Overt discrimination has happened sometimes, but the feeling of “otherness” has plagued me all my life. My halcyon memories of holidays in Ireland are marred by occasional smudges. I remember my father building sandcastle forts on the beach in the rain for me and my brother, Mum singing Christy Moore in a pub and cliff walks with my cousins. But I also remember feeling ashamed to lay claim to Irishness. And sometimes, I was reminded that I wouldn’t be able to.
There was the time a group of teenagers at a village festival made monkey noises at me, and the feigned nonchalance I adopted, aged 13, after a boy turned me down for a kiss on the basis that I was “too brown”. Aged 21, I had to laugh when a barely coherent man in a Limerick nightclub asked me if I spoke English as I was just approaching the end of my degree. And as recently as six months ago, an Irishman in New York City told me I “wasn’t really Irish”.
As Irish-Nigerian writer Emma Dabiri notes: “Whiteness is ‘pure’ and doesn’t extend to brown girls, even those who can trace their Irish ancestry back to the 10th century.” It was for that reason I once turned down my mother’s offer of Irish dancing lessons.
To be between tribes is to always be unsure of one’s own identity and place, to never feel comfortable anywhere. In the mad pursuit of the ideology of equality, people are sacrificed, with their contentment and happiness coming first. A person who is half-Irish and half-Nigerian will never have a home, and be doomed to wander alone, wondering where peace can be found.
Amerikan Tennis Thug John McEnroe put the terrible in enfant terrible. But there are those days when you can want to just channel Bratty John and yell out: “You cannot be serious!”
You see reading is no longer just fundamental in NYC. It is now fundamentally racist. The Whorer! The Disparate Impact theories of Civil Rights Jurisprudence work their unmitigated evil below.
New York education officials are poised to scrap a test designed to measure the reading and writing skills of people trying to become teachers, in part because an outsized percentage of black and Hispanic candidates were failing it. The state Board of Regents on Monday is expected Monday to adopt a task force’s recommendation of eliminating the literacy exam, known as the Academic Literacy Skills Test.
The excuses they offer for this unmitigated incompetence, cowardice and racetrubatory Cuckery are hilarious. It’s like the old SWPL Blog reopened just for our entertainment on a drab Monday Morning. These people talk like people who desperately don’t want to acknowledge how badly they suck at participating in the human race.
“We want high standards, without a doubt. Not every given test is going to get us there,”
No, you don’t want high standards enough to defend against $PLC litigation salvo. It would just be terribly inconvenient to lose a job you don’t have the guts to actually do. We are supposed to be educating children. Instead, we are providing a make work program for defective uneducated adults. Illiteracy can become the gift that keeps on giving.
“Having a white workforce really doesn’t match our student body anymore,”
Does having a literate or proficient workforce match your student body? Do you want to make these students comfortable, or would rather make them worth hiring? Nothing quite bolsters the fortunes of Democracy like graduating a student body too enstupidated to actually read the ballot on Election Day.
“There’s not a test in the country that doesn’t have disproportionate performance on the part of blacks and Latinos,”
Shouldn’t someone take that up with the Blacks and Latinos? Are we helping these fellow Americans by excusing incompetence? No. It’s an insidious form of “racism” against these people. It’s excusing their dysfunction by asking “Whaddya expect?” It’s as if Bill Clinton is attempting to prevent crime by chucking every ten of them a basketball. Just give them teaching jobs because we couldn’t give a damn less about their kids either.
It’s evil and disgusting. If the Reverend Al Sharpton complained about this sort of racism he’d have a point. (Not that he’s ever had one frequently enough to no what to do when he did.) If we can’t even allow a high-pass filter to get rid of illiterate teachers, then just why in the hell are we sending these poor kids to the concentration camp?
Much drama and conspiracy-analytical thinking has gone into trying to understand why Hollywood and the Left are consummately anti-white, casting non-white actors to play white roles and portraying white people as stupid, incompetent and weak. It seems like a conspiracy, since we see the same thing in politics that we do in movies and literature.
More likely, this behavior represents a simple pathology. Most human behaviors distill down to simple cognitive mistakes which become pathological because a pillar of self-image rests upon them; think of drug addicts who inject drugs into suppurating limbs in order to overcome self-doubt, or obese people who gobble food because fullness suggests safety to them.
In this case, the pathology is resentment. People resent those who rise above because the act of separating from the herd shows the relative gap between the exceptional individual and the group. Naturally, since few are excellent and most only in one area, the rest are consumed with a sense of guilt for not being exceptional, anger at this person for making them look bad, and a sublimated hunger to similarly be excellent in something. The best of us overcome the guilt and anger because those are misdirected rage at the self, having both the confidence and the analytical skill to dispense with such things. The undisciplined and the rest simmer in their discontent and decide to destroy the person who made them look bad, feeling perhaps correctly that they cannot be changed, and yet too egotistical to admit the need for guidance by those above them.
Someone wrote a book about this once. This fellow came down, asserted difficult truths, disturbed the comfortable pretense by which most people were rationalizing their bad behavior, and so the group came together and had him killed. This book is either The Bible, The Apology of Socrates or Stranger in a Strange Land because this tale is as old as time. Herds hate heroes.
In the case of Western European civilization, we rose too high for the rest of the world, including those among us who found themselves excluded because they did not participate in that rise. As a result, they invented a reason to feel good about themselves by declaring our rise to be cheating, and concluding that tearing us down would make the world more “equal,” so that non-contributors would feel good again about not being those who gave more than they took.
Resentment defines daily life in egalitarian societies. We hate the excellent, so we remove them and place celebrities and politicians in their place. The Rich™ are blamed for every problem, as are successful groups like whites and Jews. Entertainment hates the suburban family with a white picket fence, yet it is what we all desire, or some reasonable equivalent.
To defeat this anti-white bias, we need to go to its root cause, which is resentment caused by a lack of hierarchy. Strong leadership, powerful culture, and a clear purpose obviate the appeal of resentment. By making these changes, those of us who can still think can form a society which will rise from among the ashes and again achieve greatness.
As the Alt Right grows, it faces a crisis: its more mainstream components have had their victory with the rise of Donald Trump, but its core — which desires greater social change away from the Leftist stream of Western nations over the last century — finds itself at a loss for how to push the window further.
After all, the Alt Right is half advocacy for traditional civilization and half provocative trolling that turns the shock of an effete Establishment into a weapon again them. Just as Christian parents freaked out over rock ‘n roll in the 1960s, gutmensch bourgeois parents find themselves in panic mode over the memes and rhetoric of a raging right-wing resurgence.
This gives the Alt Right momentum, but like a car going too fast in the night, its speed means that its headlights do not see far ahead and so it is flying blind. This creates a vacuum of direction, and so the strongest and clearest voices win out. On one end, these are the Alt Lite and near Alt Lite types who popularize simple ideas and miss the big point, and on the other, it is the fanatics from the white nationalist world who hope to dominate the Alt Right with their oversimplified and ultimately not radical enough message.
In this way, the Alt Right finds itself in the same unenviable position as Twitter. It can either reach out to the wider audience out there who are less active and less responsive to dogma, or it can deepen its appeal to its captive audience who tend to be fanatical but ineffectual. Twitter panders to SJWs, and many on the Alt Right pander to the True Believers who will be its doom.
To reach a wider audience, the Alt Right must be practical. It cannot merely appeal to our widespread loathing of modern society and what the fallen Western Civilization has become, but offer an option that is not merely negative, that is, not merely directed against symptoms of the present. We have to target the heart of what is wrong, and come up with a replacement that involves a growth direction, such as happens when people find purpose and discover joy in pursuing it.
Some micro-movements have done this. Hipsters are moving to farms and learning self-sufficiency. Tech nerds are forming communities to build next-generation solar and robotics. Futurists have transhumanism and the singularity to aspire to. Libertarians are working toward free states. These will all fail because they are not complete replacements, and become fetishistic over time.
We want to reach the normal people who want both a good normal life and a chance to remake this civilization. They are in favor of what we say, but do not want to give up the chance to live. This is natural and good; as in lifeguarding, one must save oneself first and then deal with whatever disaster is raging in the surrounding environs.
These normal people are fed up with the utter failure of modernity but will not “jump ship” to a vessel steered by fanatics. They are looking for something responsible, realistic and reasonable to which we can transition without destroying families, careers, lives and hopes.
In contrast to regular political movements, the Alt Right has thrived by being an ecosystem instead of a group of people who each do the exact same thing; it has thinkers, agitators, artists and trolls. It is ultimately a cultural movement. The trolls serve an important role: by saying outrageous stuff, they widen the window of what is acceptable by stretching what most people consider as “normal.”
That sort of dialogue shifts the “Overton window” to include ideas that have deliberately been edited from history by the Leftist Establishment. However, the trolling is a means-to-an-end, and not an end in itself. It can help convey a message, and clear aside the critics, but it cannot be the whole of the message.
For the Alt Right, as everyone else who wants to escape modernity, the dividing line proves to be the democracy question. Those who believe in equality are on one side, and everyone else on the other. This means that the “other” side is at a disadvantage, since they are unified by what they do not believe in and not what they do.
It has become clear to most at this point that those who favor equality are either the enemy or a tool of the enemy. Equality penalizes the competent in order to subsidize the less-competent, and by doing so, it inverts the society and gears it toward the negative and finite instead of future positives of infinite potential.
The future of the Alt Right then belongs to those who are against equality even if this is a cultural and not political opinion. It will be guided by those who want escape from modernity, instead of some option to “fix” modern society. Our current path is a winding road to death, and anything we can choose that goes another way is better than sitting around waiting for the crash.
Finally, limits on immigration also protect the stability of our social arrangements. To be successful and harmonious, any society needs to cultivate a sense of fellow-feeling and solidarity among its members. Most of our fellow citizens are strangers to us, and yet we tax ourselves for their benefit, yield to their political choices at election time and perhaps serve in uniform to protect them. We do this precisely because they are our fellow citizens and have a claim on our loyalty and affections that citizens of other countries do not.
In more homogenous societies, like Japan or Denmark or Swaziland, this fellow-feeling may arise organically from kinship ties and a shared cultural heritage. But in a more heterogeneous society like ours, it must be cultivated if it is to flourish, and we can’t ignore factors that undermine it.
This is not to say that immigrants don’t learn English, get jobs, join the military and drive on the right side of the road. They do all those things. But the deeper and more important process of reorienting one’s emotional and psychological attachments from the old country to the new has not fared well in recent decades in the U.S. and would be overwhelmed, I believe, by any dramatic increase in immigration.
Mainstream media will not get any closer to the idea of identity: genetics and culture linked, and culture is a better system than government, thus societies need to be homogeneous to avoid being internally conflicted and dissolving. Even more, diversity inevitably leads to hybridization, which genocides the original group by replacing them with a mixed-race grey tribe.
We know immigration has failed because American national culture has vanished. Social trust has died. Every decision we make is now made in minutiae consisting of details split by details because there is no common standard, purpose or agenda.
In other words, we are falling prey to what destroys organizations. We no longer have shared purpose, and we have a divided power structure. All of our energy now gets wasted on internal conflict, similarly to how we waste our wealth with entitlements instead of focusing it on producing more.
“Ultimately, we see our story as about the collapse of the white, high school educated, working class after its heyday in the early 1970s, and the pathologies that accompany that decline,” the authors Anne Case and Angus Deaton, of Princeton University wrote in the report.
…According to the report, white non-Hispanic people of all ages show an increased mortality rate from 1999 to 2015 with some age groups seeing nearly a 50 percent rise in mortality rates. People aged 25-29 went from a mortality rate of 145.7 deaths per 100,000 in 1999 to 266.2 per 100,000 in 2015 and people aged 40-44 went from 332.2 deaths per 100,000 to 471.4 deaths per 100,000.
… Case and Deaton found that while gains were made as fewer people died of heart disease and cancer, these gains have mostly stagnated and did not cancel out the rising number of “deaths of despair” or related to alcohol, drugs or suicide.
In 1990, France, Germany and Sweden outpaced the U.S. in these deaths which totaled approximately 40 per 100,000 from those countries.
Looking back through history, we see that in the mid-1960s the United States and its European allies started to believe their WWII propaganda and adopted diversity as an official affirmative goal of government. It took a few years to hit, but the decline kicked into gear during the 1970s, and has really flowered in the decades since.
We warned you. You are killing our people for an ideological imperative which has never worked. You justify it by claiming that it will help the economy or make us benevolent kings among men, but this denies the existential side of things. It makes European-descended people into a conquered group, discriminates against them and convinces them there is no future.
For now, it is hitting the poor whites. The wealthier ones can escape to Whitopias but soon, that too will go away. Then they will fade away as well, starting with the most sensitive and perceptive, who realize that all they need and work for will be erased in the new beige regime.
It makes sense to have zero immigration. It makes even more sense to have fully negative immigration and to repatriate everyone who is not of Western heritage. Diversity has not worked and cannot because it is paradoxical. Each group needs its own nation so that it can know it has control of its future, and this is the only way to avoid the existential despair that is killing off white Americans.
As usual, white people demonstrate that cleverness is the enemy of intelligence just as “good enough” is the enemy of lasting good.
In The Netherlands, which by any sane estimation is one of the loveliest places on planet earth, the voters decided to avoid electing Geert Wilders and to choose an Establishment candidate instead. This is typical of voters: avoid risk by sticking with what fails slowly and inevitably, basically postponing the issue until it gets worse.
Wilders may not have been perfect but he offered a hope for avoiding the fate of Germany and Sweden for the Dutch, who may consider themselves so unique and special that the problems which repeat elsewhere do not apply to them. This is also a typical human failure of reasoning by which people assume that the rules do not apply to them because they intend for other results than usually happen.
Glitches in his platform were few but vital. Among other things, Wilders took an approach recommended against on Amerika: he targeted a specific group instead of pointing out that diversity will erase the national population and, as a form of suicide, is psychologically destructive.
In addition, he could have broached the broader topic that diversity does not work because every group possesses its own direction of self-interest, including strong identity, and these cannot avoid conflicting when the groups are put together. Nationalism, or separating each group into its own nation, works, but diversity guarantees perpetual conflict followed by erasure through outbreeding.
White people however are too clever to accept that. For them, voting and politics are questions of what makes them look cool to their friends. People who deny obvious problems are cool. So white people pose and posture, swimming in pretense and denial, and project their intention onto the world to obscure the cause-effect relationships that are scary.
Through this process, inversion occurs. The sane becomes the insane, and the formerly insane becomes the norm. Every word comes to mean the opposite of what it once did, and every institution acts against its goals. As a result, society becomes pathological and dedicated to its own destruction. People either rationalize that to feel good and succeed, or fight it and are marginalized.
In this way, the very process of socializing destroys human societies. In the name of “getting along with others,” truth is destroyed, and yet this is the most common human event. When having everyone feel good is more important than getting to the truth, every meaning gets inverted and all goals become suicidal, just at a slow enough level for each individual to profit and look cool.
Wilders and others are fighting upstream against the tendency of humans to go straight into denial. The United States got a break because Barack Obama, by creating his program of wealth transfer to Baby Boomers and illegal Amerind aliens known as Obamacare, crashed the economy so soundly that people actually snapped to attention from their pretense for a few moments and voted against him.
If the West wants to survive, as it looks toward its future, it will realize that the decision-making of humans in large groups is not just poor but suicidal, and so democracy must go:
Americans use the word “democracy” as a shorthand to define their system. Yet democracy as Americans know it only functions when an independent judiciary monitors the executive and legislative branches. The relationship among the branches certainly changes over time, but an open attack by the executive upon the judiciary is something new – at least in the contemporary US.
The president’s tweet recalls how authoritarianism has triumphed in other places. Modern tyrants grasp that their real target are rival institutions and legality, not voting as such. They often attack the judiciary first, assuming that the legislature will go along.
Anyone sane will agree on abolishing democracy, but not on tyranny, which is a word referring to any rule where the rulers prioritize their own interests over those of the citizens. We have tyranny right now through the permanent Establishment which has figured out that the voters are pretentious and how to manipulate them so that this “Cathedral” stays in power indefinitely.
Instead of tyranny, we need leadership not by the people — people in groups quickly revert to pretense and mob rule — but for the people, by the best among us. We need the best to oppress the rest, because our current condition of the rest oppressing the best has led to collapse from within.
Wilders, Le Pen, Orban, Farage and Trump are part of the movement against the inevitable entropy of democracy. They have stood up for difficult truths and framed them in such a way that the remaining functional people can grasp the simple core of the issue, which is that any civilization must assert its self-interest through identity or become dedicated to self destruction.
In the meantime, it is time for binary thinking: whatever the herd likes is wrong, and whatever the herd fears is where we can find actual realistic assessments of our situation. Otherwise, as if by gravity or the passage of time, the Establishment always chooses suicidal policies and the herd, afraid to look uncool, support them:
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party proposed using the €6.2 billion surplus to pay off debts, while the Social Democrats (SPD) wanted to spend it on digital infrastructure projects. As a compromise the money has gone solely to migrant projects instead, Der Spiegel reports.
The present funds allocated toward migrant programmes is already €12 billion, which is thought to be more than enough to handle the needs of the over one million migrants in Germany. The budget surplus would take the money up to over 18 billion – far more than required.
Any time there is a “surplus,” it means money is taken away from vital long-term needs and dedicated to short-term needs that make the headlines. This allows people a chance to virtue signal and pose and otherwise demonstrate how cool they are for ignoring real problems and focusing on symbolic problems instead.
Despite the Wilders loss, the writing is on the wall: liberal democracy, once given enough power, becomes the same kind of insanity that the Soviet Union was. The Left blames this on “capitalism,” but in reality, it was bad leadership through the tendency of people — especially white people — to make cleverly stupid decisions.
For those of us on the Right, the necessary agenda of our future is to push back against the tide of liberalization that has swept the West since The Enlightenment.™ We must recognize that Samuel Huntington was right, and that the liberal democratic age has ended, replaced by one in which tribalism is again the norm, as it is outside of the W.E.I.R.D. countries today.
For this, we must go further than what Wilders did. Our problem is not Islam, nor is it illegal Amerind aliens. It is diversity itself and, since accepting diversity requires reality-denial, the reality-denying system of democracy that allows our people to demonstrate how clever they are by adopting stupid viewpoints. Until we rip out this evil by the roots, it will continue to destroy us.
No matter what side of the aisle one appears on, Adolf Hitler presents a divisive figure. Although he is demonized in the West, much of that has to do with the need to produce a non-Leftist killer to compete with The Terror in France, Lavrentiy Beria, Pol Pot and Chairman Mao who killed far more and for far less purpose.
At the same time, The Holocaust troubles us. We know that Hitler wanted to relocate Jews first to Israel and then Madagascar, but was blocked by the Allies in both attempts. Albert Speer in Inside The Third Reich describes the forced labor program that attempted to use the Jews to produce munitions, and its failure. And then we have the Wannsee Conference, which produced some troubling language:
Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes.
The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)
…The evacuated Jews will first be sent, group by group, to so-called transit ghettos, from which they will be transported to the East.
The question arising here is one of literality: does “transported to the East” mean sending them to their deaths, by means of the “so-called transit ghettos,” which are known today as concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau? Or was it literal, meaning that they would be sent somewhere to the East once the Nazi war machine conquered the territory?
One possible answer is found further in the document:
The beginning of the individual larger evacuation actions will largely depend on military developments.
Even in 1942, Nazi success in Russia was highly in doubt. For one thing, all of these military leaders had read European history and knew of the difficulty of invading such a vast and inhospitable terrain for previous armies. They were also aware of the raw population differential between Russia and Germany, the American lend-lease program, and other factors working against them.
However, none of this seems relevant. What matters is that under Nazi authority, Jews perished, although the bulk of the deaths now attributed to The Holocaust occurred in Eastern Europe at the hands of partisans who anticipated German conquest of their homelands. This places responsibility on the Nazis.
Naturally, few of us — even some of the raging anti-Semites out there — want to approve of this. It is at the least some kind of tantrum inspired by the same Leftist mania as The Terror, symbolism taking over from reality. At best it is administrative incompetence and callous indifference to human life.
Once we are past The Holocaust, however, we can see that Hitler was like every other world leader: a mixed bag. The bulk of what he did was uncontroversial and beneficial, much as many things that Stalin did were about what a Republican or Democrat candidate in America might have come up with to solve the same problems.
Do we blame Hitler for the Autobahn? His war on cancer? The ground-breaking Nazi environmental policy? And clearly he was right on some big things: diversity does not work, in any form. Communism is insanity. Democracy is dysfunctional. The Americans and English political structures had become corrupted from within.
On other fronts, he seems simply wrong not in a moral sense, but a historical one. Socialism does not work, although Hitler adopted the same form that the US and Europe were using at the time. Dictatorship does not work, either, but that does not mean that democracy worked any better except by historical accident.
Approaching Hitler and the war with balance we see that a complex, nuanced, and detailed view is required to get anywhere with the study of this period of time. The typical narrative that we impose on every war, such as “Saddam Hussein was a terrible man who murdered dissidents and gassed Kurds,” is like all great lies partially true and misleads us into action we would otherwise not take.
Hitler strikes me as interesting among recent Western leaders because he may have done this to himself. The aesthetics and symbolism of Nazi Germany were massively powerful, and it seems likely that Hitler found himself correctly understanding needs but not the solutions to get there, and thus falling back on primal and uncontrolled responses like The Holocaust.
Our goal in the future is to recognize with every leader what they did right and wrong. Stalin had some good ideas about military organization. Hitler was right about the environment, diversity and democracy. This is how we will remember them: as junctures in history where certain things were learned that we can carry on into the future.
“History is a whore of politics,” Björn Höcke, one of the party’s most radical politicians, said in an interview. “A great people like the German people, which lost two world wars in one century, no longer has a historical narrative of its own.”
In an ornate Dresden ballroom in January, local AfD candidate Jens Maier told the crowd that what he called Western Allies’ re-education efforts after World War II led to Germans being convinced “we are bastards, criminals, that we are worth nothing.”
As his voice rose, Mr. Maier hollered into his microphone, to applause: “I hereby declare this cult of guilt to be over! To be over, once and for all!”
At this point, German historical guilt serves nobody because it can only weaken people. It weakens Jews by making them identify with being victims. It weakens Germans by making them afraid to act. It weakens Europeans by making them doubt their own need to exist, instead going into a pacifistic wonderland for fear of being like those evil Germans.
Even more, we realize that Hitler was ultimately right about a number of things. Diversity cannot work and never will. The environment needs protection through the Nazi method, which involved limiting the amount of land that could be used. Democracy has done nothing but produce a further Leftward slide in the West which has made life miserable and driven us to insanity.
In the 21st century, Swedes live under the same Iron Curtain of political correctness, multiculturalism and mass immigration as the British, the Germans and the Americans. Do you know who really lost the World Wars? It was all of us.
The White race was the loser of the 20th century. We started the 20th century as the rulers of the planet and ended it under siege in our own homelands. Everyone who was unborn at the time was the loser of those disastrous wars. Liberalism was the victor.
In other words, just like the Napoleonic Wars, the World Wars were wars of Leftist ascension that ended with Europe weakened and divided against itself. Now we live under another Iron Curtain, one which just like the last one is a product of liberal ideology, which now as then is based in egalitarianism, internationalism and population replacement.
None of this is new. There is one way of living which works for civilizations, if they want to be great, and any deviation from that leads down this path to breakdown. Plato mentioned how tyrants spoke of equality and imported “foreign” people to be their allies, shortly before taking control. History repeats itself.
The question for the West now is whether we can bury Hitler, accept what he got right and discard his horrors, and then apply that same standard to Leftism. We are living in a horror as great as Nazism or the Soviet Union, and every year for European-descended peoples has been this way since we allowed Leftism to take over in 1789 with the French Revolution.
Hitler was wrong to think that we could beat modernity with a modern-style society, as Nazism created. We cannot find any good in this thing known as modernity. Instead, we must escape it by recognizing that it is a false type of existence, and that we need to choose the method of civilization that works no matter what year it is, or soon we will be buried just like Hitler.
Biology informs our perspective on a number of our societal problems. One thing that it tells us a lot about is the curse of enforced diversity. We here at Amerika champion the old maxim that diversity does not work. But so far we have cited this as a given, not subjected it to probative analysis. This post seeks to draw upon our background knowledge of Deep Ecology and provide the analytical prop to support the maxim with appropriate rigor.
We know from basic biology that an ecosystem consists of the environment that surrounds a community of species and comprises the region within which these species tend to competitively react. Within said environment each living organism requires four things to do well: food, shelter, water, and space. If there isn’t enough for everybody to get a pony, then one or more of these resources is a limiting factor that is by definition scarce. Once we have scarce resources, competition ensues. Some win, some dirt-nap, some head straight for the exit.
We can then compare our society to said ecosystem by analogy. The different sub-cultures such as religions, races, and social classes are all populations attempting to lay hands on what they need. When times are good and easy, you will get more of them. Absent limiting factors, the different groups will tend to coexist. But when one of the big four requirements runs scarce….Some win, some dirt-nap, some head straight for the exit.
Biologists define diversity as the variety of differing species that exist within the confines of an ecosystem. By analogy, we can describe cultural diversity as the number of different subcultures that compete for resources and status within the society. A biologist will define an ecosystem as robust when it contains significantly large amounts of diversity. A simple extension dictates that a diverse society should also be robust.
However, we now reach a contradiction. Diversity equals conflict, or diversity is our strength. Can it be both, could it be neither or is it forced to be one or the other? This requires an analysis of our appetite for conflict and tendency toward destruction. In competition, some win, some lose and some retreat for the hills. We can referee this competition, or we can let it go full-metal Darwin. We can let iron sharpen iron, or we can make certain competitors pad their blades and use whiffle bats, not war clubs. Finally, and most importantly, we can allow for the graceful exit of those hors de combat or just sadistically kick ’em back into the field of play.
When the competition is refereed, we need to feel confident the referee is just. We have so badly sunk into Post-Modernism and incorrectly applied Nihilism, we can’t even define the term just. Equality of result becomes an ideal held by most who fail to get results any other way. Like the whinging, flop-artist soccer player these people constantly work the ref rather than working on leveling up their game. When this works to the extent that Asian-Americans with an ACT score of X1 have less than half the likelihood of getting into Harvard of a Hispanic-American with a similar score, the impartiality of the referee can only be called into question.
It also calls into question what we define as a strength. Let’s say Harvard University has the best Applied Mathematics Department in America. Let’s also assume it takes a hundred new majors per year. If diversity is truly intended to produce social robustness and iron really sharpens iron, then we ultimately would have to steel ourselves for an outcome where all hundred members of the next Applied Math major cohort at Harvard were all Vietnamese Americans. If that group of individuals happened to be the top hundred, and if diversity is our strength — as opposed to being our slogan — we’ve got to be totally cool with that. Even if we are either Caucasian or African-American. If we really believe Vietnamese lives matter, what else could we conclude? If the referee forces any other outcome, than obviously we have some sort of unjust and implicit hierarchy of which lives really matter more.
So if the game isn’t fair, should everybody have to play? Now there used to be an implicit right in America known as Freedom of Association that dictated the extent to which you were forced to experience diversity. People could live, work and do business with those they trusted and felt a level of comfort with. Now you will bake their wedding cakes even if you find them utterly detestable and would forego the income that produces with pleasure. You literally can’t escape, and if you compete too hard and too well, the referee will intervene and prevent you from winning to the extent to which you deserve.
Imagine an NBA game where Steph Curry has to crank his threes wearing a pair of five pound ankle weights. Imagine we just tech him up and give the other team free throws if he turns around and gripes. That’s the diversity culture of Modern America. It is not our strength. It is often a laughable rendition of Kurt Vonnegut’s classic Harrison Bergeron. Iron is not sharpening iron. The resources are not accurately valued and a predictable Tragedy of The Commons settles upon us as a pestilence. The different cultures forced into this revolting petri dish of dysfunction hate one another with the blistering fire of a thousand suns.
Sanity comes from thinking in cause/effect terms: if I do action X, I get result Y, so unless I want result Y, I should avoid action X. This becomes more complex when you have a whole Excel spreadsheet of X:Y pairs. When you want something done, you look down the Y column and pick the corresponding X to know what you should do.
However, this proves too complicated for most people, not so much because it is technically complicated but because it is emotionally (and through that, socially, since groups are basically emotional hives where people feel commonality for sharing emotions) complex, meaning that it makes life fairly simple and clear.
A life that is simple, clear and sane frustrates most people because it gives them no chance to grandstand, attention whore, dramatize, self-express and otherwise do what “talking monkeys with car keys” do when given a chance: self-aggrandize as a means of (in their view) raising social status. A field of primping, preening, and narcissistic Simians results.
As a result, they demand a duality: a platform through which to demonstrate their importance, and safety from any consequences that may arise from their actions. This is the eternal force in humanity that, in sane societies, is beaten down because it is recognized as massively destructive to civilization itself.
Among these platforms, one of their favorites is the proxy. A proxy is an achievement that symbolizes good or bad results through human rules. The classic example is the law: instead of doing what is right, you do what is legal, and society determines its baseline approval of you by whether or not you have broken the law.
The failure is that proxies — like symbols, boundaries or categorical logic — are not by themselves reality. They are substitutes for reality, and where they do not correspond to reality, they become agents of unrealism, opposed to reality. This makes them a threat to the organism which seeks to adapt to its external world.
Naturally, the first target of humans who wish to destroy things is the meanings of those proxies. And so, the law becomes perverted, and because people rely on it instead of understanding the cause/effect relationships that were responsible for the perceptions that made those laws in the first place, the law rapidly “inverts” or comes to mean the opposite of its original role.
He told parliament this week that his party wanted to “unite black people in South Africa” to expropriate land without compensation.
…The Boer Afrikaner Volksraad, which claims to have 40,000 members, said its members would take land expropriation without compensation as “a declaration of war”.
“We are ready to fight back,” said Andries Breytenbach, the group’s chairman. “We need urgent mediation between us and the government. “If this starts, it will turn into a racial war which we want to prevent.”
Mr. Breytenbach is trying to do the good white person thing of using law and economics to apply order to a society which has lost order. We know that diversity does not work because each ethnic group possesses its own direction of self-interest, and for that reason, multiple groups cannot coexist in the same country.
The most important need of any group is identity, or a sense of who they are and the knowledge that they control their present and future fortunes. This cannot happen under diversity, and the resulting tension guarantees that crises will develop. Fools will try to penalize one side to save the other, and will only intensify the conflict.
The only solution in South Africa is a separation of the ethnic groups in all ways — socially, economically, politically, in law enforcement — so that each may live according to its own standards.
Leftists will cry foul about this because it will liberate the wealthy white section to continue to enjoy that wealth by itself. And yet, it will end the constant victimhood and retaliation. (Of course, an even more sensible move would be to relocate the white South Africans to Texas, and to leave Africa for the ethnic Africans).
However, forcing groups together and causing disharmony benefits no one but corrupt leaders. There is no solution to the situation in South Africa as South Africa is now. The farm murders will continue, the rampant crime will overboil, the parasitic government will grow, and no one will be happy.
The law is an ass. It cannot stop natural forces like the need for ethnic self-determination and the ethnic conflict caused by competing groups within the same country. The only solution is to stop relying on proxies like the law, and look at what works and what does not. Diversity and current South Africa will never work; separation will.
In the future humanity will no longer rely on these proxies. Civilization prospered, then failed from within, so we need to try again but with stronger internal discipline. This means that actions will be strictly measured by the effects they are likely to produce, and not through proxies. The law, the dollar, and the thronging crowd have tad their day and become obsolete.
An alert reader from Houston, TX sends the following observations, transcribed here:
When the first of the Donald J. Trump executive orders against illegal immigration hit, traffic in Houston dropped considerably. It seemed that many were staying home, as if they had realized that the great free-for-all had been interrupted.
Immigrant communities across the United States are in a state of fear and uncertainty after a week of immigration raids and leaks from the Trump administration that have raised the specter of a mass deportations.
…“It’s almost like it’s psychological warfare that’s being waged against people of color to create a constant feeling of fear and uncertainty,” said Juanita Molina, the executive director of Border Action Network, a human rights organization in Tucson, Arizona.
After the Obama years, in which rule of law was suspended and it was widely perceived among minority communities that they were gaining political power against the majority and could use it as a cash cow for their own agendas, the new Trump rules upended an order which always penalized the majority.
Of course, that unbalance was too much, because the anti-majority coalition with Leftists proved to be such a great source of power and free stuff paid for by the taxpayers. And so, the usual neurotics announced a workaround:
Hernández, also an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, has campaigned to end a program that deputises local officials to act as federal immigration agents, potentially turning a minor infraction into a life-altering event.
The 28-year-old community organiser with United We Dream celebrated a victory this week, after the Harris County sheriff’s office announced it would end its use of this program, known as 287(g).
In other words, illegal immigrants need not fear because the police will not arrest them for being illegal. Thus, they can continue to violate the law — no one else gets this “privilege” — with impunity.
The traffic returned. The racial resentment on the streets returned. And this resentment was vocalized by illegals not as justice, but as conquest of the majority by the minority coalition:
“But you know what? This is also our country. Let me repeat this: Our country, not theirs. It is our country. And we are not going to leave. We are nearly 60 million Latinos in the United States,” he continued. “And thanks to us, the United States eats, grows and, as we’ve seen today, sings and dances.”
“So when they attack us, we already know what we are going to do. We are not going to sit down. We will not shut up. And we will not leave. That is what we are going to do,” he added.
Diversity does not — cannot — work. It pits groups against one another in a battle for control of political power and the ability to set standards of identity, including values and national identity. Each group acts in self-interest, but when they are combined in a nation together, they become bitter combatants.
The only solution is to go beyond what Trump can or is willing to say, and to point out that diversity is paradoxical and will never work. In fact, it has already failed, and by allowing it to continue with our laws or lack of will to enforce them, we have created the groundwork for the breakup of our nation, civil war and increasing ethnic conflict. This benefits no one.