Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘diversity’

Freedom of Dissociation Must Become A Right

Tuesday, November 14th, 2017

I opine today in vigorous concord and comity with Mr. Ekow N. Yankaw and all the wonderful people who write for and edit The New York Times. It’s very rarely that I read an article on The New York Times and nod along agreeing. It’s even more uncommon, almost unheard of, to hear them so effectively amplify a point made by the profoundly and fearlessly observant John Derbyshire.

(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense:
(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.
(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.
(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).
(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.
(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.
(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.

In other words, John Derbyshire just doesn’t believe blacks and whites can consistantly get along on a daily basis. Of course this was the heights of utter heresy. He got fired, and then publicly condemned. Repeatedly. By the people he used to work with.

So none of the Thinking People, The Scholars of Perspicacious Intellect, The Tolerant Ones, The Voices of Eternal Reason (or at least ineffable tenure at some #SJW sinecure) could possibly buttress John Derbyshire’s view of the world. Oh, wait

It is impossible to convey the mixture of heartbreak and fear I feel for him. Donald Trump’s election has made it clear that I will teach my boys the lesson generations old, one that I for the most part nearly escaped. I will teach them to be cautious, I will teach them suspicion, and I will teach them distrust. Much sooner than I thought I would, I will have to discuss with my boys whether they can truly be friends with white people.

He has no choice, you see. He has to give his children…!THE TALK! Now to listen to the media, we can only believe one of these people is correct. And we know which one the The Thinking People, The Righteous Ones, The Grand Torquemadas of Love and Tolerance, tell us that decent Amerikans are enjoined to support. Well let me offer you an option that isn’t on the menu amongst those who hate you so much they get upset anytime white people breed amongst their own kind.

Agree with both of them. If Ekow N. Yankah simply can’t bring himself to have his precious offspring around my boy because any child of mine is tainted by The Caucasian Persuasion, then that is certainly his right. The Little League Baseball Team, The Municipal Youth Orchestra, the Korean Language and Culture School and the Religious Private School my son attends will all find a way to stagger forward absent the blessed, enlightened seed of Ekow N. Yankah, The High Lama of Blackity-Black-Black-Black. I understand. That stuff is just homestyle down here amongst the ‘Baca Chawing Hicks down here in Madison County, AL. Exposing his saintly offspring to this sort of inbred, cousin-screwing in the outhouse Crackashit would have the poor young tyke playing the counterpoint to the banjo jingle from the movie Deliverance.

Go away Ekow N. Yankah. Don’t let the White Man’s door hit your ass on the way out. Nobody is calling you up 24 hours a day and saying “Please Ekow N. Yankah, bless us with your precious diversity!” You know, we honkey mofos managed a thing or two without your coruscating brilliance to light the higher path for us. When a couple of your by-blows comes up with stuff like this, get back to me about how my kids aren’t good enough to play with one of yours. I mean, these white people are downright scary.

Euclidean geometry. Parabolic geometry. Hyperbolic geometry. Projective geometry. Differential geometry. Calculus: Limits, continuity, differentiation, integration. Physical chemistry. Organic chemistry. Biochemistry. Classical mechanics. The indeterminacy principle. The wave equation. The Parthenon. The Anabasis. Air conditioning. Number theory. Romanesque architecture. Gothic architecture. Information theory. Entropy. Enthalpy. Every symphony ever written. Pierre Auguste Renoir. The twelve-tone scale. The mathematics behind it, twelfth root of two and all that. S-p hybrid bonding orbitals. The Bohr-Sommerfeld atom. The purine-pyrimidine structure of the DNA ladder. Single-sideband radio. All other radio. Dentistry. The internal-combustion engine. Turbojets. Turbofans. Doppler beam-sharpening. Penicillin. Airplanes. Surgery. The mammogram. The Pill. The condom. Polio vaccine. The integrated circuit. The computer. Football. Computational fluid dynamics. Tensors. The Constitution. Euripides, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Aeschylus, Homer, Hesiod. Glass. Rubber. Nylon. Skyscrapers. The piano. The harpsichord. Elvis. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. (OK, that’s nerve gas, and maybe we didn’t really need it.) Silicone. The automobile. Really weird stuff, like clathrates, Buckyballs, and rotaxanes. The Bible. Bug spray. Diffie-Hellman, public-key cryptography, and RSA. Et cetera at great length.

I think the only thing that fix the utter tragedy of your children being tainted with the musty, backwoods stink of mine is a new civil right. One that will help our society become a whole heck of a lot more civil than your bigoted screed in The New York Times, Mr. Ekow N. Yankah. We need Freedom of Association. You get the right to ban me and mine from any activity you can plan, build and operate on your own. Any business you start, I don’t have to be allowed through the door. Any church you and yours found has no obligation to give the sick degenerates of my phenotype any membership or sacrament. I see no reason you should even have me and my kind in any neighborhood you can buy up and build up. If you don’t want me around, I’m not begging for your company.

In return: I can banish you. I can never have to pay for the illegitimate kids that comprise 80% of your race’s cohort in Modern Amerika. I don’t believe they are good enough to be friends with my kids. I just don’t believe decent White People can trust the little bastards. Martin Luther King, Jr had a dream that we would all judge people by the content of their characters and not the color of their skins. If you want him to put the bong down and wake up and smell the asphalt; we’re good Brother Man. If Rodney King asks you “Can’t we all just get along?” and you say not until you get off the dope and the welfare, Knee-Grow, rave the fvck on John Dunne!

If you, Mr. Ekow N. Yankah; are ready to acknowledge that tribe, race, genetic heritage and cultural home training all impact character and therefore should be taken account when judging character than congratulations! Ekow N. Yankah, your Alt-Right Certificate of Rudimentary Intellectual Achievement is waiting for you right here at Amerika.org. Your Amerika.org Kewpie Doll is in your email inbox. Make it your mascot when you tell us all more hate truths over at The Gnu Yawwk Times. Or, if you are just another BLM hypocritical bullshitter, than I denounce you for the shrivel-dick, huckstering, psuedo-intellectual posuer that you are and hereby publically condemn The New York Times for publishing a man with the proximate IQ of a rotting pomegranate. And in conclusion, I’ve had about enough of singing kumbaya with these malignant hating blackguards hell-bent on White Genocide.

Refuting The Latest Media Lie About Racial Purity

Friday, November 10th, 2017

As the Left regroups after experiencing political rejection in the UK, US and EU it has begun constructing the next wave of assumptions it will use in order to justify its arguments. Most of these are simply updated versions of the old; as part of this, the Left has moved from “race does not exist” to “everyone is mixed-race” as seen in this bit of silliness arguing for mass migration:

But one self-described neo-Nazi on the district council told The New York Times that by allowing the influx, the German people faced “the destruction of our genetic heritage” and risked becoming “a gray mishmash.”

In fact, the German people have no unique genetic heritage to protect. They—and all other Europeans—are already a mishmash, the children of repeated ancient migrations, according to scientists who study ancient human origins. New studies show that almost all indigenous Europeans descend from at least three major migrations in the past 15,000 years, including two from the Middle East. Those migrants swept across Europe, mingled with previous immigrants, and then remixed to create the peoples of today.

First, we need not argue for racial “purity” so much as racial “consistency.” Whoever the Germans are, they are a consistent continuum of genetics, as are other Europeans, which we can see through genetic maps of the distances between European ethnic groups:

These maps also reveal where admixture has occurred, and it stands out in contrast to the native European.

Then, we should revisit history. Europeans were wandering tribes who colonized many areas throughout Europe, Asia and the middle east. These were fundamentally the same people, but at some point, they migrated back into Europe, probably related to changes in climate and politics.

We can tell the difference between a German and a Somali by looking, and now we can do so with genetic evidence. But this offends the Left, so they concocted an updated version of Lewontin’s fallacy, which argued that because there was no single gene for race, race did not exist.

Instead, they argue that because European groups may have come from multiple groups, even from the same root, race does not exist and therefore you might as well mix Germans with Somalis because you will have the same people. As always, the Left reveals a willingness to lie in addition to their multiple mental health issues.

The answer is to this new idiocy is that European groups are consistent, have been so for some time, and are more similar to each other than they are to foreigners. The Left wishes to conceal that truth so that they can invert the definition of race, and leave you helpless to object to their importation of many extremely foreign people into your lands. Laugh at it, because it is ludicrous.

Science Confirms It: Diversity Destroys Civilization

Thursday, November 2nd, 2017

The analysis offered on this site of diversity does not look at the unique traits of groups, only the necessary idea that any group is constituted around a unique values system and in order to defend that, needs to have control over its destiny and the ability to exclude other groups. This means that more than one group in the same area causes social dissolution and civilization collapse.

In fact, for more than twenty-five years, the writers collected here have been pointing out that diversity destroys social order and is dysfunctional as a policy as a result. We cannot make it work because it is paradoxical and therefore will always fail, but will fail slowly, taking our civilization down with it as that society expends all of its resources to try to make an illusion into reality, although tyrants and rioting plebs love it because the perceived goodness of diversity gives them virtually unlimited power.

As if conjured up from our laboratories, confirms that diversity results in conflict (via Heartiste via hbdchick:

However, in countries where ethnicity is more strongly predictive of culture, as captured by a high χ2, violent conflict is more likely, and public goods provision tends to be lower. Our interpretation of this empirical result is that in societies where individuals differ from each other in both ethnicity and culture, social antagonism is greater, and political economy outcomes are worse.

In other words, wherever there are groups that have united genetics to value systems (“culture”) there is conflict if more than one occupies a space.

This should not baffle us because the same condition exists in nature. Wherever two groups attempt to co-exist, conflict expands until whichever group breeds more slowly is destroyed, as we see in the case of the brown anoles versus green anoles:

Although green anoles are very territorial, the invasion of the brown anoles have chased the natives into the treetops. The brown anoles, having few enemies, have taken over the former habitat of the greens, forcing them into new territories and farther from our sight. In addition to taking the natural territories from them, the brown anoles, especially mature males, will actually kill and eat the baby green anoles. Their populations are greatly reduced from former numbers.

The invasive species, which is less discriminate in its consumption and more aggressive, has begun bullying the native species, with disastrous results that resemble the constant ethnic conflict created by diversity:

The green anole and the Cuban brown anole both occupy the same niche, or place in the ecosystem. This means that they both live on the ground and in low lying branches, and eat the same food, insects. But the brown anoles tend to out-compete green anoles on the ground and lower boles of trees. They have even been described as being more aggressive than the native green anole. Instead of toughening up, the green anoles who used to occupy these lower spaces are now more commonly found feeding in higher, flimsier branches and leaves. This is considered a shift in behavior due to resource partitioning.

…Since the encroachment of the Cuban brown anole, studies have shown that our native green anole has begun to show some morphological and behavioral changes. What scientists have found, and what you can probably witness at home, is that the green anole is now choosing to live higher off the ground and they have developed larger toe pads.

As the newer group comes in, more voracious and less thoughtful, it displaces the more capable — and therefore less preemptively defensive through aggression — native group.

This resembles the flight of those who became Europeans into the far less hospitable climates to the North: when food is abundant, intelligence is not rewarded, and so the coarser take over from the finer. When each decision about survival becomes more difficult, then nature rewards the more intelligent finer species.

It also explains the clashes we have over diversity. One group is displacing another; that group, realizing that taking to the trees will only delay its demise by outbreeding, is finding its own identity in response.

This places us in a situation where the political conflict of diversity threatens our future. We have justified diversity as an economic program, but the inevitable conflict has destabilized us:

As rich countries have fewer babies, they need immigration to grow their prime-age workforces. But as the foreign-born share of the population rises, xenophobia often festers and threatens egalitarian policymaking.

…But there is a growing body of evidence that as rich majority-white countries admit more foreign-born people, far-right parties thrive by politicizing the perceived threat of the foreign-born to national culture. That concept will sound familiar to anybody who watched the 2016 U.S. presidential race, but it’s a truly global trend. A 2015 study of immigration and far-right attitudes in Austria found that the proximity of low and medium-skilled immigrants “causes Austrian voters to turn to the far right.” The effect was strongest in areas with higher unemployment, suggesting that culture and economics might reinforce each other in this equation. Last week, the far-right Austrian party triumphed in the nation’s election.

In other words, exactly as the study — and common sense, and the parable of the anole — predicts, diversity creates endless conflict, and the only way to survive it is to end diversity.

We Need a Worldview, Not a Universal Outlook

Monday, October 30th, 2017

Let’s assume that Realism is a worldview opposed to any rightist or leftist views. From there we can see that nature may have its own view and that a human Realism should not be seen in isolation. Given that nature likes to experiment where the “winner” does not need to be “good,” this presents humans with a dilemma, because religion always tend to style itself as the good, which places it at odds with nature.

Religion relies on a transcendental state for its meaning. However, transcendence is not of this world; it is abstract and intuitive. While it may calm and focus humans, it does not actually do anything tangible, like create spaceships. In fact it may make matters worse by telling people that they cannot die in an attempt to soothe our loss of family members. Even the Bantu do not believe their elders actually die.

When it comes to real world practicality of the kind that creates spaceships, we must accept that humans die as part of nature’s experiments. In order to understand our fate better, we need to understand the experiments of nature. This gives us a worldview that cannot be tainted by political outlooks, which tend to color our interpretation by making themselves the base assumptions through which we filter our perceptions.

That in turn clashes with politics, which seems to be based on lying. People lie because they think others don’t know they are lying (disregarding that truth itself is not the issue). It is therefore impossible for a politician not to lie. In fact the Leader of the Opposition in South Africa wrote, “if you want honesty, you start your own party.”

I agree with that sentiment, even if it is shocking. It is only shocking because I never realized it. But I have met representatives and some of them were obviously “salesmen” while others were apparently initially honest. My limited experience with these representatives shows that they spend a lot of time influencing people, but when they get the seat, they have no idea what to do, as Steve Bannon noted recently.

These parliamentarians are suddenly viewed with enormous respect, while they have no idea what their world view is or should be. They are therefore incompetent, all of them. Sometimes knowledgeable business people that understand “the way of the world” gets the opportunity to affect change, but even then their world view is limited by screeching of the proletariat.

One can almost say that even great leaders get distracted by their children, or in other words, their constituents. This applies to Trump as well. He was recently caught in an untruth when he said that G.W. Bush never called families of fallen soldiers. Once we get over moralizing about the tendency to lie, we can see that instead he is playing a game.

In his world, like the amoral and dispassionate worldview of nature, everything is a game and the best player wins. In the game of restoring America, Trump wants to put America to work which is probably not a lie, because as a developer and businessman he and his friends like workers, because workers are consumers.

The real lie is that Americans wants to work. They actually don’t. In fact they want to talk, a lot. Where at first they had to wait for the Sunday newspaper, they can now express their own views every weekday. You can see this in the rising social media industries now abbreviated as FANG. But you can also see it in American industry.

Returning to the world view discussion, one can say that Africa also like talking a lot. That put them at the lowest ranks of the Competitiveness Index. But it also puts them in a strong position as migrants to bring Western Civilization down to those same levels. Even though Westerners can and want to talk a lot, migrants have the upper hand genetically. They reproduce faster than we do.

A worldview, as opposed to a universal outlook which favors truth and goodness over effects in reality, dictates that Americans must start to work. To convince them will take some time because they have to understand that change is really necessary. The Mandela experiment is an example of where a Western oriented country realized they had to change, setting in motion a grand political effort driven by mass media and education.

The point in South Africa was to allow “acculturation” of all its peoples towards a Western type culture (democracy at the time), but back-fired, because it should have acculturated to the African culture (tribal at the time). Nature’s order wins out: we may think we are more “good,” but really, only what works is what is good, and so instead of projecting onto it, we must accept reality as we find it.

If America wants to make a change, it should acculturate to a tribal dispensation and in my view a semi-re-enactment towards a States’ Rights model prioritizing trade between States as opposed to global trade. This acknowledges the nature of America, instead of the universal morality that we try to convince ourselves is true.

The successor to Trump will have a world view, not a universal outlook, and as a result will be willing to re-write the founding documents to choose a system that works for what America is and has been. They will do this because other tribes are taking to the global stage first, which is putting America in the camp of political lies and not hard realism, which it needs in order to survive and succeed.

How Ethnic Diversity Leads To Racial Diversity

Sunday, October 29th, 2017

At this point it has dawned on most in the modern West that diversity causes civilizations to decompose from within through internal ethnic conflicts, race guilt and the massive costs of a permanent underclass.

People are simply over diversity. They believed in it because it promised to take an existing situation, where white and black were in tension, and resolve it by accepting everyone. Like most pacifism, it encountered the maxim of history, which is that what you tolerate you get more of, and soon we had ethnic and racial tension exploding in direct proportion to how much we tried to placate it.

What fewer understand is that ethnic diversity destroys civilizations through the same method that racial diversity uses to do so, namely because each group wants to act in self-interest, which means having command of its future, which requires it to have the ability to set standards, which in turn requires it to be the dominant group.

We can witness this in the progression of nursing textbooks over the decades. First, the early struggles with ethnic diversity:

After this tension fragmented American society, displaced the ruling group (WASPs) and polarized citizens against each other, it led to racial diversity:

In each case, we find ourselves aliens in our lands because while we have a common economic system, political ideology and language, we do not have cultural standards, customs, values, traditions, identity and purpose in common. This kills the nation.

A Great Purge, Long Needed, Is Coming

Sunday, October 22nd, 2017

Civilization represents an agreement between people to give up some freedoms in exchange for the efficiencies of scale that organizations offer. At some point, this goes too far, and the method becomes the goal, at which point civilization is in decline.

Our civilization encountered its problems by succeeding, which exposed it to new troubles that no one had faced before. This also meant that there was no precedent by which to recognize these problems.

When the method became confused with the goal, our civilization mistook taking care of its citizens for the original goal, which was taking care of those who contributed. Soon people were accepted merely for being alive, and this created a majority of people without purpose who promptly took over and used civilization for their own ends.

Their triumph, a series of individualist ideas from the Renaissance through the Obama presidency, seemed unstoppable until it began to fail, and the way its backers pushed it further revealed that these ideas were never about what was good for civilization and thus for contributors. These ideas were the reign of the parasitic.

As those old ideas fall like so many dominoes, people are becoming more willing to wield the one weapon that civilization really has: the ability to exile or refuse to admit people who are not contributors. This recognizes the eternal truth that you get more of whatever you subsidize, and whatever you discriminate against, you get less of.

Our well-intentioned — and we all know the old proverb about the road to Hell — policies have created mini-industries where people are impoverished, disabled or otherwise dysfunctional as careers which span multiple generations:

They were the fourth generation in this family to receive federal disability checks, and the first to be declared no longer disabled and have them taken away. In days that had grown increasingly tense, as debts mounted and desperation grew to prove that the twins should be on disability, this was always the worst time, before the medication kicked in, when the mobile home was filled with the sounds of children fighting, dogs barking, adults yelling, television volume turned up.

…Talk of medications, of diagnoses, of monthly checks that never seem to cover every need — these are the constants in households like this one, composed of multiple generations of people living on disability. Little-studied and largely unreported, such families have become familiar in rural communities reshaped by a decades-long surge that swelled the nation’s disability rolls by millions before declining slightly in 2015 as older beneficiaries aged into retirement benefits, according to interviews with social workers, lawyers, school officials, academics and rural residents.

…A separate Post examination of census data found that households reporting at least one disabled adult are three times as likely to report having a disabled child, too, although most households affected by disability report only one disabled member. Multigenerational disability, The Post found, is far more common in poor families.

The age we have just left, The Age of Ideology, was based in human individualism, or the idea that no individual should be left behind and that the individual should be protected against obligation to society, culture, heritage, religion, values and even logical realism. This was manifested in “equality,” or the notion that the human individual, not social standards, was our focus.

When ideology takes over mass opinion, there is no way to say no to any program that promises to benefit individuals who are below whatever lowest common denominator we define as the equality minimum in any way. As a result, welfare policies proliferate, eventually reaching the point where we are subsidizing multiple generations to be ill and do nothing productive.

Hegel thought history zig-zagged between concepts and their opposites until it found an optimum; more realistic observers noted that history runs in cycles, where sanity is established and then rebelled against — sort of like the Garden of Eden mythos — and it takes centuries to get back toward sanity. The first step back toward sanity is abolishing equality.

This can be as simple as saying that not every individual needs saving, which affirms the need for Darwinian natural selection among human populations to cease the proliferation of deleterious mutations, instead of encouraging their proliferation by subsidizing those who are suffering. But the herd opposes this because it would require us to make society sane again, which would make the individual less important and social order, values and standards more important.

A great purge is coming. Tolerance, equality and diversity have compelled us to admit too many among us who are dysfunctional, and those who are functional (this includes an in-built tendency to value civilization and contribute to it) are splitting away from the rest. In their view, membership in society is limited to those who can contribute, and this implies further filters as well.

For example, only those who understand a culture will know how to contribute to it, and only those who are hardwired with the genetics of a culture will be able to instinctively uphold it. For that reason, in order for there to be a purge of the useless, first civilizations must revert to being mono-ethnic, and in recognition of that the Left holds obsessively to the concept of diversity.

We are slowly recognizing that tolerance of all means destruction of the productive, because tolerance requires subsidies and that takes money from the productive to give to those who are non-contributors. Where in the past we thought there was a middle, we forgot that there are merely degrees, and that over time, any direction tends toward its furthest extreme.

Equality became a mental virus that took over our souls in pursuit of its extreme. Where we originally wanted merely to help people, and scapegoated hierarchy instead of recognizing that people are inherently unequal, we unleashed an omnivorous beast which soon consumed all other ideas and remade them in its image, resulting in a terminal spiral of guilt and victimhood fetishism that has destroyed our joy in life:

“What is it, honey?” I brush the bangs back from her face.

She lets out a big sigh. “I wish I wasn’t white.”

I start. Nothing in the parenting manuals has prepared me for that.

“All we’ve ever done is hurt people,” she continues. “I wish my skin was dark and that I had a culture.”

We cannot separate class warfare from diversity because they are one and the same, which is an expression of egalitarianism, itself a manifestation of our desires for individualism. Once we thought these things were survivable but now, we know they are not, and history is turning as a result.

Ethnography of Civilization Collapse

Wednesday, October 18th, 2017

Tendentious bashers such as myself have a habit of reminding you that history runs in cycles, and if a civilization does not restart its cycle by restoring traditional society, it goes off into third world style subsistence living because of a lack of social order, and ends up a mixed-race shadow of its former self.

The “mixed-race” part is crucial because, throughout history, bad leaders have used diversity as a means of shoring up their own power. When they need support, they can count on those people who depend on them, namely the various different types of minorities who are allied against the majority, whose interest does not reflect their own.

When you encounter a failed civilization, you will find shorter and weaker people, generally without much intelligence but weighted toward the verbal and not the spatial, with mystical traditions based on primitive symbols, who are fundamentally comfortable living in a society where corruption takes a third off every deal and nothing ever gets done, or done right.

Third world people are individualists, and to them, the burden of struggling to have social order is too much relative to how they want to enjoy life, which is just not worrying too much. Very carefree individuals in these parts, and they seem very happy, but they never produce anything of greatness. Their society demands little of them, so they spend most of their time on themselves.

We can tell that this is the case by looking at a civilization that faded away long ago:

Researchers from the University of Tuebingen and the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, both in Germany, have decoded the genome of ancient Egyptians for the first time, with unexpected results.

Publishing its findings in Nature Communications, the study concluded that preserved remains found in Abusir-el Meleq, Middle Egypt, were closest genetic relatives of Neolithic and Bronze Age populations from the Near East, Anatolia and Eastern Mediterranean Europeans.

Modern Egyptians, by comparison, share much more DNA with sub-Saharan populations.

In other words, ancient remains showed genetic consistency; modern genetics show the influence of diversity. This society became more diverse as it failed, and it does not necessarily matter what the diversity was, only that the genetic consistency of a network of traits was broken up and replaced by a more chaotic, less competent biological compromise.

This applies to ethnic groups as well. Mixed-ethnic states, especially those with hybridization, even trace hybridization, tend to perform less well than homogeneous nations. Most likely, when places like Egypt become diverse, it is through trace admixture; few people will marry and mate with the Other, but someone who is only an eighth other they can accept, until those are the only option and the original ethnic group is long gone.

When people talk about diversity, they often attempt to discuss it through “problems”: how to manage crime, how to indoctrinate the newcomers in our Constitution, how to assimilate them, why to make them equally accepted so they will not riot. But there is only one real problem, which is the replacement of the founding ethnic group and, with it, a loss of whatever traits it had that allowed the society to succeed in the first place.

Sharia Law Courts In The UK Show Us The Internal Balkanization Which Happens With Diversity

Wednesday, October 18th, 2017

Diversity makes no sense. Different groups act differently because they come from different origins, therefore different traits were rewarded, therefore they are wired differently. Even more, every group has an interest in being itself, because no one has your back like someone who is genetically bonded to you, like an extended family.

When fools — driven by the siren song of power and wealth that equality promises — decide to mix these groups, they unleash the stored tensions there. Each group realizes that its winning strategy is to appear the victim while secretly acting against other groups, so that it can assume power and either drive them out or genetically absorb them, a strategy which only works for third world groups.

These truths were well-known to those who came before us. In fact, most of what is written on this blog would appear common sense to them, but after years of assault with propaganda and the bad breeding that comes with egalitarianism, most of our people are stupefied and unable to see the plain reality of any situation.

No one is surprised when they sleep through something momentous like the adoption of sharia law in the UK:

An estimated 30 sharia councils exist in the UK, giving Islamic divorce certificates and advice on other aspects of religious law. They have garnered fierce criticism, particularly for their treatment of women seeking religious divorces, who make up the core clientele.

Sharia is the Islamic legal system, derived from the Koran and the rulings of Islamic scholars, known as fatwas. As well as providing a code for living – including prayers, fasting and donations to the poor – sharia in some countries such as Saudi Arabia also lays down punishments as extreme as cutting off a hand or death by stoning for adultery.

Diversity places the host nation into a paradox: it either demands that its newcomers “assimilate,” which destroys their culture and identity, or it hosts them in Chinatowns, where they can have their culture and practices, but still interact with the mainstream. The Chinatown model has won out, and so the UK has sharia courts.

Naturally this bodes for conflict much as diversity itself does. Sharia law is distinct from English law, or there would be no need for sharia courts; this difference means that clashes are inevitable. And when they happen, loyalty will be divided, because much as with the paradox of diversity, migrants must either reject who they are or accept being second-class citizens living in their own ghetto.

Future generations will look back on this stuff and laugh. They will see that because we chose equality, we rejected the distinction between right or wrong and good or bad, and as a result, mired ourselves in the “grey areas” and failed to see where incompatibility clearly existed. As a result, we stockpiled causes for future conflict while obediently denying that any paradox existed.

Diversity Never Works

Monday, October 16th, 2017

History runs in cycles because human behavior follows a cyclic pattern. A truth is discovered, and then the only way to make a name for yourself is to assert the anti-truth, so people pursue the anti-truth as a way to succeed socially, and eventually it takes over and then is realized to be not true, so people begin the long process of crawling past convention, conformity and denial to reach the truth again.

Our ancestors knew that diversity never works because it cannot work. For us to believe in diversity, we must convince ourselves that different groups do not have different aims. Other than people giving up on their culture and heritage entirely, and agreeing to become generic citizens motivated by ideology and paycheck alone, there is no possibility of this happening, because culture is central to how humans understand their world and socialize within it.

Culture sets down a series of values, rules, and customs which are unique to a specific group. This enables them to both keep outsiders away, and police themselves for those who — probably through the rise of deleterious mutations leading to pathologies — are not going to be able to act in the best interests of the group. Culture is knowing what actions will be approved of by the group, and which will be censured, and enables people to understand how to find a place in their society.

On the other hand, diversity represents anti-culture. When you have multiple cultures in the same place, there can be no commonality except at levels that are both extremely simplified and very abstract. Anti-culture replaces culture with ideology, legal systems, economic systems, political systems and most of all, socializing, which now occurs without a sense of shared values except those of the abstract “systems” mentioned earlier in the list. Diversity destroys culture and to fully succeed in that, it has to destroy the genetic roots of culture.

Genetics underlies culture because culture is how human groups replace natural selection. Culture rewards those who uphold the values and ideals of the group; by definition, it excludes those who do not. People enjoy the idea of anti-culture because it frees them from the task of having to understand reality and their culture, and act according to it; without culture, they can do anything and as long as they follow the abstract and thus loose rules of the systems, they will be fine. But in reality, culture is both shaped by genetics and shapes genetics as Jonathan Haidt writes:

Cultural and genetic evolution are intertwined. The human capacity for culture — a strong tendency to learn from each other, to teach each other, and to build upon what we have learned — is itself a genetic evolution that happened in stages over the last few million years. But once our brains reached a critical threshold, perhaps 80,000 to 100,000 years ago, cultural innovation began to accelerate; a strong evolutionary pressure then shaped brains to take further advantage of culture. Individuals who could best learn from others were more successful than their less “cultured” brethren, and as brains became more cultural, cultures became more elaborate, further increasing the advantage of having a more cultural brain. All human beings today are the products of the co-evolution of a set of genes (which is almost identical across cultures) and a set of cultural elements (which is diverse across cultures, but still constrained by the capacities and predispositions of the human mind). For example, the genetic evolution of the emotion of disgust made it possible (but not inevitable) for cultures to develop caste systems based on occupation and strongly supported by disgust toward those who perform “polluting” activities. A caste system then restricts marriage to within-caste pairings, which in turn alters the course of genetic evolution. After a thousand years of inbreeding within castes, castes will diverge slightly on a few genetic traits — for example, shades of skin color — which might in turn lead to growing cultural association of caste with color rather than with occupation. (It only takes twenty generations of selective breeding to create large differences of appearance and behavior in other mammals.) In this way, genes and cultures co-evolve; they mutually affect each other, and neither process can be studied in isolation for human beings.

Diversity never works. It requires us to believe that different groups, each seeking to establish its own standards and genetics, can co-exist through the singular fact of dependence on a shared economic, political and social system. In doing so, it denies what makes each group unique, which is its system of values, its heritage, and its identity, or self-conception as a unit moving toward autonomy.

Since culture is encoded in genetics, and designed to accommodate those genetics thus effectively encoding them in culture, diversity necessarily possesses the ultimate goal of genocide: it seeks to replace a population or populations by mixing them, destroying the original genetic groups and their unique clusters of traits.

We might refer to diversity as a form of ethnic vandalism which has already failed, like liberal democracy, as once-strong faith in it has evaporated. Now that we have seen what is on the end of the fork, we realize that diversity will do nothing but replace us, no matter what race we are, and because of that, we have thought about identity and intuited that it is important.

Without social order, civilization becomes a giant shopping mall ruled by security guards in which your money is taken to subsidize a huge group of impoverished and angry people hidden behind the parking center. In fact, diversity is a tactic for seizing power, as we have known for longer than Christianity has been around. It is simply a dead-end policy enacted by dying nations in the hands of parasitic mercantile classes and mass culture.

We can easily end diversity and can see examples of the end of diversity in our world today. Those who experience it, dislike it; those who have suffered under it want it to end. Since the early 1990s, I have differed from the rest of the Right in that instead of criticizing specific ethnic groups, I have pointed out that diversity itself is the problem. We cannot place multiple groups together and not either destroy them, destroy ourselves, or as is most likely, both. This is true even with “nice” ethnic groups like Asians. Even ethnic diversity is destructive but allows the Left to seize power, so it is popular on the Left, of course.

You will often hear people argue something ill-advised like, “All this diversity stuff is really just special privileges. What we need instead is to just treat everyone equally.” However, this is a variation of DR3: we are claiming that we are more egalitarian than the Left, which forgets that egalitarianism is the philosophical root of diversity. A better path is to realize that diversity never works, and diversity has failed again, and so now we are headed toward balkanization as a path to tribal/ethnic separation, an idea once known as nationalism. The people who argue for meritocracy miss the point, which is that homogeneity creates stable nations, and heterogeneity — diversity, multiculturalism, internationalism, and globalism; these mean roughly the same thing — creates unstable, self-destructing nation-states. We cannot use equality to get out of the problems created by equality; we have to reject equality, and embrace hierarchy instead, which requires a single value system and therefore cannot happen under any form of diversity.

Diversity is the direct result of egalitarianism, or the idea that all people are equal. Humans tend to rationalize future decisions based on their current situation, and in the 1940s-1960s, Americans became concerned about the fact that our founding documents claimed that “all men are created equal” and that our country provided “liberty and justice for all,” when in reality African-Americans, Hispanics, Chinese and Amerinds were relegated to the back of the bus. Since we were at the time fighting a Cold War against the Soviet Union, we decided to beat them by being more liberal than they were, and in so doing, sacrificed our social order. Starting in the early 1960s, diversity became a core tenet of the Left and, once they had successfully demonized any racial preference as “racism” and equated it with Adolf Hitler, the Left was able to batter down any resistance to its multicultural vision. This then spread to Europe and accelerated after the fall of Communism as the ruined West tried to re-define itself — rationalize itself — in some way that explained its decline as a positive thing.

Egalitarianism is a form of individualism. Individualism defends the individual against obligations outside of the self-interest, or in a utilitarian sense the desires, of the individual. Individualism is the belief that the individual should do what the individual wants without regard for impact on society, nature, other people, culture, heritage, values, and religion. This form of atomization, or separating the individual from any context except itself, creates a society where the largest possible group is a unit of one person. This addresses the fundamental concern of individualists, which is that they will be judged by their actions, which can fall short of either social standards or how reality works, reflecting an inability to understand reality on the part of the individual. Individuals know that every time they act, they can reveal an inability to understand reality, or a failing according to the values of culture, and so they advocate for equality, which defends the individual against the needs of nature, logic, history and the larger social group. This atomized approach appears to benefit the individual, but in fact it cuts them off from participation in anything larger than themselves, and so it creates empty, depressed, alcoholic, and frustrated people. The futility is crushing like gravity inside of a black hole.

Individualism, equality, hubris, solipsism, diversity, and democracy have made the West a living hell on an existential level. We expend ourselves at jobs that are mostly pointless, as if designed by a mocking demon, and then wait in lines for mediocre products and endless red tape. We are alienated from our community, and even from our own families, because everyone acts in the individualist style of working toward their own immediate desires by using everything else, including love and family, as a means to that end. Thanks to diversity, we have no culture, and therefore can have no purpose, so there is no way to restrain the mercantile takeover of our society, which spirals into oblivion because we have nothing in common except paychecks and staying on the side that won the Cold War. Even worse, we have committed ourselves to a series of illusions beginning with equality and ending in diversity, so most people are offered the unappetizing choice between admitting that we have massively failed and rationalizing the present, doubling down on the same ideals, and trying again because that way our egos can remain intact.

Contemporary people suffer by being forced to hover at the moment of transition between parts of the cycle. This is a gradual transition, so we are left with the assumptions of the past, but realizing that those are empty and deceptive, while waiting for them to fully fail so that we can move on to the next part of the cycle. The sooner we realize that diversity never works because it is paradoxical and designed as a control method, a means-to-the-end of power and nothing more, the sooner we can reject it and then start peeling back the ideas that justify it, throwing out the illusions and replacing them with wisdom, so that we can restore Western Civilization and escape this evil, tedious, and narcissistic era.

We Know Better

Sunday, October 15th, 2017

Long ago, we had a system called hierarchy where we took the people who were smartest and most prone to do the right thing in every circumstance, and put them on the top. They ruled over the rest of us, which by the very nature of humanity, involved telling us that what we “felt” or desired was not going to lead to a good outcome, so we could not do it.

That never sits well with a man, being treated like a child, reasoned the herd. Given that humanity is 90% people who need to be told what to do, and only 9% who can be delegated tasks to, most people need to be restrained from their own impulse to self-destruction most of the time. But the herd knew better.

“Those kings, it’s just an accident of birth,” the shopkeeper said, because he always says what flatters his customers. Say something nice, sell an extra pound of cheese, and the wife of the peasant or artisan who buys it will never tell and her husband will never ask. So the shopkeepers grew wealthy on the pretense of the unpunished herd.

Then the masses were formed, of the shopkeepers and the peasants, and they decided that the kings really were worthless. They worked with the rich merchants of the cities to overthrow the kings. Those who had read and understood the classics of history, who knew things about human nature, said this was a bad idea, and that we needed hierarchy.

“Oh, no,” said the proles. They brought out their own writings which used complex but irrelevant theory to suggest otherwise. “The kings are merely a social construct. When the people rule, we will end the abuses that were perpetrated upon us because we, who are obviously equal because we are people too, were obviously innocent.”

The elders thought that one over. The notion of “equality” slipped into the concept that they knew as “fairness,” which was that you listened to people and tried to do what was right before them. But they were baffled, because people were obviously not equal on the inside, where some showed more intelligence, moral character, determination and honor than others. The elders rejected the new idea.

We Know Better, said the crowd.

So the great experiment began! After all, all of the great works from the past suggested that this was a bad idea, based in no small amount on the graves of Rome and Athens signaling the end of the civilizations which were widely acknowledged as our superiors, except in technology, of course. But onward bravely we sailed.

The first thing that happened was that people were reduced to their dollar value. In the past, the kings and aristocrats were considered divine, or of the bloodlines closest to the divine, at least, and so they owned the land and laid out the social structure. No more! Now every person was free to join the lottery of salaries. They might earn more, but more likely, they earned less.

“Obviously, we can fix that, too,” said the sages of the new age of ideology. They got to work and busily wrote reams of law to make sure that hiring and firing were fair. They instituted taxes to pay for those who were “poor,” a nebulous category which included anyone who was not of the middle class, that is, with a stable salary, home and high tax rate.

Proud at having fixed that one, the sages turned to the next problem, which was that economies blew up every now and then because the masses, having no structure, moved in waves of panic at what had just failed and greed toward what seemed to be the Next Big Thing. The old sages suggested social order, where investment was limited to those who knew something about it.

We Know Better.

The new sages appointed leaders, created banks, expanded government and busily wrote more reams of laws. These seemed to just intensify social competition, so they raised taxes more to pay for those who were not succeeding. This made jobs nearly unbearable, with people giving most of their time just to live, and to pay the taxes, of course. The old sages pointed out that they warned people.

“You have removed social order,” they said. They pointed out that, in the hands of the merchants, civilization had become crass, a race to the lowest common denominator so that one could capture the widest audience, since the 90% were known for their low standards and fascination with the crass, sexual, excremental, cloyingly sentimental and mindlessly violent.

In the meantime, the herd was rioting again. It turned out that the new rules just made it easier for those with money to make more money, but even worse, the burden of red tape and legal barriers made it harder for smaller businesses to compete. And so the rich got richer, the middle class got poorer, and the poor got government benefits.

The new sages produced their final idea: since everyone was equal, everyone deserved the same money and power, so they would take from the wealthy and give to the poor. Refulgent in its simplicity, the theory seemed to defeat all. Unfortunately, it then collapsed, so they patched it up by saying that now they would not take from business, only individuals.

That made the richer citizens smile. They could keep their wealth in their businesses, and raise taxes on income, which would hit the middle class and then those suckers could pay for the poor. The laughter echoed through the halls of commerce and exclusive clubs in the center of the big cities.

By now marginalized to the outside of scholarship and literature, the old sages warned: you will merely replace social order with a commercial order, and by limiting that order, replace it in turn with government, which serves only itself. It seems like power to the people, but in fact it is slavery, thinly-disguised behind an economy and “good intentions.”

We Know Better.

The new sages of the herd came up with their next brilliant idea. In order to make everyone happy, the solution was for all of us to live the same way. We each got an apartment, a car and a job; we went to the job, and got taxed; the taxes paid for others, and then everyone would live in peace because no one had less than anyone else. We could be identical as equals.

At this revelation, a new energy infused the population. Finally, we were all equal, and all we had to do was obediently go through education, attend our jobs, do everything on the checklists for each task, and then we had up to four hours a night to amuse ourselves with television, alcohol, sex, drugs and motorcars.

For the new sages, this was a boon, because now they had most of the population on their side. Every person wanted their equal share, and was bigoted and paranoidly suspicious of anyone who proposed any other idea. Like ants, they swarmed over anyone who suggested otherwise, or merely failed to agree, and tore them to pieces, carting off the remains for themselves.

“The problem with this society is that you cannot tell the truth,” said the old sages. So they expressed themselves through literature, warning that the city and its businesses, if unleashed, became self-serving like everything else in this life, and would simply consume everything good and replace it with assembly line style interchangeable parts, rote process and divided roles.

Like the Romantics before them, they warned that the greatest risk to us was not some shadowy group, but ourselves. In a mob, we express ideas that are more emotion and personal attention-seeking than reality, and by chasing this phantom of the unreal, we lead ourselves over a cliff just like those ancient societies did.

We Know Better.

The new sages realized that their power might wane, so they introduced a series of distractions. First we had to all fight for sexual equality, which meant the ability to have sex with anyone and not be seen as less important for it. Next, we had to bring in other ethnic groups in order to be truly equal. Finally, we need more payments for the poor to keep everything fair.

“It’s just distraction,” said the old sages. They realized that the herd was deflecting from its own bad choices, and rationalizing decay instead of acting against it. But the masses were fully mobilized now. They were educated! They were empowered! They had money, too. And so they tore down any idea but going further along the existing path.

This forced civilization into a quandary: the few who seemed sensible opposed the new way, but everyone else wanted it, and they were more numerous. Now there was no way out but a breakup, with the Know-Betters on one side, and those who were skeptical after centuries of problems on the other.

Ironically, this brought us back to where we had been before the whole Know-Better crusade started. The kings, aristocrats, caste, culture and customs of the past — including a faith that this life is good, and therefore the end of the body is not The End — served a role, but only a few people could understand them.

And as history had shown, once again, those were the people who knew better, not the crowd.

Recommended Reading