Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘diversity’

“Divide And Conquer” Meme — The Notion That Elites Divide Us By Race — Is Marxist Propaganda

Wednesday, September 20th, 2017

You may have seen a popular trope or meme floating around that suggests that our faux elites divide us by race, and that if we just join hands, we can unite ourselves to oppose those elites. Absurdly many conservatives support this.

The roots of this meme can be found in an idea from Karl Marx, describing it through the metaphor of Irish immigration and African-American dispossession:

Owing to the constantly increasing concentration of leaseholds, Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labor market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.

And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.

This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organization. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.

The above is simply a restatement of “workers of the world, unite” and other ideas: there are some wealthy people who are more powerful than you, so what is important is not making a functional society, but uniting against these wealthy people on the basis that they must be oppressing you, because if you are equal and ended up poor, it can only be because someone held you back.

In reality, what divides us is biology. People like to be with others who are like them, which includes race, ethnicity, caste, class, region and religion. This division serves to create a social order, which consists of unequal people doing unequal tasks for the same goal, as opposed to a uniform order of identical people all doing the same thing at once. Marxism is the ideology of the factory.

Further, our goal is not to overthrow those in power, but to ensure that power is handled by those with the natural ability to use it well, a talent comprised of both congenital intelligence and inborn moral character. Very few are competent in this arena, and they are hated by the herd, which wants to hold them back because competent leadership will mean restriction on what the crowd can do.

Humans instinctively melt for two ideas: freedom/anarchy and subsidies/socialism. Freedom, or anarchy as most people interpret it, means that they can do whatever they want, forgetting that they actually need a much narrower range of options since what they do is related to what reality rewards, and is not arbitrary. Subsidies mean that they do not have to face the consequences in reality of their illusory acts.

Our history can be understood as a constant struggle to subdue the inner human desire for stupidity, namely anarchy and socialism, with the winners being the civilizations that use principles, values, culture and hierarchy to keep the human animal from raging out of control in pursuit of its vainglorious illusions.

Socialism in particular is appealing, and might be described as “economic equality” in recognition of this fact, because it promises that we no longer have to answer to Darwin and adapt to our world, but whatever we do, will be supported by civilization. This is similar to how equality makes good and evil equal, which basically means that evil becomes more efficient and predominates.

Since humans want to pursue these illusions, they have to invent a counter-narrative to actual history that re-styles our past as a pursuit not of sanity, but of these mysterious universal, absolute and open-ended (infinite scope/context) terms that make people have an emotional reaction, like freedom, liberty, justice, peace, equality, tolerance, pluralism and socialism. They are all the same idea at their core, which is equality, or protection for the human individual against reality by using the power of the State.

Conservatives fall into this Marxist rhetoric because they want to believe that “people power” would thrust society in a conservative direction, when in reality, the more power that people have, the farther Left they go until they destroy that society, which is why human history is a jagged graph of successes followed by failures.

Liberals Can’t Wish Away Nature

Tuesday, September 19th, 2017

Affirmative Action is worse than officially sanctioned state-sponsored “racism.” It is also, corrupt, inefficient and stupid enough to fail the very people it was intended to save. It does as much for a single mother in a project somewhere as King Canute accomplished by commanding the tides.

And that actually seems to be the point if we assume the people in charge of this were cynical. Yet another indicator of how far LBJ‘s vision of greatness falls short involves how little Affirmative Action has done to effectively improve the educational outcomes of targeted minorities.

Even after decades of affirmative action, black and Hispanic students are more underrepresented at the nation’s top colleges and universities than they were 35 years ago, according to a New York Times analysis. The share of black freshmen at elite schools is virtually unchanged since 1980. Black students are just 6 percent of freshmen but 15 percent of college-age Americans, as the chart below shows.

This, according to The Left was not supposed to happen. Government could step in and make the family and the smaller community irrelevant. But lots of things happen that are not supposed to happen. One thing that I personally don’t think is supposed to happen is widely accepted illegitimate human breeding. But, nope, they don’t listen to cranky old JPW and put a sock on the cock unless the deliberately intend to breed. David French briefly uncucks and notes an interesting correlation between what The Carlos Slim Blog doesn’t want to see happen and what JPW would rather not have occur.

The cohort that’s most overrepresented in American colleges and universities, Asian Americans, also happens to have the lowest percentage of nonmarital births in the United States. In fact, the greater the percentage of nonmarital births, the worse the educational outcomes. Only 16.4 percent of Asian and Pacific Islander children are born into nonmarried households. For white, Hispanic, and black Americans the percentages are 29.2, 53, and 70.6, respectively.

This was also something that Managerial State Liberals never wanted to see happen. They were smart guys like Jonathan Gruber who could bullshit reality and change its course because, MIT or somesuch credential. This is hubris. This is the fatally-flawed foundation upon which all Leftism is ultimately built. If poli-sci is downstream from theology, then LBJ’s Great Society is the policy consequence of a leadership steeped in a contemporaneous version of The Gnostic Heresy. Who needs a family when Gov-a-God can command that all women lead the Life of Julia.

Follow the BezosBlog link to the original Life of Julia advertisement on BarackObama.com and you’ll fly the 404-Flag. They’ve called the Fire Department on this one and Montague has dutifully arrived. This is fitting. The Life of Julia ranks up there in believability with “If you like your doctor, you can keep him.” The Life of Julia is better represented by this. The real “Life of Julia” doesn’t lend itself to raising kids who are typical Harvard Material.

The problem is, like so much of our political rhetoric, Julia is not a composite; she’s a myth. Some of the nation’s single moms may be successful Web designers, but many are poor — fully half have incomes of less than $30,000 a year, compared with just 15 percent of married women. It’s not Pell grants and SBA loans these women rely on but Medicaid and food stamps. And it’s not comfortable retirements in community gardens they contemplate but bleak old age. Whereas government benefits were once the state’s compassionate response to women who had lost their husbands, in Julia’s world they are the unquestionable entitlement of women who never married.

The hubris of Amerikan central planners has destroyed the lives and betrayed the hopes and dreams of countless women of every background and color. It has taught them to diminish the family, which has predictably, destroyed and diminished any lasting legacy they hoped would endure beyond their final passage from the terrestrial vale of tears. You cannot undo the stupid with another layer of stupid. Julia’s kids are not getting the benefits of Affirmative Action. The ones raking in money are 3.2% Cherokee and 100% Butthole.

In the end, Affirmative Action is nothing except a fraud and a lie. The only people who still sincerely believe in it’s good intentions are rolling to disbelieve anytime reality bites them in the posterior. Grifters and Card-Sharps use it to steal money, status and honor based on drummed-up racial guilt trips. It can never work because no administrative state in world history has ever been able to change human nature. From Nebuchadnezzer on forward, every attempt at anything resembling an affirmative action program has failed. And here I figured the smart guys at Harvard would piece the truth together and move past…

The Stevens Rule

Friday, September 15th, 2017

Back in the 1990s, an influential book called The Selfish Gene emerged. Its basic premise was that we do not use our genes, but they use us, meaning that we exist to perpetuate the gene and not vice-versa. Naturally this was not literal because genes do not have agency, but it served as a powerful metaphor for Darwinism: ideas, not intentions, win out, and we are their vehicles.

This coincided with ideas advanced by William S. Burroughs and Tom Wolfe, namely that ideas use us in an analog to biological viruses. When an idea appeals to a large number of people, they exist to give it immortality, and they pass it along by force because of some need of their own that the idea purports to address. Whether it does or not is the question of history, which shows us that humanity has been racing from one idea to another, looking for stability, which is manifested in the absence of illusion, as they shuttle between extremes.

Idea-viruses can destroy whole societies. It is possible that certain Maya regional civilizations perished because when the droughts came, they chose sacrifice to the gods over rebuilding the irrigation system that took water from rivers to the north. Many of us would say that Athens tore itself apart internally in pursuit of the humanistic society, and that the Soviet Union did the same.

Every society understands the basic idea that it should be virtuous; however, that simple notion is then hijacked by narrower definitions which use that society in order to perpetuate themselves, much like viruses injecting their DNA into our cells, which then become little factories to replicate the virus, bursting and letting the toxic brood spill forth.

Our current society is crucifying itself on the cross of pacifism, which is our interpretation of virtue because an absence of pacifism means internal struggle and thus that the higher will remain above the lower, a condition which insults our bottom-heavy population. Pacifism for us is a mix of pluralism (“agree to disagree”), equality, and diversity. Each idea supports the others, which makes them a whole idea.

People love pacifism because it means that they can never be wrong, which is another way of saying “the rules do not apply to me.” That is, they can do whatever they want, and no one else can point out that they are transgressing against the flag, king, gods, morality or virtue. This is why they aggressively try to remove religion, culture, and other unique statements of values, because these are standards against which the equal individual can potentially transgress, and therefore risks to those who desire above all else to be equal.

Diversity is a crucial point of this strategy. It was always designed as genocide, or at least erasure of the majority culture, because majority culture provides a standard against which other people can fail, and that failure is exactly what equality was designed to avoid.

You can tell that the stated reasons for diversity are not the actual reasons because no one knows what those actual reasons are. Discussions about diversity are a shambles because people bleat out a Soviet-like “Diversity is our strength,” and when pushed further, start to break down into chaos.

This is why The Stevens Rule exists, which is:

In any discussion of diversity, over time the probability of mention of restaurants becomes one.

When discussing diversity, inevitably someone is going to start talking about restaurants and ethnic food, and the fact that it happens sooner rather than later means that people really have no idea why they “think” diversity is our strength, at all. They know that it is the right thing to say, socially speaking, but beyond that, their reasoning is as murky and chaotic as the East Bay.

This reveals the actual reason for diversity: there is no advantage to diversity, except that it enables white people to one-up another with pretense.

It is a type of revenge… life made me a loser? You got the BMW, and I got the Hyundai? Well, screw you, buddy, because although I am not wealthier, I am better. You have a BMW, but I have diversity. It’s just like kids in the 1930s listening to “race music” and thinking they were edgy and stuff, or the Bohemians of the 1870s who lived like gypsies. Nothing provides better revenge against your parents and people with more money or brains than you than saying, “I hate You and I embrace the Other, because I hate You most of all.”

Of course, these people make themselves neurotic because revenge is essentially a way of enslaving yourself to the person you want revenge upon. Your life is dictated by what you must do to respond to the world in order to get revenge on them, and so they, instead of virtue, have become your focus.

As a side note, this means that the diversitarians are in fact the most racist people on planet Earth, which would bother me if racism were actually a thing (“racism” is the Leftist term for the variety of “freedom” or “independence” that has non-neurotic people exclusively favoring living among people like them, not just by race but by ethnicity, caste, religion and general direction; for example, Your Author prefers to live among Caucasian, Western European, Kshatriya or Brahmin, Protestant or Deist, conservative realist people). Diversitarians are recognizing the importance of race toward producing an Other, and then using those other races as means of both revenge and caste-jumping among Caucasian people. No wonder they are all neurotic.

People are cowed and cordycepted by the idea-virus of diversity, which is what gives it power. It is the equivalent of the courtroom question: “Yes or not answers only, please; have you stopped beating your wife yet?” It’s a gotcha, and the Left loves gotchas because nuance, depth, and duration are anathema to their rather square-headed thinking.

When someone asks you if you support diversity, there are two answers: yes, I’m with the good people and I want to do virtuous things; or, no, I ride with Hitler and I want to gas six billion non-whites including your Bubbie. There is no middle ground because the question is a binary based on support of something arbitrary, so you either indulge in the illusion — the idea-virus — or you are free of it.

This is the power of the idea-virus; it eliminates the middle ground, which means that failure to agree is the same as disagreement or enmity, when in reality those are different things. If someone asks me what I think of Gefilte fish, I can answer that I have never had it, that I do not eat it, that I think it is an abomination or finally that I think it should not exist. These are different answers, but not to the idea-virus!

In the narrow cadre of Realists, one truth shines above all else. Everything — every object, idea, person, group — acts in self-interest. They do this because self-interest cannot be subverted in the same way altruism, compassion, friendship, love, peace, harmony and other seductive terms can be. Nature sticks to the bottom line.

When you see the world this way, you realize that altruism does not exist and that diversitarians are not pathological altruists; they are people using diversity as a weapon to beat your head in, get ahead of you and take your stuff, like the shopkeeper who figures out that he can claim his competitors put horse meat in the soup.

In addition, you realize that diversity itself is not the idea. The idea-virus is that of power, or that the individual can step beyond his role in the natural place of things to have pure, raw power… which is reflected through the obedience of others… which in turn is the only thing on Earth that can truly turn someone into a slave, that dependence on the opinion of others.

And so, like all things evil, we see that servitude presents itself as freedom, much as evil always presents itself as good and diversity presents itself as anti-racism. The idea-virus has won out by requiring one level of interpretation — thinking ahead to more than the next move in chess, more like several moves ahead — beyond what most Caucasians can understand.

The time of The Selfish Idea has ended, however, as Samuel Huntington pointed out, because with the rise of the “clash of civilizations” we have returned to organic or unequal and naturally-arising distinctions as opposed to ideological ones, which are based on the idea of a universal human truth which “should” be imposed upon reality. All ideology is humanism.

As these organic times return, people come not just to distrust a specific ideology — the toxic brew of Leftism, diversity, consumerism, and egalitarianism that the American neoconservatives and neo-liberals share as a means of uniting their governments — but the idea of ideology itself. Ideology requires that you believe that The Selfish Idea is not selfish at all, but altruistic, and therein is the root of the lie.

When we do not require the approval for other people for our self-esteem, we can rediscover virtue: it is made of doing what works, but choosing from within that set, the set of what works best, which means that which the finest minds among us recognize. We cannot separate realism from the pursuit of genius. But with virtue, we no longer “need” The Selfish Idea; we have realism, instead, which works better anyway.

We can make our own Mexican, Italian, Asian and Irish food. It’s not rocket science. We can farm our own crops, raise our own livestock, build our own gadgets, clean our own floors. “Freedom” may be nonsense, but the way of life that does not involve being beholden to others for our own survival is worthy of praise.

“Unite The Right” Went Better Than People Think

Monday, September 4th, 2017

We live in a relative universe where it would not be possible to have good without having bad, and sometimes to see what is good, you have to see who the bad guys are. This is what happened in Charlottesville, and it is why the Alt Right is rising: despite the media chiming in about Nazi flags and “Jews Will Not Replace Us” chants, the world shrugged and thought, “If other ethnic groups can have identity politics, I guess it’s only fair that white people do as well.”

This flipped the narrative.

Among other things, it rendered the Nazi flags obsolete because now simple statements of European identity are something the media fears more, and so the Hollywood Nazis have lost their power. It introduced many people to the idea of European identity politics which, when presented by well-spoken normal-looking people wearing polo shirts, seems less of a hateful diatribe than another take on a political scene that desperately needs different ideas to escape from its echo-chamber ideological spiral.

Even more, it showed us who the bad guys were. The media, government, police, and big corporations are all on one side, designing a technocratic egalitarian utopia which sounds as boring as Soviet architecture. On the other side were normal people arguing for an organic view of human life which emphasizes positive values, in contrast to the resentment politics of the Left.

It also showed us that our authorities are negligent and seek to instigate violence:

The vast majority of our people enter Lee Park and begin socializing. The shield wall takes up a defensive position at the entrances to Lee Park. This was due to the failure of the police to enforce a neutral barrier. You can also see the shield wall race into the crowd to rescue people who are attacked. #UniteTheRight protesters actually show little interest in engaging with the Antifa.

I’ve been to dozens of events and have never seen anything resembling the policing on display in the video below. It is incomprehensible. Everywhere else I have been the police established and enforced a neutral barrier. It makes even less sense when you consider the fact that the Department of Homeland Security warned McAuliffe and Charlottesville about the potential for violence.

At every protest where Antifa were unmasked, violence did not occur; at Charlottesville, where the police not only refused to unmask Antifa as required by state law but also pushed the two groups together, violence and chaos resulted. This was their plan: the Leftist mayor wanted to cause violence, then goad the Leftist media into blaming it on the Right, so that Leftist government would act against the Alt Right. This failed because the public did not pick up the media outcry, and Donald Trump made a statement about bad actors “on both sides,” implicitly condemning Antifa for their part in instigating the mess.

This negligent policing is going to get these cities sued at some point, but we are lucky they did it. America woke up to a media narrative about Right-wing violence, and saw the opposite, at which point the Left turned on Antifa because politicians like Nancy Pelosi realizes that the Left thrives in the polls, like Angela Merkel, on appearing to be a stable order who is holding back the bad guys who want to take over and wage race war and Holocaust 2.0.

It was the reaction to Charlottesville, rather than the event itself, which fully put the Alt Right on the map: people took the Alt Right seriously and became more vocal in their criticism of the Leftist ideal of multiculturalism, which is to most minds unfair if it allows one group to have an identity and self-advocacy and denies it to another group.

When you get normal-looking people marching on the streets and saying, “If every other group can have identity politics, we want that right, too,” then you have a rebellion against the dominant paradigm which is going mainstream; it’s not weird guys on meth, living in trailers and dating their sisters, planning for the great race war because they have personally failed at life, as the media narrative repeats to us daily.

Years ago, some rebellious students founded The Hessian Studies Center with two objectives: to parody identity politics, and to encourage the study of heavy metal:

The Hessian Studies Department believes that any truly diverse multicultural population will contain representatives of this world-wide underground culture, with its rich and spanning historical and social contributions.

The Alt Right is similarly part comedy and part serious: we believe that European-descended peoples have the same need for ethnic self-determination as other groups, and by doing this, we turn multiculturalism against itself and reveal it for the parodic idiocy that it is. If we can have black, Asian, Hispanic, LGBT+ studies and other advocacy groups, college majors and politics, why not white versions of the same?

Maybe we can make the casserole our symbol. White people can show up and do typically white things like program computers, have block parties, go to museums, watch nature documentaries and trade stock tips. By adopting the normal white guy attire of polo shirts, slacks and loafers, the white studies team is winning the war of optics.

The point is that either no group gets an identity — this is what assimilationists want, believing that if we unite people with economic and legal systems, they all become good citizens who carry on whatever it is that we’re doing — or every group gets its own identity, and there is no way for these groups to exist, but instead they will each live in balkanized “Chinatowns” if not their separate continents.

Americans and Europeans have opened their countries and their wallets and hearts to The Diversity Project only to find their countries broke, themselves marginalized and discriminated against, and their societies converted into alien places that do not resemble any form they recognize from the past. Diversity has failed.

The police at “Unite the Right” were the bad guys, hired by Leftist unions and commanded by a Leftist mayor, and this meant that the Alt Right was the scrappy underdog in an old American trope updated for the present era. The bad guys bet on the wrong trend because they were looking at society as it was during the early Obama years, when praising diversity was a path to government approval and success, and not the later Obama years, when the wreckage of Leftism and diversity left people overworked, feeling persecuted and exhausted.

By the end of Obama term #2, people worldwide had seen quality of life in America collapse alongside American prestige, in the hands of a government which not only refused to recognize the problem, but was doubling down on its ideological agenda. Instead of having fewer racial troubles because it elected a black president, America experienced all of them but worse as a Leftist/minority coalition, emboldened by multicultural propaganda, went on the warpath.

Ironically, this came about because of the rise of neoliberalism, which hybridized socialism and capitalism to make a conservative type of society which was waging war for Leftist ideals:

The book’s central indictment is that President Clinton, in submitting his welfare, budget, and tax bills from 1995-1997, “signaled surrender: the Reagan revolution was going to achieve its major goals.” The Reagan neoliberal program of small government, tax cuts, deregulation, free trade, and monetarist financial policies was more than just consolidated. In signing the Welfare Reform Bill of 1996 and the subsequent 1997 budget compromise, Clinton broke the back of the New Deal. The government commitment, however modest and poorly implemented, to protect the poor against the worst ravages of the market was thus ended. A central redistributional bargain crumbled as well: the top 20 percent of income earners in the United States would gain after-tax relief, while the bottom 20 percent of Americans would further suffer the marginalization of deepening poverty.

Presidents after Clinton essentially followed his ideal: keep the core of the economy capitalist, then tax the heck out of it and use that to buy the allegiance of a permanent underclass of third world minorities, blue-haired obese feminists, pajama boys and angry single women. This same coalition brought Obama into power and, heavily employed by media and academia, quashed notice of the failure of these policies.

This unstable situation morphed into globalism, or a worldwide extension of both American capitalism and the Leftist ideology, creating misery everywhere as it produced Soviet levels of demands for obedience to dogma while reducing the quality of life for most. Third world nations found themselves lifted up, only to become overpopulated sources of raw labor, and discarded as soon as costs rose; the first world discovered that it was planned to be the host for the world, importing that cheap labor to drive the fires of industry and pay the taxes that bought votes for Leftist leaders.

Globalism brought itself down because of its tendency to homogenize humanity, which put it at odds with the idea of multiculturalism, which is that different cultures would exist. This paradox detonated when it confronted those in minority-majority cities, who realized that the dynamic was not white-versus-black, but many groups, each striving for its own control, laws, leaders, culture and values:

When I recently mentioned, to a friend at the local Pacifica radio station in Houston, the “melting pot” as a concept that had worked well for us throughout most of our history, I was met with utter befuddlement, and the firm rejoinder, “But we should all hold onto our cultures!”

When minorities become the majority, we see that the narrative is not as simple as white oppression of the other, but many others, all struggling against everyone else, because biology, genetics, standards and desires differ. One cannot have multiculturalism and make war against Islam, nor can one be multicultural and deny the right of Germany to be German.

The “diversity is our strength” mantra hit the floor, and the Alt Right has picked up the narrative and re-directed it toward a future where we can escape both multiculturalism and globalism.

More For the Fenian Theory of The Inevitable Failure of Ethnic Diversity

Sunday, September 3rd, 2017

Apparently this phenomenon is not entirely new, having recurred throughout history:

On October 4, 1936, tens of thousands of Zionists, Socialists, Irish dockworkers, Communists, anarchists, and various outraged residents of London’s East End gathered to prevent Oswald Mosley and his British Union of Fascists from marching through their neighborhood.

These [[[ dockworkers ]]] knew what most modern Western people will not admit, which is that outsiders feel alienated and strike out against the majority, and every group acts in its own best interests. The Irish want to conquer England, and if they can do it through the vote and the womb, they will do so, just like Palestinians in Israel or Mexicans in Texas.

Reminder: “Science” Is Often Fake, And Diversity Never Works

Sunday, September 3rd, 2017

For years, Leftists relied on Stephen Jay Gould’s assertion that the races were all equal because, in Gould’s writing, he claimed that earlier skull measurements were incorrect and that these alterations were motivated by “racism.”

As it turned out, we found out in 2011 that Gould was so wrong as to stretch credulity, causing us to think that as usual, “the Leftist cries out as he strikes you,” or accuses you of exactly what he is doing:

In a 1981 book, “The Mismeasure of Man,” the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that Morton, believing that brain size was a measure of intelligence, had subconsciously manipulated the brain volumes of European, Asian and African skulls to favor his bias that Europeans had larger brains and Africans smaller ones.

…But now physical anthropologists at the University of Pennsylvania, which owns Morton’s collection, have remeasured the skulls, and in an article that does little to burnish Dr. Gould’s reputation as a scholar, they conclude that almost every detail of his analysis is wrong.

…But the Penn team finds Morton’s results were neither fudged nor influenced by his convictions. They identified and remeasured half of the skulls used in his reports, finding that in only 2 percent of cases did Morton’s measurements differ significantly from their own. These errors either were random or gave a larger than accurate volume to African skulls, the reverse of the bias that Dr. Gould imputed to Morton.

…But Dr. Gould himself omitted subgroups in his own reanalysis, and made various errors in his calculations. When these are corrected, the differences between the racial categories recognized by Morton are as he assigned them. “Ironically, Gould’s own analysis of Morton is likely the stronger example of a bias influencing results,” the Pennsylvania team writes.

It is important to realize how pervasive the mental virus of egalitarianism is by looking at cases like the above. Assumptions about systematic racism and unconscious bias were made, revealing the opposite truth: the bias was not there, and the results were the opposite of what was asserted.

When we say that we are egalitarian, we are buying into the caste revolt that has catastrophically ruined the West over the past couple centuries. In order for the proles to seize control, they have to argue that there is nothing different about a king or high IQ person from anyone else, and therefore anyone can rule, and to make that fair, we will all choose whoever that is.

As a necessary side-effect of this, we have to stop noticing differences and adopt the unconscious bias that says that, since all people are equal, different outcomes are the result of chance or “oppression” instead of a difference in ability. This society would have you look at someone with wealth and assume that he has no different abilities from someone who is poor.

Maybe in some cases that is true, but in the vast majority of cases, those who are more intelligent and capable rise above the rest. That outraged us, so we started offering workarounds: education that rewards the obedient instead of the intellectually capable, jobs that reward hours doing nonsense paperwork instead of results, government that chooses what is popular over what is true.

This causes a tension common to failing societies: what “everyone” agrees is true, is in fact not true, and since there is no reward and great risk in speaking what is true, society becomes dedicated to lies. The converse of that is that it must suppress notice of what is actually true, and by doing that, it creates an industry built around sustaining the lies.

Consider that, much as in the French Revolution people were required to pretend that peasants were equal to kings and not laugh at that, in our current day, we are still struggling with the ability to admit differences between social classes, races, ethnic groups, sexes and family lines:

There are three areas where ideology has impinged on biology, trying its best to distort data: differences between human ethnic groups (“races”), between human males and females, and the study of evolutionary psychology.

…The ideologues’ problem with all these areas is the same: were biology to show, for example, that there are genetic differences between sexes, ethnic groups, or cultures, that could be used to justify racism, sexism, and exceptionalism. And indeed, this has happened in the past: all of us know the sordid history of assuming biology translates directly into human rights, which led to eugenics, racism, the denigration of and lack of opportunity for women, and so on.

It is even more damaging than that: if we reveal that, like Stephen Jay Gould’s research, biology is true and ideology was based on lines, then we know it is time to throw out ideology, or what the authors of the above piece refer to as “ought” instead of “is” based thinking. That which is unrealistic is emotional or social in origin, and that means it puts us at a disadvantage for following an illusion.

This is the core of the struggle between the rising dissident Right and modern society: modern society is based on egalitarianism, which is an “ought”-based notion, where the Right is based on what “is,” and then improving that by selecting the best possible option. If diversity does not work, multiculturalism must go, replaced by the better option of benevolent nationalism.

That in turn threatens Leftism itself because the core of their ideology is based on the priestlike ability to grand redemption from “wrongs” that led to inequality, but if inequality is natural and equality is not, then there is no need for redemption:

Here we see redemptive liberalism’s great ingenuity: It seized proprietorship over innocence itself. It took on the power to grant or deny moral legitimacy across society. Liberals were free of the past while conservatives longed to resurrect it, bigotry and all. What else could “Make America Great Again” mean? In this way redemptive liberalism reshaped the moral culture of the entire Western world with sweeping idealisms like “diversity,” which are as common today in Europe as in America.

So today there is sweetness at the news of racism because it sets off the hunt for innocence and power. Racism and bigotry generally are the great driving engines of modern American liberalism. Even a remote hint of racism can trigger a kind of moral entrepreneurism.

…The great problem for conservatives is that they lack the moral glibness to compete with liberalism’s “innocence.” But today there are signs of what I have called race fatigue. People are becoming openly cynical toward the left’s moral muscling with racism. Add to this liberalism’s monumental failure to come even close to realizing any of its beautiful idealisms, and the makings of a new conservative mandate become clearer. As idealism was the left’s political edge, shouldn’t realism now be the right’s?

This shows us an even greater split, as noted by Samuel Huntington, which is that Leftism is inherently universalistic, or based on what humans have in common, but that is a social construct because people are increasingly concerned with what makes them and their specific local group united instead.

For that reason, identity politics is rising because as Mr. Steele notes above, Leftism has failed to “come even close to realizing any of its beautiful idealisms.” People are fleeing the Left, and turning instead to what they have in common with others that is exclusive of other groups, which causes a rise in identitarianism alongside a simultaneous rejection of universalism, or the notion that we are all the same and therefore, the largest unit within civilization is the individual:

Recent surveys suggest that roughly 47 percent of Republicans are what you might call conservative universalists and maybe 40 percent are what you might call conservative white identitarians. White universalists believe in conservative principles and think they apply to all people and their white identity is not particularly salient to them. White identitarians are conservative, but their white identity is quite important to them, sometimes even more important than their conservatism.

These white identitarians have taken the multicultural worldview taught in schools, universities and the culture and, rightly or wrongly, have applied it to themselves. As Marxism saw history through the lens of class conflict, multiculturalism sees history through the lens of racial conflict and group oppression.

…I’d love to see more research on the relationship between white identity politics and simple racism. There’s clear overlap, but I suspect they’re not quite the same thing. Racism is about feeling others are inferior. White identitarianism is about feeling downtrodden and aggrieved yourself.

The latter sentence is not quite true: white identitarianism is not just white, but focuses on ethnic groups within the European races, and is not based on feeling aggrieved so much as realizing that, if universalism (egalitarianism) is wrong, then no one else will represent the interests of a group that they do not belong to.

For members of a definable ethnic group, this means that they alone must stand up for their own interests, have their own country, ethnic self-determination or control of their future, impose their own standards and laws, defend their language and practice, maintain their genetic heritage, and do so in full knowledge that every other group is representing its own interests, which are contrary to their own.

The Left has acknowledged this, mainly by calling anyone who stands up for their ethnic interests and is also white or whitish a “white supremacist” which equates acting in self-interest while white with wanting whites to rule the world and subjugate other races:

It’s easy to focus on the angry white men in paramilitary gear who looked like they were mobilizing for a race war in the Virginia college town. But it’s the ordinary people — the voters who elected a reality TV star with a record of making racially insensitive comments, the people who move out of the neighborhood when people of color move in, the family members who ignore a relative’s anti-Semitism — who give these type of men room to operate, they say.

That was the twisted formula that made the Holocaust and Rwanda possible and allowed Jim Crow segregation to survive: Nice people looked the other way while those with an appetite for violence did the dirty work, says Mark Naison, a political activist and history professor at Fordham University in New York City.

Never mind that “nice people looking the other way” is what enables Antifa to rampage across the land while Leftists destroy vital institutions, tear down statues, censor free speech and engage in other totalitarian practices that fit within the gulags, censorship, guillotines and secret police heritage of Leftism that goes back to the French Revolution in 1789.

The Leftist argument that white self-interest is “supremacist” only if we make the assumption that multiculturalism is a permanent state, and one group wanting to be in control of itself somehow deprives other groups of something that only that group can provide, like welfare benefits and entitlements. That order has already died, although the death scene is taking some time to play out on stage.

As much as it aggrieves the Left and Leftist minorities, whites are going their own way. They do not want to be part of the multicultural tapestry of failure any longer. They are tired of being the group which is worked into the ground to pay for taxes that support a permanent minority underclass while whites face higher victimization at the hands of other groups.

Historical guilt only goes so far. Like the bad science, it was based on lies, and so now people have thrown out the entire argument. They do not want to “just get along”; they want to just get away from what is obviously another crazy ideology which is going to plunge everyone into disaster, much like Communism and National Socialism did.

This much has been apparent for some time. People trust results, but are less trustful of ideology, and so were resistant to the Tower of Babel agenda until the 1960s, when the combination of WWII anti-racism and a desire to out-compete the Soviets by offering more freedom and social benefits to living here converted the West into a Leftist ideological regime which then expanded after the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. With its competition gone, the Western capitalist-Leftist hybrid could triumph over the socialist-Leftist variety.

However, since the 1860s, Americans have been wary of the “one big happy” approach that was used to federalize the independent states so that the USA could unite behind an ideological agenda, and at that point, the Americans hit on the French Revolutionary ideal of equality for workers across the globe, and spun that into an anti-slavery narrative that surpassed previous abolitionist efforts in its dogmatic ferocity.

This agenda reached its full power with the defeat of the last ostensibly Right-leaning powers in WWII, and accelerated after the fall of the Soviets, causing an intensification of things whites had noticed about their homelands — constant ethnic violence, higher crime, loss of social trust, abolition of values and standards, and the dumbing-down of almost everything — since diversity became state policy in the 1940s.

As the 1990s approached with a post-Reagan Leftist narrative diversity and immigration, conservatives wanted to speak out, but felt they could not, and they were proven right by the ongoing destruction of careers for having said the wrong thing. The first incident to really make this popular was the crucifixion of Jimmy “The Greek” Synder in 1988, which shattered his career and left him to die, penniless and alone, eight years later.

Leftists had realized, during the Reagan years, that they could use diversity as a weapon. Given the choice, white people tended to vote for conservatives who would then interrupt the cozy arrangement that liberals had with industry. The only solution was to replace white people by using immigration, legal and illegal alike, as well as accelerated affirmative action to replace whites in positions of power.

At this point, a curious inversion began to happen. Previous diversity theory had held that whichever group was dominant was the only group that could be “racist”; newer thinkers began to realize that, with government behind an ideology, it could use diversity to replace the dominant group through forced interaction, outbreeding and civil rights and affirmative action style employment, education and quota programs in position of authority.

As a result, white people began to think the unthinkable… the despite being the historical majority, they might be entitled to have an identity and act in defense of it, too. This helped united the disparate elements of anti-modern thinking — social conservatives, human biodiversity, men’s rights, the New Right, libertarians, monarchists, traditionalists, and the Old Right — into a common movement based around the defense of the rights of the majority against the historical narrative of guilt and oppression.

These movements rediscovered the nationalism of the 1900s through 1940s, and now began to express it as a right to nationalism for all peoples which thwarted the modern agenda of globalism and diversity, or merging all peoples inevitably into one grey race that, lacking culture and identity of its own, would dependent on Soviet-style Leftist government for its sense of purpose:

But the reasoning behind the linking of the two symbols – white supremacy and Zionism – is far from torturous. The two are not strange bedfellows, but rather natural allies. Both represent a desire to establish and maintain a homogeneous society that posits itself as superior, more advanced, more civilised than the “others” who are, unfortunately, within its midst, a “demographic threat” to be contained through border walls and stricter immigration law. American fascism, then, is holding up a mirror to Zionism.

…Spencer explained that, logically, Zionists should “respect” his views: “… an Israeli citizen, someone who understands your identity, who has a sense of nationhood and peoplehood, and the history and experience of the Jewish people, you should respect someone like me, who has analogous feelings about whites. You could say that I am a white Zionist – in the sense that I care about my people, I want us to have a secure homeland for us and ourselves. Just like you want a secure homeland in Israel”.

…”Do you really want radical inclusion into the State of Israel?” Spencer replied. “Jews exist precisely because you did not assimilate to the gentiles… I respect that about you. I want my people to have that same sense of themselves.” Rosenberg was left speechless, unable to effectively rebuke Spencer.

For too long, we have been taught a fake narrative of diversity along with fake science because both are needed to support the illusion that “equality” is desirable, functional and will lead to good things. It has failed, leaving us with a corrupt and tyrannical government, a shattered economy, social unrest and a people who are blighted by promiscuity, obesity, moral incontinence and the narcissism that is found in the intersection of hipsterism, special snowflake syndrome, and the victim narrative. The nationalist ideal is rising because the internationalist, globalist, diversity and multicultural ideal has been implemented and it is a disaster.

Diversity has already died, just like Stephen Jay Gould’s theory that all humans are the same in abilities. More importantly, the notion that we can exist without acting in our own self-interest as organic groups has died, and with it, the Leftist ideal of one world population has collapsed. Now we are fighting over how to make the transition without committing the errors of the past.

Israel Shows The Path To Ending Diversity

Sunday, September 3rd, 2017

Zionism is Jewish nationalism, which is the idea that the only way to preserve the Jewish people is to curate them in a state inhabited only by people who are ethnically Jewish. This is no different from any other form of nationalism, which always seeks to preserve an ethnic group by creating a homogeneous society and excluding all outside influences.

In this way, nationalism is not bigoted, but xenophobic, in that it recognizes any foreign intrusion as a pathogen which will eventually harm the health of the “nation,” or the ethnic group united to its land, as a whole. Nationalism views ethnic groups as organic wholes, meaning arising from nature and consisting of unequal parts interacting like an ecosystem.

Binyamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, recently expressed nationalist ideals when he ejected migrants from a Tel Aviv suburb:

Three days after Israel’s top court ruled that African asylum seekers can be deported to Rwanda and Uganda, but only can be held in detention for sixty days, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited south Tel Aviv neighborhoods and the area around the central bus station, where many asylum seekers live.

…”We will return south Tel Aviv to the citizens of Israel, they are not refugees, but infiltrators looking for work,” he said. He added: “If needed, we will legislate an amendment to the law or change the agreements with the African countries, or both.”

…Speaking with residents, the prime minister also promised that the government would step up enforcement against asylum seekers “in the face of those who employ them, in the face of the lawless infiltrators.”

…The flow of African migrants into Israel has been halted entirely, with only one person getting caught attempting to cross the Israel-Egypt border. In addition, in the first six months of 2017, about 2,100 of the asylum seekers have left Israel.

Netanyahu has followed a course of action which will work across the West: use the courts to remove special protections given to migrants, then identify the refugees as a hostile commercial force, and finally, go after those who employ them, which will cut off the attraction that brings them in.

Further sensible action would consist of removing civil rights laws, affirmative action programs and all social benefits because those also serve as magnets for the worldwide population of impoverished people without the moral fortitude to stay and improve their homelands. In this way, Netanyahu and Trump are working in parallel by showing first-world nations that diversity can be gently abolished.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the West pursued its victorious form of Leftism, but without competition or an upper boundary as imposed by the Soviet example, American Leftism quickly expanded to an intensity like that of the Soviets, only without the centralized, so it was enforced by citizens and businesses instead of government in a form known as “soft totalitarianism.”

Using diversity as its driving force, the Left smashed down all existing order on the basis that it was discriminatory, a move that people tolerated out of a desire to be good. With the rise of Barack Obama, however, it became clear that racial problems were becoming worse and that civil rights was being used as a means to further Leftism on a path toward Soviet levels of control.

As the world recovers from the financial, environmental, political, social and existential disaster of the Obama years, the founding groups of the first-world nations are discovering that they, too, can have identity politics. For them, this consists of an anti-parasitism view, which is that we do not need diversity, and would prefer to live with our own kind, so it is time to end it.

This contrasts how the Left has portrayed the sensible xenophobia of identitarian populations as bigotry, when really it was a drive for self-preservation against the perhaps not hostile intentions of other groups, but the certainty of destruction with their inclusion, since diversity makes societies fall apart.

As more nations emulate the Israeli example, nationalism will recover from its post-WW2 demonization as it becomes not just a viable force, but a worldwide assumption about the correct basis for social order.

Civilizational Engines

Saturday, September 2nd, 2017

Civilizations run like machines, as most organizations do. Individuals have roles with inputs and outputs, and these mesh and interweave to create a cycle of life which keeps the engine going.

The term “civilization engine” was described in the book A Whole Which is Greater, in which a distinction was made between Utopianism and Eutopianism. A society which is Utopian requires a controlling authority, where a Eutopian society exists in balance with the natural world around it.

It describes this distinction partially correctly:

We might even say that the “civilizational engine” with its dominant image (and energy) of aristocratic prerogative, is in process of slamming into the wall of ecological limitation and environmental capacity, with millions upon millions of folk casualties in its wake, not to speak of all the ecological mayhem and species extinctions.

The mostly painful, difficult and crucial step is displacing utopian mythology with a far more livable and Earth-friendly Green Eutopianism. To get beyond utopian mythology is also to get beyond the controlling influence of the “patriciate”…

We need both a deepening of Eutopian democracy and a shriveling of utopian “democracy”. That is the point we have reached.

A patriciate is a class of nobility or those who act like them. The above analysis falls short for that reason, because you can have a good leadership group or a bad one, depending on whether they are motivated by external factors such as the good of society as an organic whole and balance with nature, or whether they exist only to perpetuate their own power as the expense of those other factors.

Reading more broadly into the idea revealed, the engine in an organization is the part where force multiplication is achieved. One example is the System Engineering Department in an Aerospace company. The company may have 10,000 employees but only forty System Engineers, and yet those few engineers direct the others to be more efficient than they could be with three times their number.

Another example is an Army’s Special Forces contingent amplifying the effect of the entire Army. Small groups of highly proficient warriors, utilized in surgical actions, avoid the need for a battle. Some would say that certain industries, like Silicon Valley, serve this role for the American economy, but perhaps it is merely the efficiency of computers that does so.

Since organizations are managed and thought of entities under the control of someone, it escapes logic (sometimes) that inside each organization there must be an engine that drives it. What makes an engine interesting is that it operates by itself as long as it is fed its inputs, much like a car engine will keep running so long as it is given gasoline, oil, electricity and air.

Engines rely on multiple factors, including the qualities and abilities of their personnel, and so each organization needs to “create” its own engine based on personalities, culture, methodologies, tools etc. One example of how unique each engine is was visible in the failure to replicate Silicon Valley across the world.

The alternative is unfortunately also possible, which is that the “engine” can make the organization collapse. The book referred to above describes one such scenario. It seems clear then that there are multiple engines: those that are dedicated to the organization are good engines, and those made for another purpose, which is necessarily different from the needs of the organization, are bad engines.

Recent history shows that the greatest generation worked hard and sacrificed for the greater good. During that time period America was not globally active and simply made a huge success of trading between its own States. The interests of the engine were aligned with those of the organic society around it, and so it was a good engine.

In a sense things changed when it became an Atlanticist global power. This change was effectively a change in law because the American Government was used to National Law and suddenly it adopted Admiralty Law without batting an eyelid. Essentially the spectre of corruption entered because business people and politicians realized that American law does not apply outside its borders, making it easy to secure illegal benefits.

This on its own would have been enough to change the engine that made America great. However, the point is not to find a culprit, but merely to find an avenue of thought towards finding how to change the engine back to positive again. Trump is moving in the right direction with the America First policy and although a lot of work needs to be done, a focus on the engine might expedite MAGA.

While he is doing this, the “other” engine busily works against Trump and the America First policy. Apart from the difficulty of finding and fixing the original engine, Trump must battle the bad bad engine. Like most solutions, his policy must be twofold, which is to increase rewards for the good and to raise costs for the bad.

What makes this book interesting is the phrase “a whole which is greater,” which refers to a systems engineering ideal of gestalt where “the system is more than the sum of its parts.” This points towards the force multiplier effect: a force multiplier creates an exponential increase in efficiency and output, while a linear or algebraic increase adds units which have a fixed output increase.

The American bad engine only emerged in full view after the 2008 recession when Reserve Banks initiated Quantitative Easing. Do you remember in the “old” days when you needed money, that you would visit a Bank official, while conservatively dressed in a suit, where he/she would earnestly consider your application showing express interest in the security you could provide?

After 2008 that changed almost overnight. Bank officials dressed in pink t-shirts, and all customer-facing employees were changed to women.  Almost every loan proposal was cheerfully accepted because the banks feared that they would lose those clients to loan-sharks. Money became cheap to such an extent that one Reserve Bank went to negative rates, literally paying customers to borrow.

From a civilizational perspective the engine saw the opportunity to follow the drug addiction methodology. Just like a drug addict gets addicted causing him to steal his mother’s purse in order to satisfy his desires, the new “engine” saw an opportunity to drug humans with money by giving it to them for free, thereby causing them to become addicted to it.

Quantitative easing essentially broke the rule of “good” money and turned it into bad money. This was a liberal idea because liberals have no limits and business directors are liberals wanting more and more profits every year. If it means turning other liberals into greedy druggies then that’s great for the Democrat Party, but not for America.

This bad engine fueled by the combination of greed and liberal mentality needs to be opposed by a stronger engine based on productivity directed toward the health of the nation. At the same time, the policies that support this bad behavior, and the illusions or political tropes that support them, need to encounter hard criticism which makes anyone using them appear to be the bad investment they are.

Most of us think of a society, like a corporation, as having leaders that command it to do what it does. In reality, leaders direct it after setting up functioning organs and institutions within it, and the most important of these is the good engine that generates actual productivity, which appears to be against the inclination of the average human being.

In this light, “America First!” is not just a slogan, but a moral statement that will synchronize that engine. We are not working for ourselves, for an ideology shared by the globalist world regime. Instead, we are acting so that the sum of our activity is greater than adding us all up as warm bodies performing rote tasks.

Naturally this will meet with a fair amount of opposition. Bad engines run because people, if not directed toward a goal beyond themselves, revert to doing what is convenient and profitable in the short term. But if Trump can achieve a sense of American unity, and the idea that we all benefit from the force multiplier if we work toward a purpose we share, he can make the good engine outpace the bad.

Where this gets interesting is that America is a thoroughly divided country, something the Founding Fathers anticipated when they designed it as a cascading power structure, with semi-autonomous states responsible to the federal government only in cases of shared interest in defense or monetary systems. For a good engine to form, people have to be working toward the same shared goal.

As the Alt Right reveals in its own theory, these shared goals are organic, or arising from the similarity between people. It seems there can be social factors to whether an engine is good or bad, and with diversity, people have no interest in the whole, and a contrary interest in taking from the whole and giving to their own particular group, like a more extreme version of the confederation of states it once was.

Perhaps our greatest revelation in the future will be that for us to have a good engine, we must be similar enough to be working toward the same purpose, and that this is more biological, cultural and moral than it is political, economic or legal. It may be that good engines only arise from our inner traits, and reliance on our external traits creates bad engines that then doom us to failure.

Subsequent Generations of Immigrants Turn To Terrorism, Proving Diversity and Assimilation Wrong

Saturday, August 26th, 2017

People invent lore to justify what they believe is convenient. This means that all of our reasoning as a society is backward, because it is people using the reasons they claim that they did things, in order to argue for what they want next.

In the post-Irish mythos of America, different groups from all over the world come here to a “melting pot” where they lose their original identity and become generic Americans because we have brought them the Bible, taught them capitalism, and indoctrinated them in the ideology of human universalism, or equality.

Europe has followed the American lead, but as seems to be happening here, things are not turning out well for the diversity narrative as cultural confusion leads second-generation immigrants to become terrorists because of the disorientation wracked by diversity:

“An estimated 60 percent of those who espouse violent jihadism in Europe are second-generation Muslims who have lost their connection with their country of origin and have failed to integrate into Western societies,” Roy says.

They are subject to a “process of deculturation” that leaves them ignorant of and detached from both the European society and the one of their origins. The result, Roy argues, is a dangerous “identity vacuum” in which “violent extremism thrives.”

Giving up a native culture means to go from someone with a place in the world to someone who must adopt a foreign nation and who must signify status through income only, having given up the values system of their homelands and having replaced it with what is effectively an ideology of anarchy.

This cultural erasure is responsible for the radicalization of second generations of immigrants, who find that they cannot become members of the founding group of the nation because that group was biologically different from their own, and at the same time, they have been made into merely economic units, which deprives them of any context, leading to the atomized lifestyle which creates both libertinism and radicalism.

In other words, even if we pretend that people can exist without a culture, they need one, and our attempts at “assimilation” and “integration” simply deprive them of their inherent nation and fail to replace it with something more compelling:

To call America a melting pot is hostile to marginalized groups because, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, multiculturalists “reject the ideal of the ‘melting pot’ in which members of minority groups are expected to assimilate into the dominant culture in favor of an ideal in which members of minority groups can maintain their distinctive collective identities and practices.” Multiculturalism pervades liberal thinking in our time. As a result, assimilation is “a concept many on the left currently hate,” Beinart writes.

To assimilate is to make oneself, or be made by others, similar to those others, a process that necessarily means becoming dissimilar from the people the immigrant left behind in his native land. The melting-pot metaphor implies that the assimilated will modify the culture they are assimilated to, rendering it as American as pizza pie. But that isn’t good enough. For the zealous multiculturalist, assimilation demands “that the marginalized conform to the identities of their oppressors,” to quote the Stanford Encyclopedia again, which “looks suspiciously like the erasure of socially subordinate identities rather than their genuine incorporation into the polity.”

Note that applying the logic of multiculturalism to the case of immigration requires positing that immigrants are dominated, oppressed, and subordinated.

First generation immigrants generally do not care about cultural loss because they do not perceive they have lost it; born abroad, they still have that identity and the memory of living among their people, thus easily gravitate toward immigrant groups and family in the new nation. Their children however, having grown up as attendees of a market rather than participants in a cultural identity.

Even more important, they lose out on the social trust that exists in non-diverse societies, and so have no sense of unity with others in their host nation:

Government, Roger Scruton argues, “requires a ‘we,’ a prepolitical loyalty that causes neighbors…to treat each other as fellow citizens.” Without the “legacy of social trust” derived from this sense of belonging to a highly specific subset of mankind, political stability is impossible.

No one was thinking of that when immigration programs were designed because those programs were created to fund the entitlements payments which had to go to the huge generation of people born from 1944-1964, a.k.a. the “Baby Boomers” or “Me Generation.” In Europe, the immigrants were intended as a tax base to pay for Boomer retirement:

But, Krieger added, one of the big caveats here is the effect that immigrants have on pension or retirement systems, which constitute a huge chunk of the public budget in many countries. Pension systems are typically pay-as-you-go programs, which means everyone currently working gets taxed and that money immediately goes to current retirees. Immigrants tend to have a tremendously positive impact on the pension system, he said. In fact, their arrival triggers what “pension economists usually call an ‘introductory gift.’ If you find a job, you start paying contributions and all these contributions—because it’s a pay-as-you-go system—go directly to the retirees.” That can swiftly shore up government finances in countries with an aging population, which describes most of Europe. Plus, “There’s been research showing that even if the people are net beneficiaries of the pension system [i.e. if, by the time these immigrants grow old, the state has committed to larger pension payouts], even then it would have a positive effect on pay-as-you-go simply because they will have children who become contributors, and immigrants tend to have more children than natives.” In Germany, said Krieger, that kind of effect on the pension system “is a factor of three or four compared to all the other benefits.”

In America, a similar rationale was advanced in that immigrant payments into social security were anticipated to fund retirement programs so that existing citizens could exit the workforce and still receive benefits:

Stephen Goss, chief actuary for the Social Security Administration, told the Daily Beast, “Even as it stands under current policy, unauthorized immigrants contribute positively to the financing of social security not only in terms of their own contributions, but in the succeeding generations when they have children on our soil that are citizens from day one.”

…“The biggest problem we have with social security is there are fewer Americans to pay into the system to support people who are currently retired or about to retire,” says Ornstein, “so the more people working and paying into the system is better for everybody.”

Henry Aaron, an expert on social security at the Brookings Institution, says that looking ahead 75 years into the future, the legalization of some five million immigrants by executive order would be “like a boost in population—and a higher population is typically good for the (social security) trust fund. It’s equal to an increase in net migration, and when people enter the system, and that group is young and working, that’s positive.”

When all you look at is economics, this makes sense. If you look at multiple silos of social benefits and detriments, it becomes clear that what is happening with immigration is merely cost-shifting, namely putting money into retirement programs while taking it out of other areas of the economy, including the benefits which most immigrants rely on.

At that point, it is hardly surprising that the children of immigrants — realizing that they are essentially part of a large retirement insurance scam created by democratic governments — become indifferent to life, and thus radicalize. Immigration benefits no one, and assimilation destroys identity, further increasing the misery necessary for successful suicidal terrorist recruitment.

Anti-Diversity Distinguished From Racialism, Human Biodiversity and “Racism”

Saturday, August 26th, 2017

We know that diversity is dysfunctional because throughout history, we see no examples of societies which adopted diversity continuing to thrive after that point. In fact, all of them dove straight into third-world disorder and consequent erasure from history.

There are many arguments against diversity. Some are based on genetics, others on culture, and some on looking at current examples of diversity. These are often convincing, but a more fundamental argument can be made which we might call the “Machiavellian argument”:

Every ethnic group has its own agenda, which is to be dominant in any lands where it is present. The reason for this is that any ethnic group is unstable if it is not dominant, because one can only be dominant or conquered. There is no middle ground, but diversity pretends to be this, which more resembles a temporary truce than a long-term plan. Each ethnic group seeks to make its culture, values, language, standards, beliefs and behaviors into the norm wherever that ethnic group resides, because if it does not do this, those are quickly supplanted by either those from other groups, or the standard-of-no-standards that occurs when a standard is designed to incorporate the standards of multiple ethnic groups. Ethnic groups have their own self-interest, or goal of dominating so that they are not dominated, and no amount of laws, economic incentives or government propaganda can change that.

This means that it does not matter who the racial or ethnic minorities that make up a diversity society are, only that different groups be present. They do not need to have pre-existing culture; if cultureless people of different groups were put on a desert island, they would quickly separate by appearance, and invent a culture that makes each group feel as if it has a unique purpose and quite possibly, is the best group in the world. We know that all cultures do this, as do groups within cultures. As Tom Wolfe writes, this is the “fiction-absolute”:

Even before I left graduate school I had come to the conclusion that virtually all people live by what I think of as a “fiction-absolute.” Each individual adopts a set of values which, if truly absolute in the world — so ordained by some almighty force — would make not that individual but his group…the best of all possible groups, the best of all inner circles. Politicians, the rich, the celebrated, become mere types. Does this apply to “the intellectuals” also? Oh, yes…perfectly, all too perfectly.

The human beast’s belief in his own fiction-absolute accounts for one of the most puzzling and in many cases irrational phenomena of our time. I first noticed it when I read a book by Samuel Lubell called The Future of American Politics. Lubell was a political scientist and sociologist who had been as surprised as everybody else by the outcome of the 1948 presidential election. That was the election in which the Democratic incumbent, Harry Truman, was a president whose approval rating had fallen as low as 23 percent. Every survey, every poll, every pundit’s prediction foresaw him buried by the Republican nominee, Thomas E. Dewey. Instead, Truman triumphed in one of the most startling upsets in American political history. Lubell was determined to find out why, and so he set out across the country. When he reached a small Midwestern town that had been founded before the turn of the 19th century by Germans, he was puzzled to learn that the town had gone solidly for Dewey despite the fact that by every rational turn of logic, every economic motivation, Truman would have been a more logical choice. By and by Lubell discovered that the town was still predominantly German. Nobody had ever gotten over the fact that in 1917, a Democrat, President Woodrow Wilson, had declared war on Germany. That had set off a wave of anti-German feeling, anti-German prejudice, and, in the eyes of the people of this town, besmirched their honor as people of German descent. And now, two World Wars later, their minds were fixed on the year 1917, because like all other human beasts, they tended to champion in an irrational way their own set of values, their own fiction absolute. The question Lubell asked was very much like the question that Thomas Frank asked after the election of 2004 in his book What’s the Matter with Kansas? By all economic and political logic, the state of Kansas should have gone to John Kerry, the Democrat, in 2004. But it didn’t. Had Frank only looked back to Samuel Lubell, he would have known why. The 2004 election came down to one state: the state of Ohio. Whoever won that state in the final hours would win the election. Northern Ohio, the big cities of Cleveland, Toledo on the Great Lakes, were solidly for Kerry. But in southern Ohio, from east to west, and in the west was the city of Cincinnati, Ohio went solidly for George Bush. And the reason? That great swath of territory was largely inhabited by the Scots-Irish. And when the Democrats came out in favor of gun control, the Scots-Irish interpreted this as not merely an attack on the proliferation of weaponry in American life but as a denunciation, a besmirching, of their entire way of life, their entire fiction absolute. Guns were that important in their scheme of things.

For a group to be living the best of all possible lives, it would have to be the best group on Earth, and for that to be true, there can be no competing groups, which means that even if at a glacial pace, that group will work to subvert and conquer all nearby groups that are discernibly different. This is as much part of nature as natural selection.

The fiction-absolute guarantees that every ethnic group will act in self-interest, and over time realize that this self-interest includes conquest of others. This was once recognized as a principle of human nature, but even more, it is a principle of nature, and we see it in other species as well:

Slave-making ants—yes, that’s actually their common name—also stage raids on other ant species, notes Katy Prudic, an entomologist at Arizona State University.

…“There’s good evidence that chimpanzees conduct deliberate raids on neighbouring communities, and that this can lead to annexing of territory.”

For instance, during a ten-year study of a chimp family in Uganda’s Kibale National Park, the primates killed or injured 18 chimps from other groups and took over their land. (Related: “Chimp Gangs Kill to Expand Territory.”)

“The behaviour of chimpanzees is much more akin to a guerrilla band”—wearing down the enemy—than what we think of as a traditional battle, Newton-Fisher says.

Others point out that there are battles between groups within the same species, usually over who predominates in a certain territory, such as ants and termites whose competing colonies frequently go to war:

Insects, particularly ants, have become popular examples of this form of warfare, where tens of thousands of members from rival colonies will do battle, often tearing one another apart, and engaging in other strategies and tactics that might be seen on a human battlefield from the Middle Ages.

These insect battles, which are also seen in termites and other colony-based species of insects, are typically started over territory.

In other words, ethnic battles within species are common in the animal kingdom, and for the same reasons that human ethnic groups clash: only one group can predominate. That group gets to choose its destiny instead of having it chosen for it, and can set standards, cultural values, habits, cuisine, customs, language and other identifiers that support the fiction-absolute of its members.

Examined in the context of a logical racialist analysis of diversity, we can see how our refusal to admit that each group has self-interest dooms us to race riots, violent crime, political agitation and other forms of guerrilla warfare:

Race or any of the fashionable victim statuses may and must be substituted for sex. Further, race doesn’t exist. This is why strict mandatory quotas based on race must be enforced, to teach people that race doesn’t exist. There are thus no differences among people based on race. Yet Diversity is our strength, so ensuring quotas based on race, which doesn’t exist, will make outcomes better, outcomes which must be the same, since there is no such thing as race, therefore there can’t be differences in performance among peoples of different races. This is why Diversity is our strength.

All disparities are formed and held in place by power. Where there are more men than women in a position, or more whites than blacks, it is because of the power men have over women, or whites over others. Yet Equality says men and women and the races, which do not exist, are not inherently different, therefore this power must be illusory. This is why the men who think men and women are different, or those who say race exists, must be fired from, or kept from securing, their positions, so that they may not wield the dangerous power they by theory cannot have.

This sardonic view correctly deciphers the Leftist attitude toward race and diversity: the only idea of Leftism is that all people are equal, which enables the caste revolt they seek, so this means that diversity must exist in order to prove that we are all equal, which requires quashing anything and anyone who is not 100% on board with diversity.

In this way, even diversity logic recognizes that groups have different interests. In order to prove equality, diversity must be enforced, which means that some groups must be favored over the others in order to erase natural differences and make those groups equal, which makes diversity a weapon of the guerrilla war. It is a deceptive weapon, in that the end goal of diversity is a beige race, not any one ethnic group becoming victorious. Diversity will destroy whites, blacks and Asians as it has in the past, leaving behind populations like those in Latin America, North Africa, the Middle East and parts of near Asia where the people are mostly Caucasian, a good bit Asian, and traces of any other groups. This mixture corresponds to how well those groups do in a civilization, namely through commerce and productivity, and the mixing occurs as people find others on their socio-economic level and have children with them, even though they are of another race, mainly because the increased disorder of social chaos caused by a lack of trust then forces people to become insular on the basis of class.

This view liberates us from the notion that other racial and ethnic groups (even The Irish) are our enemies. Instead, they are symptoms of a broader problem, which is the adoption of diversity by a civilization dying from caste revolt. The actual enemies are the ideas of diversity, equality, and pluralism, and these create a civil war within the civilization that, being a guerrilla war, grinds on until there is nothing left to destroy:

The war for civilization is almost entirely between groups of whites, in fact mostly white Christians. The white Left has drawn in other groups, but mostly as auxiliary forces. The same battle would be going on, as it has been in much of Europe, if we were only dealing with white opponents. None of the multiculturalists I have known has been black; and calling white multicultural fanatics “race traitors” is a gross oversimplification because the object of leftist hate goes well beyond their own racial group. It now includes all normal people who have not been reconstructed by the managerial therapeutic state or are fighting the scourge of Political Correctness.

Our struggle is not a race war. It is a war against the collapse of civilization, and we cannot fight that directly, but instead can only orient ourselves toward a renewal of civilization. That process automatically excludes those who wish to, like parasitic insects, devour civilization for their own sustenance. There is no middle ground in this fight.

When we refocus our views on the failure of diversity along with other civilization destroyer programs, we reveal exactly why there is no middle ground: as in the struggle against Communism, or against any tyranny or power which serves itself, we are waging a war of ideas through culture. Through that, the necessity of our struggle becomes evident.

After Charlottesville, the battle lines are drawn and the sides are polarized. Those in the middle are realizing that to waffle makes them a double target, and they are looking for a side that will win so that they will not be targeted. Since our side is the only side that includes the survival of our civilization, and thus the comfortable life to which people aspire in the West, we will win over time.

Recommended Reading