Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘diversity’

Humor vs. Hopelessness: OJ Joke Edition

Thursday, July 27th, 2017

In the middle of the 1990s, when the lifestyle septic tank of popular culture had discovered there was such a thing as email and message boards, OJ Simpson crept back in the news for his blunt force method of wife disposal.

One message traveled around the world more times than the influenza virus. It had about a dozen OJ Simpson jokes that everyone just had to open and read immediately. Certainly the trial was a farce. Certainly OJ did it. Most of us would go to jail instantly and permanently if we had made matrimonial mulch the way the former football star did.

But OJ was special — politically special. Would a mob be primed to riot on our behalf if the verdict went the wrong way? Nope. It was obvious that a cheesy, has-been celebrity was getting away with murder on the basis of his wealth and race. But this was not what led the average, rational person to laugh at bad humor and forward it to their fifty bestest buddies at least fifty times.

The OJ Jokes were defeatist humor. People feel they are constrained and deliberately held back when they have to interact and compete with minorities. And what galls many people the most is that there are whole classes of people who can’t be criticized. So when OJ went for a ride in the Bronco, he went from a protected minority to a brutal man who hacked up women. Here was a minority who was now fair game.

So all the jokes about OJ became a steam valve. Those denied Freedom of Association by EEO rules or Affirmative Action policies now had a way to vent their rage. This worked around political correctness and ideological scene-policing. OJ jokes were euphemisms for what people really wanted to talk about: how diversity really sucks, and we cannot criticize it, so we are a beaten, frustrated population.

History may not repeat itself, but it can certainly rhyme. OJ Simpson was caught involved in a shady sports memorabilia deal in Vegas and got sent to the aforementioned can. Now, after several years of uneventful incarceration, The Juice is back. He’s 70 and on way too many no-fly lists to sprint through the airport, but he did ace the parole hearing.

Simpson appeared as inmate No. 1027820, dressed in blue jeans and a blue button-down shirt, in a stark hearing room. Displaying contrition, Simpson told the hearing: “I’ve done it as well and as respectfully as anybody can. I think if you talk to the wardens they’ll tell you. “I’ve not complained for nine years. All I’ve done is try to be helpful… and that’s the life I’ve tried to live because I want to get back to my kids and family.” Simpson’s daughter, Arnelle, 48, pleaded with the board to release him. “We just want him home”.

Now the (((Goldmans))) have won a huge civil judgement against him for the wrongful death of their son Jody,* oops, I mean Ronald, so at least we won’t see him spending his golden years strutting too much. Which is a blessed relief. It will spare us a 50-joke email featuring OJ Simpson’s misconceptions about Viagra and Rogaine.


* — Jody was the generic name given by soldiers to the guy attempting to nail their wives while they were away on deployment. You know, Joe the Guy… Joe D. Guy… Jody.

Effect Of A Black Population On Competitiveness

Thursday, July 27th, 2017

Every truth goes through three stages: it seems impossible, it seems laughable, and then it becomes normal. Information floating across my table sometimes causes me to ignore it at first, because it seems really far-fetched.

But in some instances, it then becomes clearly more true than not, which is how we qualify “truth,” as a heuristic approximation of reality that is a work in progress. This graph almost had me dismissing it out of hand, but then, a second look revealed its importance:

The graph attempts to show a correlation between the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) and the growth of the black population in Zimbabwe over time (higher values indicate a less competitive economy).

If the two graphs are put together, one can visualize the data demonstrating a correlation between them. Essentially it points to the idea that the more people Zimbabwe has, the less competitive it becomes. Before you say it is all due to the failure of leadership in Zimbabwe, notably by Sir Robert Mugabe, let’s look at South Africa:

For some strange reason the same trend appears in a country spawned by President Mandela. But most people would agree that Mandela was not Mugabe and we must consider that that the two economies are radically different, with Zimbabwe being an emerging economy and South Africa at least officially a first world nation. The commonality between them however, is that both countries were British colonies and that their majority demographic are sub-Saharan black ethnic peoples.

In order to get a broader perspective, it makes sense to compare these charts to those of an efficient first-world country:

In Spain, the black population is a significant minority, but still the correlation seems to increase. We may still be uncomfortable making a causal connection of this correlation, however, because other factors affect the productivity of an economy, which is why the CGI report takes into account hundreds of parameters.

So let’s look at the bastion of productive economies: America. The data is there but is too coarse for a sensible graph. Using the same method as above, the US GCI/black population correlation appears to be 0.59. However, the US is highly sensitive to changes in its CGI ranking; the correlation would increase to 0.64 if the 2017 final ranking is 4th place (it is now estimated at 3rd place). This means that the USA GCI/black correlation will rapidly increase if American GCI rankings drop.

What this means is that the more black people you have in a population, the less competitive that population is. The GCI indicates not just financial competitiveness, but has other implications including how well the institutions of that society function, and thus, what its future is going to look like. Low competitiveness societies are third world or heading toward it rapidly.

Since the data matches between these three nations, and we can see how the ranking dramatically effects the accuracy of the data, it is important to realize the time factor here: a society which once had functional institutions, but now is in dysfunction, will not show that dysfunction for many years because the people who make those institutions work are holdovers from the past.

Once those people go, the GCI ranking drops, and then we see the same pattern. I first laughed off this data because it is an absurdly simple concept, that the more black people your society has, the less competitive it is. However, I came to see that it is real, but wanted to raise a few other points.

First, this does not necessarily imply that the problem is black people themselves, because in former colonies and the first world, black people are a proxy for diversity, or the destructive habit of mixing multiple ethnic groups in the same society, which lowers social trust and because of that will make all social institutions less functional, which in turn lowers competitiveness. However, it seems likely that the effect is more pronounced with black people, so it is possible there are dual effects: (1) a lowering of social order with diversity and (2) the more “different” the diverse population, the greater the damage to competitiveness as a proxy for social function.

Second, this will probably be addressed by another aspect of social order. Diversity, like apartheid before it, is unpopular as of the second term of the Obama presidency in the USA. It became clear that even having a black president was not going to heal old wounds, and racial tensions intensified rather than decreased. The great middle class dream for all problems to just “go away” so that the middle class could focus on its careers, hobbies and television has failed; problems, like risk, must be managed or the overwhelm the organization around them.

While in practice the Trump administration is changing its macro approach in order to strengthen the US economy, note should be taken of what happens at micro-level too, such as demographic changes in the population and the degree of interpersonal friction and thus lowered communication they create. In addition, the Hispanic effect on the US economy is far from certain because of the unpopularity of even thinking about these effects, but if a group that is more diverse has a wide impact, the Hispanic impact on competitiveness is most likely to lower it as well.

It is undeniable that Americans are walking with open-eyes into the future thinking that becoming a minority is cool. Since the current US majority views its minorities with empathy and a helping hand, the question becomes what blacks will do once they become the majority in 25 years.

And following that: what they will do once they become replaced by Hispanic and then Asian majorities, as demographic trends indicate will be the sequence. When white people are a quarter of the American population, and other ethnic groups are dominant both in numbers and in positions within the system, we are facing an entirely different competitive landscape, because any diversity demerit to competitiveness will be increased manifold.

Given the apparent drop in productive economies due to sheer black numbers, the answer requires not only an in-depth investigation, but also the cultural question only blacks can answer: do blacks want whites around at all? If history teaches us anything, it is that diversity of any form — even ethnic and religious diversity — is a constant source of conflict which reduces the effectiveness of a nation.

The research of Martin van Crefeld indicated that even strong majorities cannot withstand sustained minor conflicts. This applies to black majority countries as well, and any majority presence of over about 20% seems to trigger constant internal conflict, like inflammation in the body. Interestingly, in Africa there is no clear majority tribe.

Africa may then point us toward a future vision: a world without a majority, where the minority groups are so many that none dominate except in a local area, but also, because there is no possibility of collaboration, long-term infrastructure becomes impossible and invasions by foreign powers will be successful as they roll up the discoordinated local areas much like the settlers in the US conquered the Amerinds.

In any case, the immediate data is clear: having black people, and diversity in general, damages the competitiveness of your country. With that comes a host of other problems, including lack of internal standards and reliability, and through that, a lack of ability to respond to its external world, which is always a sign that collapse is imminent.

How Political Correctness Paired With “The Customer Is Always Right” To Make the New Totalitarianism

Wednesday, July 26th, 2017

As the Alt Right struggles to find its new direction while other Right-wing movements fade away, some of us offer a radical piece of advice: it should face the grim fact that our downfall has come through our own bad decisions, which arose from a selfishness and desire for power that led us to deny the natural order of life, and so our solution lies in undoing these bad decisions by replacing them with healthier goals.

For us to do this, it makes sense to inspect in depth the mistakes of the past so that we can recognize in each a fundamental principle, and through that, avoid repeating that principle in a new form. Principles are invisible; they can only be found by understanding the structure of an idea. They repeat in entirely different-looking forms, and when we do not recognize them, they cause us to repeat the same mistakes.

What rankles the Alt Right begins with a typical Leftist behavior, namely the tendency to change thought by making certain methods or ideas taboo. When you cannot use the appropriate method or idea, any given task or issue becomes “inverted,” or comes to mean the exact opposite of its original meaning because the thought process required to understand it is prohibited but its inverse is not. Language shifts and soon, everything in society is upside-down, and nothing means what it should.

One of the prime methods for this in our present time is the issue against which the Alt Right stacks “free speech”: political correctness, or the habit of making certain topics, notions and words off-limits in order to invert the meaning of the issues to which they refer. One explanation of why this is destructive comes from a striking critique based in utility, not morality:

[I] agree with Peter Thiel that political correctness is important in sustaining the stagnation of the West. It’s not even the particular topics that can’t be discussed. It’s the cowardice and the getting in the habit of constantly watching what you are saying that leads to a suppression of intellectual daring and genuinely creative thought.

Early on here I was named by a man who made a living from wind energy as one of the top 10 climate deniers on Quora. A strange honour, I suppose, but also just a little sinister. One had the sense that there was a gunning for such people because one by one they were banned and suspended. Baiting people into saying something that could be considered a violation of the cult of nice, something easy to achieve when you are close to a moderator. Probably it would have happened to me too, except I mostly write about other topics and some people liked what I wrote. If I worked for a big company with a bureaucratic social media policy, possibly it would have been much more effective.

The context is people have proposed criminal sanctions against those with differing views about causation of fluctuations in climate and what if anything we should do about it. Combined with the social ganging up I described above, do you not think this is likely to have a chilling effect on peoples’ expressions of ideas in this domain, and perhaps also in others.

Most people are smart enough not to disagree with the consensus of the group. The nail that sticks out gets hammered down. Group think isn’t some esoteric mildly interesting phenomenon but is at work every day in human groups, large and small. If there had been more people like Michael Burry, the financial crisis wouldn’t have happened. But, as Peter Thiel says, what does it say about us as a society that it’s the mildly autistic and more that are able to go against group norms and those who are more neurorypical don’t do that. It wasn’t always like this, and it probably won’t be in future.

A healthy society needs to be able to tolerate dissent, even about painful or controversial topics. The way to regulate conversation is to replace bureaucracy with good manners, because those can be much more adapted to changing and heterogeneous situations and are less susceptible to being exploited by opportunistic players that game the system. See also Scott Welch’s response below, about which I make no further comment. Except to say that the language used in his answer and in the comments is a pretty nice illustration that Quora does not appear to be serious about creating a forum where people are expected to exhibit nice and respectful behaviour (let alone good manners). BNBR is used as a weapon to shut out dissenting views (see Solzhenitsyn below) – but there’s a lack of seriousness about it. It’s one instrument but one that’s wielded according to the belief systems – and, more problematically, values – of the people running Quora.

Solzhenitsyn at Harvard: Harvard Commencement Address (A World Split Apart):

Without any censorship, in the West fashionable trends of thought and ideas are carefully separated from those which are not fashionable; nothing is forbidden, but what is not fashionable will hardly ever find its way into periodicals or books or be heard in colleges. Legally your researchers are free, but they are conditioned by the fashion of the day. There is no open violence such as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to match mass standards frequently prevent independent-minded people giving their contribution to public life. There is a dangerous tendency to flock together and shut off successful development. I have received letters in America from highly intelligent persons, maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but his country cannot hear him because the media are not interested in him. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, to blindness, which is most dangerous in our dynamic era. There is, for instance, a self-deluding interpretation of the contemporary world situation. It works as a sort of a petrified armor around people’s minds. Human voices from 17 countries of Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia cannot pierce it. It will only be broken by the pitiless crowbar of events.

Ultimately it doesn’t really matter if the most pro-PC people accept these arguments or not, because the world is already changing. People increasingly value an unpolished authenticity, and I don’t think anything is going to stop this new trend from developing now it has gotten started.

This is a basic utility argument: when some ideas are taboo, it prevents them from being discussed at all, and this is enforced by decentralized totalitarianism where the majority of people refuse to engage with these ideas from fear of ostracism and retribution, so they simply fall into a memory hole and disappear entirely from public consciousness.

Equality itself gives rise to this phenomenon. When all people are equal, all viewpoints must be tolerated, but this quickly comes into conflict with the noticing of natural inequalities — mostly between social classes, but also including sex, ethnic group, race and sexual preference — which means that some of the equal people will feel marginalized.

Compound this with the fundamental method of equality, which is to “make” people equal by Robin Hood style actions involving taking from the more-successful and giving to the less-successful, or in other words, defending the underdog as a categorical practice. Whenever someone more-successful is in conflict with someone less-successful, the more-successful person is attacked.

Aha. This gives us the root of political correctness, which is that if one of the equal citizens finds himself being observed to be unequal, the right way to fix this is to penalize the person who notices the inequality. Given the power of the Dunning-Kruger effect, this means that only those with the brains to observe reality semi-correctly are censored, and idiocy is given center stage in the ultimate inversion.

Naturally, this leads to domination of the less-successful — who are most likely lower in caste, intelligence, wealth, power, class and competence — over the success. The weak eat the strong because the Crowd enables the weak. Witness this in action in an otherwise advanced legal system where noticing caste differences is a crime:

Calling a Dalit by his caste with a view to insulting him or her is an offence under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), the Supreme Court has ruled, upholding the conviction of two persons in Tamil Nadu.

…”The word ‘pallan’ no doubt denotes a specific caste, but it is also a word used in a derogatory sense to insult someone (just as in North India the word chamar denotes a specific caste but it is also used in a derogatory sense to insult someone).

…”In our opinion, uses of the words ‘pallan’, ‘pallapayal’ ‘parayan’ or ‘paraparayan’ with intent to insult is highly objectionable and is also an offence under the Scheduled Cast/ Scheduled Tribe Act. It is just unacceptable in the modern age, just as the words ‘Nigger’ or ‘Negro’ are unacceptable for African-Americans today ,” the bench said.

Equality always goes this way. Diversity just makes it easy because it enables the herd to analogize caste to race, and in our modern egalitarian agenda, racial discrimination is the worst sin ever. This may go back to the days when Americans allied with China and had non-whites serving in its military, and so had to ban discrimination as it threatened loyalty to the State.

Egalitarianism itself mandates diversity. If all people are equal, all races are equal. And nothing seems more discriminatory and inegalitarian than singling someone out for something he cannot control, namely a condition he was born with such as race or caste. Equality must be achieved, and to do that, all differences between people must be eliminated or hidden, in this case by social taboo.

What this means is that in our minds, the idea of equality becomes a runaway train that rolls right over every aspect of life. This egalitarian outlook leads to a type of inward focus that becomes a paralyzing narcissism:

The cause of our narcissism is equality. Not equality before the law, where everyone is bound by the same legal code. That is a fundamental right and necessary for justice, freedom, and happiness in a democracy. I’m referring to equality of conditions—our economic well-being and social status, the material aspects of equality Europeans experienced when they broke from the caste system of their homeland, shedding aristocracy and an impenetrable class structure that denied them access to material wealth and limitless possibilities.

…But equality, like freedom, has its dark side. Just as too much freedom leads to libertinism, anarchy, and destruction, equality (or the expectation of equality) leads to entitlement, self-centeredness, isolation, idealism of human perfectibility and progress, autonomous individualism, materialism, and ultimately despotism.

As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “One must recognize that equality, which introduces great goods into the world, nevertheless suggests to men very dangerous instincts…it tends to isolate them from one another and to bring each of them to be occupied with himself alone. It opens their souls excessively to the love of material enjoyments.” It makes him a narcissist.

Who is de Tocqueville restating here? He is channeling Plato, who famously said:

The State demands the strong wine of freedom, and unless her rulers give her a plentiful draught, punishes and insults them; equality and fraternity of governors and governed is the approved principle. Anarchy is the law, not of the State only, but of private houses, and extends even to the animals.

Father and son, citizen and foreigner, teacher and pupil, old and young, are all on a level; fathers and teachers fear their sons and pupils, and the wisdom of the young man is a match for the elder, and the old imitate the jaunty manners of the young because they are afraid of being thought morose. Slaves are on a level with their masters and mistresses, and there is no difference between men and women.

At last the citizens become so sensitive that they cannot endure the yoke of laws, written or unwritten; they would have no man call himself their master.

With these two views of the same thing, we see the problem with equality: without focus on something outside of the self, people become obsessed by the self like a golden calf or the One True Ring, and pursue it with a mania like addiction, because like all good dependencies it provides brief relief from noticing drab reality, and then as the situation settles back into normalcy, requires more of the drug.

Diversity serves this pressure for inward focus by enacting a pincer strategy on civilization: one claw of the pincer is increased alienation and atomization, and the other is a need for self-validation in order to keep the addiction going. People simultaneously flee the public sphere and cling zombie-like to ideology.

All of this arises from the need to “create” equality through banning negative but true observations about the lower castes. Diversity happens in parallel with the maniacal, Soviet need to enforce equality for other groups — women, homosexuals, transgenders, odd religions, the retarded — because both originate from the same root in egalitarianism, and naturally and inevitably develop into these special interest “identity” politics.

This identity in turn reflects a lack of actual identity, because egalitarianism has eaten that right up, and instead a need to find some reason why one is special and hopefully a victim, because that way the individual deserves to be made more-equal through wealth and power transfer from the more successful. This is the crisis of identity:

But the truly notable thing about today is not so much the obsession with identity – it’s the instability of identity. Humans have been hunting for identity for centuries. The instinct to define ourselves, to project ourselves into the world, is strong. And there’s nothing wrong with it. What’s new today is that identity has become an incredibly subjective phenomenon. ‘I identify as…’ Where once an individual’s identity was informed, or shaped, by experience and belief, through an engagement in the public sphere or with a party or association, today identities are self-consciously and often defensively constructed. The NYT, in its description of 2015 as the year of identity, asked: ‘How do you identify? [W]hat trait or aspect of your being is central to your idea of yourself, and your relationship to the world?’ The keyword here is your. The NYT doesn’t ask ‘What are you?’ or ‘Who are you?’, which would speak to a strong sense of being something; it asks what ‘aspect of your being’ is most important to ‘your idea of yourself’. ‘Being’ is treated almost as something external to the individual, a thing to be mined for ‘traits’ we might identify with. Identity is not something we are or we experience; it is a technically cultivated category, built from ‘traits’ and ‘aspects’ to give ‘an idea of yourself’.

What the NYT and many others describe as new era of identity politics is in fact an era in which the historical, traditional underpinnings of identity have been ruptured, or even destroyed, unleashing an often desperate search for new identities, a rush for self-identification, for shallow identity construction. The subjectivity of human identity in the 21st century is striking, and alarming. Today, to feel something is to be something.

Arising from the nature of equality itself, identity politics speaks to a need for self-validation, which is the second claw of the pincer. There is no identity outside of the self, so people look for a group to join, but since this is not related to any actual membership, it becomes entirely symbolic. The individual wants a position from which they are able to justify their narcissism.

Not only that, but any existing identity that is actual threatens their ability to choose any identity they want, which in turn limits them to being what they are, which violates equality. The manic, all-devouring instinct of Leftism toward culture, religion, heritage, race, ethnic group, customs, calendar, cuisine and even symbols comes from this need to be the determiner of their own identity.

Equality makes people into crazed individuals, gazing inward and finding nothing, thus trying on different identities as a means of being special enough and marginalized enough to have power in a society that is constantly pushing people downward in order to enforce equality. The root of this churn lies in the nature of Leftism itself:

It is Liberalism that believes in the Autonomous Individual, it is Liberalism that always hides its real beliefs, it is Liberalism that has turned us from Nations into mere economies.

…Lying is the only way they can gain support so they do. They never talk about the Autonomous Individual instead they talk about freedom, about freedom of choice and other such nonsense. Why?

Because the Autonomous Individual has no need of a country, or a family, or a God, or anything. It is a life of hopelessness and pointlessness and they know it. They don’t talk about it because they see a perfect world and the Autonomous Individual lives in that perfect world. But if they went to the next election talking about people getting to live in a perfect world people would reject them and they know that. They never talk about where their philosophy leads because to any sane person it holds absolutely no appeal. Who wants to live a life were they have no family, no roots, no history and no future, only today repeated endlessly until death?

Political correctness is the vanguard of Leftism. Like the outer shell of a virus, it merges with the wall of a cell, making it think that the virus is part of itself. Then, the virus enters and reprograms that cell with its own DNA, so that the cell propagates the virus, sacrificing itself in the effort.

Pair that with “Keeping Up With The Joneses,” which in this case is symbolic, and people begin excluding dangerous ideas while repeating obvious lies, just so that they stay relevant and are part of the in-group that gets all the wealth and power. They will eventually adopt a victimhood pose through the identity Olympics, and act out increasingly extreme versions of egalitarian idealism.

Enter another cliché: “The Customer is Always Right.” This is the basis of mercantile middle class ethics and explains how societies are taken over by bad ideas. Bad ideas are always popular because they are simpler, and therefore make the person considering the idea feel more powerful for having this simple, clear and absolute bottom line. No merchant will refuse a customer the right to purchase an illusion. For this reason, business and law follow public opinion, and when enough people are keeping up with the Joneses by being politically correct, the governments and corporations follow suit.

From this, all of the evils of civilization decline flow, and the society goes out like Rome, anesthetized to its own decline because the way that individuals succeed is by jumping on the bandwagon. What is right, is wrong. All values have been inverted. And so the people of that society play follow the leader all the way to their eventual doom.

Our only hope of avoiding this is not to fight political correctness, but to orient our civilization toward a different direction entirely, one in which what is true, right, sensible, logical and leads to the good is more important than our selves and our individualism. This requires a breakaway group who will rise above the rest, who seek authenticity so thoroughly that they aspire to a society of virtue:

In the succeeding generation rulers will be appointed who have lost the guardian power of testing the metal of your different races, which, like Hesiod’s, are of gold and silver and brass and iron. And so iron will be mingled with silver, and brass with gold, and hence there will arise dissimilarity and inequality and irregularity, which always and in all places are causes of hatred and war. This the Muses affirm to be the stock from which discord has sprung, wherever arising; and this is their answer to us.

The primary idea of virtue is that we, as individuals, are less important than the patterns of reality that show us how to adapt to our world. The inversion of this idea, individualism, arises from the Renaissance™ and Enlightenment™ and holds that the human individual is the new order that replaces nature, and therefore we can ignore both the physical aspects of nature that our wealth and technology have conquered, as well as the pattern-order of nature that determines what thrives and what dies in the long term.

Virtue commands that we eschew individualism in favor of purpose, and that this purpose must be like that of nature, which is an aristocratic and relentlessly aggressive drive toward constant improvement. Our society beat back the wolves and starvation, but it cannot beat the cycles of time and the logical way in which nature works. Virtue is the ultimate realism.

Right now, our civilization has fallen, which was formalized in the World Wars. All of our decisions leading up to those were based on individualism. If we want to rise again, and at the core of the Alt Right is a desire that we do, we will need to rediscover our virtue and discard the individualism that leads to political correctness and eventually, downfall.

Humans Naturally Dislike Miscegenation

Friday, July 21st, 2017

As it turns out, miscegenation is not universally liked, and may in fact be universally hated. From the study:

Study 1 demonstrates that bias against interracial romance is correlated with disgust. Study 2 provides evidence that images of interracial couples evoke a neural disgust response among observers – as indicated by increased insula activation relative to images of same-race couples. Consistent with psychological theory indicating that disgust leads to dehumanization, Study 3 demonstrates that manipulating disgust leads to implicit dehumanization of interracial couples. Overall, the current findings provide evidence that interracial couples elicit disgust and are dehumanized relative to same-race couples.

The fact is that everyone knows that if you are mixing races, you have turned your back on your heritage. This puts you in the camp with traitors, cowards and profiteers.

Next, they realize that you are an unfortunate person. Other than for novelty points at the bar, you will never have a real identity. Instead, you will always be flogging your “uniqueness” while neither of your constituent groups accepts you.

Finally, looking into miscegenation shows us the inner workings of life. We do not like to think about it, but we are biological beings with our personalities arising from genetics. Miscegenation breaks apart the visions of people that we process socially, and shows us that beneath the level on which socialization operates, we are animals and can be bred as such.

As the age of ideology ends, tribe becomes more important. The result of this is that people are struggling to find their identities and live within them, lest them become people without a nation or origin, which in a time where identity is more important than elective categories like political alignment or religion, makes them the loneliest people in the world.

Now contrast this with research that shows racial identity outlasts diversity:

What makes the current study, published in the February issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, more conclusive is its size. The study is by far the largest, consisting of 3,636 people who all identified themselves as either white, African-American, East Asian or Hispanic. Of these, only five individuals had DNA that matched an ethnic group different than the box they checked at the beginning of the study. That’s an error rate of 0.14 percent.

Neil Risch, PhD, a UC-San Francisco professor who led the study while he was professor of genetics at Stanford, said that the findings are particularly surprising given that people in both African-American and Hispanic ethnic groups often have a mixed background. “We might expect these individuals to cross several different genetic clusters,” he noted. That’s not what the study found. Instead, each self-identified racial/ethnic group clumped into the same genetic cluster.

Over the long term, people resist miscegenation because it destroys who they are, which they innately know is tied to genetics and history even if these concepts offend their notions of “free will” and individuality. In other words, having an identity that gives the individual a starting point in their narrative of self — origins, purpose, rank — is more important than joining the generic, mixed-race social group.

For this reason, they also dislike and instinctively are disgusted by miscegenation. The mixing of racial groups constitutes the destruction of those groups over time, so in the practice of miscegenation, people see the erasure of their identity. As a result their is a natural revulsion to loss of identity, which is in part a destruction of the self.

Letter To Dylann Storm Roof

Saturday, July 1st, 2017

Dylann Storm Roof 28509-171
USP Terre Haute
U.S. Penitentiary
P.O. Box 33
Terre Haute, IN 47808

Dear Mr. Roof,

I have great sympathy for your position, although I have ended up in an entirely different direction.

For me, the problem is entirely within the Western European race: we have big hearts, and we were in the midst of class warfare that started with The Renaissance,™ so we extended that to tolerance of diversity.

Our ancestors saw diversity in terms of Chinatowns. Other races here would have their own communities, and we would trade with them. This made sense in a culture-driven society, but the 1960s put an end to that, at the hands of the Irish.

I see no reason to blame Africans for this (or any other group, really). They are the instruments used by Western Leftists to destroy what is left of Western society.

For this reason, I do not want to shoot them, although sometimes the inevitable ethnic friction between groups has me ready to defend my family, property and business from those who are not Western European. The Irish are the worst, but the Italians are not far behind. Mexicans are better than Russians. Africans are kinder than Asians. So it goes.

All of these stereotypes miss the point: diversity does not work, but diversity is necessary for Leftism, so we must end Leftism.

The ultimate goal of Leftism is to genocide my people by breeding them with random groups until the original fragile, precise and detailed genetic profile of Western Europeans is gone, thus ensuring that Western Civilization will never arise again.

This is why I support Anders Breivik more than your acts, Mr. Roof. I do not want to shoot decent black people praying in church. I want to round up white Leftists and put them on boats to Brazil, and if that fails, into mass graves.

Food for thought. You have aided us all in bringing these issues to light, and both you and those you have killed are sacrifices toward the advancement of history.

Best,

Brett

They Will Always Hate You

Friday, June 30th, 2017

The United Church of Christ wants to talk to you about white privilege:

Recognize that you’re still racist. No matter what.

Sometimes, anti-racist allies talk in an “us vs. them” framework when they discuss race, with the “us” being POC and anti-racist allies and the “them” being racist people. That’s an oversimplification of centuries of racism, and it also avoids one simple truth.White people always benefit from institutionalized racism, no matter how anti-racist your ideologies may be. You can’t disconnect yourself completely from the racism from which you benefit, and recognizing that is a large step in rejecting white privilege.

The woman who wrote this is more of a Leftist than she is African-American. Her message: anyone who rises above the level of mediocrity that is comfortable for the crowd will be destroyed, whether that is economic or political. You will not be forgiven for having won, which will be re-styled as oppression by those who did something silly and lost instead. Revenge, resentment and envy are your future.

Conservatives need to realize that no matter what we do, the Leftist response will be the same, which is to continue the charade of victimhood and self-assertion so they can help themselves to our money.

Diversity Fails Even With Nice / Smart / Assimilated Minorities

Monday, June 26th, 2017

An Asian dean at Yale, obviously an accomplished woman, fell into the same behaviors as other minorities when she lashed out at white people in a series of angry posts:

June Chu, who came under fire earlier in 2017 for using disparaging terms like “white trash” in Yelp reviews, has left Yale University.

…Chu had been placed on leave by Yale towards the end of May over disparaging remarks she made on Yelp towards local establishments surrounding New Haven, Connecticut, where the university is located.

“This establishment is definitely not authentic by any stretch of any imagination and perfect for those low-class folks who believe this is a real night out,” Chu wrote in one post. In another review, Chu wrote that the restaurant was perfect for anyone who was “white trash.”

From a political point of view, this behavior is baffling. She clearly benefited from her position in American society, succeeded more than most, and was not a candidate for violent crime or running people over with trucks of peace. In fact, by all standards she was living the good life.

From a naturalistic standpoint, however, her behavior makes perfect sense. Her subspecies finds itself in territory that appears to be controlled by another subspecies. Therefore, they are not safe until they have control. The correct solution is to dominate them, which can be done by breaking down their self-esteem and then seizing control.

Her comments applied to ethnic restaurants, which are not only typically dumbed down for mainstream consumers, but are often staffed by other minorities. In this city, all the Chinese food is made by Mexicans or Guatemalans. It is entirely understandable that it would not be “authentic” under those circumstances.

While other people have spent their time bashing specific racial groups, I have dedicated the last twenty-five years to writing about how what we need is not racism but nationalism. Nationalism recognizes that each group acts in self-interest, and that diversity puts each group in a position where other groups are competition and thus enemies to be dominated.

Even “nice” minorities — and probably everyone on Earth would prefer a college-educated professional Asian lady living next door to an Arab Muslim radical — find themselves caught up in this cycle, and while most are savvy enough to hide it, it peeks out from behind the curtains of denial now and again.

Zero Is The Number

Sunday, June 25th, 2017

A new phrase is floating around: “Zero is the number.”

This refers to how we fix the problem of diversity, which ruins whatever civilization is foolish enough to adopt it. People ask how many immigrants should come in our country, or how many people from other ethnic groups should live among us, and the answer is that zero other people can live among us. It will not help them, and it will destroy us.

In Brussels and Washington, the politicians are rubbing their hands over the lengthy debates they plan to have about the “appropriate” numbers for immigration and for refugees in each town. They win the debate if we even start it, because entering that debate signals acceptance for diversity and immigration in the first place. In reality, we cannot tolerate either.

Zero is the number. Civilizations survive based on several prerequisites. They need to be isolated. They need to be able to feed their citizens. They need to be able to defend themselves. And they need to be homogeneous, because anything else — no matter how nice, smart, kind or friendly the other groups are — means that there can be no social standards, culture and hierarchy.

This is why the Left loves diversity. They want to bring in the Other so that they can destroy culture and then, we will have no principle of social organization other than government. They want a group which will feel intimidated by us, so will be defensive and resist us. Finally, they want to breed us into a beige new race, committing genocide against us.

If we let them do any of this, they will wait a few months, then pick up the pace again. They will never stop. The only way to survive is to nip this in the bud and oppose it entirely. Those who are not of the founding group of a country, like Germans in Germany or Japanese in Japan, needs to go back home. If they are mixed, they need to go to mixed-race areas like Dubai or Brazil.

There is no other way. Everything else ends in our destruction. Zero is the number.

Leftism No Longer Wishes To Merely Replace Whites, But To Destroy Them

Friday, June 23rd, 2017

Leftists hate normalcy, health, joy, and existence itself. This is why their latest accidental admission of their agenda surprises almost no one:

“It is past time for the racially oppressed to do what people who believe themselves to be ‘white’ will not do,” said Williams on Facebook Sunday, according to Campus Reform, “put end to the vectors of their destructive mythology of whiteness and their white supremacy system #LetThemFuckingDie.”

“I’m fed the fuck up with self identified ‘white’s’ [sic] daily violence directed at immigrants, Muslim, and sexual [sic] and racially oppressed people,” he said in a subsequent post. “The time is now to confront these inhuman assholes and end this now.”

In white countries, white supremacy is as normal as being expected to be Mexican if you are in Mexico. Every group designs its society for itself, and no group is happy unless it lives in a civilization that it created for its own purposes. This is an existential need higher than what any material convenience can provide.

This is why, ultimately, non-European ethnic groups will be happier in their home nations, and white people are happiest when separated by regional European identity like Southern, Eastern and Western Europeans.

But in a diverse system, all of the groups are thrown in together, and whoever is perceived to be “in charge” is tasked with providing for everyone else and blamed if they find themselves to be unhappy. Remove diversity, and all of these concerns about white supremacy and inter-ethnic violence go away.

The violence directed at non-whites is caused by white people maintaining their social order. From a white perspective, we created a great nation and anyone who can live like we do is welcome to be here. That is not how diversity turns out, and people have slowly figured that out. It is nobody’s fault, but it still must be fixed.

It turns out that diversity did not work because diversity never works. Like most human wishful thinking, it is a personal and social impulse which when made policy wrecks societies. What is acceptable behavior in Leftistan is not accepted by healthy and normal people, so they punish it. The Left notices only who is being punished and claims racism in order to stop social order from occurring.

As always, the Leftist cries out as he strikes you.

Aristotle And Plato On Why Diversity Is Tyranny

Thursday, June 22nd, 2017

Some have noticed recently that the ancients realized that diversity was a means to an end, namely of the power of tyrants. Guillaume Durocher quotes Aristotle on the topic of multiculturalism:

Aristotle’s ideal of citizenship, entailing civic duties and group solidarity, necessarily requires a strong common identity and a sharp differentiation between citizens and foreigners. Conversely, foreign mercenaries had no solidarity with the people, and were thus frequently used by tyrants to enforce their unjust rule:

The guard of a legitimate king is composed of citizens: that of a tyrant is composed of foreigners.

It is a habit of tyrants never to like anyone who has a spirit of dignity and independence. The tyrant claims a monopoly of such qualities for himself; he feels that anybody who asserts a rival dignity, or acts with independence, is threatening his own superiority and the despotic power of his tyranny; he hates him accordingly as a subverter of his own authority. It is also a habit of tyrants to prefer the company of aliens to that of citizens at table and in society; citizens, they feel, are enemies, but aliens will offer no opposition.”

This passage brings to mind the Bolshevik tyranny in the early decades of the Soviet Union, when the government, and especially the secret police, was dominated by people from non-Russian ethnic groups.

Interestingly enough, Plato observes the exact same thing, namely that tyrants import foreigners as replacements for non-compliant citizens:

Certainly.
And who are the devoted band, and where will he procure them?
They will flock to him, he said, of their own accord, if lie pays them.

By the dog! I said, here are more drones, of every sort and from every land.

Yes, he said, there are.
But will he not desire to get them on the spot?
How do you mean?
He will rob the citizens of their slaves; he will then set them free and enrol them in his bodyguard.

To be sure, he said; and he will be able to trust them best of all.
What a blessed creature, I said, must this tyrant be; he has put to death the others and has these for his trusted friends.

Yes, he said; they are quite of his sort.
Yes, I said, and these are the new citizens whom he has called into existence, who admire him and are his companions, while the good hate and avoid him.

It would be foolish to imagine that anything about human behavior has changed for the last 2400 years. The same tactics still work: if you want to rule forever, subjugate people by destroying their culture and importing scabs to supplant them. The EU and US have pursued the same policy since 1965.

Recommended Reading