In social groups where relatedness among interacting individuals is low, cooperation can often only be maintained through mechanisms that repress competition among group members.
In other words, when relatedness among interacting individuals is low — this means a diverse society — it is difficult to maintain cooperation, requiring either a police state or “repress[ed] competition” a.k.a. equality.
Societies that are not diverse are comprised of individuals who have roughly the same inclinations, wants and abilities. For them to cooperate is easy, since everyone knows what the general agenda is and few are far removed from it. But with diversity, people have no internal compass wiring that tells them which direction to take. This means that people compete on the basis of challenges offered by the lowest common denominator in society — jobs, products, social events — because culture is invisible on that level, since it is interpreted through a relatively small group of people who are able to understand it. Without culture, there is only mass culture, and that is what diversity promotes, which then in turn requires equality to keep people from clobbering each other with aggressive competition.
This study produced two other solid conclusions and one that seems a misinterpretation:
This comparison revealed full support for all three predictions of evolutionary policing theory.
First, when controlling for policing efforts, crime rate correlated negatively with the similarity among citizens. This is in line with the prediction that high similarity results in higher levels of cooperative self-restraint (i.e. lower crime rates) because it aligns the interests of individuals.
Second, policing effort correlated negatively with the similarity among citizens, supporting the prediction that more policing is required to enforce cooperation in low-similarity societies, where individuals’ interests diverge most.
High similarity results in higher cooperative self-restraint; low similarity results in lower cooperative self-restraint, symbolized by crime but extending to all other areas of society. In other words, diversity is chaos, and nationalism is order. This much makes sense by the use of logical facts such as that cooperation requires a high amount of internal communication if it is not innate because of the similarity in focus, ability and purpose of those involved.
However, the third point offers some confusion:
Third, increased policing efforts were associated with reductions in crime rates, indicating that policing indeed enforces cooperation.
Science often draws overbroad conclusions. Policing may simply remove those with enough sensitivity or intelligence to react to the situation around them, leaving only the oblivious, which represents a loss of shared culture instead of an enhancement of competition.
It’s time we recognize that the party of Reagan was already dead — and that it died along with the threat of Soviet communism.
Reaganism was…a worldview, in the truest sense of the word. Its broadest ideals were also shared by anti-communist Democrats like historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson. Universal human rights, limited government, open trade, free elections, multiparty democracy — it was considered in our national interest to defend these values as strongly (and prudently) as possible.
…In his 1998 book The Great Betrayal, Buchanan wrote (foreshadowing Trump) that “while the Soviet Union had paid the ultimate price of imperial overstretch, America had also paid an immense price. We had sacrificed our national interests in the cause of allied solidarity, while Western [Europe] and Japan had made no comparable contributions and had prospered mightily at our expense.”
In other words, ideology has taken a back-seat to tribal self-interest.
This is not entirely surprising, since for 98% (or so) of its history, humanity has relied on tribalism. It rarely fails: group identity excludes outsiders and deviants, and allows for an efficient method of getting people to collaborate without having to be forced to do so.
The February 10 issue of the New York Review of Books contains what I think may be the earliest sighting of the “Proposition Nation” chimera now in captivity.
It’s a reprint of the November 22, 1999 address given in Munich by Peter Gay, the historian, on accepting the Geschwister-Scholl Prize for the German translation of his book My German Question, about his childhood in Nazi Germany. Gay says:
In this view, a Bavarian peasant who could look back on generations of settled forebears was no more German than a Jew who did not know in which country his grandparents had lived.
The fascinating thing about this “ideal” is its utter lack of factual justification. The English, the French, the Italians—all have been formed by waves of migration, often Germanic, within recorded history. But the Germans have been stolidly on the Rhine since the time of Christ.
Yet the “Proposition Nation” myth took root and was apparently seriously entertained.
The “proposition nation” is the ultimate extension of the singular and fundamental idea of the Left, individualism, which holds that the individual is the largest unit in a society. Society exists to facilitate the individual in that view, and cannot exclude anyone from participation, which enables individuals to enjoy the benefits of society with assuming its burdens being an optional choice.
In the reasoning of individualists, society must accept the individual even if that person commits a “tragedy of the commons” style exploitation of collective resources or imposes externalized damage. From this comes the moral relativism of the Left, which is a tendency to adjust standards to fit what individuals are doing, instead of observing which standards produce the best results and then demanding that the little egotists conform to those for the betterment of all.
All of the rhetoric of the Left — liberty, equality and fraternity — comes from this simple idea, which is that society cannot exclude individuals merely because they violate its standards unless those violations are against other individuals (murder, rape, theft). Civilization does not have a voice, nor does the future or the past, because all that matters is the individual.
Naturally this makes it wholly accurate to refer to individualism as the philosophy of parasitism, and to recognize that it is illogical and suicidal. The happiness and health of people is mostly contingent upon having a functional civilization, and benefits cascade downward toward the individual by what this stability and facility enables them to do. Individualism sabotages that function in order to focus on the individual, and as a result leaves behind ruined societies where everyone is miserable or oblivious, because they must either notice the dysfunction and downward trend and thus be depressed, or go into denial and rationalize the decline as “progress.”
What this means is that to become Leftist is to enter a spiral: the individual is given power, the tragedy of the common happens, every public figure rationalizes this and those who do not fail to become public figures, which means that society enters a stage where all of its solutions are wrong because anything other than “more Leftism” was filtered out as an answer before the question even came up. The self-referential society confirms its own biases, validates untruth as truth through moral relativism, and makes its assumptions and precepts into its conclusion through this filtering process.
However, people still need to distinguish themselves socially, and so while the disaster spirals down, individuals are busy becoming socially popular and thus powerful — in an individualistic society — by further advancing this ideology. This means that over time they expand the franchise by seeking ways to abolish differences in status and wealth between individuals. This starts with class warfare, expands to sexual liberation and gender equality, and then embarks on the “internationalist” (now: “globalist”) project of abolishing borders, starting with tribes similar to the founding tribe of the society and then accelerating until it demands multiculturalism, or the presence of members of every ethnic group in the world within the society.
Individualism is thus a franchise that it ultimately extends even beyond the borders of the state. We call that the “proposition nation” because it is defined by law, rooted in the Leftist concept of individualism, and economics, which is based on the individual as a self-interested actor in response to existing economic conditions, in turn creating a need for constant growth to continue keeping individuals motivated. This contrasts conservative economics which aim for low-growth and therefore more stable conditions with less internal social conflict caused by social mobility.
At first, the proposition nation seems like a good idea to most citizens. It reduces the demands placed on them by culture, morality and society. It increases their personal chances of social mobility while allowing them to externalize more of their costs to the collective. Finally, it lessens the stress of competition for mates and friends by allowing the inclusion of people from less-developed societies, which makes having a friend or mate from the founding group more desirable. But it also causes brutal problems, namely the loss of culture and standards because these must now be adjusted — moral relativism again — to fit the newcomers. It also savagessocialtrust and creates alienated, rootless people made miserable by the ugly, anti-heroic and valueless utilitarian boot camp in which they live.
The Left has only one gambit for protecting the proposition nation, and that is to equate enemies of Leftism with enemies of the nation, thus appealing to the labrador retriever level patriotism that most people have as a result of wanting to belong firmly to their social group. We never ask whether Hitler was making war on America, or fighting Leftism and therefore had to also fight America because America was a Leftist state at the time. But the Left assembles its enemies for their choice of pre-individualism philosophies that endorse a social unit bigger than the individual — including race, family, nation, ethne, culture, religion — and chooses to paint them all as Hitler, the KKK, King George III and the Confederacy all rolled up into one single hateful scapegoat.
“Things are getting significantly worse,” Potok says. “We are seeing a very serious rise in right-wing populism.”
The strong upward trend began with President Barack Obama’s election in 2008, Potok says, and it has worsened because of ongoing angst among members of the white middle class, who feel alienated by a society different from the one in which they grew up.
“It’s not simply that there’s a black man in the White House,” Potok says. “It’s what he represents,” which is the fact that whites are losing the demographic majority. “When Obama was elected, most of the country was celebratory … but the next day, the servers of two very major white supremacist organizations” — Stormfront and the Council of Conservative Citizens, which inspired the Charleston church killer Dylann Roof — “crashed because they were getting so much traffic.”
This article is interesting, unique and funny because it extends enemy status to those fighting for a variety of larger-than-individual causes:
The list is a virtual rainbow of hate, showcasing ideologies denouncing blacks, whites, Jews, Muslims, and the LGBT community. The seven Bay Area groups include: the Black Hebrew Israelites and the Christian Guardians, both of San Francisco; the Black Riders Liberation Party, the Nation of Islam, As-Sabiqun, and Masjid al-Islam, all of Oakland; and IslamThreat.com, based in Pleasant Hill.
Truly the ways of Kek and Gnon are wondrous to have gifted us with the supreme comedy of the phrase “a virtual rainbow of hate.” The rich irony of this time, when a rainbow nation can project itself onto an animus composed of multicolored hatred dripping with glitter, delivers the confirmation of a death spiral: this society is so drenched in Leftism that it cannot imagine that someone else would choose another path.
That inflexibility and totalitarian aspect of our contemporary Leftist society shows us the problem with ideology. Like a mental virus, ideology takes over brains, and then weaponizes the crowd as a form of permanent agitation for ever-increasing doses of Leftism, mainly because it never makes people feel contentment, only a momentary sense of superiority.
George Orwell expresses this in his 1940 review of Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler:
But Hitler could not have succeeded against his many rivals if it had not been for the attraction of his own personality, which one can feel even in the clumsy writing of Mein Kampf, and which is no doubt overwhelming when one hears his speeches …. The fact is that there is something deeply appealing about him. One feels it again when one sees his photographs-and I recommend especially the photograph at the beginning of Hurst and Blackett’s edition, which shows Hitler in his early Brownshirt days. It is a pathetic, dog-like face, the face of a man suffering under intolerable wrongs. In a rather more manly way it reproduces the expression of innumerable pictures of Christ crucified, and there is little doubt that that is how Hitler sees himself. The initial, personal cause of his grievance against the universe can only be guessed at; but at any rate the grievance is here. He is the martyr, the victim, Prometheus chained to the rock, the self-sacrificing hero who fights single-handed against impossible odds. If he were killing a mouse he would know how to make it seem like a dragon. One feels, as with Napoleon, that he is fighting against destiny, that he can’t win, and yet that he somehow deserves to. The attraction of such a pose is of course enormous; half the films that one sees turn upon some such theme.
Also he has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly all western thought since the last war, certainly all “progressive” thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security and avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room, for instance, for patriotism and the military virtues. The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to think of a substitute for the tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won’t do. Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings don’t only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty-parades. However they may be as economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life. The same is probably true of Stalin’s militarised version of Socialism. All three of the great dictators have enhanced their power by imposing intolerable burdens on their peoples. Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people “I offer you a good time,” Hitler has said to them “I offer you struggle, danger and death,” and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet.
A society designed purely around material comfort makes people miserable. They long for quests, duties, aspirations and cooperative goals. This is why Hitler always appeals to us: he is the refutation of individualism, and says instead that meaning comes from the union — or intersection — between nature, civilization, race, God and self.
This is the shadow reason for the backlash which hides behind the obvious reason, which is that Leftism has failed. Not only has it failed, but it has failed to inspire. No one wants to live for the Utilitarian, yet egalitarianism/individualism — and they are the same — is the most Utilitarian mode of thought possible. Our souls are stolen by the “pragmatism” of systems dedicated to nonsense.
Worse than that, in this soul-stealing system, we are essentially subjugated by bullies who force us to believe obvious lies in order to affirm their domination over us. Witness this finely-honed lie that was until recently the official state religion, with all who deviated being ostracized and dying impoverished alone:
Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., professor of biology in Arts and Sciences at Washington University, has analyzed DNA from global human populations that reveal the patterns of human evolution over the past one million years. He shows that while there is plenty of genetic variation in humans, most of the variation is individual variation. While between-population variation exists, it is either too small, which is a quantitative variation, or it is not the right qualitative type of variation — it does not mark historical sublineages of humanity.
Using the latest molecular biology techniques, Templeton has analyzed millions of genetic sequences found in three distinct types of human DNA and concludes that, in the scientific sense, the world is colorblind. That is, it should be.
“Race is a real cultural, political and economic concept in society, but it is not a biological concept, and that unfortunately is what many people wrongfully consider to be the essence of race in humans — genetic differences,” says Templeton. “Evolutionary history is the key to understanding race, and new molecular biology techniques offer so much on recent evolutionary history. I wanted to bring some objectivity to the topic. This very objective analysis shows the outcome is not even a close call: There’s nothing even like a really distinct subdivision of humanity.”
“The world is colorblind,” repeats the State propaganda on the radio. In this case, it took nearly a decade to undo these lies. We found out that Templeton used too small of a threshold in understanding similarities, and too big of a target in establishing differences. In fact, all of his research is a fraud and a political statement with nothing to do with science, engineered to be propaganda not learning.
The fraud that was perpetrated upon us was designed to manipulate and control us so that the State — an entity disconnected from the organic and amorphous entity that is “a people” — could pacify differences between groups and (hopefully) increase its own wealth. That fraud, like the fraud of globalism, eventually failed. And so now people seek new things.
We also recognize that we were misdirected on race. The question is not whether science officially recognizes race, but that we recognize race: we can discern members of different groups, and we prefer our own group. No measurement can compete with that reality, especially when corrupt scientists like Alan R. Templeton are juggling the figures to portray reality as something other than what it is.
Ideology forced the illusion upon us. Ideology dictates what is correct, socially and politically, and this is by its very nature at odds with what is, namely the underlying mathematics of nature. As a result, ideology is forced to “correct” the error of nature by imposing human intent as reality, and in doing so, displacing actual reality and replacing it with a world of symbols, emotions and political judgments.
This sets up a struggle between realism and ideology, with realism winning because ideology has not only failed, but made us miserable, as one neoconservative writes about his self-engineered fall from grace and consequent rejection of the neoliberal/neoconservative “bipartisan” ideological ideal:
As my doubts grew about neoconservatism, I gave realism another chance. I had generally sympathized with values-based critiques of realism, assuming that balance-of-power diplomacy would inform “a policy of promoting ‘stability’ based on extended authoritarian decay.” I realized, however, that realism is not simply a concession to the world as it is, where religious and ethnic identities retain their stubborn holds, and where human nature resents even the most benevolent efforts to impose societal transformation.
Ideology has run us into bankruptcy. It has shattered our faith in ourselves and in our future. It has made us doubt obvious truths, and filled our heads with lies. The backlash against it is virulent because ideology misled us and destroyed so much in the name of justice, leaving behind a new world order of tedious regularity, fear and neurosis.
All of the programs and incentives put in place by the federal and state governments to induce higher levels of growth by building more infrastructure has made the city of Lafayette functionally insolvent. Lafayette has collectively made more promises than it can keep and it’s not even close. If they operated on accrual accounting — where you account for your long term liabilities — instead of a cash basis — where you don’t — they would have been bankrupt decades ago. This is a pattern we see in every city we’ve examined. It is a byproduct of the American pattern of development we adopted everywhere after World War II.
There are two questions I’m commonly asked when I tell this story. The first is: how did this happen? The second: what do we do now?
The way this happened is pretty simple. At Strong Towns, we call it the Growth Ponzi Scheme. Through a combination of federal incentives, state programs and private capital, cities were able to rapidly grow by expanding horizontally. This provided the local government with the immediate revenues that come from new growth — permit fees, utility fees, property tax increases, sales tax — and, in exchange, the city takes on the long term responsibility of servicing and maintaining all the new infrastructure. The money comes in handy in the present while the future obligation is, well…a long time in the future.
Our society has bankrupted itself in caring for the diverse populations it has adopted. If you look at the map above, you see a functional downtown and some suburbs, and then a vast area of diverse living that essentially absorbs resources. It does so because it cannot compete with the functional parts of society, being geared toward an entirely different way of life.
The entire West will collapse because of this bankruptcy; no nations can stand that owe tons of money for social programs, which generate zero productivity, while sacrificing productivity for that ideological end.
This is the end result of ideology. A few enlightened ones™ rule over a vast mass of proletariat, aided by the sleepwalking bourgeoisie, without ever having formulated a goal of civilization in itself. Instead, the goal is to capitalize on what already is, and to divide it up without producing more. It is a religion of death translated into secular form.
As the West confronts this reality, it must decide its fate: does it continue to pursue the path of the “proposition nation” and ideology, or does it embrace realism — and real biology/genetics — and accept that people are different, and we can still work together, but without the heavy Leftist overtones that require us to be equal? Only time will tell.
On the Left, where people are presumed to be universally good because they have reason and therefore are reasonable, it is presumed that civilizations die from external forces like war, climate change or disease.
To the Right, however, the more realistic scenario is that humans destroy their own civilizations by insisting on ideas that are personally flattering to them, and that this creates insane leadership and social decay, both at the hands of the thronging mob and the oblivious bourgeoisie, who ignore anything but jobs and wealth and thus work to obliterate necessary social standards.
On the Bell Curve, the two problem areas are then the far-left of lower-IQ people and the area slightly above them, where people who are smart but not intelligent enough to understand that life changes in response to our actions or failure to take action, and therefore that they cannot alter society — taking something from it — without needing to also strengthen it by maintaining social order outside commerce.
Archaeologists have long puzzled over what caused what is known as the Classic Maya collapse in the ninth century A.D., when many of the ancient civilization’s cities were abandoned. More recent investigations have revealed that the Maya also experienced an earlier collapse in the second century A.D.—now called the Preclassic collapse—that is even more poorly understood.
University of Arizona archaeologist Takeshi Inomata and his colleagues suggest in a new paper, to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that both collapses followed similar trajectories, with multiple waves of social instability, warfare and political crises leading to the rapid fall of many city centers.
…While more general chronologies might suggest that the Maya collapses occurred gradually, this new, more precise chronology indicates more complex patterns of political crises and recoveries leading up to each collapse.
The West is currently trying to decide whether it will extricate itself from a similar death spiral, sculpted from class warfare, diversity, equality, democracy and consumerism.
Human beings react to life much like a sapling being pushed back by an unwary hiker. They will bend until they are about to break and then, because they have nothing to lose, will become an equal and opposite force — but released in an instant — to what has pushed them down. The sapling will snap or snap back, and the hiker will go home bloodied.
Since The Enlightenment,™ the best minds of humanity have been spent trying to invent “hacks” — unorthodox improvisations — which will make the idea of government-by-equality work. Our first stab was democracy, but that proved unstable, so in 1789 the Americans came up with a brilliant document, the Constitution, which was designed through an extensive system of hooks and levers to limit the impulses of the herd that come with pure democracy, or “mob rule” as it is more accurately described.
People put great faith in each one of these hacks because they know, on some instinctual level, that Western Civilization is in decline and totally unstable. As a result, they are under constant stress which is (somewhat) alleviated by the illusion of stability. Since WWII, the prevailing doctrine has been what came out of the American civil war: we had to destroy democracy in order to save it, and instead must have a powerful government that enforces the “correct” ideology on all of us. That was kept in check until its competition, the Soviet Union, fell, and in the ensuing monopoly the American experiment truly went off the rails, taking Europe with it, ending up with a new USSR in the US/EU.
One of the cornerstones of this new empire is diversity, or the idea that equality extends beyond class to race, and therefore, that the correct ideology is to accept having people from many ethnic origins in the same society. Like most Leftist programs, this clashes with reality and so requires constant laws, arrests, censorship, lawsuits and ostracism lynchings in order to make it appear to work in the short-term at least.
The perceived necessity of diversity made it a type of superpower for government. Much as they once found the voters were afraid not to approve of any help destined for “the poor,” big governments now found that voters were afraid not to approve of anything that benefited diversity. And so, diversity crept into every aspect of our lives, following “civil rights” agendas where anyone who excluded a diverse person was assumed to be guilty and punished monetarily, which brought business on-line with the regime.
But in 2016, something extraordinary happened. People looked around and said, “We did everything the politicians told us to do, and even elected a black president. But this has made the diversity crisis — ‘race relations’ — worse, as if it only emboldened these diverse groups. They behave as if, in the private truths they keep to themselves, they believe they are our enemies. And in fact, it makes sense that they would want to conquer us, since that is the only way they are really going to feel victorious about having come here as hired help from failed civilizations.”
The sapling whips back.
The founding group of America — Western Europeans, also called WASPs — tend to be non-confrontational people until they are actually endangered. For them, it is easier than for most to simply work around impediments and then go on to do what they enjoy doing, which is being effective at work, play and invention. This is classic behavior of a high-IQ society.
But, now that diversity has revealed itself as exactly what all of the bad boys of history said it was — an invasion, a conquest and a genocide — American Western Europeans (AWEs) are striking back. Their first step is to put themselves in a defensive posture: buy guys, buy gold and canned goods, and get away from the problem:
It’s about how many white people have reacted to increasing exposure to nonwhite populations, who are following in their footsteps and pursuing the traditional American dream. The reaction is not always articulated or even intentional; in fact, most people say they want to live in a diverse and integrated community; they, too, have the dream that no one will be judged by the color of their skin.
But data shows that as minorities move into suburbs, white families are making small and personal decisions that add velocity to the momentum of discrimination. They are increasingly choosing to self-segregate into racially isolated communities — “hunkering down,” as Lichter likes to call it — and preserving a specific kind of dream.
…A growing number of people are worried about the country becoming majority minority, including one in three Trump supporters. And more than half of white Americans believe the country’s “way of life” needs to be protected against foreign influences.
These new white enclaves are different from the old type of white flight which saw people going to whitopias, or areas that were at least mostly white so that they could avoid the problems of diversity. The new flight is not from problems, but from diversity itself, because diversity savages trust and trust is essential for high IQ societies to function.
This is echoed by statements made by those who retreat to white enclaves:
“A country can have racism without racists.” Writing in an opinion piece for The Washington Post in 2009, Benjamin noted that racial discrimination isn’t necessarily as deliberate and intentional as it used to be. In Idaho and Georgia, for example, Benjamin found that many white people emigrate to these predominantly white communities not necessarily because they’re racist, but for “friendliness, comfort, security, safety—reasons that they implicitly associate to whiteness in itself.” But these qualities are subconsciously inseparable from race and class—thereby letting discrimination and segregation thrive “even in the absence of any person’s prejudice or ill will.”
The first inklings of changing white attitudes came during the early years of the Barack Obama presidency, when a petition to stop white genocide made the news, even in the big liberal papers:
“Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for EVERYBODY?” he writes. “White countries are being flooded with third world non-whites, and Whites are required by law to integrate with them so as to ‘assimilate,’ i.e. intermarry and be blended out of existence.”
He says that this is a violation of the United Nations Convention against genocide. Thus, he is petitioning President Obama to “end White Genocide in the United States, and to call for the end of White Genocide in Europe, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.”
And Albert ends with this. “Supporting White Genocide is not anti-racist. It’s anti-white!”
This means that white people no longer think of the threat of diversity as a threat from individual groups or individuals within those groups. If they did, they would have laughed off the white genocide petition instead of reading about it eagerly. Now they recognized that the threat is diversity itself, and that they will not be allowed to have whitopias; instead, they will be milked for tax money and then eliminated.
Here is where government understands nothing of the human mind. Diversity is strictly speaking not necessary; that is, if it went away, white people would resume doing the things they once did that are now served by a minority underclass, and costs would go up, but other costs — taxes, insurance, crime, riots — would go down and so things would equalize.
The problem for politicians with policies that are not strictly necessary is that people treat them as binaries. They either support them, or want them gone entirely. The politicians, smelling money and power, managed to sell diversity for many decades. But now that it has shown us its true nature, people want it gone. They are leaving it behind and have elected Donald Trump to prevent them from being obligated to it.
If Trump really wants to go down in history as the best American president, he will find a way to abolish “civil rights” style laws like affirmative action through a bill passed in Congress or an amendment to the Constitution. This way, his work cannot be undone when we have a few really good years and the voters go back to sleep and elect the next Leftist parasite.
Trump instead is taking a difficult path, probably moving indirectly to make immigration to the United States so uncertain and expensive that few will attempt it, while squeezing the illegals by going after those who hire them, thus strengthening his government with an infusion of fines. Currently his attempt is to reinforce the “proposition nation”, but add qualifiers that amount to being obstacles for most immigrants worldwide:
Trump espoused his worldview in remarkably few words. He is a vituperative critic of the post-Cold War international system. Where the architects of that system see it as a bulwark of stability and global prosperity, Trump sees it as diminishing the United States in favor of foreign countries and an international class of wealthy political and financial elites. Washington has been serving its own interests, he said, and not the people’s. That ends now. His America will turn inward, focusing on domestic stability, education, infrastructure, and jobs. The one exception will be the fight against Islamic terrorism, where Trump is prepared to join with autocracies in pursuit of common goals.
Trump forcefully rejected identity politics. Racial and ethnic identities, he said, are less important than our status as American citizens. “When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.” There are no hyphenated Americans in this worldview, only Americans and outsiders. And Americans are to be privileged over outsiders. It’s been said that American presidents are replaced by their opposites. What a contrast to Barack Obama’s second inaugural address, where he called for a “world without walls.”
As others have observed, this is dangerously close to JFK’s policy. We know Trump admires both JFK and Reagan, both of whom were moderates to a realistic person but are far-right to mob rule crazed egalitarians, but his spin on the JFK rule is to stop accepting lower-value immigrants. This defers the diversity problem, legally, but may have ripple effects by making an application for citizenship the opposite of a sure thing, encouraging would-be immigrants to look elsewhere. Watch Europe adopt similar rules in the coming months.
When asked by Jamie Weinstein, senior editor and columnist for The Daily Caller, whether a Jew could be elected mayor of Ramallah in an independent Palestinian state, Areikat said, “after the experience of 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it will be in the best interests of the two peoples to be separated first.”
Areikat added that “Well, I personally still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated, and we can contemplate these issues in the future.”
The die is cast. Americans and Europeans want escape from diversity. This is not limited to opposing immigration; they want diversity to end, at least as a compulsory policy, and if the mood is consistent, as a policy at all. They want us to go back to the order before diversity, having recognized that we have been misled by feelings of guilt, but that any obligation we have to other groups lies in the past, not the future.
Mr Hague said he was not alive when the then prime minister Harold Macmillan made his famous “wind of change” speech in 1960 – acknowledging independence movements across Africa.
…”Britain in seen in a different light. We have to get out of this post-colonial guilt. Be confident in ourselves. The lessons we should take from the admitted need for austerity, saving money, is that we actually need to be more ambitious, not less.”
The UK, he suggested, should “just relax” about its role as an imperial power and the legacy of that period in its history, adding that “it is a long time ago, the retreat from empire”.
If history is any guide, the pendulum of Hegel has swung one way and then the other, and has settled in the middle. We tried colonialism, then we tried inverse colonialism by inviting everyone here, and neither contributed to our well-being, so it is time to try something new and yet time-proven, namely nationalism, the idea that each nation consists of one ethnic group only and that it belongs to whatever group founded that society.
If you think equality is wonderful, study some thermodynamics. Learn it on a truly philosophical level and you’ll have to turn yourself inside out like a Texas Chainsaw Massacre victim in order to remain a dedicated Leftist. You see thermodynamics works remorselessly towards equality. It sucks the life and vitality out of any dynamic system until it gets there. And it mathematically has to arrive there, like the trainwreck you can’t stop or look away from. Equality always occurs at the zero.
Amazingly, physics frequently imitates life. It’s almost as if they were trying for that effect. In thermodynamics, this point of equality from which you’ll never recover is absolute zero. It represents the temperature at which all molecular motion stops. In political economy, it could soon be Venezuela under Chavista Socialismo.
Only 230,000 companies remain of the 800,000 that opened in Venezuela during Hugo Chavez’s regime, meaning 570,000 have shut down.
Seventy-Four Percent of them have failed. The rest are exploitive capitalist running dogs that must be sent to the gulags. Just keep going. Raid everyone’s stash. Bogart everyone else’s stash and hork all their twelve-packs. There’s never a cost later. Never any consequence. Until there is…
Eventually, Venezuela will get their LePen. They will get their #PresidentTrump. There’s another set of physical laws that tell us that. Newton’s Laws. Especially the one that espouces that every action provokes an equal and opposite reaction.
That reaction is occurring in America, France, Great Britain and will spread throughout Latin America. Venezuela cannot continue to wind this spring. The more they tension it, the harder it will snap back. You control the extent of the reaction by stopping before the spring gets too wound. People are getting set on fire and burned for skipping ahead in food lines. It is probably too late to prevent hell in Chavezland. It may still remain possible to avoid this in the US. Over to you, Amerika. Fail, and we achieve equlity. We will be equally screwed.
A silence fell over the West today: the silence of not noticing a great event which has been building for some time. Like the fall of the Soviet Union, it has grown first in darkness, then in offhand casual remarks, and finally as a strong will expressed through uncompromising language. And now, a wall has fallen and for the first time, we can see the world beyond the managed environment which is the politically correct West.
In Aurora, Colorado, the unthinkable occurred — an anti-white hate crime was accepted as such from the initial investigation:
Police in Aurora are investigating a sexual assault that may have been a racially-motivated crime.
…Early Friday morning, two African-American men sexually assaulted the woman outside the shopping center. Police say the victim, who is white, didn’t know the attackers. During the assault, the men yelled racial slurs at the woman before fleeing the scene.
Aurora police would not comment on whether the case is being classified as a bias-related attack.
The wall has fallen, and those who were presumed to be the enemy are recognized as human again. Much as the world wanted to punish the Germans for WWII and then, in 1989, realized that the Berlin Wall was a great injustice, and then realized in 2016 that however wrong his methods were that Hitler was right about the incompatibility of different ethnic groups, and the suicidal insanity of even microscopic amounts of Leftism, we now realize that white people are human, too, and have a right to self-interest.
Even more than that, we are seeing a recognition that equality has failed. To implement equality, one must raise the lower or demote the higher; since the lower would have risen if they could have, this means in reality that equality always indicates a need to penalize the more successful to subsidize the less successful.
This anti-moral, anti-Darwnian approach is universally popular because people, especially smarter ones, view themselves as failures and see a need to be protected against the judgment by results that is the nature of reality. People want human intent, a cross between solipsism and social approval, to regulate who is acceptable, instead of results, because often results turn out badly, frequently by chance alone. Our fear leads to an addictive and compulsive illusion through the notion of “equality,” which means “equal inclusion” in reality, or forced social acceptance.
With the backlash against egalitarianism, which is such a mentally addictive concept that it becomes an all-consuming Moby-Dick or Lord of The Rings style obsession, the West is reversing the past centuries of decline. Egalitarianism is the root of ideology, or the notion that what humans intend is more important than what has worked in reality in the past; as egalitarianism falls, it will be replaced by realism, or the study of reality.
The article, which the magazine published this week, documents the week spent up close with Holocaust-denying, racist and Islamophobic Germans. They describe themselves as Israel supporters, who came to see how “the only democracy in the Middle East” deals with “the Muslim problem” that has gripped Germany recently.
…One of the participants tells Maurer he doesn’t believe the “six million” number is correct, and that the real number of Jews murdered by Germany is 500,000. “The rest died and were murdered by others,” he says.
…The group included a 40-year-old supporter of Alternative for Germany, who said he came to Israel to learn “what we can do against the invasion of our homeland.” Group members also called Muslim immigrants “barbarians.” It is no coincidence that they chose Israel for their tour. “They see Israel as an example, because it is in a long conflict with its Muslim neighbors,” says Maurer.
The Holocaust issue aside, these two groups have found common ground in the idea of excluding others so that they may preserve their own societies. Future generations will likely regard The Holocaust as a consequence of frustrated nationalism, and while wrong in method, reflective of a strong desire of Europeans to preserve themselves, just as Jews are preserving themselves by warring against Palestinians and assorted Muslims.
On the other side, those who cannot abandon the idea of the ultimate evolution of liberal democracy — a beige race of mixed-heritage people united by belief in Leftist ideology worldwide — are gathering under the banner of post-nationalism, or the idea of a mixed-race society as morally, politically and economically expedient:
Alongside the rise of nativism has emerged a new nationalism that can scarcely be bothered to deny its roots in racial identities and exclusionary narratives.
Compared to such hard stances, Canada’s almost cheerful commitment to inclusion might at first appear almost naive. It isn’t. There are practical reasons for keeping the doors open. Starting in the 1990s, low fertility and an aging population began slowing Canada’s natural growth rate. Ten years ago, two-thirds of population increase was courtesy of immigration. By 2030, it is projected to be 100%.
The economic benefits are also self-evident, especially if full citizenship is the agreed goal. All that “settlers” – ie, Canadians who are not indigenous to the land – need do is look in the mirror to recognize the generally happy ending of an immigrant saga. Our government repeats it, our statistics confirm it, our own eyes and ears register it: diversity fuels, not undermines, prosperity.
…The prime minister, Justin Trudeau, articulated this when he told the New York Times Magazine that Canada could be the “first postnational state”. He added: “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.”
As nationalists note, this replaces a nation with a giant shopping mall, which is what business thinks it wants and what government desires in order to keep its grip on power. After WWII, Western governments realized that the threat to liberal democracy from nationalism would undermine them, and so they demonized nationalism, instead of recognizing that it was the only bulwark against Leftism.
Leftism displays the inevitable tendency for democracy to go full Leftist and emerge as something similar to the Soviet Union: a society where government replaces culture, religion, heritage and individual differences for the ease of controlling the resulting population. Starting with The Enlightenment™ idea of “equality,” Leftism advances until it can enforce equality by destroying natural variations among people.
The post-nationalists are throwbacks to that postwar era. Business is slowly realizing that replacing workers and consumers of European heritage leads to a lack of loyalty to products and a permanent underclass who purchase little, as the comingdot-com 3.0 crash will demonstrate. Government is finding that its goal of ultimate power will destroy it through constant upheaval over Soviet-style dysfunction, as seen in Venezuela.
However, the dream remains alive because the idea of “equality” is soothing to individuals who fear their own exclusion from society. This means that any who wield the One True Ring of equality become powerful, and people who are not naturally morally good desire power as a means of filling the void in their souls. And so, the conflict of the next age is born.
Another day, and the news is dominated again by headlines of race, as it has been in America since its founding — when diversity meant Indians, African slaves and Irish day laborers — and in Europe since the continent shifted Leftward in the 1960s.
We have become accustomed to the ongoing failure of diversity around us in the West, and in fact, in giving our lives for our. We are surrounded by Civil War dead and those who died in two World Wars to try to force ethno-pluralistic liberal democracy on a highly nationalistic Europe. Well, the bad guys won in both cases — not that any side is ever angelic and pure — and now we have liberal democracy and diversity.
To someone who is not a minority, the following is infuriating; it is an article in which a Leftist expresses a binary opinion that is exactly the opposite of what a non-Leftist would perceive:
See Jordon, Tesfaye, Brittany and Tanishia. See the crime they committed. See how swift justice is dispensed when the perpetrators, rather than the victims, are black.
…One, while it’s clearly reprehensible, the unrelenting media focus on this random incident, is, to my mind, unbalanced and unwarranted.
…But I wonder: How many fellow citizens who can’t stop their social media commentary about this sick incident have been just as outraged and outspoken about the regular harassment and abuse that black teenagers and other black fellow citizens endure daily at the hands of white cops?
Equality always inverts reality, because if non-equality is the natural state of things, then it must be “corrected” by lifting up the lower and — because life is in some ways a zero-sum game after all — necessarily pushing down the higher. This is the crab bucket of modernity in which people attempt to rise by pulling others down, and it is an inevitable consequence of “equality.”
However, this inversion strikes us as galling: Jordon, Tesfaye, Brittany and Tanishia tortured a white guy and, until there was internet outrage, the media was going to sweep this one to page 69 of local newspapers and ignore it. But, after eight years of the Obama regime making diversity worse by trying to make it better, people realize there is no solution, so they spoke out.
And to any sane person, it is clear that diversity is over. It has failed, like many other aspects of our 1945-2016 political system.
Sharpton said civil rights activists must remind senators that the nation is “watching” how they vote on Sessions’ nomination. He pondered how the government could justify having Sessions follow Eric Holder, the nation’s first African-American attorney general, and Loretta Lynch, the nation’s first African-American female attorney general.
…Murguia cited Sessions’ opposition to moving 2,000 minors, who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally, into the state of Alabama.
“Remember these are frightened children who fled hellish conditions and trekked across several countries by themselves in hopes of finding refuge in this country, yet Senator Sessions could not muster any sense of compassion or understanding of their plight,” Murguia said.
This is also infuriating. The “frightened children” have like cowards abandoned their homeland to its problems, and sought to externalize their misfortune by coming here for the free benefits, welfare, healthcare and other signs of a dying franchise turned into a cash cow. But, these two people are merely advocating for their ethnic groups, acting in self-interest.
The majority wants to have its own society, with its own standards, control of its future, and an ability to regulate itself by something more important than money, namely culture and its seed, genetics/biology. The minority group wants the same for itself, but finds itself in a multicultural or “diverse” society where it cannot have that.
What if all the sides had legitimate points of view?
The problem we face here is not that certain groups — whites, blacks or other — are bad, but that diversity is bad. In fact, like most bad things, it is error: a stupid idea, based in our arrogant pretense, designed to make us feel like we control the world with our intent. It is a stupid idea more than anything else since its fatal flaw is immediately visible.
Every group has its own self-interest. It works for itself. Part of this self-interest consists of asserting its own language, customs, values, calendar, philosophy, ethnic/racial biology/genetics, identity, standards, image and self-determination. It needs control over itself and its future, and a reason to feel pride in itself, which only comes from being in a civilization of its own creation and in control.
For this reason, we can see that contrary to the media narrative, no one is wrong here. Sharpton has a point; Sessions has a point. The kids who tortured the mentally disabled guy have a point. That point is: diversity works for no one, which means it is a terrible policy, advanced only for our ideological symbolism and destructive to normal lives. Ergo, end diversity, like we would any other policy that fails this hard.
The dominant story throughout human history is that people specialize in illusions, and when they get together in groups, they create an echo chamber which reinforces those illusions, and then they force those on others.
Then “intellectuals” get famous for inventing alternate stories about how it was not human group stupidity arising from our individual selfishness that did us in, but something else… something external to whatever group we perceive ourselves as part of.
Hence the mania, these days, to blame any group of elites: the Left blames the Rich™ and the Whites,™ and the Right blames the Globalist Elites.™ (And everyone seems to blame The Jews,™ which is causing many Jews to identify as right-wing in order to point out that Jewish Leftists are just as crazy as regular Leftists, but non-Leftist Jews are not part of that craziness and wish to avoid mass graves in the coming physical removal of Leftists — smart of them).
This is how intellectuals distract: they invent a positive story about our shiny future, identify a scapegoat that threatens it, and then push us toward an ineffectual but emotionally satisfying method of achieving that future, usually some variant on the universal sensations that make a room buzz: we are all one, peace on earth, love/accept/tolerate everyone, we are all equal, trust Jesus, etc.
All of those solutions amount to exactly the same thing: accept everyone, ignore goals, and do nothing. This is why they are popular: they are social tokens that signal happiness and success, but require absolutely nothing from the people involved except making the right noises and participating in a few symbolic activities.
In fact, the universal path to human social success is the same as the path to civilization doom: conjure up social pacifism by telling everyone that they are OK, and distracting from the real problem to focus on appearance, so that no one has to change themselves to adapt to reality, making them feel like they have finally escaped from the burden of Darwinism and common sense.
Once you get equality in place, however, you can no longer recognize that some people are born to rule by the fact that they have greater ability in this area. Your best neurosurgeon, computer programmer or car mechanic does not necessarily make a good leader, just like the guy sweeping the floor at the coffee shop probably makes a bad neurosurgeon (and most likely is already a bad programmer).
The reason you recognize right to rule by birth is that it keeps people from having to clobber each other to get ahead, and also, gives everyone who is comfortable with a reg’lar job a chance to succeed unless they are outrageously incompetent. When each person starts at zero, we will all be ranked by how far we get, and so life will become constant struggle to “get ahead” which involves holding others back.
Our modern time exploded into stupidity, cruelty and avarice when we abandoned the caste system. It seemed unfair to the proles, you see, and they are always their own worst enemy because what they choose inevitably empowers those who are cruel at the expense of those who are not. If you feel you are living on planet nitwit and most of your species are idiots, this is the reason why: the herd makes bad decisions.
If you want to know why so many psychotic laws and decisions were made, look to this competition. It enforces xenophilia, for example, because if you get ahead and want others not to, the best way to keep them down is to destroy them with cheap imported labor. With competition, no one can enjoy what they already have; every other person in society is most likely trying to seize it away from them. That is why people act to smash down the others while trying to climb up themselves.
Blame can be cast ultimately at the feet of poorer Caucasians in the cities. Our media likes to blame rural poor Caucasians, which as you know if you have been paying attention so far, is a scapegoat/distraction pair. They are doing this because they want to excuse the poor whites in cities who for years eagerly approved of big government, unions, diversity and other parasitic programs out of a desire to screw the rich. It backfired, because this just gave those in power a way to raise costs on the urban white poor and therefore, deactivate them as any kind of political force — they are too busy working and being driven neurotic by the insanity of the city to do anything. Proles self-defeat again.
Toxic elites spring up in these kinds of situations. They are chosen by nitwits through democracy, which means that appearance is more important than reality and whatever happens after the vote is forgotten; they must keep their position, so they give to the thronging masses what that herd demands, which turns out to be exactly what will destroy it. And so, with everyone miserable, the toxic elites have both lots of problems to claim to solve, and many methods of keeping the round-headed in their place.
A sensible society ends this competition caused by equality, and instead segregates its natural elites and gets them out of the job market by giving them wealth and power. At that point, they have nothing to prove, but are put into a role from which they cannot escape in exchange, and so become the smarter people who organize their local societies, to the benefit of all.
A decade ago, the new car was purchased. It was a triumph of scientific engineering, using all the principles that people knew to be good and well.
“It uses Ironic Prediction,” the salesman said. “Whatever you think is normal and right, it does the opposite, because life is just not how it appears.”
The family took it home. It was an odd car, with multiple engines in strange compartments, odd utilitarian seating, and styling that was a cross between art deco and a concrete box. But no mind: it was new, and the envy of all the neighbors, and besides, there might be something to this scientific ironism thing.
As days went by, the family praised the car. Unlike their past car which was fast and dangerous, the new vehicle never made hasty moves. In fact, it was difficult to steer at all, so generally the best path was to find a simple route to wherever you needed to go. They spent more time walking to and from parking lots far from their objective, but the family rationalized this as good exercise producing good health.
Glitches arrived with age. After the first six months, the father noticed that the car was making a knocking sound. He took it in to the repair shop. The mechanic called him a few hours later.
“The exhaust system had troubles, so we re-routed it through the cabin. No more knocking noise.”
Now the family drove everywhere, even in the depth of winter, with windows open as exhaust spewed out from the vents under their seats. It got to the point that the car went in again to the shop.
“Well — I can make the exhaust go elsewhere, but it is a little bit expensive…”
So they paid. They needed a car, and it was the pride of the neighborhood, so they shelled out almost the cost of the car again to have a new radiant exhaust system put in. Now wherever they want, the car blasted exhaust in all directions, so that they arrived in a cloud of smoke.
This kept the peace for almost four more years. Then one day the knocking was back, as if there were a prisoner in a cellar under the car. The mechanic lifted the hood.
“Eeeyugh,” he said. “A tough problem. I have a workaround.”
When the car came back, it was wrapped in rubber tubing. The new cooling system worked by chilling alcohol and pumping it through the engine, then up to a radiator on the roof. They could not open two of the doors and the car had lost all aerodynamic properties, but that was fine as it did not go fast anyway, which was what they liked about it.
“Finally fixed, so we have more time for work and play,” said the father gaily.
Barely another year had passed before the wheels fell off. As the tow truck pulled away, the father viewed the mechanic — the only one around for hours — warily.
“I can fix this, but it is not expensive.”
When the car came back, the children burst out laughing. The rear wheels had been replaced by several dozen roller skates. The front wheels on the other hand were made out of cast iron.
“It certainly looks like the latest scientific enhancements,” said the mother hopefully. They had moved from their nice suburban home to an apartment so that they could keep up the payments on the car fixes.
Finally normal life could return! The car, in a cloud of smoke and the grating noise of iron wheels, never arrived anywhere fast and was impossible to park because the steering was erratic, since they had replaced the wheel and brakes with a theremin six months previous.
Most of what brought the normalcy back was that they had worked around the car. Since they had no money, they no longer went out to restaurants. The children rode their bikes everywhere so that they did not have to be in the smoky, unstable car. The father found that walking to work, an hour each way, was much easier than struggling with the temperamental steering system.
But some places required a car. So they all got in what had once been their pride, and hustled off in a shuddering wall of noise and the grinding sound of roller skate wheels. One day, just as they had purchased their groceries for the month, the car simply failed to start.
And so they paid. Paid for the taxi ride home with all their groceries, melting in the heat. Paid for the tow truck. Paid for the repair shop to take a look.
Then: “The drivetrain needs an overhaul. It is still designed with too much conventional wisdom. We need something unexpected, a flair of the human…”
When the car came back from the shop, the family was too tired of the process to even laugh. Now it had a giant contraption like a salad shooter mounted on the hood. It rotated as they drove, casting brightly colored lights over the walls of nearby buildings. The only difficulty was that to see around it, the father had to lean his head out the window, which caused him to constantly have an aching neck and back, in addition to being barely able to steer the car.
At this point, they used the car only on official holidays. Otherwise, it was just too troublesome, and it always ended up costing them money. “Stay away from the verdammt horseless carriage!” the father said. “Too much modern progress can kill you.”
Unfortunately, they still needed to use it on some occasions. When the eldest son got married, they drove up to the church in a cloud of smoke, grinding wheel noise and carnival aura of multicolored lights. But when it was time for the couple to leave, the car refused to start.
“No problem, we can walk. It is only a few dozen miles,” said the son, his bride enthusiastically agreeing. No one wanted to be the first to criticize the car which had been the pride of the neighborhood now for some years.
The father went back to the shop, feeling much older than he was. “What now?” he said simply.
The mechanic poked around inside the engine compartment, then looked under the car, checking fluids and fiddling with bolts. “The problem is that its design is still too much, begging your pardon sir, natural. We must re-align every part of the car on a grid, and give each one equal importance.”
The father looked down at his old shoes, patched pants, and thin wallet. “No,” he said simply.
“You must,” said the mechanic. “You have put so much money and years into this already, and everyone knows, it is the only right way.”
“No,” said the father again.
When he got home to his wife, he said, “We are not the pride of the neighborhood anymore. I sold the car. Maybe we can just have a normal life.”
“Good,” she said. “That Enlightenment™ thing never worked for us anyway, no matter how many times we patched it up.”
The history of modern humanity can be summarized thus: an Idea was introduced that seemed profound because it was not real. No matter how many modifications we made to it, it did not work, even though it flattered us.
In the process, we found that those who spoke against the Idea — despite their lack of being 100% good heroes much of the time — were right, and we denied them. The American Nativists, Anders Breivik, Adolf Hitler, The Ku Klux Klan, Ted Kaczynski, Varg Vikernes, the John Birch Society, Enoch Powell: they were right all along, even if they did some bad things as well.
Equality does not work. The Enlightenment™ is dead. Long live the naturalistic future.