To conservatives, there is not a liberal/conservative divide. Conservative thought is proven thought, and liberalism is a social trend whereby people surrender their common sense to wishful thinking and, accordingly, destroy civilizations.
Our goal is to look unflinchingly at the record of history, treating the whole world and its experience as our laboratory. We are also favorable to science, and us new right types cannot imagine how science conflicts with religion, which we may not partake in personally but see as a net gain for civilization. Our goal is to be realistic and to use our experience and knowledge to achieve the best possible outcome.
Part of looking unflinchingly at reality is that we must acknowledge the utter lack of equality in nature. In nature, a state of equality would be a state of high entropy, in that there would be no need for any given object to exchange energy with another as the outcome would be the same in all cases.
Nature’s solution to this dilemma is a hierarchical system of repeated patterns which concentrate energy upwards in the hierarchy, and then distribute it unevenly so that it trickles down to the lowest from the highest.
When we say there is no equality, we mean that:
When we talk about race, we are talking about it in the context of the above: it is one sub-point in a list of many ideas converging on the reality-based knowledge that equality is an illusion.
Race has become blown out of proportion because, since the Western leftist cultural revolution of the Baby Boomers in 1968, it has been the primary issue of the left, and their main defense against us.
They say: “You don’t like our plan? You must be elitist, then, and possibly homophobic or misogynistic — nope, you must be a racist.” They then expect the entire room to turn on us.
It is no secret that leftism, liberalism and progressivism (all the same thing, if you think about it) are more popular than conservatism, in the same way dessert is more popular than broccoli. These ideas sound good and make us feel better about life. Unfortunately, they’re also illusory. You can feel good and still accidentally step off a cliff.
When conservatives talk about race, we are talking about ethno-nationalism, or creating nations out of ethnic groups (a subset of race) for the health of those nations. We are not talking about cruelty, or casually using cruel terms like inferior/superior to make ourselves feel better about life by making others feel worse. We are talking about sensible policy and a realistic response to the hand nature has dealt us.
Our view is that healthy civilizations benefit their citizens most, even if it means we are not all one big happy family in the same civilization. If our option is ethnic separation with healthy civilizations, or ethnic integration in unhealthy civilizations, we’ll take the former. Liberals will not.
By being honest about race, and electing to use evolution as our guide, we have treated individuals of all races as political equals, meaning that they each deserve and will get a stable civilization that addresses their needs.
The liberal plan of “diversity” (multiculturalism) does not do this. It treats race as a bargaining chip, and cruelly exploits those of other races under the guise of helping them:
Boutique multiculturalism, as Fish defines it, is a superficial fascination with the Other: ethnic food, weekend festivals, and high-profile flirtations with the Other. Boutique multiculturalism is exactly what all this global consumerism nonsense in the Facebook status message means. Purveyors of this superficial brand of multiculturalism appreciate, enjoy, sympathise with, and ‘recognise the legitimacy’ of cultures other than their own. But they always stop short of approving these radically different other cultures at the point where it would matter most to the strongly committed members of the other culture. We may, for example, say that Jews should be allowed to practice their religion in our countries, but we certainly don’t approve of kosher animal slaughter or of women being forced to shave their heads and wear wigs. But hey, that dreidl game is really fun! At the point where the boutique multiculturalist finds another’s cultural practices inhumane or irrational, he withdraws his respect and appreciation. For this person, multiculturalism is just a matter of lifestyle.
Fish then goes on to define strong multiculturalism. For the strong multiculturalist, the guiding principle is tolerance, but Fish points out the inherent dilemma faced by these people. For strong multiculturalists are really just less shallow versions of boutique multiculturalists. They face a dilemma when their esteemed tolerance requires them to tolerate cultures that are inherently and fundamentally intolerant . . . and most of the world’s cultures are intolerant. That’s how they’ve managed to survive thus far. The strong multiculturalist, who advocates diversity in principle and whose game is the politics of difference, cannot then advocate any particular cultural difference because allowing one such particular difference full participation in our socio-political world would mean that other cultural differences would be suppressed. He cannot speak out for cultural differences that may intrude on another culture’s right to practice its own different traditions, customs, and beliefs. That wouldn’t be fair. That would be intolerant. They can’t favour one culture over another, as they are all equally valid ways of life. But his guiding principle of tolerance is, as you can see, quite useless. It’s a lose-lose situation for the multiculturalist. – Alternative Right
The goal of multiculturalism: the dominant majority’s fascination with the Other, and its desire to sabotage itself so that one faction can gain dominance.
You rarely see it this clearly, but give it a moment’s thought. The left has in “racist!” a charge of social transgression that ends debates, establishes moral superiority, and implies the cruelty, stupidity and backwardness of their opposition. They also are ignoring the historical record of multiculturalism, which is that it has brought instability and misery wherever it has been tried. Whose best interests do they have in mind? Their own: they scream racist, and we do their bidding.
Western progressives know perfectly well what would result if all borders were one day opened wide, so even though they don’t like to admit this, they are quietly grateful for the existence of these borders and the armed men guarding them. However, this does not stop them from preening, posturing and status signaling their superior “tolerance” and “compassion” over those less enlightened proles by defending the fundamental human right of everyone who was sufficiently strong, rich and disrespectful of law to sneak in through these borders to stay in, as if these borders were not a means to defend national sovereignty but some malevolent force of nature whose successful crossing is not a crime at all, but a heroic tale! This way our progressives get to dishonestly have their cake and eat it. – Fourth Checkraise
As this passage brilliantly illustrates, the Western liberal/progressive/leftist does not intend at all for their plans to be fully adopted. If those plans became law, the leftist would emigrate.
What they do intend to do is “have their cake and eat it,” or posture for moral superiority while enjoying the benefits provided by having the opposition in control. Even more, they are like overgrown children, enjoying the rebellion of giving the opposition the finger, but then returning to the bedrooms, dinners and safe night’s sleeping provided by that opposition.
In the meantime, we’re ignoring the obvious. Racial differences exist and are how nature has encoded culture within us; to obliterate this is to obliterate culture. What replaces it? Values we get from television shows and movies (think how often your friends mention scenes from these as justification for an act), from advertising, and from government pamphlets, of course.
However, race is more than just a few physical qualities. Race creates culture and wherever there are different races there are different cultural ways. Moreover, culture itself is the embodiment of morality and spirituality. So interracial marriage can mean the meeting of profoundly different world views and traditions. Sometimes these differences are overcome harmoniously, typically by one partner subsuming his identity within that of the other, and at other times, they create a struggle to come together under one cultural identity.
Large numbers of interracial marriages means the dilution or transformation of culture over time. I do not think Karen was speaking of racial superiority, but the continuation of cultural traditions. Every culture and every race is entitled, indeed duty bound, to honor its ancestral past and to seek to preserve it in new generations. Sensitivity to these differences does not require any effort to eradicate the traditions of others. Ideally, it does not involve hostility toward other ways, but love of one’s own. – Thinking Housewife
Western progressives will of course object and start talking about how we are “helping” others, much in the way our rock stars breeze into starving countries, pose for a few photos, and then give a million dollars — in exchange for going home and earning another ten million from the notoriety of that appearance.
However, as one writer points out, what happens when you reverse the positions? Suddenly, our “helping” looks a lot like a new form of colonialism gone bad:
Egalitarians claim “the race problem” will disappear if the traditionally White nations assimilate and interbreed with non-White populations. Some imagine this will produce a utopia of brown-skinned beauties — society without race by homogeneous default. Others recognize this scenario as the systematic eradication of the White race — White genocide. To bolster the credibility of the latter position, put the shoe on the other foot.
Assume for the sake of argument that in a stunning reversal, political correctness dictates that Africans are racist oppressors. Africans disproportionately enjoy material niceties, unfairly subjugate other races, and an invisible “African privilege” pervades the air which mysteriously oppresses all other races. In this hypothetical world, institutional racism means that Africans are predisposed to success and worldly gain from birth, as a result of the current political power relationship. Now, follow the usual prescription for healing with plans for coercive diversity and watch the fireworks begin!
The continent of Africa can solve “the race problem” by a massive influx of non-Africans. These non-Africans will assimilate and interbreed with Africans over time. The end result will be a utopia of mocha-skinned beauties — society without race by homogeneous default. Everyone will hold hands in unity, hatred will be a thing of the past, and racial oppression will no longer be an option.
A sharp mind quickly realizes the solution to “the race problem” in the African example is actually the Final Solution for Africans. That is, the systematic eradication of the African people — African genocide. No rational Black man will agree with such a genocidal campaign. No reasonable Black man will stand by and cheer on the destruction of his or her fellow Africans. No race deserves genocide. Every race has the right to exist biologically, ethnically, and culturally. – Counter Currents
Racism probably exists, but only in simple minds. Mature minds are interested in solutions, and toward that end, we recognize reality and select realistic plans to deal with our problems.
As conservatives, we are not racists. We are bio-cultural conservationists, ethnonationalists, and realists. Like all consequence-based movements, we recognize the obvious in reality as a whole, not merely in that narrow subset of what humans prefer to believe. Appearances are deceptive because they are the surface of an issue, not its structure.
As intelligent conservatives, we reject racism in all of its forms. Sadly for the left, that includes multiculturalism, which we can see as a form of inverted racism where those who are being “helped” are actually being cruelly used in a power game between western elites and the middle classes.
Multiculturalism gives immigrants an ugly choice:
Look at those choices above. Would you offer those to someone you were trying to help? Obviously not.
We seek a new practical order. We are realists, so we do not shy away from recognizing that race is a record of evolution, that evolution includes morality, that abilities differ by population and social class, that black crime is out of control, and that abilities differ by social class and gender. These are not however the basis for our decision.
As experienced observers of humanity, we recognize that most people seek to live around others like them, not just of race, but of approximate ethnic grouping, class/caste status and even outlook. It is natural to want your neighbors reinforcing your own values when you are raising children or want your family protected.
While some like to adopt a posture of open-mindedness by demanding intense variety around them, this suggests a withdrawal from interaction with the world around them. They want the appearance of variety, and then to retreat home to private worlds where they shut it all out. It is almost a manic desire to trivialize the Other by celebrating it.
These same people are the first to cry racism, sexism, homophobia or elitism when cornered, but we gain some insight into their motivations through this study:
It’s not the privileged people who are causing problems. It’s the pretenders who are trying to rise. Before you let someone blame you for white privilege, wealth privilege, or other privilege, remember this — that person is one of these horrible social climbers who pushes down others to make themselves rise. – CNN
It’s not the kids at the top of the hierarchy — well-adjusted white people — who are bullying others. It’s those who want to replace them. They are using the unpopularity of people lower on the totem pole to raise themselves higher, through cruelty. And at the top of this group are the people crying “racist” who need to be better than those toothless uneducated country folk.
To raise your own social status, nothing works better than by using relative motion. No matter how ignorant someone thinks you are, if you can find someone more ignorant that person becomes the focus, and you rise. The instant you designate someone as a target, especially for “good” reasons e.g. that they are elitist or racist, everyone else in the room unites against them.
In the West, leftists/liberals/progressives (these words all mean the same thing at different stages of its evolution) want us all to unite against a few racists so that leftists can rise socially. And that in turn leads to a rise in leftism: “Since you all agree Billy Wayne Raybob is a douchebag for being elitist and racist, you agree that elitism and racism are the biggest problems our society faces today!”
Through this technique, leftism uses pity for the minority to fragment the majority and eventually alienate it from itself. What kind of person seeks to do this, while benefiting from the work of the majority? Only someone at the intersection of solipsism, fatalism and narcissism, who believes nothing has any chance of success, so they might as well make something comfy for themselves, and who cares about the consequences outside of them.
And what are the consequences of multiculturalism? A society divided against itself, a majority culture destroyed, and in its place, a vast paranoia about how we should act and what we should value, beyond the only values we have left: consumerism, profit, pity and entertainment.
In addition, we get to see how years of multiculturalism ruined our inner cities, causing people to flee to suburbs that now account for most commuters and much of our gasoline use. They will become ghost towns-cum-ghettoes when gasoline prices rise:
A study released by the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) in late 2010 found that “Australia will be forced to rely on huge quantities of imported oil unless it radically overhauls its transport and urban policies” according to The Age newspaper who reported on the findings. They also quote Peter Newman of Curtin University, one of the study’s authors, as saying that, ‘urban sprawl is finished. If we continue to roll out new land releases and suburbs that are car-dependent, they will become the slums of the future.” – TreeMugger
When you implement a policy that cannot work, you force people to route around it which they do by the path of least resistance. This in turn creates a whole set of problems that are vastly disruptive in direct proportion to how long they defer the real problem.
Multiculturalism is a form of racism created by leftists/liberals/progressives so that they can gain political control of a society, and as narcissists, they are oblivious to its damage. The rest of us pay every day for our inability to say no to these insane people, and eventually, we will pay as our society becomes less and less stable.
Even worse, the idea of tolerance ruins our sense of fair play toward each other. With equality comes a forced politeness, a dogmatic tolerance, a joyless consideration of all viewpoints. This makes for a frustrated society where we spread ourselves thin to make sure everyone is included and not discriminated against, but as a result, form a parasite society that slowly destroys its best.
If we are looking for alternatives, I suggest we start by recognizing that multiculturalism is a failure — and that tolerance and equality are mediocre. Instead of just putting up with each other, we need to remember what Bill and Ted said: “be excellent to each other.”
Not equal — excellent.