Amazingly, most people have no idea what political “Right” and “Left” are, even professionals writing in the field.
To understand this division, we should go back to the origins of the terms. This is a technique sometimes used to trace the meaning of a word over time, and to figure out why it was originally used, because that generally indicates what was so different from the norm that it required a new term.
In the case of “Right” and “Left,” these terms arose after the French Revolution when parties in the national assembly sat on one side of the aisle or the other. Those who liked the new order sat on the left; those who favored the old way and wanted to resist the new as much as possible sat on the right.
From that we get these simple terms which correspond to our cultural conception of handedness: the right hand is the one where action and signaled intent are the same, where the left is the hand that does the opposite of what signaled intent suggests. Historically, this is because the right hand can be used to shake while the left hand draws a blade.
And so we must ask what the “new order” actually stood for, which requires looking at what it wanted. This one is easy; it wanted to overthrow the kings, and in order to do so, it proclaimed equality (as an opposite of hierarchy) so that all people were equal. This meant that none had the right to rule over the rest, and the mob would choose its own path via voting.
Take a moment to get over your laughter. Yes, once upon a time, people were so gullible that they thought that mass voting was a way to make decisions! It is comedic in retrospect that people somehow convinced themselves that groups, most known for panics and stampedes and ignoring crimes, would be better leaders than someone specialized. But humans are prone to denial, projection and fantasy…
The Left stands for one thing and one thing only: egalitarianism, or the idea of equality. This allows them to escape social consequences for being less accurate in their thinking than others. From this, all of Leftism flows naturally. It is not a very complex philosophy, which is why it is disguised in endless play-acting “theory” by its adherents.
On the other hand, the Right stands for what came before egalitarianism: time-honored ways of being, which means they are based in consequentialism or results instead of appearance, and in order to have direction, are also “transcendental” or geared toward qualitative improvement on the former. The Right is complex, nuanced, and has many layers.
The division is this simple: the Left believes egalitarianism will solve our problems and give us direction, where the Right thinks that egalitarianism is a distraction from the real task, which is to discover how our world works and what are the best results we can achieve through known working methods of adaptation to it.
Now where this gets interesting is that the Left has incentive to hide their actual meaning. Like the left hand move, their goal is to separate their public intent from their private actions. Altruism is a great cover story, like politicians kissing babies. It lets you give a few percent of your wealth or time for public image, then do whatever you want with the rest.
The Right, on the other hand, have no way of summarizing their intent. Rightism is inherently complex because it is based not on a human theory, but on many and dissimilar methods for making human civilization improve in quality. As a result, it is a philosophy that requires an esoteric or unequal and cumulative approach to understand.
Humans naturally prefer the Left because we are self-deluding creatures. We know what we want more than what we are. As a result, our desires reflect illusions based on what we want to be, and reflect very little who we are, or in other words, our actual needs. As a result, the Left is perpetually popular, just like circuses, bread, television and pretense.
Whenever the Left appears, it uses egalitarianism as its method of forcing acceptance and shaming those who resist it. Who can, socially speaking, oppose the idea that everyone is accepted? Using this passive-aggressive method, Leftism bullies its way in, and sets up an alternate power structure which then rules with tyranny.
We know this and can speak out against it without having to swing to symbolic opposite extremes like “freedom”, “liberty,” and “meritocracy,” which are Leftist proxies for the idea of reducing everyone to a minimum and then selecting those with the (politically) correct ideas to rise. We can instead point again to history.
When the French Revolution was won, the new government set about doing things differently than the old leadership. After a period of murdering whole families on nothing more than the word of someone on the street, the new regime set up its People Power and promptly drove the nation into worse famine and poverty than ever seen before.
As that settled in to the public consciousness, the regime distracted by declaring what was essentially the first world war and attempting to conquer Europe, an attempt that first brought victory and then great defeat. The result was that the war in the name of the people ended up making life worse for them.
After that, things settled down to the Right versus Left view we have now. Naturally, the Rightists who gave in and adopted the Leftist idea of equality found themselves more popular, and so the mainstream Right gradually eroded until it became a variety of Leftism as today. But that does not change the idea itself.
If we are to make sense of this political question, it first makes sense to go back to our roots and see what Right and Left mean. The Left means egalitarianism; the Right means time-honored solutions producing the best results. Obviously, these are incompatible, which is why the West is currently fragmenting along these lines.
As far as the usual profound “out with the old, in with the new” commentary that you expect from websites today — and remember, consumer expectation defines the product — there is only this to say: the election of Donald J. Trump was a strong rebuke to Leftism and the ideals of liberal democracy, which places equality above realistic competence on its list of demands, and the crest of a wave which is the people of the West reacting to the gradual Leftist takeover since the French Revolution.
Leftism is rationalization of decline. Our civilization has been in decline for a thousand years, but decline is a gradual process, and its final stage is liberal democracy and Leftism, including disastrous programs like gender equality, normalizing perversity, diversity, socialism and pacifism. Leftism is insanity. The election of Donald J. Trump is the first of many “baby steps” toward reversing and choosing a new direction not just away from Leftism, but from civilization decline itself.
Our leaders tell us that America is a proposition nation, or one formed of political and economic bonds but not ethnic ones, as revealed by this George W. Bush speech made from late in his presidency:
America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens. Every child must be taught these principles. Every citizen must uphold them; and every immigrant, by embracing these ideals, makes our country more, not less, American.
In postwar America and Europe, the proposition nation was a principle accepted as fact. It seemed the ultimate extension of the democratic ideal: all people are equal, and therefore, it does not matter which people you have in a nation, so long as you have indoctrinated them with the right political and economic ideals. This was contrary to the founding ideas of these nations:
It’s a cliché of contemporary debate that America is a unique “Proposition Nation,” not one of those nasty ethnically-specific nation-states in Europe. Anyone can become an American by subscribing to a set of abstract principles, etc. etc. Quack quack.
In Alien Nation, I pointed out that this would have been news to the Founders, and indeed to pretty well all Americans before World War II. They were highly conscious of America`s specific ethnic and cultural heritage, i.e. national identity. And they thought it was very important—the reason, Jay said in The Federalist Papers, why the experiment of federal government could be made to work at all.
I also pointed out that, in fact, many European intellectuals had similar delusions of “Universal Nation”-hood. The most obvious example: France, where assimilating Africans and Arabs to French “culture” was actually official policy for a while. And not without some misleading signs of success, as in the American case.
When looking for the origin of an idea, it makes sense to go back to its earliest incarnation, which can be found in the idea of Leftism, or equality, itself. This is one of those notions that is so close to a basic human pathology, which is the desire to mandate inclusion of all so the individual cannot be excluded from the group, that it probably does not have a single source, but as with a fatal disease, is normally kept in check but gains strength in moribund patients.
This decay found its voice however in the French Revolution which, owing to the evangelical nature of Leftism, quickly became a war for control of Europe that would define the next two centuries. As observed by academics, the need of Leftism to expand created a type of “internationalism” that was the fore-runner of ideas such as diversity and globalism today:
In France, war initially encouraged national solidarity as the entire country mobilized. As the war persisted this solidarity broke down and a chasm developed between civilians and soldiers. The latter were increasingly motivated by a cult of honour that found its ultimate expression in Napoleon Bonaparte. He seized control of France in 1799, and then built up an empire in which the national element was increasingly diluted with each new conquest. Napoleonic imperialism in turn triggered reactions in other parts of Europe where opposition to French exploitation manifested itself amongst ordinary people. Intellectuals and some politicians sought to harness popular sentiment by preaching national hatred, and to some extent this assisted the massive mobilization effort necessary to defeat Napoleon.
The historian Julius Brauthal, in his 1967 epic History of the International (Vol. 2) noted that internationalism was a value of the French Revolution and that was the origin of its modern form. The Leftist form of internationalism consists of the idea that national borders can be erased by ideology through the cooperation of Leftists worldwide to advance a world order based on Leftism, not realism:
Liberal internationalism, cluster of ideas derived from the belief that international progress is possible, where progress is defined as movement toward increasing levels of harmonious cooperation between political communities.
Liberal internationalist theories address how best to organize and reform the international system. In general, liberal internationalists regard violence as the policy of last resort, advocate diplomacy and multilateralism as the most-appropriate strategies for states to pursue, and tend to champion supranational political structures (such as the European Union) and international organizations (especially the United Nations).
Liberal internationalism is typically contrasted with realism, and during the final decades of the 20th century the academic field of international relations came to be characterized as a clash between variants of those two traditions. Realists accuse internationalists of being naive and even dangerously utopian, and internationalists accuse realists of being overly fatalistic.
Internationalism takes the basic form of the idea that natural order is bad, and must be “corrected” by human intent, which consists of the idea that all people are equal; this arises whenever societies succeed because they lose a sense of shared purpose, which previously had existed through the need to succeed. At that point, civilization becomes more complex and requires new direction, but usually moneyed interests and peasant revolts have weakened the aristocracy to the point where they no longer have the unadulterated power required to set it on a new course.
In the case of Europe, this was compounded by two factors: first, many nations in Europe became successful at roughly the same time; second, their successes resulted in population booms which seemed at first like an appropriate way to rebuild after the losses to Mongol wars and plagues only a few centuries before. In this way, Europe entered an arms race where each population expanded in order to become powerful.
By the time of the French Revolution, Europe was already flirting with proto-Leftism as a way to keep its people together. First, the royal houses had been weakened by their dependency on moneyed interests to keep up with military expenditures, and second, the expanding population created a necessity for new ways to motivate people to work together as people increasingly took civilization for granted and wanted more personal power. When The Enlightenment™ came about, intellectuals granted this new rising herd a cerebral justification through the belief in human reason which was found equally and universally in all people.
The French Revolution left France a ruined nation. The food crisis which precipitated it but was not its cause could not have been resolved, and after that Revolution, was made worse by disorder and increasing mobility to those needed for harvests. To avoid the political destabilization of the crisis, France mobilized toward war, leading to a series of Napoleonic Wars where the new Leftist state attempted to dominate Europe, which in turn provoked the other European nations into forming defensive alliances.
These alliances in turn became a means of political competition, and so, after the Leftist revolutions of the preceding century, by the time of the First World War, Europe was dangerously unstable and in the hands of weak democratic leadership which refused to address politically sensitive policy time bombs which then detonated in that devastating war. After WWI, Leftist leadership was strengthened by the near-destruction of Germany and its defense of more traditional forms of society and values.
This led to a re-formalization of internationalism in a new form which became the modern proposition nation. As Theodore Roosevelt wrote, expanding on some of the concepts of Woodrow Wilson, the new order was based on political and economic obedience rather than national origin:
There can be no sagging back in the fight for Americanism, merely because the war is over. There are plenty of persons who have already made the assertion that they believe the American people have a short memory and that they intend to revive all the foreign associations which most directly interfere with the complete Americanization of our people.
Our principle in this matter should be absolutely simple. In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.
But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American.
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile.
We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.
In this, we see the origin of the confusion that became modern conservatism: defending the political principles of the old, but doing so by accepting the Leftist concept of world order by converting conservative methods into goals. For conservatives, the purpose was to retain all that has made civilization excellent since the dawn of time, and ideas like “liberty” and “freedom” were methods to that end. With the rise of Leftist concepts, the original goal had to be displaced, and replaced by Leftist ideas grafted on to conservative methods.
This process of “Americanization” lives on through globalism and the proposition nation. Globalism believes that since people are presumed equal, they can be indoctrinated with the American democratic ideals and will then recreate the success of America worldwide; the proposition nation consists of destroying national heritage through assembling people into political groups, echoing the sentiments of liberal internationalism.
This article of legislation allowed an individual to apply for citizenship if they were a free white person, being of good character, and living in the United States for two years.
At that time, the term “white” applied exclusively to those of Western European heritage, excluding those from Eastern and Southern Europe, including the Iberian offshoot population in Ireland.
The idea that being a citizen of a European-descended nation is a political construct and not a racial one is one of the core beliefs of the cordycepted cucks who currently rule the Republican party, and descends from the Leftist idea of equality and a worldwide union of workers.
It reveals the primary reason for conservative failure, which is that they have adopted the fundamental assumptions of the Left, and therefore have no resistance to intensification of those beliefs, which leads to a gradual Leftward shift as we have seen during the era since Roosevelt made his speech.
The only way to resist this is to explicitly reject the proposition nation and the internationalist — or “globalist” — ideas behind it, mainly by affirming nationalism. With nationalism, civilization is a racial and ethnic construct, and instead of government, each society uses its cultural values enforced by citizens on each other to maintain order.
This alone refutes the delusional ideas of The Enlightenment™ and the French Revolution that have divided Western Europeans for centuries and turned us against each other through a series of futile, fratricidal wars.
It is hard to tell whether the American media is an organ of its government, or the government an organ of its press. Either way, this group took the original idea of American liberty, which was egalitarian, and converted it into the type of end-times-of-Rome egalitarianism to which any degree of liberalism inevitably expands. They now act together as an ideological bloc that we call the Establishment or Cathedral.
The Post’s report cites officials who say they have identified individuals connected to the Russian government who gave WikiLeaks emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee and top Hillary Clinton aide John Podesta. One official described the conclusion that this was intended to help Trump as “the consensus view.”
The report highlights and exacerbates the increasingly fraught situation in which congressional Republicans find themselves with regard to Russia and Trump. By acknowledging and digging into the increasing evidence that Russia helped — or at least attempted to help — tip the scales in Trump’s favor, they risk raising questions about whether Trump would have won without Russian intervention.
This shows us the uncanny insect-like persistence of the Left. They have combined two agendas: overthrowing the election, which they spent $1.2 billion to lose, and unifying their base by creating a new Emmanuel Goldstein. That character was the constant state enemy in 1984, a book written by Leftists to disclaim the more disturbingly accurate Brave New World, an anti-modern diagnosis by Aldous Huxley that argued it was not totalitarianism but mob rule that would do us in.
Leftists have tried several strategies to subvert this election. First, they announced and then performed almost a week of riots which failed because the only people they could recruit were in Leftist stronghold cities, and burning those down bothers very few, since the cost is socialized to insurance and taxes, which is a Leftist tenet anyway. Next, they tried claiming Trump was a Nazi again. When that failed, they announced the recount. Since the recount backfired as voter fraud appeared back on the public television screen, they are trying a new angle.
The Left intends to argue that Trump stole the election with the help of a foreign power, and that therefore, the courts should intervene. It is a simple strategy based on the Leftist majority at the Supreme Court, and it is as dishonest as it is clear. The point is to invent a plausible excuse for overthrowing the election, and then to demand that all goodthinkers get excited about it and demand it, putting pressure on those who do not want to be excluded from the Left-herd to do their duty as good Commu– Democrats.
Naturally, this will also fail. If Russia leaked emails and these unnerved people so much they voted for the other side, that is hardly a convincing case for intervention. The media is hoping always that it can present two stories side by side and then by shaking up the narrative, get them to blur together. One story is that the digital voting machines were interfered with; this is the recount myth. The other is that Russia leaked emails. Blur them, and you get “Russia hacked our computers and helped Trump steal the election,” which is exactly the kind of slogan that demagogues want to see carried in filthy little hands during the next round of riots.
Their second agenda is more insidious. The Left, following its birth from peasant revolutions and the French Revolution, always needs a symbolic enemy; this takes the form of the enemy-who-is-not-the-threat. In Revolutionary France, for example, the actual threat was overpopulation and continued European conflict; the false target, or official state enemy, was the King. During WWII, the actual threat was the Soviet Union, but the fake enemy was Hitler, who was not concerned with the USA except as an intervening party in a European conflict against Leftism.
With the rise of Trump, the fake enemy of Hitler finally fell. This was helped by Brexit and the populist revolt in the EU which essentially affirmed that Hitler was right about diversity and Leftism: both were paths to a uniquely European doom. The Lügenpresse came out all guns blazing to call Trump and his supporters racists, KKK, Nazis, Hitler, etc. and the Trump team shrugged it off. They had no guilt, and their supporters, who had witnessed the rise of extreme Leftism — a.k.a. moderate Leftism given power — under Barack Obama and the ensuing war on whites and anyone else with money, simply did not care. So the old enemy, Hitler, fell, and the Left has to vary it up a bit.
Our new pseudo-enemy in Russia takes after not the Reagan years of fighting Communism, but a far earlier political myth. As with the French Revolution, America was born of overthrowing a monarchic power ruling over it, but the Americans, being savvier to the ways of humans than the French, did not go full democracy because they feared and specifically stated that they feared mob rule. But, a revolution requires a tyrant or it is illegitimate, so the Americans cooked up George III as not just a tax-greedy leader, but a true-blue Platonic tyrant.
This turned out to be half-right, mostly because George III was in an impossible spot owing to British politics, which were no longer monarchic except in name, and in order to keep the UK’s own overpopulation problem in check, and satisfy the wealthy interests that now routinely bumped the elbows of the Crown, he was in a difficult political situation involving apparently unending wars and domestic instability. The “tyranny” imposed on America was mostly that it was taxed to pay for England’s needs, including a union with near-white disaster state Ireland, and that it was ruled from afar by sailing ship, which meant that any command of the king was obsolete long before it arrived at its destination.
In Putin, the Left has found an enemy. He is not a weak leader, which makes him a possible threat. He is not a Leftist leader — the Russians have less than fond memories of their flirtation with moderate Leftism given power — and he has made rumbles of creating an alternative to the Americanization project that is the EU (not NATO, as most Rightists incorrectly identify). His European project is the idea of European cultural unification, not political unification. Most importantly, he has turned down the shibboleths of Leftist goodthink obedience, such as championing gay marriage and diversity.
How much he believes any of this is hard to say. An intelligent realist sees each country as a self-interested actor, and the self-interest of Eastern Europe has always been the conquest of the West. Eastern Europe is formed of those who fled feudal service in the West and, like Satan reigning in Hell, they are mostly content — but always seek to validate themselves and justify their choices by reconquering the higher authority that rejected them. A Revolution, if you will, in parallel to France, but this time comprised of recapturing territory once made off-limits.
The Soviets, never fools, tapped into this mythos among the Russian people when the West became its enemy. The Russians love the idea of finally getting to own Germany, much as they tried to by retaining control and destroying Eastern Germany. They adore the thought of being able to crush Germany again and rape its women. This fulfills a hole in their own souls: the knowledge that they were those who could not make it in Germany or were exiled, as after the Peasant Revolts, fills them with resentment which they think physical conquest can master.
Pure Machiavellian questions also arise. Eastern Europe is broke and starving despite having vast oil reserves, massive amounts of land, and plenty of talented scientists. Prole-rule does not work after all, and in Eastern Europe, the states are all dysfunctional because too many of the people are dysfunctional, as is the condition in Southern Europe and third-world states everywhere. As a result, political myths are more important than reality, which is everyone eating beets after making all of the potatoes into vodka from now until eternity.
Not being fools, or completely fools, the Left have resurrected Putin-as-Hitler instead of Putin-as-Soviet because they need a new Cold War but know it cannot be against Communism. The Americanization project, based in the idea of equality and diversity, is the new Comintern, and the American system is essentially Communism plus working grocery stores — they learned from last time — so if we exhume the Cold War, it will become apparent that we are the new Soviets and the Russians are not really the new Nazis. So we dug up George III, implied he was Hitler and the Confederacy at once now, and hope to send people off to fight the new racist, sexist, xenophobic, ableist, saneist, elitist, realist myth-monster in the political sky.
This puts us at an interesting juncture in history. The Leftist attempts to unseat the presidency have failed for a simple reason: most people, even if they voted against it, are OK with it, especially as signs of health and order return after the positively Soviet Obama years. Trump has ably defeated the slurs against him by treating them as the tantrums of spoiled children, which they are, and the recount effort ended in shambles and the knowledge that Jill Stein just legally defrauded her donors to the tune of millions. The Left is disunified at the failure of its magic words — “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia” — to cow its adversaries and unite its base.
And so, in the grand tradition of banana republics everywhere, something must be done to tie us all together and most importantly, distract from the fact that we are an empire in decline, a bag of special interests instead of a people cooperating toward a goal we all share. The distraction enemy must avoid the real threat, which is the decline of our civilization and its impending third-world status, by focusing us toward a scapegoat. And so, a new Cold War hybrid with World War Two is born, and yet it is stillborn, and we remain desperate, seeking an escape from reality and an explanation for our failure that does not involve the obvious: the real enemy is, as always, us.
For the past thousand years, an idea has steadily been gaining momentum: that popular vote should decide questions of leadership, and that each person possesses “rights” — privileges without duties — on the basis of being human alone.
Some say it began with the Magna Carta, which asserted the rule of law as more powerful than the decisions of monarchs. By humbling the monarchy, it was reasoned, the alliance of lesser aristocrats and commercial interests had made leadership more balanced, humble and therefore safer because it might avoid wars.
The opposite proved true.
After the Mongol Invasions and the black plague, the weakened aristocracy found itself under assault by peasant rebellions. The aristocracy could not solve those problems, the peasants reasoned, so maybe it was not necessary. Anyone could fail at repelling the plague or the orcs of Mordor.
Neurotic intellectuals, desperate for something to emote about because they lived in relatively golden times, seized on this and expanded it with The Enlightenment,™ a declaration of the precious snowflakeness of every human being. The intellectuals assumed that everyone else was like them, and forgot that most of us are just “talking monkeys with car keys.”
Eventually the situation exploded in the French Revolution, which is one of those episodes of historical comedy in which we all agree on the facts but cannot bring ourselves to face the slapstick realization of what they mean.
France’s costly involvement in the American Revolution and extravagant spending by King Louis XVI (1754-1793) and his predecessor had left the country on the brink of bankruptcy. Not only were the royal coffers depleted, but two decades of poor cereal harvests, drought, cattle disease and skyrocketing bread prices had kindled unrest among peasants and the urban poor.
The country had a spending problem, but its actual problem was the poor harvests. With these, people could not eat, and the remaining grain was sold at higher prices. The only reason that this was a problem in the first place was the rise in population, which had exploded in France:
The feudal regime had been weakened step-by-step and had already disappeared in parts of Europe. The increasingly numerous and prosperous elite of wealthy commoners—merchants, manufacturers, and professionals, often called the bourgeoisie—aspired to political power in those countries where it did not already possess it. The peasants, many of whom owned land, had attained an improved standard of living and education and wanted to get rid of the last vestiges of feudalism so as to acquire the full rights of landowners and to be free to increase their holdings. Furthermore, from about 1730, higher standards of living had reduced the mortality rate among adults considerably. This, together with other factors, had led to an increase in the population of Europe unprecedented for several centuries: it doubled between 1715 and 1800. For France, which with 26 million inhabitants in 1789 was the most populated country of Europe, the problem was most acute.
As we can see above, the problem was not the aristocracy, but the weakening of the power structure from beneath them, leaving them powerless to do things like limit population or increase production. The pre-Revolution caused the social problems that would provoke the Revolution itself, also setting a precedent for patterns of liberal takeover in the future.
This means that the foundations of liberal democracy were fraudulent from the start. People playing victims created a disaster and then used that as a pretext — still playing victims — to overthrow the existing order. And what sort of wonderful Utopia did they create?
Following the king’s execution, war with various European powers and intense divisions within the National Convention ushered the French Revolution into its most violent and turbulent phase. In June 1793, the Jacobins seized control of the National Convention from the more moderate Girondins and instituted a series of radical measures, including the establishment of a new calendar and the eradication of Christianity. They also unleashed the bloody Reign of Terror (“la Terreur”), a 10-month period in which suspected enemies of the revolution were guillotined by the thousands. Many of the killings were carried out under orders from Robespierre, who dominated the draconian Committee of Public Safety until his own execution on July 28, 1794.
Here we see another Leftist pattern. Having achieved power, they begin by executing their enemies, destroying culture and the church, and finally create a power struggle in which they kill each other. It is like thieves fighting over what they have stolen, with only the biggest and cruelest thief surviving.
Eventually, the French got that thief, in the form of Napoleon Bonaparte, who waged war across Europe that created the destabilizing conditions that, a century later, erupted in the World Wars:
Royalists and Jacobins protested the new regime but were swiftly silenced by the army, now led by a young and successful general named Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821).
The Directory’s four years in power were riddled with financial crises, popular discontent, inefficiency and, above all, political corruption. By the late 1790s, the directors relied almost entirely on the military to maintain their authority and had ceded much of their power to the generals in the field.
In this way, we can see that democratic revolt and Communist revolt follow the same pattern because both are Leftist. They seize power under dubious pretexts, execute the dissidents and then create a military regime which launches ideologically-motivated wars, eventually bankrupting itself and devastating the population.
This is the history from which our present time emerges.
As it turns out, our own arc in the US and EU is following a muted version of the above. After WWII, and only interrupted when the Cold War scared people into electing strong leaders, the Left has dominated Western politics. During that time, it has savaged religion, waged war on dissidents — but now we merely destroy their lives by calling them “racists,” and do not directly kill them — and has bankrupted national economies.
The result is a giant middle finger through the dual acts of Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump. People do not want to continue through the Leftist script which involves massive wars and finally the destruction of their nations. They tolerated Leftism through grudging resignation, but now, want off of this crazy train that threatens to destroy us.
Robert Merry, a biographer of President James Polk, thinks such a shift is under way. The status quo is never permanent, and the post-Franklin Delano Roosevelt Cold War consensus about globalization and internationalism, he says, “has been killed by Donald Trump, for all his flaws and limitations. What we know from history is that when the identity and definition of the nation is at stake, the politics gets very intense.”
Globalism and internationalism are dead. Big government is dead. Trust in Leftism is dead. And, for the first time in a long time, the assumption that liberal democracy is good has died. People are looking for a new way. Brexit and Trump are not the end goal, but the first steps.
If we can make these first steps work without stepping into the traps that undid George W. Bush, we can push further. Our goal is the revitalization and continued rise of Western Civilization, and this requires getting rid of liberal democracy and its understructure of equality, class warfare and diversity.
At this point, the thousand-year arc of Leftist thought is ending. It promised Utopia and delivered dystopia, but it was too subtle for most to see for the longest time. Now its mask is removed and we see the beast within, not just as Communism but as the worst aspects of human behavior and a lust for power.
Our coming decade will be defined by attempts to understand how deep the rot goes and to root it out, then figure out what we want to replace it with. A great deal of thinking and work awaits us, but it comes on a breeze of fresh air and hope that we can not just survive, but thrive and be great again.
In the wake of the Dylann Roof shooting, the left/media cabal assumes their usual direction of pointing to the exception and claiming it as the rule. In this case, they want us to believe that America is awash in white supremacists who want to do nothing but murder black people.
On the contrary, very few such events have occurred considering that with 200m whites in America, they would have achieved an incident a week at a magnitude larger than the Roof shooting if they were even halfway trying. Those facts as usual do not fit the narrative so are discarded.
As usual, the leftist modus operandi is to deflect and distract from the real problem, which is diversity itself. Under diversity, African Americans always feel like second-class citizens or a conquered people. Under diversity, white people always feel guilty. And, as Kakistocracy blog points out, diversity has far-reaching negative effects deep in our social order:
Contrary to popular narrative, diversity hasn’t put whites at the throats of oppressed “minorities.” It has put them at the throat of each other.
With Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam showed us how American social fabric has collapsed from within as people trust each other less. His work, and studies by others, show us how diversity increases distrust not just between indigenous whites and ethnics in the West, but within the native group as people come to distrust all other people. Like class warfare, diversity leaves a lasting instability through internal division, resulting in none wanting to trust others. That in turn makes them unwilling to interact except through superficial means like talking about sports, shopping and politics as a form of sports.
As I mentioned in a comment on the post above, the effects of diversity are likely to be far removed from the point of impact. Like paranoia, the diversity virus spreads through society in the form of distrust, and it most commonly targets whites because it is illicit to target anyone else. People find themselves caught up in a society that is spiraling downward and yet are unsure where to cast blame, so they consume themselves in impotent frustrated rage and despair at the utter futility of the dystopian existence.
How many of our past panics were brought on by distrust? The Red Scare, the Satanic Ritual Abuse panic, vaccine phobia, fear of a gluten planet, the terror of pedophiles, even fear of “racists” hiding behind every doorway and perhaps our paranoia about terrorism. Even the increasing political Balkanization of our public might originate in a complete inability to trust each other. Our society grows more litigious, more defensive and more defiantly angry every year, and yet a cause cannot be found. Each side has someone to blame, but these appear to be scapegoats or intermediates, not the actual cause. This cause could well be diversity, since it spreads this kind of alienation like an infectious disease or cancer pervading the cells of an otherwise healthy host.
This reflects the origins of liberalism. When liberals took power during the French Revolution, their first order of business was murder. First they murdered the aristocrats, even the ones acknowledged as “good,” and then they began hunting for any who were royalists or those who aided, believed in, or supported the aristocracy. A simple accusation would result in a family being hauled out of bed in the night and executed publicly after a short pantomime of a trial. The killing never stopped and, when the Revolutionaries ran out of external enemies and people whose stuff they wanted to take, they turned on themselves and began killing liberals for not being obedient enough to the Revolutionary ideology. On a slower scale, the same thing happened in Bolshevik Russia, which conducts purges and pogroms to keep the population in line.
An observer chuckling over the follies of history might notice how ideologies of victimhood/retaliation such as liberalism are prone to such things because these ideologies are inherently oriented toward scapegoating. The Revolutionaries in France wanted someone to blame for the problems of excess population, and so they turned on their leaders, but then achieved worse leadership and an unstable murderous time. This early dystopia was then mirrored in Soviet Russia, where people essentially starved in terror of the KGB, and now exists in the USA where the accusation of “racism”TM results in immediate loss of job, home, savings, friends, spouses and children. We have replicated the Terror in the modern time but because of our intense pretense we no longer bloody our hands, but destroy people all the same and smear their names with a lustful hatred for the destruction of any who are bright enough to see that our civilization is circling the drain.
Think about your ideal conservatives. They would be like wise elders. They would be stable. But they would be positive, always seeing the best in life and determined to bring it out.
Now look at today’s “conservatives.”
In the public sphere, we have a group of liberals who believe in balanced budgets, capitalism and strong defense. That’s a better direction than the liberals will take us, but one that leads back to the same state as liberal government creates.
In the underground, we have alienated angry people who cannot even admit their philosophy, if they developed it to its logical extent, is conservative. Nationalism for them is a goal in itself, and so they make it fanatical and discard everything needed to support it, to make it meaningful and give it context.
The point of being conservative is to conserve. The past offers us wisdom; it offers us a model of civilization that actually, you know, works. It’s worth preserving civilization because life is a gift, and making life more functional enhances that gift.
What we are fighting for is literally a choice between a heaven and hell on earth. Conservatives believe in innocence, purity, loyalty, honor and a sense of all life being sacred. Liberals are so blinded by their quest to make everyone equal that they deny the presence of reality itself. Denial like that creates deathbound societies which cannibalize all good things to feed their need for every increasing numbers of warm bodies.
Since the French Revolution, the West has torn itself apart with ideological quests for a workable form of liberalism. All have failed. Currently, the debt bomb that Western governments have created by buying votes with entitlement programs is poised to explode. The atmosphere in the city is grim; people are nervous, forget things, can’t sleep, and charge forward with manic energy but thoughtless acts. They are insectoid now, almost pure reaction to stimulus, the mind canceled behind the wild eyes.
Conservatives need to step up and make themselves an option. This is not formed through new movements, but through concentrating all of our different movements into one solid offering that is unafraid to offer actual alternatives to liberalism. That is, unlike today’s conservatives, it cannot be liberal. Most people are afraid of social censure and so they will not do this. But the future belongs to those who can.
Let’s face it: the record of government has not been so good of late, and by “lately” I mean the last few centuries.
Before government, we had a social order. A complex system of aristocrats ruled, and policed themselves; under them were hereditary roles and a caste system which ensured that everyone had a place. Social codes and attitudes kept people in line without having to arrest them or censor them.
This system succeeded. So well, in fact, that it helped its populations explode and deplete its food supply. This led to revolutions, which did away with the concept of hierarchy and replaced it with mob rule. Since that rapidly turns into foolishness, modern bureaucratic-managerial government was invented.
However, therein was the problem: it was invented. It was not a time-tested eternal solution, but a whiteboard design that did not fail catastrophically, so they kept it. Except that it did fail, and not like clockwork either (except in Italy) but at random, smashing social order, obliterating friendships and families, and launching endless wars.
Part of the problem is that government is a jobs program for those at the very top. They serve in office for a half-decade and then rush off to new opportunities, knowing that it will be decades or centuries before the consequences of their actions are fully visible and no one will remember by then.
Another part is that government is not actually “of” the society it manages. It is other; it is contracted to manage people. Thus it does what is necessary, but for its own convenience and power. Thus it mulches up complex social orders and replaces them with triplicate forms and legal procedure.
Yet another part is the most fundamental: government is mob rule. All those people in suits with the power quake at the thought of what voters might do. In theory, this makes the voters powerful. In reality, it means that nothing gets offered up to the voters but the most over-simplified issues, and these never represent reality.
The American government has shut down and it should stay that way. For the past fifty years, this government has been writing checks it can’t hope to cash, burying itself in mounds of debt, and creating social chaos by spitting out program after program without a plan at all.
In essence, politicians figured out how to keep the voters happy: buy them off. If you can’t give them freebies, give them big emotional symbols like civil rights, patriotic wars, “jerbs,” saving babies and warm fuzzy feelings about everyone being equal in potential. The bill doesn’t come due until long after the culprits have fled.
If we kept the military, and slashed the rest of government, we would miss some functions. However, that’s not to say that (a) other methods could produce those same results and (b) those methods might actually be better. For the first time in two centuries, we might be exploring new ground.
For example, I like the idea of wise elders for life that aristocracy gives. And the libertarian ideal of local communities contracting with service providers to get most things done. Would there be problems? Most certainly. Would they be bigger than what we have now? I don’t know, but it doesn’t matter.
It doesn’t matter? No, it doesn’t. The simple reason is that looking at individual problems is government’s way, and it hasn’t worked. Instead, we need to look at the whole situation. Is it a neurotic, fearful and cowlike society, or a relaxed, ambitious, healthy place where people look forward to challenges?
Our civilization is dying and government has been only too happy to hasten the decline because instability creates dependents and morons are easier to corral than geniuses. As our government dramatizes its crocodile tears failure yet again, let’s consider a permanent solution: shut it down and keep it shut so we invent something better.
Since we’re doing topics about race, in anticipation of another presidential election where race is the crypto-topic on everyone’s mind, how about a quick analysis of demographic collision?
America — with Europe slightly trailing it, not by so far anymore — is heading toward a crucial point: does it become a white nation with a third world minority, or a third world nation with a few white people hanging out?
We have a few choices:
1950s America: white people do their thing, African-Americans do their separately. Problem: if you’re waging Civil Wars in which you claim to have the moral high ground, and World Wars to liberate Europe from a lack of freedom, you look like an idiot when every black person works a menial job.
White ruling minority third world: Mexico, Brazil, Iraq and India are good examples here: a vast horde of Asiatics are ruled by a statistically tiny minority of Caucasians or more-Caucasian-ish people. Problem: much of the country becomes third world wasteland, and frequent revolutions kill off the ruling castes eventually.
Mixed-race whitish nation: Hello, most of Eastern and parts of Southern Europe, and California: a steady mixture of groups gets absorbed by a majority of mixed-European ancestry, creating a group of Eurasians who may be mostly European in appearance but seem to prefer countries organized more around third world principles: strongmen, corruption, hedonism, and drama.
Nationalism: White people say, “We did wrong but not all wrong, here are reparations in exchange for repatriation,” and get rid of laws forcing them to hire minorities. Minority groups for the most part see a lack of opportunity and so follow the path of least resistance and return to their host countries. Amerinds are forced to make their reservations communities again.
Whatever choice we make, the choice is upon us, and like so many choices when one is delusional out of preference for oblivion, it seems to rush at us out of the fog:
Last week’s release of national totals from the 2010 census showed that the minority share of the population increased over the past decade in every state, reaching levels higher than demographers anticipated almost everywhere, and in the nation as a whole. If President Obama and Democrats can convert that growth into new voters in 2012, they can get a critical boost in many of the most hotly contested states and also seriously compete for some highly diverse states such as Arizona and Georgia that until now have been reliably red.
In November’s midterm elections, Republicans won 60 percent of white voters—the highest share of whites they have attracted in any congressional election in the history of modern polling. Since May, Obama’s job-approval rating among whites has exceeded 40 percent only twice in Gallup’s weekly summary of its nightly polling. Unless the economic recovery accelerates, many analysts in both parties believe that Obama could struggle to match the modest 43 percent of white voters he captured in 2008.
These twin dynamics suggest that in many states the key question for 2012 may be whether Republicans can increase their advantage among whites enough to overcome what’s likely to be a growing share of the overall vote cast by minorities, who still break preponderantly for Democrats. – National Journal
The moment we have dreaded has arrived: race is now no longer an optional thought, but what will define our politics. It’s a power struggle, formally, …finally.
From the Democratic perspective, this has always been the intention. Democrats in 1965 realized that non-whites voted Democratic, and that the then-current generation of whites were so drugged on liberalism they would approve any underdog-bolstering altruistic imperative, so they changed immigration law. The floodgates opened.
White America slumbered on, buoyed by dreams from their churches of universal equality in heaven, and by politics from their televisions and useful idiots neighbors, talking about how diversity was our strength and our egalitarian politics would keep the proles from rioting.
History grinned a little. Historically, even among groups of the same race, diversity has always been a failure. It takes a century or two to see the full effects, but you’ll note that no societies stay “diverse” for longer than that. They collapse and end up as racial melanges with none of their former potential.
Does this mean there are inferior races? No, it means that mixing groups of specialized ability destroys that ability in the resulting groups.
Does it mean that some races are bad citizens? No, it means that diversity itself is the problem. No two or more groups — whether divided by race/ethnicity, religion, even social class or regional differences — can occupy the same space at the same time. This means a power struggle which culminates in successive waves of conflict and compromise until a lowest common denominator is reached.
Does this mean that some races are defective? No, it means that while there are genetic and thus aptitudinal and attitudinal differences between races and ethnic groups, it is the fact that any difference at all exists that dooms diversity, not the particular groups involved.
Does this mean America was not a melting pot before 1965? Yes, America was of “mixed” heritage — if you count Western Europeans as mixed. In the 1840s, the slow introduction of Irish and Southern Europeans caused problems, as did the introduction of Eastern Europeans in the 1890s, but these demographic changes were minor compared to what we have now.
Does this mean white nationalists are correct? No, it means they are insane, because they want to create diversity — white, fascist diversity — which will cause the same problems on a smaller scale, but still create them nonetheless.
We really face a chokepoint soon, where the former narrative of the oppressive majority against the oppressed minority fades rapidly, and we have to actually choose our future. In the past, we were able to assume that we could make changes to America and the country would basically stay the same, just with a little diversity added — think Cherry Coke or Reeses Peanut Butter Cups — for flavor.
Now we realize that we’re talking about replacing the population, which actually makes America a different country. A country is not its laws or economics; it is its people. When we replace the majority English-German American stock with new people, the country will start to resemble the homelands that shaped them genetically.
Nationally, the overall share of the non-Hispanic white population dropped from 69.1 percent in 2000 to 63.7 in 2010, a greater decline than most analysts anticipated. In a mirror image, the minority population grew from 30.9 percent in 2000 to 36.3 percent in 2010.
46.5 percent of people under 18 were minority, a dramatic jump from 39.1 percent in 2000. As recently as last summer, demographers projected that minorities would make up a majority of the under-18 population sometime after 2020. At the current rate of growth, however, nonwhites will comprise a majority of children in the United States by 2015.
Strikingly, as Frey notes, the census found that the number of whites under 18 declined by more than 4 million over the past decade, even as the number of minority young people increased by more than 6 million.
This tells more of the story than the vague news that CNN likes to report, which is that by 2040 whites will no longer be a majority. That doesn’t sound bad, does it? We’re all equal then. But the fact is that some group will be on top, and that group will make the country like their country of origin.
So do we want Western Europe or… Mexico? Nigeria? Brazil? Thailand? Zimbabwe?
Americans will have to choose, after years of assuming that immigration was like having a new family in the neighborhood — and no other consequences. “Sure, the Witherspoons are black, but it’s just one house in a neighborhood of 400.”
Yet as the numbers show, the Witherspoons aren’t just adding to the mix — they’re displacing the native Americans of mostly English/German stock, and replacing them with Mexican indios (Asians), Southern Asians, Indians (Caucasoid Asians) and Africans.
What’s that mix going to look like? A lot like the indios of Mexico, lower castes of India, poorer people in Iraq and Iran, favelas of Brazil, etc.
That’s not the original idea of diversity, which was a few non-white faces to “spice up” the horde of whites.
This is why history grins at us. We are the latest in a series of people to assume that we can make demographic changes to our nations without it vastly affecting us.
The French in 1789 decided to execute their aristocrats, and promptly sent their country into a tailspin from which it has never recovered because of a lack of competent administrators. The Russians did the same thing in 1917. Western Europe itself made the mistake when it allowed many of its best people to emigrate to the USA, and promptly had a population crash from which it recovered just in time to hit two disastrous world wars.
The young, increasingly minority population is likely to view public investment in schools, health care, and infrastructure as critical to its economic prospects, while the predominantly white senior population might be increasingly reluctant to fund such services through taxes. The trends could portend a lasting structural conflict. (See “The Gray and the Brown: The Generational Mismatch,” NJ, 7/24/10, p.14.)
As noted in the past, the Tea Parties in the USA and Europe, while not racist per se, represented an ethnic conflict: whites who want an upward-moving society, and “new citizens” who want an entitlement state.
If the pattern repeats not just from Soviet Russia and Revolutionary France, but the post-colonial revolts across the world, the white minority will accede to these demands. The entitlement state will breed many more than the economy can sustain; bankruptcy will loom; The People will blame the rich, and murder or exile the white minority; a competent administrator drain will then doom the country, which will enter its final spiral to true third-world status. Zimbabwe, South Africa, Cuba, Bolivia, Rwanda, Egypt… the list goes on.
The first step toward that is the step America is about to take, which is ending years of pleasant denial about race to face the power struggle, and realize that in order to “be diverse” we must destroy the majority.
And we’re just about there.
Anti-white prejudice – considered almost non-existent in the ’50s – is now perceived among white Americans as a bigger problem than anti-black bias, according to a new study.
The report found that both races agreed anti-black prejudice declined steadily over the last 60 years, but white Americans felt that bias against them was on the upswing.
Asked to rank prejudice against blacks on a 1-10 scale in the 2000s, white respondents put the number at 3.6 – compared with 9.1 in the ’50s.
But white respondents also put the number for anti-white bias at 4.7 – way up from the 1.8 of the ’50s.
The numbers suggest “that whites also linked the decrease in anti-black sentiment over the last half century to an increase in anti-white bias over the same time period,” the authors wrote. – NYDN
Although delusional people like to gush on about sharing the wealth, the truth is that wealth is finite. Our planet is finite. Its resources are finite. Time is finite. Even energy and matter are finite; what we take from somewhere else has consequences.
You cannot “add diversity” to a country without destroying what is there. This is why history grins: this is the lesson we don’t seem to learn, as a species. We don’t want to think that our actions have consequences beyond the immediate result we wanted to achieve.
As the cycle of history shows, all you do is kill the goose that laid the golden egg. You take a country that is succeeding because its people are motivated and competent, then introduce cultural chaos, and what is left is a new population that cannot replicate the organization and aptitude, thus the competence, thus the wealth, of the old.
Diversity fails not only the majority, but everyone else — minorities — who get dragged into its vortex.
As another commentator writes:
Black Run America is based on the idea that African-Americans cannot get ahead in our society because of White racism. Gunnar Myrdal told White people they suffered from “An American Dilemma” and the Supreme Court responded with the Brown decision that ordered integration in public schools.
Now that White people know that Whites are not racist anymore and that racism isn’t holding back African-Americans, the visible failure of African-Americans to make progress has become a serious problem in need of explanation.
(1) If White racism isn’t holding back African-Americans, there has to be some other explanation for racial inequality.
(2) If the experts in race relations have gotten it wrong for decades, then White America has been told a huge lie and authority figures cannot be trusted.
(3) If blacks can’t get ahead in spite of visible explicit discrimination against Whites and non-existent discrimination against blacks, what is holding them back?
(4) If robbing White people to create social programs like Obamacare doesn’t solve racial inequality, how can social spending on the welfare state be justified and seen as anything more than institutionalized racial extortion of White taxpayers?
(5) If “racism” doesn’t explain inequality in our society, then why should Whites feel guilty about black failure?
(6) If Whites have no good reason to feel guilty anymore, what is stopping White racial consciousness from coming roaring back and looking for vengeance? – OD
I’ll answer his final question (what is stopping White racial consciousness from coming roaring back and looking for vengeance?) first:
Fear of conflict. Don’t take risks you do not immediately need to take.
Social fear. Who wants to buck a trend and defy altruism? The basement dwellers only.
Oblivion. It’s always easier than truth. Just more destructive.
Kindness. No one wants to wage war or enact vengeance. They prefer practical plans.
The last one to me is the kicker. We cannot allow the mental disease known as “White Nationalism” to infect our minds and turn us from the practical. What are white people more likely to do, declare war… or look for practical solutions?
I think we can see what they’ll do based on what they’ve done in the past:
Dill (Anethum graveolens ) was used in the Middle Ages in charms against witchcraft. It was known as a medicinal herb to the ancient Greeks and Romans, where soldiers placed burned dill seeds on their wounds to promote healing. Medieval Europe could not grow it fast enough for love potions, casting spells and for protection against witchcraft. Carrying a bag of dried dill over the heart was considered protection against hexes.
The whole plant is aromatic and used to flavor many foods, such as gravlax (a Nordic appetizer made with raw salmon that looks soooo good! I’ll try making it someday and report back.), borscht and other soups, and pickles. Dill is best when used fresh, as it loses its flavor rapidly if dried. – Hermione’s Garden
Our arrogant history professors will look at this and infer a causal relationship that was not there. “They were afraid of witches, so they invented a superstition using dill, so they came to like dill, so now it prevails in their taste preferences. Ta-da!”
More likely is this:
Sven: This dill dip sure is tasty.
Hans: Ja, ja, it’s good!
Witchfinder General: Witches have been spotted in the briar!
Sven: Have some more of this dill dip, Hans.
Witchfinder General: Comrade Citizen Sven, you do not seem disturbed by the presence of witches! Do you consider witches to be a non-threat, and therefore think that maybe that should walk among us?
Sven: I… ah… dill dip…
Hans: (quickly) The elders say that dill keeps witches away. So we’re eating as much as we can.
Witchfinder General: I have never heard of this superstition!
Hans: Yeah, but you’re not from around here. Here it’s known fact.
Sven: All our scientists agree! Dill keeps away witches. This is entirely unrelated to the fact that it’s delicious.
Hans: Here, you’d better have some of this dip… or people are going to think you’re a witch.
Even all four of my readers have stopped after this digression. What the heck could he be rambling about?
I am talking about nothing less than a different way of governing.
In modern government, you observe an effect and make it illegal.
In the more organic world that Hans and Sven inhabit, you simply find the behavior that is its undoing, and make that preferable.
In their case, a world without dill would be very bad indeed… so when some helpful idiot showed up talking about witches, they used witch-hunting to justify dill-using.
In the same way, I think the race problem that America and Europe share will be solved with this kind of positive futurism.
Instead of even thinking about criticizing other races (or Jews) — especially since the choice to become diverse was a white thing for the most part — we should focus our criticism on diversity.
We should recognize that our elites are corrupt, and make fun of them, but not for being successful, because everyone loves success. Criticizing others for having money is a pathway straight to the liberal mentality. Instead, we should make fun of them for being out of touch.
Next, we should learn from the successful brands of the past century. Mercedes-Benz, Christian Dior, Apple Computer, Ralph Lauren, Mont Blanc and Viking ranges. These each preached a simple message: you can be part of a new growing elite of those who know if you buy our product. It’s a luxury product, without the linear factor of simply costing more than others. They sell cool, and intelligence, more than sheer cost value.
We create a new elite based on this ideal. Unlike the hipsters/liberals, this brand does not hate success but embraces it. Unlike the stodgy old right, they embrace success only when it comes with a “whole life,” which implies (in hipster/liberal fashion) a social life and a cultural life that are as important as the cash flow. This is a new elite not only from social power, memetic power, financial power and political power, but also pure cool. They are not what is burnt out and dead from the past, nor are they trying to control you. They’re rising above you, and so you have a binary choice to follow them or be left behind.
This new elite adopts a sensible attitude toward multiculturalism-versus-culture: diversity doesn’t work, so I choose to live near people like me. Not just in race, but ethnicity, and social caste as well as social class (a monetary substitute for caste). Even more, I want them to think like me. None of those burnt-out hippies or stodgy fat businessmen here. Just pure cool. And if I’m white, it looks like my whole neighborhood is. Our schools are better. We pay less in taxes. We’re happier. And we’re unapologetic, because whatever ills occurred from colonialism, slavery and The Holocaust are now bought and paid for.
After demographic collision, politics will have to take off its kid gloves. This is not a battle of ideologies, like the Communism-versus-capitalism follies of the 1980s. It’s not a battle of religions, or class warfare. It’s a clash of civilizations, but even more so, a clash of civilization-types, meaning that those who want a more traditional society for practical reasons will get it and make it cool.
The others will drool.
Our demographic collision looks scary as it comes over the horizon. Knowing that we can’t just keep going to work, buying stuff, amusing ourselves and that everything will turn out OK while we do that… it’s painful to make this transition. It’s like waking up on a luxury cruise liner to find out it has hit an iceberg.
But those who survive will grasp this new reality, and like warriors act; but also, like artists, they will act secondarily by portraying a new and better future without these stodgy old problems (equality is from 1789, class war is from 1917, and racial equality is from 1968).
While “white nation with a third world minority, or a third world nation with a white minority” is the immediate question, the bigger question is how get over the constant class warfare of liberalism which is the origin of our racial crisis. Once we do that, we can build a better society.