Race riots

When the symbolic value of an act touches on a larger phenomenon than the act itself, and does so in such a way that a story is convincingly told from at least one point of view, it because a behavioral meme.

Take Trayvon Martin. On the surface of it, this is an average story: a volunteer claims assault and self-defense, others claim murder. By itself the case is not controversial; add a mostly-white neighborhood that had become tired of constant threats, and make the participants of different races, and it’s a vortex of chaos.

What has happened here, as happened with Rodney King and Marquette Frye, is that a touchstone visual event occurred. We don’t know if Trayvon’s killing was a crime, but to many people, it looks like one.

The white Anglo-Saxon majority, who vote Republican, are seen as the opposition by the assorted minority groups and white liberals who make up the Democratic party. The left blames the right for racism, and the right points out that those who clamor for equality are generally not productive citizens or they’d have equality. (On very brave days, the right points out that diversity doesn’t and cannot work.)

As a result, both sides join a conflict that cannot have a winner because it is not being fought over the real issue: should we have diversity, or not.

Diversity does not work. While an interesting theory, it does not translate to reality. It creates enmity and nothing more. That is what those who want to divide us (leftists/liberals) want to do. The problem is not blacks, but it’s also not whites. It’s diversity itself.”

It’s tempting to have racial anger. If you believe the left narrative, a man was wronged, leading to his death. If you believe the right narrative, it’s unclear why the Trayvons of the world are still underrepresented. If you look at this situation as a realist, you see only the question of whether diversity is functional at all.

After all, diversity of religion causes problems, too much diversity between social classes causes problems, and even political diversity causes issues. Putting people of different views together in the same society ensures constant infighting.

That in turn ensures that nothing important will ever get done, which means that frustration, inefficacy and rage will boil over. Just waiting for that touchstone event. And when it comes, they riot. That’s an outcome that benefits no one.

Instead, it should be noted that a society needs unity. When more than one out of every hundred people have radically different opinions, individuals tend to clam up and resist sharing of themselves at all. The result is entropy.

The best form of unity is not racial unity. It is cultural unity, which includes heritage but is not limited to it. Cultural unity ensures that values, heritage, religion, rituals, calendar, foods, literature, art, etc. are on roughly the same plane or starting point.

You will be tempted, when you see outrages, to rage. Instead, think logically and practically at the same time.

Diversity cannot work: two groups cannot occupy the same space without destroying each other and forming a third group, which will be the lowest common denominator of each.

Anger also cannot work: emotional reactions cause you to target the symptom, not the cause, and in doing so, possibly hurt a lot of people needlessly and cruelly.

Our society is gearing up for more racial conflict. The left and most moderates will try to placate, but that just shoves the underlying issues under the rug. The issues as I see them are: does diversity work? and, Why are most minorities stranded in a permanent underclass, which benefits no one?

This isn’t a USA-only issue. Across the West, wherever countries have tried diversity, conflict has resulted. France is dived over “the national issue”, or whether the French want to remain French. You can’t take a generic person and turn them into a Frenchman with the right night education classes, clothing, accessories and Bodeker guides. In England, the government tells us that only white people can be racist, which in effect means racism is a one way street: minorities demand, white people give.

In Sweden, the latest racist outrage involves a leftist party which featured a person in blackface and a cake symbolizing genital mutilation in Africa. Speaking of African, columnist Roland Martin reminds us that skin tone differences among African-Americans are a cause of conflict, as well. The wealthier nations in Europe are discovering their own problem with diversity in the European Union, as tension between Western Europe and the people who attempted diversity 2,000 years ago has reached a fever pitch. The more successful are finding themselves asked to subsidize the less successful in the name of equality, and asked to give up their own cultures in the name of diversity. It’s no wonder that the first objective of the Anders Breivik trial is to confuse his stance on diversity and our own inability to even contemplate it.

Across the pond, the town where Trayvon was shot remains paralyzed. A man was beaten by African-Americans yelling “Trayvon” and a mob of 20 African-Americans beat a white man senseless and then said, “That’s for Trayvon.” The United States Supreme Court is currently debating immigration policy while the mostly-Mexican immigrants appear to be thinking “there’s no place like home” and reversing course in the face of only moderate disapproval and economic hardship. In the meantime, ethnic conflict between Asians or Hispanics and African-Americans is spiralling out of control.

The bigger issues though are the ones that don’t get reported. Can we have an honest conversation about race, in America or Europe? No, we cannot. First, some opinions are just unacceptable. Second, some facts are forbidden, taboo and censored. Finally, there’s an absence of solutions that are acceptable because all of our “solutions” so far conflict with reality and have failed, and we refuse to consider other options because we see it as impolite. Even more frustrating, only a few people have recognized that diversity gives all of its participants a grim choice between assimilation and isolation, and that diversity itself is totally alienating in all of its forms.

All of the above constitutes the larger picture. This issue is bigger than Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman or whether you think you’re so angry you want to lash out and mangle the “Other team.” The point is that instead of having temper tantrums, we should be even braver and start thinking hard about diversity. It’s not the fault of blacks that race antagonism is high, nor of whites. The problem is diversity and with our society in denial, it’s the thing we’re most afraid of discussing.

50 Comments

  1. Fox in a Box says:

    Economies do not function properly when ordered to work properly.
    Religions do not function properly when ordered to work properly.
    Races do not function properly when ordered to work properly.
    Societies do not function properly when ordered to work properly.
    Nations do not function properly when ordered to work properly.
    Values do not function properly when ordered to work properly.
    Cultures do not function properly when ordered to work properly.
    Diversity does not function properly when ordered to work properly.

    Economies work when properly ordered by principles from above.
    Religions work when properly ordered by principles from above.
    Races work when properly ordered by principles from above.
    Societies work when properly ordered by principles from above.
    Nations work when properly ordered by principles from above.
    Values work when properly ordered by principles from above.
    Cultures work when properly ordered by principles from above.
    Diversity works when properly ordered by principles from above.

    Diversity is an effect, the way it is ordered is the real issue. The author focuses too much on effects and becomes tendentious. End result, sloganeering and wasted potential.

    1. A. Realist says:

      Principles from above? You mean a theocracy?

      Some methods just don’t work. Thanks however for the sloganeering.

      1. Brian says:

        Not a terribly relevant observation: but I certainly have no problem with the sort of soft theocracy practiced by the Austro-Hungarian empire.

    2. Paul M says:

      Diversity is itself an example of “principles from above”. Blue-sky “this would be a nice idea” principles with no attention given to potential outcomes is one of the things wrong with the world today. “Oh, but everything will be ok if we just hold to a pinciple”, well, no actually: the world is far more complicated than these silly armchair philosophers and religious folk imagine.

  2. Fox in a Box says:

    Actually, I quite enjoy the preceding two articles, and the author’s writing generally, so let me not appear to castigate the fellow.

    What I took to be sloganeering was his unnecessary statement here, on account of its absurdity:

    “Diversity cannot work: two groups cannot occupy the same space without destroying each other…”

    Diversity can work under normal conditions; an Empire with dozens of cults, a religion with devotees from various races, a society of cooperating castes, all are types of functional diversity, of which history furnishes many examples; normal conditions facilitate unity in diversity.

    Only the ideology of ‘equality’ demands occupation of the same space by various entities, a physical impossibility and a logical confusion that ends by leveling all differences that it can, yet mysteriously insisting that the resultant uniformity is actually diversity! Unable to destroy the diversity of peoples, it was found that creating an illusive ‘space’ that they would all be forced to acknowledge would produce a similar effect; this ‘space’ is the modern mentality, or rather, the world it perpetuates, of which our author is a keen and thorough critic.

    The purpose of this sinister association of the term ‘diversity’ with what are really the results of ‘equality’ must be to falsify diversity, and this can only be because evil considers diversity to be an important element of human stability. What other derivative of the principle of Unity better allows the earth to be seen as something other than a sinister hell? Hence, true diversity is obscured to hide the Truth, and a false diversity is promoted, abusing man’s desire for integration to foment chaos.

    The evil of modernity is in its inversion of traditional principles by attachment to counterfeit premises. ‘Strength in diversity’ is true for a real Empire, false for liberal democracy.

    1. A. Realist says:

      An Empire is not a nation, but a central command that controls other nations. I think you’re comparing apples and oranges here. Even further, those diverse empires you’re speaking about, uh, we don’t see many of them anymore. Wonder why.

    2. The argument actually goes to a lower level than that: pluralism, equality and diversity are all the same thing. None of them make any sense because they preclude decision-making and thus, require a strong central ideological (dogma, propaganda, regulatory) state to enforce sweeping rules.

      1. A. Realist says:

        They’re using different definitions of the words. By “diversity,” they mean human biological diversity or that different races exist. This is wrong because diversity is exclusively used to mean different races existing in the Western countries. I don’t know why they’re using this fuzzed definition but there you have it! In the article you use diversity to mean multiculturalism, which is the term we would use for it except that it’s too big a word for the serfs and not positive-sounding enough. They don’t realize that diversity in its modern use means a society with mixed races, cultures, religions etc. in other words extreme ethno-pluralism.

        1. Brian says:

          In other words, what diversicrats mean by diversity is the opposite; the destruction of natural and healthy distinctions between people of different races, genders, and capabilities.

    1. A. Realist says:

      If only justice were so simple.

  3. Ouroboros says:

    Racial unity IS important, though. I’ll never say that all people of a single race are good people, but I think we’re entering into some rough times, gentlemen (and ladies, if there are any). In the next 30 years, whites *will* be the minority. How do you think America will look and be like 40, 50, 60 years from now when whites become less than half of the American population? I can fully understand how whites could be angry over this.

    I am not a racist, but for fu–’s sakes…we’re a dying breed…..

    1. crow says:

      I am a racist. Of course I am. Everybody is. It’s only a matter of degree. Leftists, though, take racism to dizzying heights, inverting it, like they do to everything else. Only leftists are racist against their own race.

      On a lighter note:
      There are some very interesting names here, don’t you think?
      You can tell a lot about peoples’ orientation by the names they choose.
      I see some of the most interesting ones include animals and birds.
      Even worms.
      Fox-in-a-box is one I especially like :)

      1. A. Realist says:

        Diversity itself is racist. It’s a guilt trip designed to destroy the majority. In the US, that’s whites. In Israel, it’s Jews. In China, it’s the Han. In all of those countries, you have a smaller and darker minority group that is not fitting in. That’s why multiculturalism is always destructive.

    2. Racial unity is important and no one sane will ever deny that. (Ethnic unity is even more important.)

      However, the point being made here is that racial unity alone is not the solution. Rather, a cultural mandate is required which unites heritage, values, language, customs, philosophy and worldview into a single society.

      Fixing race alone will not fix what ails society as a whole, although it (like taxing ice cream and banning pedophiles) is inevitably an inseparable and essential part of the solution.

      1. A. Realist says:

        Fixing race alone will not fix the problem, but if you don’t give people some tangible starting point, they’re not going to be able to separate your ideology from another type of ideology like leftism.

    3. A. Realist says:

      We’ve always been a minority. The rest of the world isn’t doing so well. Liberal solution: mix the two and maybe the magic will spread. Likely solution: the 8% whites will be absorbed by the rest, which will continue on exactly as they were before.

  4. Brian says:

    Love this sitem but I disagree with the arrgument that ‘diversity’ is the problem. Diversity, so to speak, will always be with us. The real mistake is equality. It’s the assumption that different sexes, races, cultures, are the same that leads us to believe we deserve all the good things that others enjoy because they are different. The assumption of ‘equality’ exacerbates the human tendency towards mimetic rivalry. To defuse it, we should highlight difference, rather that are real, and grounded in nature, rather than building societies where these natural differences are portrayed as human generated ‘oppression.’

    1. crow says:

      Well, as you say, diversity itself is not the problem.
      It is the modern definition of diversity, as in: the way it is generally understood.
      If we really did support diversity, we would allow it to be diverse, as opposed to lumping all of it together, thereby rendering it the opposite of diverse.
      It is, again, the inversion-layer that leftists observe life through.
      A distorting lens that turns everything into its mirror-image: left for right, right for left, and all ass-backwards.

      1. A. Realist says:

        Every society that has tried to be diverse has ended up with internal tensions. I don’t think putting limits on equality, or just enslaving the minorities, is going to help at all.

    2. A. Realist says:

      Do you want different ethnic, religious and cultural groups living in the same society or not?

      1. Brian says:

        Do you want different ethnic, religious and cultural groups living on this planet, or not?

        The white minorities must be protected and preserved; and only they are up to the job.

  5. Fenrir says:

    Diversity is not a problem if you are in control
    In fact, promotion of diversity is the reason you stay in control
    Unity will oust any dictator or tyrant
    Keep the masses divided, and rule accordingly

    Thus are the words of many great minds such as Machiavelli and Sun Tzu.

    1. ferret says:

      “Keep the masses divided, and rule accordingly”

      Left-right division was organized for that purpose too, by the way.

    2. A. Realist says:

      Divide and conquer.

  6. Ted Swanson says:

    I think the most concrete example to illustrate the problem of diversity is language. If people aren’t speaking the same language, expect chaos. It’s that simple.

    If I move to a different country it is expected that I assimilate to that country’s standards, that country’s language, and that it is incumbent upon ME to get on the same page as THEM. Not the other way around.

    1. Brian says:

      Let’s try a thought experiment. Let’s say the white population of the United States and the black population of the United States spoke different languages.

      Would the black community be as openly jealous of their white neighbors, and the fruits of their white culture as they are now?

      Or would they be more inclined to accept that their white neighbor who works hard, saves, and goes to college, simply has a different nature, a nature with different advantages and disadvantages?

      Would whites be as apologetic as they are now for enjoying the particular fruits of their culture?

      I’m not sure of the answers, but I’m not convinced that language differences would exacerbate the problems that lead to the ‘race riots’ referred to in the title of Mr. Stephen’s blog post.

    2. A. Realist says:

      I think it’s values. Muslim girls want to wear the hijab. That’s great by me. Western girls want to wear short shorts and baby doll tshirts. Each is going to offend the other even if they don’t want to. Especially if they don’t.

  7. Brian says:

    I agree completely. Diversity actually is a strength; but that’s not what the left wants. They want to take the natural differences between people and use them as a way to lever themselves into power with the mendacious argument that all differences are rooted in oppression.

    1. Brian says:

      To be clear, this was meant to be a reply to Crow’s reply to my earlier comment.

    2. A. Realist says:

      How is “diversity a strength”?

      1. Brian says:

        Take the U.S. military. If everyone were the same rank, and had the same role, it would be chaos. Diversity in rank and role unlocks the power of authority.

        Consider a strong traditionalist family: husband and wife have strong, different, and yet complementary roles; in less traditionalist families, husbands and wives become rivals, because they do not have defined roles.

        Examine strong, advanced economies. Labor is divided. People pursue specialties based on aptitude, intelligence, temperament (and, yes, luck). In less prosperous economies, every man has to provide his own food, shelter, and clothing.

  8. Everdarkgreen says:

    Some of the posters here are misinterpreting what is meant by ‘diversity’ in the eyes of the author. In an absolute sense, it is clear that we cannot simply decry diversity as it is a vague term, but within a particular context (ie. modern liberal democracy), we notice that a particular fundamental diversity dissolves the bonds between individuals within a nation. Cultural diversity itself essentially means that two groups with distinct identities will live in constant conflict. Culture could then be said to be one of the most significant fundamental parameters of unity between peoples (race/ethnies naturally tie in) and within that culture, a sub-level of aggregate parameters define the types of diversity which are basically less contentious parameters for conflict.

    1. This is a good summary and I hope others read it.

      Diversity is equality and pluralism. Any one of those will create the other two. (In fact, that is what happened: equality (1789) -> pluralism (1840s) -> diversity (1930s)).

      1. Brian says:

        Great post, but I disagree.

        It is often cultures that are most alike that fight most violently.

        Consider the situation in Northern Ireland. They went at it with rocket launchers and car bombs. Yet the cultural and theological differences between the feuding parties was very small (and the genetic differences nonexistent).

        Granted, I do think that I’m in grave danger if I walk down the street, at night, in an area inhabited by people who are very different than myself.

        However even that violence can be caused by too much sameness, rather than not enough difference, since as an outsider I’m at risk of being selected for violence to relieve mimetic conflict in a community whose roots lie in rivalries and discord caused by a lack of structure, a lack of authority… for lack of a better word, a lack of _difference_.

        Still, I do think we’re circling the same idea here: the root of the problem is egalitarianism, the idea that we are all the same. We are not, and the lack of emphasis on these differences can lead to the sort of absurd hatreds and rivalries that are endemic in the modern world.

        1. Consider the situation in Northern Ireland. They went at it with rocket launchers and car bombs. Yet the cultural and theological differences between the feuding parties was very small (and the genetic differences nonexistent).

          Neither of these assertions are correct.

          1. Brian says:

            They’re all completely correct. I could get into this, but since I have a personal policy of not arguing about facts, particularly these sorts of facts, however, I’ll let Dara Ó Briain make my case for me. If you’re convinced, great; if not, fine; any questions, Google it?

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0thRUS1wUw

            Done? Great. So here’s where I double-down on this. The problem with America isn’t that blacks and whites hate each other. It’s that whites can’t stand one another, (as for the blacks? they’re even more homogeneous, and are busily murdering one another at an impressive rate).

            In an egalitarian society, exposing someone as in-egalitarian is a great way to show we’re better than the other guy, without exposing oneself to criticism that we think we’re better than that other guy.

            What better way than to move a bunch of troublesome poor people, or angry black people next door to those damn dirty urban ethnic whites, or yokel protestant southern whites… and watch the fun.

            1. http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/08/genetic-map-of-europe-again.php
              http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/09/genetic-differences-within-european-populations/

              This isn’t exactly on point, but Northern Ireland is divided between a group more like the Scots and a group more like the rest of the Irish. However, the point is being lost here: any kind of diversity is destructive, as it said in the article.

            2. A. Realist says:

              The problem with America isn’t that blacks and whites hate each other. It’s that whites can’t stand one another, (as for the blacks? they’re even more homogeneous, and are busily murdering one another at an impressive rate).

              In an egalitarian society, exposing someone as in-egalitarian is a great way to show we’re better than the other guy, without exposing oneself to criticism that we think we’re better than that other guy.

              All of this makes more sense than everything else you have posted. The problem is that diversity is a symptom. The double problem is that it is dysfunctional. As you point out, whites hate each other only because of liberalsm and equality, but those are forms of pluralism too. If they just retitled this post “Pluralism sucks” you’d be the first to agree.

              1. Brian says:

                Great point.

                One perverse idea that I’ve pondered is that perhaps the push to slice up traditional groups should be _accelerated_ in at least one case.

                The last remaining homogeneous block, African-Americans, are able to exercise a tremendous amount of power.

                How do we break that group up?

            3. Eric says:

              On this point, in reading people I can tell there is a lot of non-verbal jockeying among similar races. Same among other races. Basically, we are a society that doesn’t deal with reality. Not sure what I am getting at. Just see a lot of white people who clearly are trying to outdo each other. Same with other races. Narcissistic douchebagism at its best. And the ships continues to sink…

              1. Eric says:

                When I wrote this I really was not in the mindset to be writing. On a basic level I believe what I wrote, but there are so many more complexities and nuances to it all. For one, “white” people are not all the same. The nature of a say a northern european vs. a southern european are not the same for example. There are also a ton of “white” imbeciles out there that I in no way would want to associate with. That all said, we have bred a culture that is all about individual narcissism. It seems to be in all the commercials that inundate our daily lives. These things shape collective “being” and I do not see the powers behind this to change. For now, the only way I see finding peace from all of this is learning to use the Off button. Sad what we have created and what it has led to, and certainly no one (well, not the majority of people) wants to admit what we have done to ourselves. But all it takes is a look around to see it in its fully glory, the sad state of affairs we have become. I think there are a lot of things at fault, but regardless, few want to acknowledge where we are at. Maybe I am just being negative.

                1. crow says:

                  Haha. Maybe you’re just being negative :)
                  That was far too funny to be negative.
                  You’re accurately reporting the current state of an ongoing nightmare. It isn’t pleasant.
                  But as long as you are aware of it, you’re holding onto your sanity, which is more than can be said for the millions of gullible drones that have no critical faculties left.

        2. A. Realist says:

          You picked one examples out of hundreds or thousands to try to demonstrate that diversity isn’t a problem. You’re brainwashed.

          1. Brian says:

            Actually, my intention to use the platitude ‘diversity is a strength,’ as a blunt instrument against those spouting it.

            And I do so sincerely; I do not think mixing people of various races until humanity is a single shade of tan will solve anyone’s problems.

            First, I think it will exacerbate conflict. African Americans are, arguably, the most homogeneous slice of the American population (certainly culturally); and yet the amount of violence they inflict upon one another is tremendous. I suspect that this is not wholly genetic, but in part a cultural problem exposed by too little diversity within that community.

            Second, different ethnic groups have different strengths and weaknesses. We need to accept and embrace those differences, while moving to protect and preserve the genetic heritage of these groups — allowing whites, for example, to have the quiet, orderly — and perhaps even segregated — spaces they need in order to produce families and maintain a healthy fertility level.

            Lastly, we need to allow diversity to flourish within ethnic groups — through the exercise of non-state authority — rather than artificially destroying the cultural structures upon which these groups flourish.

            Southern whites, for example, rely on unique regional customs and traditions that are critical to their morale and self-image; they need to be respected and let alone by the broader society; and those who take issue with them should be taught that this is not a zero sum game, and encouraged to celebrate their own heroes and develop their own folkways.

    1. The map is intended only to show a population concentration; R-M222 individuals have roots within the oval but are not constrained by it.

      1. A. Realist says:

        This is a pointless debate, the difference in religions in N.IE was enough to cause a total fracture and prove that diversity cannot work.

      2. Brian says:

        A mere sample, and a telling one. R-M222 includes the various branches of the O’Neills, the quintessential Ulster Catholic family; yet their genetic footprint includes Scotland as much as Ireland.

        Any Ulster Catholic you’ll find on the street almost certainly more closely related to his Protestant neighbor than he is an Irish Catholic from Cork; likewise any Ulster Protest you’ll meet is far more closely related to his Irish Catholic neighbors than he is anyone from Orkney.

        People have been migrating back and forth across the narrow straight separating lowland Scotland and Ireland since at least the neolithic. Lowland Scotland was settled, intensively, by the Ulster Gaels.

        The name itself, Scotland, comes from Scota, the wife of a Milesian chieftain. The Ulster Irish relied on Scottish mercenaries in their wars with those further south, as well as with the Vikings, and many settled in the area. Many Ulster Irish trace their roots back to these ‘Scottish’ families.

        Finally, many Ulster Protestants are descended, in whole or in part, from families that simply converted; rather than from settlers from just a few dozen miles away in Scotland.

        The violence in Ulster is so vicious because it involves people who are so alike; and it continues an unfortunate pattern of feuding and fighting that has gone on in the region for thousands of years.

  9. Musashi says:

    The “diversity is good” canard being force-fed on the European/American white populations exists for just one reason: to diminish the strength of those nations by diluting and enervating the majority populations. A thusly compromised population will be ripe for conquest and slavery, from inside and outside the nation. Everything we’re told and every reason we’re given is a lie. Those that claim to love the “other” and instruct us to do the same are one of two things:

    1. Tools who actually believe the diversity bullshit.
    2. Those that stroke the tools to further their agenda: power, control, wealth, etc.

    We’re going to have to decide whose country this is.

Leave a Reply

43 queries. 1.155 seconds