Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘ethno-culturalism’

Balkanization Is Our Future, Not “Ethnic Liberalism”

Saturday, May 6th, 2017

Billy Roper points out that the future of the West is Balkanization, or retreat into separate enclaves per ethnic group, because the policy of diversity has failed and as a result, people have fallen back on what “freedom of association” remains to withdraw from the disaster of mixed-ethnic society and produce their own communities mirroring European countries:

And on this year’s edition, out this week, they say natural geographic sorting has taken place over the past couple of decades. Liberals have moved next to liberals, conservatives next to conservatives. It used to be the rule just not to bring up politics in polite company. Now imagine a real estate ad – two-bedroom, one-and-a-half-bath, cul-de-sac, good schools, nice neighbors, no people of the other party need apply.

Of course, the recent media coverage about racial gerrymandering also supports the observation I made in my book The Balk, as does this NPR program: people are moving to segregate themselves politically and racially, to live among their own kind ethnically and culturally, voting with their feet, as America separates itself out through internal immigration on the road to balkanization. The black areas are becoming blacker, the Hispanic areas browner, and the White areas Whiter. What we are witnessing is the emergence of new ethnostates, which will become new nations when America goes down.

The people who really lost out here were the people who gambled on miscegenation. Their kids will have to pick one tribe or the other, and because the closer the tribe is to human origins, the more it influences appearance, this means they will have bred toward the more original group. If you had a white parent, no one cares anymore.

In the meantime, people are sorting not just according to race, but by ethnicity, with groups such as the founding group of the United States, the Western Europeans (WASPs) finding their own space apart from the mixed-ethnic Europeans (South, Irish, East) and third-world immigrant flood. Again, people do not care how well-behaved or intelligent these immigrants are, or what their SAT scores are. They just want to live with people like themselves, which means that Everyone Else need not apply.

This contrasts the “magic dirt”/proposition nation/Leftist view of society, which is that we can combine all different genetic strains of people and then indoctrinate them in Leftist ideology and forge a nation out of those robotic, obedient, and conformist beige people.

Conservatives in name tend to adopt this view as well. Witness Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro assert multiculturalism as a goal of “conservatism”:

The alt-right are people like Richard Spencer who think that Western civilization and Western culture are inseparable from ethnicity. In other words, European ethnicity is the dominant force behind Western culture and Western civilization biologically.

…I think the alt-right doesn’t want immigration, legal or illegal, because they oppose immigration on the basis that it endangers Western civilization or European ethnicity. People that I’m aware of on the mainstream conservative side, if they have objections to immigration, it’s on the basis of costs or culture, not on the basis of race.

I don’t care if someone immigrates here so long as they’re willing to imbibe the principles of Western civilization. I don’t care what someone’s race happens to be. This is consistent with the founding vision of the country. But the alt-right doesn’t accept that.

Shapiro is wrong, of course; the founding fathers specified that they wanted Western European people only and were quite vocal about race and inherent inequality. But current American conservatives, who have been selected for their ability to work with the post-1968 Leftist Establishment, see it differently.

Even more, it is nonsense to assume that culture is independent from race, just like it is insane to separate sex and love. You can force it to appear as if this is true, but then, a conspiracy of details over time destroys you, much as it has destroyed our society for pursuing these illusions.

All general tendencies — “traits” — are heritable. Cultures are composed of traits, if not explicitly, in orientation. This is why human differentiation happened. This means that the hardware required to run culture, at least without it being enforced temporarily at gunpoint, is limited to the group that invented that culture.

Shapiro may not like this, but he is out of luck because it is uncontroversial by itself. If someone argued that we should replace the Maori or Zulu with legions of Fred from Accounting and his lovely wife Mabel from Cleveland, OH, then they would be uniformly seen as genocidal racists. When the inverse is argued, people shrug it off, because it fits within the Leftist wealth transfer narrative.

Shapiro also fits within that narrative, which is unfortunate given his entertaining insight in many other matters.

The grim fact is that Balkanization is happening because Western people, steeped in egalitarianism and universalism, cannot accept that there are different groups because they have different genetics. At least, they cannot accept it in public. When you deny this impulse, it comes out in the form of groups withdrawing from the ruined false center of society, and retreating to be with their own.

As usual, diversity fails. It is attempted genocide that will benefit no groups, although some members of each will be peeled off and mixed into the new beige master race of perfect Leftist supporters. Instead, it will create a collapse where different ethnic, ethnic-religious and ethnic-cultural groups. With that, superpower status goes away forever.

Balkanization offers us a view of the civilization cycle. Civilizations rise, invert their thinking, become individualistic, and then extinguish themselves through equality including democracy and diversity. Within them, the former active and productive agents pack their bags and go elsewhere, producing a new civilization, while the miscegenated remnants writhe in third world status.

Not racialist, but nationalist

Friday, April 3rd, 2015

ethnic_loyalty

For years different flavors of conservative have looked for a reason to unify on action against the ongoing leftist takeover and consumption of our society. The social conservatives look toward the family, the religious conservatives toward God, the racialists toward race, moderates toward independence from social engineering, and the fiscal conservatives toward small government. None of these address the actual issue which is the health of civilization itself.

The task will not be easy. Healthy, normal people rarely see themselves as part of a political outlook because they have no special interest or single issue to pursue. They want life as they live it to continue or improve, but are generally aware that this sort of thing does not happen with elections and laws. They care about thousands of issues tangentially, but none as a singular focus, which makes them a weaker force than liberalism as hitting someone with the flat side of a board is less effective than using a knife, because the smaller the surface of impact the less momentum is diffused.

On the “bad boy” side of politics, the racialists talk about their desire for a society without ethnics. Generally they frame this in terms of disadvantages: crime, intelligence, and politics. What they do not do is to find a positive goal to unite their side, much as conservatives never do because to them, there is no striving for a goal because like most majorities they believe they already have it. Your average conservative is busy with life, family, career and mental pursuits, and views society as an annoying gadfly but not something to care about. This is where they are wrong, limited by the inherent solipsism of human awareness which has us know ourselves both as instrument and measure of reality: what society does directly impacts us, even “victimless” crimes, by adjusting the environment in which we live and thus directly regulating the health of society at large.

I suggest a different model for both conservatives and racialists: nationalism. Leave behind the concerns over whether immigrants fit in our society and ask instead whether we fit in our society. The answer is that as social standards collapse, no one fits… except those who obey the call of power and join the liberal party, just as it was in revolutionary France and Bolshevik Russia. We need nationalism not to exclude others, but so that we have a goal for ourselves. This is about us and not them.

In making this suggestion, I note yet again the original definition of nationalism, which is the society literally “born together” and from a common ethnic root. This group knows itself and excludes all others by necessity, because even tiny traces of admixture — 0.0001% or twenty generations — make themselves known in an individual and change that individual’s behavior and attributes significantly. These truths are known to us through history and common sense. A society either keeps itself completely free of invaders, or it becomes changed, and since the invaders represent “random” data versus the consistent data of internal breeding, all admixture is self-destruction.

This gets us away from the depressing crime statistics and ugly counting of bio-markers. It removes us from the question of how to portray other ethnic groups as bad. It also takes away the question of whether our racism in the past was bad: when it led to racial separation, it was good; when it did not — as in the case of slavery — it was bad and terrible. We do not need studies, reports, statistics, rules, laws, terms and conditions or popular approval to say this. It is common sense, plain as the nose on your face and as serious as fire safety at summer cookouts.

Not only that, but nationalism does something conservatism has never been able to do: it has a goal.

Conservatives have always been the rearguard in a slow steady retreat in the face of civilization’s decay. “But where do we start?” they moaned, throwing hands in the air and looking at thousands of problems at once. My answer is simple. Stop looking at problems, and start looking at directions. We want to be healthy and a rising civilization again, so what does one of those look like? Ethnically-stable, good leaders, people doing meaningful stuff and while not a theocracy, probably most people go to church at least for the coffee, conversation and contemplation of things larger than ourselves.

We have been trying for too long to fight the methods of liberalism, but it always wins because its methods cannot be opposed; they can only be obsoleted. The future belongs to those who discover within themselves, in nature/reality, and in their fellow citizens a purpose. This purpose is Us. It is being what we always have been, but better, and it requires that we separate from all others — without rancor, without scorn, and without spite, but also without exception. The future belongs to those who can create a tribe with direction and the only gateway to that future is nationalism.

Why universal basic income signals the end of diversity

Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013

citizenship_by_ethno-cultural_identitySwitzerland is currently grappling with the issue of adopting a universal basic income, or a guarantee of $2500 a month per citizen whether working or not. Advocates claim this will reduce inequality, crime, and produce rainbows on every street corner.

While no one is fooled as to why the audience likes this — they like it for the same reason they like Communism and Socialism, which is that free stuff provided by the collective means they’re less accountable to anything but their own whims — the interesting question is why economists like it. In short, we have too many people working, and we need to find some way to furlough some of them.

Enlightened traditionalists will point out that tradition gave us several brilliant options for this need, the leading strain of which is to furlough women by making them full-time leaders of the home. Further, by having values outside the workplace, traditional societies created multiple roles that weren’t jobs, from religious staff to cultural and intellectual guardians.

The modern economy being what it is in the age of machines, economists reason, we have improved our productivity by tenfold at least. Why, then, do we have so many people working? And more importantly, is having so many people working clogging up the system with layers of semi-accountable peons?

It’s common sense that offices tend to be driven by the acts of a few people who may or may not have titles saying the same. As a matter of logic, the fewer people involved in making a decision, the more responsive it will be; this is the opposite of “committee logic” whereby the more people who can be included, the better, and the result is a creeping calcification and cowardice.

But let’s roll the dice and look into this future where there are fewer workers. Supposing we sent home the lowest-performing 60% of the workforce, and let the rest be more efficient, collaborative, interactive and all those good buzzwords. This would furlough a huge number of people on universal income.

In addition to swelling the rolls of the internet with more crazy people who should never have been in offices anyway, this act will force some hard decisions on who is a member of the community. It doesn’t play well with open borders. For example, if Switzerland offered UBI to every citizen of the world, the tiny Alpine country would soon have a population of five billion people looking for that handout.

If the history of welfare and socialism in the West has taught us anything, it’s that if you offer a benefit, people show up to claim it. They are not particularly concerned with whether this is logical or not. They know they’d like it and you’re handing it out, so they take it at face value and sign up for those bennies.

Thus the hidden conversation behind the debate over UBI is border control and thus, citizenship control. Who is in the tribe? If we’re going to hand out income, and those of us who work are going to have to pretend we’re cool with that, we should at least make sure it goes to our people.

And thus an old debate intensifies. During the nation-state era (1789-2009) it was considered a good thing to import anyone you could, because these people provided financial benefit. The hallmark of the nation-state era was monetarism, or the idea that you could control people with the flow of money. Immigration offered both workers and customers and so, the “wisdom” went, it meant your stake in the corporation of the nation-state went up.

Some painful learning years later, we know that’s not the case at all, and what immigration does is create social chaos, political division and a permanent welfare state. By separating welfare from need, UBI forces a single basic question. Instead of “Is this person suffering?” it’s “Is this person one of us?”

At that point however “one of us” is no longer a political determination since the political basis of that decision is participation in the economy. They’re not immigrants here to make money for you and buy your products; they’re members of your society that you’re supporting solely because they’re members of your society.

Because of that distinction, UBI will introduce the question of who you want around you. After all, you’re paying for it, and not out of some obligation from the past, such as guilt for colonialism or class warfare (“inequality”). There will be no inequality. There is only the question of who you sponsor, which tends to be answered with “people like me.”

Tribalism returns when we stop with the errand of pity and embark instead on the practical task of cleaning up from the great liberal democracy party of the late 20th century, and rebuilding civilization. UBI is one attempt to duck the hangover, but as with all sweeping changes, it will introduce a new debate, and one that will shake our basic assumptions about citizenship and obligation.

Cause for war

Monday, August 1st, 2011

People think in binary terms: would I want this? Would other people want this?

It doesn’t occur to them that beneath this rigid, conformist and authoritarian yes / no view, there’s another angle.

That angle is want.

We have at this blog long championed the conservative position that life is a struggle for moral, intellectual and spiritual clarity. Few people get very far on that path. Most people remain selfish, easily manipulated, confused and directionless.

What they “want” is usually to be promised something impossible, lied to when it fails, and then for a scapegoat to produce itself for a little bit of the ol’ ultra-violence.

In other words, if you have bad leaders, the voters elected them. If you have a totalitarian Communist state, the peasants who revolted are at fault. If you have bad corporations, the consumers are at fault. If there’s a lot of crime, the citizens are not upholding community standards.

This is the opposite of what you hear in the press, which is a reliance on externalized authorities. Blame the leaders. Blame the corporations. Blame poverty for criminality. If there’s a revolution, it just “went bad” because some evil person stole it away.

Except that what most people don’t realize is that history expresses patterns, and these patterns repeat themselves, making almost all of our human disasters predictable and avoidable.

That means the fault lies on The People.

Bad leaders deceive, but they do this by promising things that appeal to the greed, vengeance, resentment, powerlust, megalomania and fears of ordinary people. Without those people to elect or approve the selection of the bad leader, that manipulator is powerless. We the people gave them the power.

Bad corporations pollute, destroy economies, and churn out wasteful products. They do this by knowing that (a) there’s an audience just clueless enough to buy them and (b) the community won’t oppose them. Without clueless consumers and a community that just shrugs and says “oh well,” bad corporations don’t exist.

Bad people — thieves, perverts, rapists and abusers — proliferate because no one stands up to them. If the first kid to vandalize a car on a block goes directly to jail, everyone calms down. If one little old lady phones in to the cops each time something suspicious happens, crime plummets.

Instead, there’s a lot of shrugging and casting the blame around. “It’s poverty,” says one woman. “It makes them do it.” Translation: I don’t want to get involved.

Even ardent Communists who graduate from Harvard insist that Stalin was not a logical result of the Russian revolution. He took over and perverted it, corrupted it. But what part of “power vacuum” and a political climate where killing your adversaries is de rigeur does not foster a Stalin?

Even now, we’re seeing the world shocked — shocked, I tell you! — that history is repeating itself:

There was a moment Friday in the Egyptian capital when the people’s vaunted uprising brought to mind Tehran in 1979: Just when the left-wing secularists thought they had ousted the Shah, the Islamists ousted them.

Hundreds of thousands of ultra-religious Islamists packed this capital’s central Tahrir Square in an unprecedented show of support for the creation of an Islamic republic, rather than the planned unity demonstration in collaboration with secularists. In doing so, they drove a stake through the heart of a united revolutionary movement that had brought together Egyptian Islamists and secularists, Muslims and Christians, and shared the goal of democratic elections and the punishment of the corrupt regime of Hosni Mubarak. – Effete News

Gosh, who could have predicted this?

Let’s oust the strongman and then everything will turn out magical.

Wait, why did we have a strongman in the first place?

Could it be that our country’s a total mess, and inhabited by several fanatical groups (not just Islamists), and that these forced us to have a strong tyrant to keep everyone in line?

Then we ousted that tyrant, and made it clear power was up for grabs, and suddenly our coalition fell apart. I guess “we hate the strongman” wasn’t a political party after all.

Efforts by insurgents to topple Muammar Gaddafi are in disarray after a senior Libyan opposition figure admitted that rebel soldiers were responsible for the murder of their most senior army commander.

The transitional government’s oil minister said that General Abdel Fatah Younis had been shot dead by Islamist-linked militia within the anti-Gaddafi forces, provoking fears of future unrest and instability among those fighting the old regime. The revelation will raise doubts over the wisdom of the British government’s decision last week officially to recognise the rebel transitional government, declaring that it had proved its democratic credentials.

Only a day later, the bullet-riddled and burnt bodies of Younis and two of his aides were found dumped on the outskirts of Benghazi, the rebel capital.

Labour’s former defence secretary Bob Ainsworth said that the murder and the identities of the killers were evidence that the government had not thought through its policy in Libya.

“One of the biggest risk factors in this was our lack of understanding of the people we were working with and I think that lack of understanding still stands,” he said. – The Guardian

You have to wonder what they were thinking. Did no one there read history? Had no one there graduated from a political science degree?

Here’s another example:

Pluralism.

Right now, in the West, pluralism is also de rigeur. Pluralism is the idea that we can have a society where no one has anything in common.

The central concept of pluralism is tolerance, which is that if my neighbor follows a path that would obliterate my own, we smile and nod and agree to “tolerate” each other.

While we both plot to obliterate the other through passive means, or by waiting for “tolerance” to come to an end.

The fact is that in a pluralist system, anyone with any beliefs or culture is doomed, because the society advances on the lowest common denominator. An LCD is universal, or compatible with everything else.

This means that instead of having a bright tapestry of many different colors, after a few generations you have a dull grey sheen of everything smashed down to the average.

Norway, after all, has some of the toughest and most restrictive immigration policies in Europe. Its refugee process is unusually strict too.

As a result, even after 40 years of immigration driven by a booming oil economy’s labour shortages, barely more than 10 per cent of its population are immigrants or their descendents – and the majority of those are Swedes, people from Baltic countries, Poles or other Nordics, most of them indistinguishable from the native population. Members of visible minorities are few, mostly clustered in the capital.

Even Norway’s Muslims, mostly Pakistani or Somali and considered well-integrated by European standards, did not consider these rising voices of intolerance a major threat. Not until last Friday, at least.

“We knew that there were anti-Muslim movements, but not to this degree. We always thought that they would keep to their argument that there were too many Muslims,” says Kadra Yusuf, a Norwegian of Somali descent whose activism had been directed against religious conservatives in the mosques of Oslo, notably in the fight against female genital mutilation. – Effete News

The Western news media — that is: people who couldn’t make it into the professions, so decided to seize power through popular notions instead — still doesn’t get it.

This isn’t about Muslims. In fact, most anti-Islamists are not hostile to Islam or Muslims.

This is about diversity (or “multiculturalism,” for the technical term) not working.

That in turn is an example of pluralism not working.

The point is that society needs to have a unifying agreement and culture, or it becomes a giant shopping mall where people wander around like zombies because no knowledge, purpose, identity or customs are passed down between the generations. These are the gray people and anyone with an IQ over 92 does not want to be one.

Pluralism doesn’t work. Diversity is a form of pluralism. It also doesn’t work. Society needs an identity, which is to say it needs a purpose, which is to say it needs a culture.

Religion, philosophy, science and art can help explicate that culture and make it evolve to be a better form of what it is. It doesn’t need to become universal in some perverse sense of morality that insists we must all be equal or we will all burn in hell.

The fact is that pluralism is intolerant of one idea: anti-pluralism.

The thought that any person might say, “You know, I’d like a Nordic Norway” — or a Christian Norway, a Norwegian Norway or even a conservative Norway — sends the pluralists into spasms of anger and fear. This challenges their idea that a universal morality exists that can be applied in every nation.

Pluralists, who claim to accept every belief, are hypocritical. They accept every belief — wait, we mean every belief that endorses pluralism. It’s a fancy way of saying that since they have low standards, they accept nearly everyone, except those who disagree. It’s a method of social control based in a fake morality.

The pluralists have made up this “universal” morality as a way of opposing anything that opposes pluralism. They have as a result become intolerant of anything but pluralism. This is the way we do it around here. Get with the program or you’re an ignorant jerk.

And that is an honest cause for war.

Recommended Reading