Racist? We’re not; multiculturalism is.

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:

  • Social classes/castes are unequal. IQ differences between lower, middle and traditional upper (excluding our new media and government elites) classes are discernible, as are character traits, physical traits and abilities.
  • No races are equal. Evolution branched, different decisions were made, and so different groups evolved different levels of intelligence, physical strengths, and mental outlooks including “the civilization gene” or analog thereof which inclines some to a moral communitarian outlook and others to a predatory/parasitic one.
  • No two ethnic groups are equal. Within races, evolution branched, and the story of history is written in the genes of those who are with us today. The racial Marxists who say “if it’s white, it’s right” are missing the point. Evolution continues, unequally.
  • No individuals are equal. We are not factory-produced, mass-stamped, identical beings. We have different strengths and weaknesses. The guy who lifts the most weight may not be the best swimmer, and our best mathematicians may be (or may not be) terrible poets. Specialization is part of the natural order and should be embraced.
  • No two events are equal. We cannot step in the same river twice, and we cannot with law or good intentions “fix” the past, or even recreate it. We are constantly adapting to a new environment and forget this at our peril.
  • Most people are dysfunctional. If most people could handle their lives just fine, we’d have a government of five people in DC who would write pleasant letters to lonely grandmothers. People are chaotic: they commit crime, dump garbage in the woods, drive drunk, beat their wives, and struggle with their own impulse control. Most people need oversight or they become a selfish, cancerous influence on society.

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:

  • Integrate. Give up your culture and whatever historically defines you, and become another cultureless person repeating memes from TV shows and government films.
  • Segregate. Move to a new land, set up your ethnic group’s version of a Chinatown, and because you never integrate, always serve only your own community or as cheap labor.

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.

3 Comments

  1. JohnP says:

    Much of the opinions here are, to me, very enlightening in terms of seeing the motivations behind how the “leftists/progressives/liberals” desire to alter, our have altered, our world. Someone told me recently, that many people settle for some massed-produced meteocre type of happiness, which comes largely from associating with other unintelligent/unimaginitive people, and/or from being entertained rather than exposing oneself to true art or meaningful goals. This person happens to be (unlike me), a mixture of many different races borrowed from nearly every corner of the Earth. She is however, incredibly intelligent and wise far beyond her years. What I would very much like to know is: What do we do with these people, who are not white yet display a staggeringly high intelligence? I prefer a world in which I am with people like my family; relatively intelligent, beautiful, creative, honest, and industrious, and who desire a unified culture, consitent with our European roots. Yet I find that certain people are extremely intelligent, and I am able to connect with them much better than I can with any other white person (with of course a few exceptions). If we were to split people based on race, what then would we do with those who are mixed?

  2. WellAintThatABitch says:

    @JohnP They’ll have to decide for themselves what they want to do, won’t they? Or they’ll get the worse end of all these equations. Any truly intelligent and insightful mutt will prefer to become the racial vanguard of that race/culture they most strongly identify with. To do otherwise not only does not enhance their condition, it is completely self-destructive and exclusively exploitative to them. Which is not to say it is not profitable in practical or crass political terms, because it might be; the possible social benefits of advocating miscegenation and mixing for the mixed individual are wholly chimerical however because these concepts from their perspective are not novel, and are redundant in no reproducible, self-reinforcing fashion. From the perspective of others not-mixed advocacy of multi-ism cannot be viewed as anything but self-destructive, if not simply as a fatuous agreeable disposition on the part of the mutt. Mutts are simply the best-kept pets of the boutique multiculturalists and the clever ones realize it and if they have a modicum of self-respect decline the privilege.

  3. Sybran says:

    I agree on the notion that the blending of ethnicities would eventually destroy every race, but not that it would destroy every culture. Yes, it would be a shame to lose any race, but there will always be people who prefer to procreate within their own, and if one did become endangered in the next few millennia, there would certainly be action taken to preserve it. I have a bit of an objection to some of the ideas listed – race is natural, culture is artificial, man-made. Culture is made up of art, religion, politics, law, economy, language and technology. Therefore the entire ‘white world’ does not share one culture, and the same goes for the ‘black world.’ – so when miscegenation happens, its not the meeting of two cultures – its the meeting of two races. these particular points i have a problem with:

    “Social classes/castes are unequal. IQ differences between lower, middle and traditional upper (excluding our new media and government elites) classes are discernible, as are character traits, physical traits and abilities.”

    – classes and castes don’t literally exist, they are classifications created by a culture. But i believe they are flawed, as there will never be any measurable way of determining a class or caste – within each division there is variety, for example a person in the ‘upper class’ will still have less money than some other person in said class. Ethnicity is the same – there has been much miscegenation in the past, and it is highly unlikely that any person is entirely white/black.
    also, the segregation itself is often the actual cause of the differences in character traits, physical traits and abilities – lower ‘classes’ will not have the same upbringing and education available to them as the upper classes.

    “No races are equal. Evolution branched, different decisions were made, and so different groups evolved different levels of intelligence, physical strengths, and mental outlooks including “the civilization gene” or analog thereof which inclines some to a moral communitarian outlook and others to a predatory/parasitic one.
    No two ethnic groups are equal. Within races, evolution branched, and the story of history is written in the genes of those who are with us today. The racial Marxists who say “if it’s white, it’s right” are missing the point. Evolution continues, unequally.”
    – because of how early the first creatures that can be classified as ‘human’ separated and dispersed round the world – yes, there are general biological differences in each race. the problem i have here is that there is no way of identifying whether any generic intellectual differences are biological or not, because of geographical practicalities and intellectual outliers in each race that have occurred throughout the history of man. for example, whilst england was suffering from the black plague, along with high unemployment and street crime during the 14th century, the chinese were at the top of their game, having invented escapement devices, the first real mechanical clocks for example. If there was any race that had the ‘civilisation gene’ then, it was certainly them.

    while i’m on the chinese, they are statistically the shortest race. does this mean that there aren’t any chinese people taller than me? of course not.
    belonging to the race that spawned democracy and the telephone and the internet doesn’t mean that the entire race literally conceived them. if every person in the white race had an IQ of 26 save for einstein and da vinci, for example, this would not champion the white race – they were outliers and were not representative of the entire race.
    Yes, liberals may contradict themselves but this is where conservatives i think are shooting themselves in the foot – leave race out of it. Its why the left demonises the right. race is not relevant to conservative politics, and so much effort is focused on the left that the actual right-wing is ignoring its own agenda. forget race, because its what loses the credibility of genuine conservatism.

Leave a Reply

38 queries. 0.382 seconds