source. The linguistic evidence is supported by finds of sheep bones and pottery from Bambata Cave in southwestern Zimbabwe that have been dated to about 150 bce. Whether new communities moved into South Africa with their flocks and herds or whether established hunter-gatherer bands took up completely new ways of living remains unclear. In any case, the results of archaeological excavations have shown that sheep were being herded fairly extensively by the first few centuries ce in eastern and western parts of the Cape and probably in the northern Cape as well.
While traces of ancient herding camps tend to be extremely rare, one of the best-preserved finds is at Kasteelberg, on the southwest coast near St. Helena Bay. Pastoralists there kept sheep, hunted seals and other wild animals, and gathered shellfish, repeatedly returning to the same site for some 1,500 years. Such communities were directly ancestral to the Khoekhoe (also spelled Khoikhoi) herders who encountered European settlers at the Cape of Good Hope in the mid-17th century.
In other words, Europeans arrived and found a community which was mostly unsettled, with occasional tribes drifting through and warring with each other. Europeans then set up a community which grew rapidly as it became prosperous, and then diseases from Europe wiped out the inhabitants.
A sad story, but one that does not convey malice. However, the years after that showed an increase in ethnic tensions, culminating in the freeing of slaves and the creation of the apartheid system which kept Africans and Europeans in separate communities and ensured European control.
Upon abolishing apartheid, South Africa went down a path we know all too well from our diversity studies: the third world population out-reproduced the first world one, took over through the vote, and quickly began its destruction of the first world population. Diversity never works, no matter who is involved and how “nice” they are.
Realizing that diversity is doomed has opened other doors for us, the thinkers stranded in modernity and looking for an escape from it. We have realized that the entire order of the past two centuries has failed, and with it, we are catapulted into a void awaiting a new vision of our future.
This starts with the recognition that the nation-state, the nation substitute formed of random people unified only by politics and economic system, has failed since dogma is not enough to hold a people together:
Exhaustion, hopelessness, the dwindling effectiveness of old ways: these are the themes of politics all across the world.
…The most momentous development of our era, precisely, is the waning of the nation state: its inability to withstand countervailing 21st-century forces, and its calamitous loss of influence over human circumstance. National political authority is in decline, and, since we do not know any other sort, it feels like the end of the world. This is why a strange brand of apocalyptic nationalism is so widely in vogue. But the current appeal of machismo as political style, the wall-building and xenophobia, the mythology and race theory, the fantastical promises of national restoration â€“ these are not cures, but symptoms of what is slowly revealing itself to all: nation states everywhere are in an advanced state of political and moral decay from which they cannot individually extricate themselves.
…The reason the nation state was able to deliver what achievements it did â€“ and in some places they were spectacular â€“ was that there was, for much of the 20th century, an authentic â€œfitâ€ between politics, economy and information, all of which were organised at a national scale. National governments possessed actual powers to manage modern economic and ideological energies, and to turn them towards human â€“ sometimes almost utopian â€“ ends. But that era is over. After so many decades of globalisation, economics and information have successfully grown beyond the authority of national governments.
What was the nation state? A managerial project, it turns out, designed to use incentives and penalties to shape people into humanist Utopian ends based in the ideal of “equality,” something not found in nature. When that promise failed, people abandoned it and went back to the previous order, the nation.
A nation consists of people born together from a common root, which means that each nation is comprised of one ethnicity only. This theory contradicts diversity, which is the notion that people of different races, cultures, religions, ethnicities, and outlooks can be combined into a civilization by common interest in profit and convenience.
While the article above contrasts two centuries, it makes sense to look even farther back. A thousand years ago a nation was unified by heritage, customs, and leaders. These nations operated more like extended families where people had unequal roles but were accepted for making contributions to the shared purpose of the group.
Over time, these were split apart. New wealth empowered a rising middle class to challenge the aristocracy at the same time that religious conflicts did; foreign attackers brought new social orders based on obedience instead of cooperation. Slowly the intricate social structures pulled apart, leaving a gathering chaos.
In response to this chaos, our ancestors could have done several things. They could have restored their existing power structure and expelled the neurotics ruining it, or they could just go with the flow. It turned out that social popularity won the day, and so “everyone” kept endorsing the new way.
This ultimately manifested in the State, which was a replacement for the aristocracy and the many informal institutions fostered by culture and tradition. The State saw itself as bureaucratic management for a vast horde of people with nothing in common, so it created the nation-state.
A nation-state serves mostly as a bureaucracy. Its interests include funding itself, defending its political orientation, and “managing” or “administering” to its citizens by both meeting whatever they consider “needs” and restraining them from bad behaviors. It does not, like evolution, push them toward positive behaviors except in the narrowest sense of urging them to avoid perpetual ills like obesity, smoking, teen pregnancy, and far-Right politics.
What we have seen over the past few centuries is that the nation-state has a fundamentally negative outlook. Based in the idea of defending the individual against those naturally talented like the aristocracy, it is both manipulated by those individuals and manipulating them. It turns out that “freedom” indeed leads to a type of slavery.
The idea of freedom originates in Renaissance™ and Enlightenment™ notions of “man as the measure of all things, which was a direct contradiction of the previous notion that there was a natural order and hierarchy in which humanity fit as a group and within that, in which each person had an unequal but unique role.
Proclaiming ourselves enlightened, which seems more of a pre-emptive defense against criticism that actual description, we cast aside the seemingly outdated notions of belonging to larger orders like a cosmic framework, a racial and ethnic tribe that produces a unique culture, a faith, and even a family.
During this time, the first of what were eventually called “Bohemians” appeared: people who dressed outlandishly, engaged in promiscuous sex, focused their attention on music and art, drank and took drugs to excess, and followed trends instead of having a consistent life-goal. This is consistent with what Plato predicted would be the consequences of democracy:
…he lives from day to day indulging the appetite of the hour; and sometimes he is lapped in drink and strains of the flute; then he becomes a water-drinker, and tries to get thin; then he takes a turn at gymnastics; sometimes idling and neglecting everything, then once more living the life of a philosopher; often he-is busy with politics, and starts to his feet and says and does whatever comes into his head; and, if he is emulous of any one who is a warrior, off he is in that direction, or of men of business, once more in that. His life has neither law nor order; and this distracted existence he terms joy and bliss and freedom; and so he goes on.â€
We can see that the Bohemian is the archetypal individualist, rejecting the depth that would require him to sacrifice his personal whims for connections to understanding of the structure of the wider world beyond, and instead pursuing endless shallow distractions and personal desires.
Individualism desires no oversight because that would restrict the free expression of the individual by those with a greater quality of insight. For this reason, individualists want egalitarianism or equality, so that no one can demonstrate how their thinking is of poor quality.
To allow equality to sound like anything other than the entropy that it is, they insist on the myth of universal human rationality, or the ability to apply a mechanical process known as “reason” by each individual so that they end up with results of an acceptable quality, and we do not require people with greater talent for insight.
Rationalism presumes that all people have equal capacity for reason and therefore, that reason alone will cure our problems, failing to notice that the difference between an Immanuel Kant and the average person is as wide as that between us and the great apes.
However, rationality is a form of cherry-picking. It focuses on a topic, chooses a single detail to symbolize that topic, and then measures before/after states of that detail when a certain action is tested on it. This works great for chemistry, mathematics, physics, and biology, but fails completely in philosophy, literature, or politics.
This leads it into a circular feedback loop where it confirms its own assumptions by trimming down the data it admits such that confirmation is the only possible outcome. For this reason among others, as William S. Burroughs once famously reminded us, rationality is not the answer:
For Kant, reason is universal, infallible and a prioriâ€”meaning independent of experience. As far as reason is concerned, there is one eternally valid, unassailably correct answer to every question in science, morality and politics. Man is rational only to the extent that he recognizes this and spends his time trying to arrive at that one correct answer.
…This view of â€œreasonâ€â€”and of its power, freed from the shackles of history, tradition and experienceâ€”is what Kant called â€œEnlightenment.â€ It is completely wrong. Human reason is incapable of reaching universally valid, unassailably correct answers to the problems of science, morality and politics by applying the methods of mathematics.
…The Enlightenment also propagated the myth that peopleâ€™s only moral obligations are those they freely choose by reasoning. That theory has devastated the family, an institution built on moral obligations that many people, it turns out, wonâ€™t choose unless guided by tradition.
In other words, “reason” is another tool to argue for equality. People choose what they want, and then use rationalism to argue for its correctness based not on results, but on the coherence of thoughts in the human mind. If they can make it make sense, they figure that it is real and true in a universal context.
That leads us to the situation that has produced our current age. We ignore consequences in reality and focus on reason, starting with the presumption that all people are equal, and we rationalize that by filtering out any contradictory data. A perfect closed circuit is achieved.
In the 1960s, we applied this same toxic notion to race and ethnicity and concluded that all people were equal in reason, which meant that you could just grab people from anywhere, “educate” them with the right ideology, train them in procedures written by smarter people, and saturate them in propaganda to control their health and personal habits.
Fifty years later, we see how this has become a disaster. Reason led us straight to the door of hell, encouraging us to adopt destructive policies like diversity simply because they were convenient adornments for our public personae. Democracy creating a raving mob that was oblivious to reality which endorsed one bad decision after another.
We embarked on three world wars for democracy. The first, a series of Napoleonic Wars, were waged to spread democracy; the second, the “war to end all wars,” was fought to democratize Europe; the third, which basically established the end of Europe as a world power, was a backlash to the first two.
The West is currently fighting another such war internally. This war focuses on the topic of egalitarianism itself. One side wants to push really hard and make egalitarianism our permanent master, and others are resisting it, pointing to human tendencies toward illusion and the power of tradition as reasons to avoid the new Leftist empire.
America already fought one colossally disastrous war over diversity, but most have forgotten that the Civil War was an ideological war just like the Napoleonic Wars which raged only a few decades earlier:
For many Americans the Dred Scott decision confirmed their belief that compromise had been exhausted as a solution of the problem of slavery. Nevertheless, as the Republicans gathered in Chicago for their 1860 national convention, a significant number of delegates saw the frontrunner, William H. Seward of New York, and his principal challenger, Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, as too radical to appeal to voters in the â€œLower Northâ€ (Indiana, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey) and border states. Thus Seward and Chase were thought to be unelectable. The raucous convention turned instead to Abraham Lincoln, who was seen as a moderate but whose steadfast opposition to slavery and to the Dred Scott decision was widely known, especially in the South. Lincoln saw the decision as a manifestation of â€œslave power,â€ the notion (some would say conspiracy theory) that a group of oligarchical plantation owners held sway over the U.S. government. He became hardened in the belief that only a comprehensive monolithic solution to slavery would resolve the conflict. As he had said in his famous â€œA House Dividedâ€ speech in 1858, â€œI believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.â€
That ideological war masked a mundane reality, just as it did during WWI and the Napoleonic Wars: the Leftist powers were broke, their economies having run themselves into heat death once again, which in the case of the American North manifested as an unstable manufacturing economy dependent on the agricultural South for its raw material.
Our ideological wars follow the models that were successful: we united our people for the purpose of fighting for greater democracy, as we did in WWII and the Civil War (our anti-Communist wars, Vietnam and Korea, are less popular and rarely mentioned, respectively). Diversity and weak authority are goals of those who want to expand democracy.
In turn, that threw us on a path toward further democratization. The result was an ever-widening circle of acceptance that obliterated the original population and made us a mixed-race group, which when looking at itself, could justify only further diversity:
The ruling class needed some members who had aptitudes for the sciences and not just football. WASP elites saw the need to cast the net more widely (but not too widely). Soon, Jews (not too many). Always, they prioritized â€œmerit.â€ The â€œbestâ€ men were those most likely to stand astride society in their maturity.
Then came World War II. It turned out to be impossible to send millions of men from Irish, Italian, and Slovak backgrounds into battle and then expect them to return to the old regime of WASP-dominated elites. So the net was cast more widely still. Harvard president James Bryant Conant (a non-elite striver himself) invented the SAT. The â€œbestâ€ men needed to be supplemented with smart kids from Kokomo.
The Cold War intensified the emphasis on academic merit. Conant, who had overseen the Manhattan Project, saw our competition with the Soviets as a technical challenge, not just in the development of weapons but in the scientific management of a free society. To win this global conflict, America needed â€œthe best and the brightest,â€ not just the pedigreed. The country would still be run by white men, but not uniformly by scions of the old-stock families. We needed high IQs.
As we see from the meltdown in Silicon Valley, “high IQ” and “academic merit” alone are not sufficient, and our country was more stable under the WASP majority that held on to power into the 1980s.
Rationality led us to this point. When we assumed that all people were equal, this caused us to assume that they had equal cognitive capability, which then encouraged us to expand outward for those with high IQs who did well in an academic environment. However, apparently these people lacked the common sense of the old WASP order.
As Plato pointed out, democratization creates a death spiral: people go insane with the idea of the authority of the self above all else, and it makes them both controlling and prone to use others for their own ends, which causes them to import the foreign and give it citizenship as a means to an end.
That neglects the organic basis of civilization which holds that a society exists to protect itself by conserving itself, a viewpoint which precludes importing foreigners. When control of a society becomes more important than the society itself, this type of neo-tyranny arises.
Its origins may lie in the original assumption of rationalism. When people presume that because a thought is internally consistent, it is true, they have written reality out of the equation. This mostly likely occurs because wealth and urban living have isolated them from reality:
As countries become more developed, there are measurable changes in social attitudes that move away from ethnocentrism in the direction of social tolerance and inclusiveness across a range of topics, from gay marriage and women’s rights to humane treatment of prisoners.
Painted in broad strokes, wealthier countries are more liberal, whereas poorer ones are more restrictive and less tolerant of diversity. The driver here probably is economics. We can draw this inference because when economic contractions occur, attitudes revert to being less liberal.
Wealth enables people to stop focusing on the immediate conditions of reality around them, and instead to look at social factors, because those determine their success in the economic system which arises with specialization of labor.
At that point, eugenics — or the lack thereof — comes into play. Intelligent societies tend to be more tolerant, and so they keep around the neurotics, selfish, unhappy, and defensive. The colliding opposite directions of wealth and tolerance then create a group of enraged people, much like the formation of a tornado.
This group then forms a Crowd which acts like a gang and takes over society through extortion. All of the people who originally did not fit in a healthy society, but were tolerated, become a weapon against that society and take it over, eventually destroying it centuries later.
While the Left would like to blame the rise of the Right on a bad economy, something else is afoot: societies liberalize when they are wealthy, then those plans turn into disasters, at which point only a few dissenters speak up. Eventually those disasters influence the narrow spectrum of events that most people can process, such as the cost of a dinner plate or violence in their neighborhood, and then more join in.
This arc fits the pattern we see with Leftist societies like the post-Revolutionary French or Soviets: at first, there is much excitement because the new ideas are flattering to individuals who want to believe they are more important than they really are, but then this excitement dampens as ideas turn out to fall short of goals, but it only threatens the regime when the economy collapses, at which point most thinking people have already turned against the failing system.
During the 2000s, we saw the complete failure of liberal democracy and its policies. 9/11 showed us that the enemy walk among us with impunity; Ferguson demonstrated that racial animus was not changing with a black president, nor was it rational. MS-13 and the rise of the Chinese threat showed us that diversity was not a question of problem races, but that different groups when put together naturally clash. Angela Merkel showed us how “rational” decisions led to insane outcomes like importing groups that hate us into our own lands, and the politically correct decisions made in England and Sweden showed us how intelligent people are pathologically self-deceptive once they believe that this rationality is correct. On top of it all, we realized that democracy would not save us as people elected their terrible leaders time and again.
With South Africa, even the slowest are recognizing that this chaotic time of democracy and diversity will end us. We will be marginalized, persecuted, slaughtered, and then fade away with too few numbers to reproduce ourselves. Even more, we see that the average person is lulled into such an orgy of self-worship that they are oblivious to anything like loss of culture, heritage, values, or even future. They just want what they want, right now, and they want it at low cost, with the heaps of landfill and the death of a civilization being irrelevant.
Rationalism got us into this mess. We assumed that we knew better than the world around us, and that what was logical to our neurotic brains was superior to clear common-sense feedback from the world. This path flattered our individualistic instinct by making each of us feel like kings in charge of our destinies, instead of the serfs that we suspected we might actually be, subject to the rules of nature and logic.
Realism can get us out of it, but it requires us to take a big step and reduce our manic egomania. We need to stop worrying about being “in control” of our lives, and instead focus on achieving positive results. We need to be able to think beyond the horizon of our mortality. And we need to want that good survive, even though that means limits on on our personal freedom and ability to engage in certain behaviors.
Most people are too arrogant to do this. That has always been so, which is why caste systems have historically arisen that confine 90% of people to a serf class who have zero power and zero influence. However, as rationality fades, it becomes clear that the ways of nature are returning once again, and with them, “man as the measure of all things” diminishes.