White people do not understand diversity

o-MANET-900

White people do not understand diversity in the same way conservatives do not understand pluralism. In the happy view they have sold themselves, white people and conservatives see diversity as a type of meritocracy: everyone becomes one big happy, and then we each do what benefits us, working together toward the goal of our happy pluralistic society.

When this fails, conservatives and white people tend to rage at how unfair it is. How can these minorities and liberals not share this vision of our collective destiny? In that assumption of collectivism, conservatives show they have imbibed the egalitarian mythos and doubled down on it, applying its standards to itself instead of understanding the nature of pluralism and diversity, which is “every person — and tribe — for itself.”

Conservatives were shocked to see the lack of collectivist patriotism from students at Yale University (now a third-rate college, apparently) who were demanding special treatment for themselves as divided by ethnic groups. To conservatives, this was segregation and a class system all over again, and so they criticized these liberals using liberal rhetoric:

As students saw it, their pain ought to have been the decisive factor in determining the acceptability of the Halloween email. They thought their request for an apology ought to have been sufficient to secure one. Who taught them that it is righteous to pillory faculty for failing to validate their feelings, as if disagreement is tantamount to disrespect? Their mindset is anti-diversity, anti-pluralism, and anti-tolerance, a seeming data-point in favor of April Kelly-Woessner’s provocative argument that “young people today are less politically tolerant than their parents’ generation.”

The problem here is that the liberals and minorities are right.

Pluralism does not mean “E pluribus unum” (out of many, one) as conservatives surmise. Instead, it means that every group keeps its own standards so that it can maintain its own self-interest. This is the nature of pluralism: it is to agree to disagree, not to agree to work together toward anything, least of all the kind of pro-America Horatio Alger nonsense that conservatives usually babble in public.

White people do not understand this, mainly because — as in all things — the left two-thirds of the cracker Bell Curve statistically drown out the one in five people who can understand the issue and the one in a hundred who can analyze it to a solution. In the white mentality — dominated by college students, clerks and suburban women with too much time on their hands — pluralism is the answer to “why can’t we all get along?” In their view, it means that we all tolerate each other, and then act white as a means to the end of having the white society that people claim to enjoy.

In reality, there is something more important than convenience and it appears unvocalized in all people: the need for control over one’s own destiny. For minorities, to live in a white society even if they control it means to be servants of someone else’s dream and a defeated people in someone else’s kingdom. They need an identity of their own, including institutions and leaders, and this informs their definition of pluralism, but owing to their liberal ideology, they cannot see how this means that diversity ca never work — just as the honkies cannot.

History as always shows us an answer, which usually involves the grim fact that it takes centuries to see the consequences of any act. Media establishments were amazed at how relaxed Caucasians are at becoming a minority in their own lands:

In the early 20th century, Congress, backed by the “science” of eugenics, restricted immigration by the “races” of southern and eastern Europe, which were generally viewed as inferior stock. Madison Grant’s 1916 book, “The Passing of the Great Race,” argued for Nordic supremacy to maintain the nation’s stature. A 1917 law created the Asiatic Barred Zone to further curtail already limited immigration from most of Asia and the Middle East. And in 1921 and 1924 new immigration restrictions were imposed to privilege admission to the U.S. of immigrants from Germany, Ireland and the U.K. and to reduce the flow of most others.

Current resistance to nonwhite immigration — including opposition to the legalization of undocumented immigrants who are already here — is weak by comparison. According to a December Pew Research Center/USA Today survey, 70 percent of Americans supported legal status for undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., with 43 percent also supporting a path to citizenship. Specifically among whites, 64 percent said undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. legally if certain requirements are met.

To Caucasians, diversity means that we just keep on truckin’ the same way we always have, but now we have ethnic restaurants and smart black hacker friends like in the movies.

In reality, the American nativists were correct all along. Diversity of any form destroys our control over our destiny by destroying our identity. After that point, there is no unity, only a sense of living in a place for convenience. Pluralism breaks down into each person doing what they want except where obligated, a kind of “anarchy with grocery stores” plus the jobs to pay for those groceries and buy your way into a gated community apart from the 80% of your society that is now a multi-cultural war zone of urban decay.

In this way, diversity takes us to a lowest common denominator. This was apparent to our ancestors. What intervened was 150 years of liberal propaganda based on the successful media blitz before the Civil War, in which the “new Americans” — Irish, Greek, Italian, Jewish, Slavic and lawyers — were convinced to beat up on the old Anglo-Saxon establishment in the South using slavery as a moral blank check. This missed the fact that starting in the 1830s, nations began abandoning slavery because technology was making it obsolete, and that the South was already phasing out slavery but did not want to take a single massive economic hit — or create diversity by freeing slaves.

Think through the logic tree of diversity. Different groups will either assimilate each other, forming a miscegenated substrate like we see in most third world countries across the globe, or will Balkanize, which is the minority view of pluralism seen above: each race segregates, gets its own facilities and institutions, and its own rules to protect it from the others. This will regress into ethnic warfare and end in mass assimilation.

Diversity means genocide. It will destroy whites, yes, but it will also destroy all minority groups and leave behind a less-capable tan group. Much as it was used as a weapon against Anglo-Saxons, who were genocided by liberals using “near-whites” from Ireland, Greece, Italy, Eastern Europe and Israel as a biological weapon to adulterate and replace the Anglo-Saxon population, it is now being used against whites.

This fits the pattern of liberal takeovers of society: liberals seize power, and all are afraid to oppose them because liberals have good intentions expressed in equality. Liberals then destroy any populations that have any beliefs which might come before liberalism, starting with the churches but extending to passive-aggressive ethnic cleansing. In the end, what is left is a 90 average IQ population that permanently votes leftist, and a country with no future.

But this remains unknown to whites. They trust their television, and they trust white liberals, who have led them on like a bull charging at a cape by allowing whites to have their illusions about what diversity is so long as whites support it. Now that the cape was been whipped aside yet again, whites are circling around for another charge, convinced that the square of red cloth, or minorities demanding pluralism as it is — and not the matador in the Che Guevara t-shirt — is the source of their frustration. Not surprisingly, this too will fail for them, just as it is intended to.

Published by

Brett Stevens

Brett Stevens has written about realism since the late 1980s. His work can be found at RightOn, American Renaissance, Return of Kings, Counter-Currents, Alternative Right and Aristokratia.

39 thoughts on “White people do not understand diversity”

  1. Again, this weird misreading of conservatives.

    Conservatives are opposed to diversity They are not shocked to see a “lack pf collectivist patriotism” at Yale–they loathe collectivism, and certainly do not imagine that the Ivy Leagues are capable of patriotism. They are shocked that the nation is in such an advanced state of decay, and they full well know why. Conservatives fully understand what diversity is about: the destruction of this nation by its internal enemies.

    You are full of contradictions, and ill thought out assumption. You should try actually reading what conservatives =have to say rather than out words in their mouths.

    Yo come of as muddled, neurotic and foul tempered rather than a serious thinker.

    1. Conservatives fully understand what diversity is about: the destruction of this nation by its internal enemies.

      All realists understand this.

      “Conservatives” do not, hence the arguments being made in the articles cited.

    2. I don’t think that last judgement holds up to the body of work on this site. Brett was speaking mostly of “Conservatives” who work in news outlets and who believe everything Fox News tells them.

  2. It is still amazing to me that so called Conservatives were using the very verbiage used against diversity to claim that minorities were the real anti-diversity crowd.

    What I mean by that is, when you point out how a group is expecting to have their asses kissed by the mere demand of it, special privileges because their feelings got hurt and that disagreement itself is disrespect: this is the very argument against its supposed worth to our society. Yet, being so close they could poke it with their nose, they took the argument to a completely illogical tangent: that the black students have disrespected the sanctity of diversity.

    Uncuck the Right.

  3. Amazing. The SWPLs thought that all the diverse people would be just like them. That’s an appalling form of arrogance.

      1. “You can’t be anti-conformist unless you drink Starbucks coffee and hate life, and your own kind, just like us.”

        -Every Liberal Ever.

  4. You should probably define “white” somewhere, possibly more for your own benefit. This article constantly uses different definitions for white. You consider most of the US to be white, but would it not be more accurate to call the US “near-white” as Irish heritage is so widespread?

      1. That’s very ambiguous. What percentage admixture makes you not white. Must you be protestant to be white? Even the English had a large influx of asiatic genes. Are whites even from the Caucases? The Swedes are certainly not happy about the Russians coming in, but are the Russians not white? Is Vladimir Putin white? I’m not trying to be deliberately obtuse; I genuinely don’t know what you mean by white, and I’m not sure you do either. I don’t mean it as an attack; it’s a common US trait due to loss of heritage.

        1. Maybe you’re not actually being deliberately obtuse, even though you appear to be nothing but. Perhaps you simply can’t be otherwise.
          But, as you say, if you genuinely don’t know what people mean by what they write, and then patiently explain to you, over and over, then perhaps you really shouldn’t be wasting your time on a site for sentient adult humans.
          Here: you may prefer this…
          http://rupertbear.co.uk/index.html

          1. He says Caucasian is white, but that’s not very well defined. Most people consider the Irish to be extremely white, if not, what are they? The term “near-white” is extremely nebulous. The question is then simplified to, “What is the defining trait of a white person? ” Is there a set of characteristics that you must have to qualify? I only bring up the question because the article clearly uses various definitions for white, which is an equivocation fallacy. If the Irish are not white, then the US is not a white nation. There are millions of clearly Irish people in the US,and the majority of the country exhibits Irish traits. The Irish population has always been large in the US. The law itself comes from Anglo-Saxon common law though. Could it be that since the ruling class had been Anglo-Saxon, that he defines the US as an Anglo-Saxon nation? Perhaps that could be the case until Andrew Jackson gave universal suffrage to men, though I’m not sure the extent of which the Irish were excluded from that voting. The way I see, if most people are Irish and the nation is a democracy,then nation is an Irish nation. To be clear, I hate the Irish; they are subhuman in every respect, but pretending the US ever had some unified Anglo-Saxon culture seems preposterous to me.

            1. Needing to minutely define everything is at the root of your obvious problem. You might want to investigate that before you become completely insane.
              Don’t you know what the term ‘white’ means?
              Look at the background of this page. It’s white. White people are close to that color, or closer to it than others who are less close. That’s white. That is all you need to know.

              1. The question of whether the Irish are white or not is not some trivial minutiae. The author clearly distinguished white from near-white, and the obvious next question is clearly, “What is the difference?” This is not some tangential point, but central to the thesis of the author. The Irish are almost universally considered extremely white, and usually the whitest people there are. If you’re using complexion alone, as you Crow suggest, then the Irish are possibly the whitest people on Earth.

                1. The Irish are almost universally considered extremely white, and usually the whitest people there are.

                  This issue has been addressed, to much ruffled feathers, elsewhere on the site. You can always email me with questions, brett@amerika.org, where I can write in response to your personal questions in language that you use, which enables greater clarity. You will not find any “secret” opinions that are not published here however. As you know, part of the New Right is an understanding of Human Biological Diversity (HBD) which includes in its most fascinating branch a study of trace admixture. For example, all Caucasians are very similar, but the Irish have a North African/Iberian strain mixed in, where Russians have a Mongol in the woodpile (and sometimes, a Han Chinese as well), the Jews have Armenians, Turks, Arabs and Asians hidden in there, the Vietnamese and Thai have Caucasian mixed in, and the Italians have Phoenicians, Semites and some North African in the mix as do the Spanish; the poor Greeks of course took on the attributes of the Asiatic Turkic tribes who replaced them militarily after democracy destroyed their guiding light. Some French have varying mediterraneans and Semites as well. You can always tell admixture by reversing the equation. If you mix Irish, Jewish, Italian and Greek, you end up with something that looks Arab or Turkic, and that’s the influence they share — a mixed Asian/Armenid/North African hybrid itself. You have probably by now availed yourself of the search function and discovered all of this on your own, but maybe it helps to clarify just how realist this blog is.

            2. “Classical music” = (1) the music from the classical period and style; (2) all music from the traditional canon of complex symphonic and orchestral music, including Baroque, Romantic, Modern and Early.

              “White” = (1) Western European in descent; (2) all Caucasians of European origin.

              1. Then the Irish are white. I know of no definition of white that excludes the Irish, unless you provide an arbitrary list of who counts as white and who doesn’t. It occurs to me that the criteria you use is more of a cultural one than racial one, with the caveat that only whites can produce that type of society you admire.

            3. Has it ever occurred to you that these articles are not written expressly for your approval? That they are not about you?
              Every word you’ve written, thus far, could easily be reduced to:
              “You can’t write things I don’t understand or agree with”.

              Sad to say, the internet is packed with cases like you. All believing they are right. And all spouting identical drivel. You’d better hope you never get anywhere on your freak’s crusade, or you’ll be just as extinct as everybody else.

              1. Something I said clearly offended you, but it would benefit you to go back and reread my comments to help pinpoint the cause of your irrational behavior. I try not to express opinions, but ask questions only. Asking for a concise definition of white is not an expression of disagreement in any way, but it is telling to see the reaction you gave, and the fact that a definition couldn’t be provided. I’m actually probably more pro-white than you guys are(and more to the right politically, and definitely more elitist), but your only concern is an addiction to feeling victimized, like any other leftist. Perhaps there is a definition somewhere on the site, but it should probably be more prominently placed(FAQ section perhaps). Seriously, the concept of “white” is central to everything in this website, and look at the reaction when someone asks to define it. I’ll posit a possible definition probably supported by Varg Vikernes: anyone with considerable Neanderthal heritage. This definition clearly needs refinement, but it’ll help elucidate my position.

              2. I take issue with the fact that you continue to distort reality, despite my posts being visible to all. You attack my character, and make a strawman of me to knock down, but I mostly just ask questions. Literally every claim in your post is a lie. I struggle with the idea that you’re beyond hope and forever leftist, but I will continue to ask questions.

                1. Crow, a leftist? Maybe we can dial this back and ask: what is leftism?

                  Then we can move on to what is white, which is not solely a biological designation, as Evola told us.

                  1. Leftist: One who inverts Reality and then believes that this mental-inversion is ‘reality’.
                    Rightist: One who is aware of Reality, but unable to make any sense – yet unable to disconnect from the desire to make-sense – of a leftist.
                    Realist: One who realizes that people are generally insane, while being cautious to not abuse his own sacred sanity.

                    1. Not bloody likely. We’ve had some time to get to know crow around here through his many positive contributions. When you have a similar amount of goodwill invested, expect more engagement :)

  5. I sometimes visit a large, “mainstream society” forum and I manage, each time, to walk away with foam at the mouth. Every article I read here, however, strikes a cord and I am terrified to have to agree (save certain solutions suggested here and there).

    Also, say it again about the suburban women with too much time in their hands, who just want to “get along”. Just say it again.

    I do admire your ability to skip the “foaming at the mouth” part though.
    Need to work on this. :-)

    1. I remember bullies from school. They had many tricks. Their favorite was passive aggression: to make me so mad that I either spluttered and fired off a nonsense response, or had nothing to say, then they’d say “I thought so” and walk away triumphantly. That’s not victory, of course, but it looks that way to onlookers, and that’s all they cared about.

      1. They might keep up the routine and the facade but, just look right through them and it is a deep blow to their egos. I learned a long time ago to either keep still and make eye contact with a blank face until they were done or to just keep my eyes straight ahead and go about what I was doing. It would have them raging inside. Eventually they would move on to someone else or they would escalate. With escalation, and my willingness to call them on it, they lose face and have no recourse.

        Unfortunately, this cannot be done with liberalism because liberals have an entire hyena pack to lick each others’ wounds. The lion has to strike, sometimes pre-emptively.

      2. Thanks for effort you put in all essays.
        The readings have helped my overall attitude and state of mind quite a bit.

    2. You can’t set the whole of society straight. The best you can do is set yourself straight.
      Unlike the raving leftists that periodically turn up here, whenever I find myself on a website I consider completely nuts, I simply stop reading and move on.
      I say “simply”, because, really, it is. But it does take some practice to grasp just how simple.

  6. “Passive war” is a good term.

    Most historically noted wars are “active wars”.

    Passive wars slip through the observation.

  7. Ahh Brett’s cronies coming to his defence. Adorable.

    However, I do think the “White” question is a very, very interesting one. Beyond the purely racial definitions given here, I think contemporary times have added some new meaning to the word that is more.. abstract… let’s say.

    Example:

    I was having a conversation with a leftist not long ago in which he expressed, in the most predictable fashion, the stereotypical perspectives, which can best be described as anti-White. He spoke of how Whites oppress others, benefit from privilege – the standard, tedious drivel. I personally don’t necessarily disagree that power comes at the expense of others… or that the powerful create societies that benefit those like themselves – so there was no argument there.

    What I was interested in was the use of the word “white”. When posed with the simple question of “Who or what is white?”, my opponent hadn’t much of value to say – vagaries and ambiguities. I then asked: “I am Romanian. My people haven’t extensively exploited others, haven’t had any real expansive policies, and wherever we go in the Western world, we experience a degree of separation from the natives. Am I therefore still White, if my people aren’t guilty of the generic accusations and if native Westerners saw me as “different”? Sufficed to say, he was a bit taken aback and dumbfounded.

    For the sake of saving time, I will cut to the chase:

    – As a Romanian living in Australia, Anglo-Australians saw me as different. Not necessarily non-White, but not was White as them. Some outright saw me as basically non-White.

    – Most leftist/POC interpretations of White basically boil down to people of Anglo-Saxon or Northern Descent – basically the most successful Whites. Even the aforementioned Whites sometimes display this interpretation.

    – There is a refusal or failure to understand that Indo-Europeans don’t share this huge collective sense of identity and thus the White conspiracy is a fallacy

    My conclusion being that White has, is and will always be an ambiguous term that can be interpreted and defined ad infinitum. In order for Whiteness to be a thing, we would have to have a real, tangible and meaningful White consciousness that includes all Indo-Europeans… unfortunately that reeks of idealism.

    In fact, I see more unity in ideology than race these days…

    1. I see more unity in death that anything else in the human experience.
      Ideology doesn’t unify anybody, it only makes them identical clones with no identifiable features.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *