Smarter groups of people are more susceptible to attack through social means. Being more focused on the world in our minds, we are less aware of the social world, and so to us it seems both mysterious and more important than it is. This leaves us with a self-confidence deficit when we encounter someone who is more socially adept, or at least better at attracting attention, than we are.
In the past, a hierarchy of ability and quality suppressed the urge to be merely social; socializing, it was believed, consisted of being polite and able to maintain conversation of quality with other quality people. Conversation of quality indicated quickness of mind, depth of knowledge, and most importantly, the ability to think, analyze, and make decisions.
Socializing in the present day consists of maintaining a happy group feeling by including everyone and reducing standards so that none feel risk for their erratic, self-centered, oblivious, delusional, or otherwise less than ideal behavior. If the modern time has a symbol, it will be the amusement park, where individuals can behave selfishly as a crowd.
Most of the world has always followed this pattern of socializing. It is easier to maintain than complex social order, makes it easy to get a group together for activities like harvesting tubers or stoning heretics, and is popular because each person is guaranteed that their defects will not lower their social status.
When Western Europeans encountered the rest of the world, this easy socialization seemed like a tempting path. Western Civilization rewarded those complex manners and conversational requirements, while in what we now call the third world, socializing had few requirements and seemed easy, accessible to everyone.
That tied into something that Western Leftists have long desired, which is the abolition of social hierarchy as expressed through caste and aristocracy. If you remove rule by the best, you can replace it with the reign of the mob, and then each individualistic Leftist can engage in whatever less than productive behaviors they want to without experiencing a loss in social status for doing so, where previously they would have been downgraded to “pleb” or exiled for their venal impulses, trend-following and carnal desires.
Since that time, the Left has been in love with the exotic and foreign so long as it represents lower standards than what we have in the West. At first, they chose groups nearer to us, like the Japanese, but over time, they wanted to go even further to the least-developed groups in the human species. To the Left, racial mixing is a way of achieving class warfare, and thus the mythological-mystical (really: social) ecstasy of “equality.”
For this reason, they are celebrating the destruction of whiteness that has occurred with Prince Harry’s planned marriage to partially-African, partially-Jewish American Meghan Markle:
Some suspected this was merely a clandestine attempt at “getting rid” of the monarchy, erasing their heritage through interracial marriages. Not so much revolution, as racial dilution.
…One of the problems with the discourse in Britain today is the tendency to downplay racial difference, and the temptation of so many well-meaning people who “don’t see race” to believe that if we can all just wilfully blind ourselves, it will hopefully go away.
…All this takes place within a context where it is the royal family we are talking about – the human manifestation of the class system.
The Left even admits it: they celebrate race-mixing because it destroys any kind of social order, which they see as a class system but is actually a hierarchy formed by the differences in natural ability between people.
Their goal is not to establish meritocracy, as conservatives always vainly hope, but to assert themselves as primary; if you cannot “not see race,” then those who are of “disadvantaged” races always come first.
Interestingly, they signal approval for “revolution [through] racial dilution” which shows the nature of the Left: anything which increases equality is good, and everything else is a means to that end. If you have to obliterate your people to do that, this is positive. “We had to destroy the village to save it” is a Leftist trope.
For bonus points, not only is Markle half-African, but she is also part-Jewish:
If it were only the name Rachel, dayeinu. If it were just the “Jewish chair dance”, dayeinu. But the greatest evidence in this biur chametz-like hunt for crumbs of Markle’s Jewish identity is that a spokesman for Westminster Abbey confirmed on behalf of the Church of England that, if they choose, Markle and Prince Harry will be able to marry within the church in an “interfaith” marriage, regardless of Markle’s “Jewish background”.
This brings us to the next booshah-turned-equality-milestone, which is that Markle has been married and divorced. And according to the Church of England, if that’s good enough for Henry the 8th, it should be good enough for his fellow ginger ladykiller (so to speak,) Prince Harry.
So, when Markle and Harry marry, Markle will be the first black, Jewish, divorcee, American princess in English history.
Not only is she a stab at the English race, but also a rebuke to any of those old theories from Old Europe which held that Europeans were different from Middle Eastern people. They want to erase every aspect of English identity, culture, heritage, and uniqueness, which we would call “soft genocide” except that in the mass Leftist trend of our time, this destruction is seen as a good thing because it increases equality.
They celebrated for similar reasons when the UK had a part-Jewish prime minister, although it was probably the remnants of Irish heritage that did him in. Trace admixture of the Irish in the English tends to produce hesitant, neurotic people.
Assuming that Prince Harry is not a committed Leftist ideologue, we might wonder, then, how he ended up in this position. An analysis of his body language tells us what we must know:
Body language expert Judi James tells MailOnline she believes ‘informal, confident’ Meghan is running the show while offering reassurance to camera-shy Harry, who can be seen to mimic his father’s ‘anxious’ hand gestures.
…’Harry has started to mimic his father’s hand rituals, which are self-comfort gestures,’ Judi says. ‘Charles often pats his pockets and touches his stomach, and now Harry is doing the same.
‘It shows a lot of admiration for his father, but also a feeling of being slightly nervous and under attack from the cameras.’
…’She also has this trait of putting her hands on top of this. The person who does this is normally the one in control – she’s leading the game.’
Like many Western European men, Harry and his brother William are alienated from their roots and lack self-confidence because they do not have a clear identity and sense of purpose. For starters, their mother Diana was an ill-behaved attention hog who solicited media attention, and had mixed heritage herself.
This separated the boys from an identity as purely 100% English, and instead made them feel like outsiders in a society which on the surface they belonged to, but underneath, they loathed. Neither son has married a woman from his caste or stepped enthusiastically into the role of leadership. Both seem to float on the surface, never fully accepting the duty to which they were born.
In addition, because their society has shifted Leftward progressively over the past thousand years, these boys know that as alpha males, they are the target of the caste revolutionaries. Caste revolution occurs when the mercantile and lower castes, who are related, overthrow the higher, and they do this by trying to erase all health, wisdom, intelligence, morality, and sanity above their level.
However, since their level is low — barely above third world levels — this means “dumbing down” everything in society, turning all pure things into the venal, making people neurotic, and replacing any functional social institution with chaos and dysfunction. Only then do the proles feel that their bad behavior will not be noticed and therefore, they will not lose social standing.
To achieve this dumbing down, the lower echelons mount a social war against the higher parts of the natural hierarchy. Their goal is to sabotage and then shatter the confidence of these people — a control tactic, a type of passive-aggression and gaslighting — which then leaves them wide open to be dominated through passive means.
This memetic surge assaults them from academia, media, celebrities, government, pop culture, and even the pulpits of churches. It so reduces white self-confidence that white people attempt to validate themselves with non-whites:
The article noted that hipster racism is “a trend we noticed back in 2005, at the height of the Kill Whitey parties”. In case they mercifully passed you by, they were ironic dance parties in Williamsburg, a then rapidly gentrifying part of Brooklyn, at which white hipsters parodied black hip-hop culture in order to “kill the whiteness inside”.
…A mixed-race employee at Vice Media told me, for example, about a white executive in her office who routinely uses people of colour as props to make him seem “cool”. He often tries to banter with her about hip-hop, for example, assuming that she is obviously into hip-hop because she is half-black.
“There was one time,” she recalls, “when he wanted to have a business dinner for cool creative people and the invite list was all brown people. It made us feel like pets.”
The Left argues for the Evil White Person theory of this method of using the race of other people as a badge of coolness, but looking at it from a white perspective, it means that people have adopted the media trope that white people are not cool at all. In fact, white self-hatred forms a feedback loop with low self-confidence, erasing our faith in ourselves and using other groups as an “inverse scapegoat,” or people from whom we attempt to draw legitimacy and coolness.
That in turn creates the worst of all possible situations in that we are still “in charge” but are looking to others for guidance, refusing to realize that their interests and ours cannot intersect. They are not bad people for acting in their own self-interest, and if we are handing out money and power because of our low self-esteem, it is only natural to accept.
However, this situation creates a dependency relationship where there is a feedback between Us and the Other, each needing the opposite for some part of our self-regulation, but no one really feeling good about this situation. Among other things, our stewardship relationship makes us scapegoats, and their recipient role gives rise to a sense that they are ungrateful.
Take, for example, the “Magical Negro” trope featured in many Hollywood films:
The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education.
…He’s there to assuage white “guilt” (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest.
In contemporary white culture, there is no profundity assigned to the white variant of species. Much as in previous generations, heroes went into the wild to receive wisdom from Amerinds, or even in Europe centuries ago went to gypsies for their magic or Lapps for their prophecy, the Magical Negro shows white recognition that our culture has lost something vital.
This shows in Harry and William. Born into a dying civilization which over two centuries ago gave up on real leadership for mob rule, with signs that the foundations have crumbled and we are merely living in a pocket of wealth before we become Brazil II, they have a shortage of things about themselves to believe in. Instead they look outward, figuring that they are obsolete and will be replaced.
White people see the lower standards of third world cultures — which are more individualistic than the hierarchical, orderly, standards-driven West of old — as more accepting and therefore, places in which you cannot lose social status for an action that shows you are unrealistic, selfish, or otherwise not up to the task. In the third world, chaos rules, and everyone is OK as a result.
This asymmetry creates a situation where normally, mixed-race people assimilate to the third world race:
When they attended playdates with white students in their class, they were always made to sit at the edge of the bed, to search for others in a room where they would never find anyone, to wait for the phone call on the following day saying their friend had a great time and would like to have them over again that never came. So their mothers would encourage their black friendships, which seemed to come easier. Their black friends would praise their hair for being silkier than theirs, call them funny even when their jokes were indulgent, and make room for them at the table even if it was full.
We have inverted this process now by, through low self-confidence, becoming more accepting because white culture sees no future for itself and wants to die.
A simple solution to this problem is to stop focusing on the Other at all, and to instead praise what is good about us, instead of trying to praise all of us. We will never regain our self-esteem if we do not create a hierarchy of excellence, not just in people but in ideas, actions, institutions, and creations like art and architecture.
In the meantime, the British royal family has exited stage Left. For some reason, Prince Charles married an unsuitable woman; she produced two kids with shattered self-esteem, and so both have married outside caste, one by hooking up with the daughter of a flight attendant, and the second besting the first by choosing an ethnically unsuitable actress.
There is only one solution for this. As happened in the past, the royals who outbreed should abdicate, and leave leadership to those with both self-esteem and a belief in their own people.