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.
The article, which the magazine published this week, documents the week spent up close with Holocaust-denying, racist and Islamophobic Germans. They describe themselves as Israel supporters, who came to see how “the only democracy in the Middle East” deals with “the Muslim problem” that has gripped Germany recently.
…One of the participants tells Maurer he doesn’t believe the “six million” number is correct, and that the real number of Jews murdered by Germany is 500,000. “The rest died and were murdered by others,” he says.
…The group included a 40-year-old supporter of Alternative for Germany, who said he came to Israel to learn “what we can do against the invasion of our homeland.” Group members also called Muslim immigrants “barbarians.” It is no coincidence that they chose Israel for their tour. “They see Israel as an example, because it is in a long conflict with its Muslim neighbors,” says Maurer.
The Holocaust issue aside, these two groups have found common ground in the idea of excluding others so that they may preserve their own societies. Future generations will likely regard The Holocaust as a consequence of frustrated nationalism, and while wrong in method, reflective of a strong desire of Europeans to preserve themselves, just as Jews are preserving themselves by warring against Palestinians and assorted Muslims.
On the other side, those who cannot abandon the idea of the ultimate evolution of liberal democracy — a beige race of mixed-heritage people united by belief in Leftist ideology worldwide — are gathering under the banner of post-nationalism, or the idea of a mixed-race society as morally, politically and economically expedient:
Alongside the rise of nativism has emerged a new nationalism that can scarcely be bothered to deny its roots in racial identities and exclusionary narratives.
Compared to such hard stances, Canada’s almost cheerful commitment to inclusion might at first appear almost naive. It isn’t. There are practical reasons for keeping the doors open. Starting in the 1990s, low fertility and an aging population began slowing Canada’s natural growth rate. Ten years ago, two-thirds of population increase was courtesy of immigration. By 2030, it is projected to be 100%.
The economic benefits are also self-evident, especially if full citizenship is the agreed goal. All that “settlers” – ie, Canadians who are not indigenous to the land – need do is look in the mirror to recognize the generally happy ending of an immigrant saga. Our government repeats it, our statistics confirm it, our own eyes and ears register it: diversity fuels, not undermines, prosperity.
…The prime minister, Justin Trudeau, articulated this when he told the New York Times Magazine that Canada could be the “first postnational state”. He added: “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.”
As nationalists note, this replaces a nation with a giant shopping mall, which is what business thinks it wants and what government desires in order to keep its grip on power. After WWII, Western governments realized that the threat to liberal democracy from nationalism would undermine them, and so they demonized nationalism, instead of recognizing that it was the only bulwark against Leftism.
Leftism displays the inevitable tendency for democracy to go full Leftist and emerge as something similar to the Soviet Union: a society where government replaces culture, religion, heritage and individual differences for the ease of controlling the resulting population. Starting with The Enlightenment™ idea of “equality,” Leftism advances until it can enforce equality by destroying natural variations among people.
The post-nationalists are throwbacks to that postwar era. Business is slowly realizing that replacing workers and consumers of European heritage leads to a lack of loyalty to products and a permanent underclass who purchase little, as the comingdot-com 3.0 crash will demonstrate. Government is finding that its goal of ultimate power will destroy it through constant upheaval over Soviet-style dysfunction, as seen in Venezuela.
However, the dream remains alive because the idea of “equality” is soothing to individuals who fear their own exclusion from society. This means that any who wield the One True Ring of equality become powerful, and people who are not naturally morally good desire power as a means of filling the void in their souls. And so, the conflict of the next age is born.
There are people in Amerika that hate diversity. They simply cannot bear the burden of having people from a different cultural background. They are so steeped in their zenophobic bile that they lash out in sadistic violence and viciously beat those unlike themselves. In Chicago, four of these haters kidnapped a mentally handicapped person and torured him while yelling “F*** Trump! F*** White People!” They even celebrated it on social media the way ISIS does the end zone dance while chucking gay people off a roof in Ninevah.
So who are these whack-job nazis? Where is their entry on the $PLC Hatewatch Blog? They are #BLM and they are tired of ISIS getting all your atrocity attention bandwidth. I hope George Soros is proud of his ROI on this one. Savor what Mr. Soros contributes to Amerika with generous, ongoing support for #BLM!
Well, there’s a problem with even posting this. Amerika should literally not be allowed to say it. “Scientific” American derpsplains why I should feel shamed by even posting such an inconvenient hate truth below.
But another part of me wonders whether research on race and intelligence—given the persistence of racism in the U.S. and elsewhere–should simply be banned. I don’t say this lightly. For the most part, I am a hard-core defender of freedom of speech and science. But research on race and intelligence—no matter what its conclusions are—seems to me to have no redeeming value.
Although they are adults, they’re 18. Kids make stupid decisions — I shouldn’t call them kids; they’re legally adults, but they’re young adults, and they make stupid decisions,” Duffin said. “That certainly will be part of whether or not … we seek a hate crime, to determine whether or not this is sincere or just stupid ranting and raving.”
Can you imagine the destruction that would have ensued had the police in South Carolina had asked everyone to empathize with a sensitive and confused Dylan Storm Roof. If Van Jones thought Election 2016 was a (((“Whitelash”))) I’d recommend he stay in his fallout shelter for about the next week. Diversity Fetishism has got to be dismantled. We can’t lie athwart reality.
Diversity fetishism can either be dismantled peaceably, via the renewal of Freedom of Association Rights and the repeal of disparate impact statutes or this beating will be the norm in Amerika ten to twenty years from now. It will be normalized. It will be excused.
The Lunatic Left is trying to claim there is a new gender called Clover that basically just serves as an excuse to be a pedophile. Their excuse brigade will soon be out in force to protect #BLM.
If there is any good reason left in the bowels of mercy not to completely destroy any status quo that would attempt to excuse what these people did to the mentally handicapped; then peaceable dissociation from diversity, at pace at which each individual would prefer, is the only acceptable path. Let cooler heads prevail. Let us all just swallow our tongues. Let us all just walk away. It will work if the very stones don’t cry out.
If the races and factions don’t go in peace; there will be some that go in pieces. I don’t see this being tolerated much longer. Even if President Obama knocks off the chronic raceturbation and President Elect Trump asks us nicely to stay cucked just one more time. It will explode like a Diet Coke bottle dosed with a handful of Mentos.
Somewhere in Amerika, our very own Anders Breivik is muttering insanities while he loads the magazines and doesn’t even consider switching to decaf. The diversity fetishism of the Cathedral will end. Pray it doesn’t end in more people like Dylan Roof or Brittany Herring. Nobody of either skin pigmentation involved deserves to suffer cruelty at the hands of such an individual. But that tragic cruelty is exactly what a continued ignorant belief in diversity fetishism will bring to our nation. We have sown this too long and are reaping the predictable whirlwind.
Another day, and the news is dominated again by headlines of race, as it has been in America since its founding — when diversity meant Indians, African slaves and Irish day laborers — and in Europe since the continent shifted Leftward in the 1960s.
We have become accustomed to the ongoing failure of diversity around us in the West, and in fact, in giving our lives for our. We are surrounded by Civil War dead and those who died in two World Wars to try to force ethno-pluralistic liberal democracy on a highly nationalistic Europe. Well, the bad guys won in both cases — not that any side is ever angelic and pure — and now we have liberal democracy and diversity.
To someone who is not a minority, the following is infuriating; it is an article in which a Leftist expresses a binary opinion that is exactly the opposite of what a non-Leftist would perceive:
See Jordon, Tesfaye, Brittany and Tanishia. See the crime they committed. See how swift justice is dispensed when the perpetrators, rather than the victims, are black.
…One, while it’s clearly reprehensible, the unrelenting media focus on this random incident, is, to my mind, unbalanced and unwarranted.
…But I wonder: How many fellow citizens who can’t stop their social media commentary about this sick incident have been just as outraged and outspoken about the regular harassment and abuse that black teenagers and other black fellow citizens endure daily at the hands of white cops?
Equality always inverts reality, because if non-equality is the natural state of things, then it must be “corrected” by lifting up the lower and — because life is in some ways a zero-sum game after all — necessarily pushing down the higher. This is the crab bucket of modernity in which people attempt to rise by pulling others down, and it is an inevitable consequence of “equality.”
However, this inversion strikes us as galling: Jordon, Tesfaye, Brittany and Tanishia tortured a white guy and, until there was internet outrage, the media was going to sweep this one to page 69 of local newspapers and ignore it. But, after eight years of the Obama regime making diversity worse by trying to make it better, people realize there is no solution, so they spoke out.
And to any sane person, it is clear that diversity is over. It has failed, like many other aspects of our 1945-2016 political system.
Sharpton said civil rights activists must remind senators that the nation is “watching” how they vote on Sessions’ nomination. He pondered how the government could justify having Sessions follow Eric Holder, the nation’s first African-American attorney general, and Loretta Lynch, the nation’s first African-American female attorney general.
…Murguia cited Sessions’ opposition to moving 2,000 minors, who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally, into the state of Alabama.
“Remember these are frightened children who fled hellish conditions and trekked across several countries by themselves in hopes of finding refuge in this country, yet Senator Sessions could not muster any sense of compassion or understanding of their plight,” Murguia said.
This is also infuriating. The “frightened children” have like cowards abandoned their homeland to its problems, and sought to externalize their misfortune by coming here for the free benefits, welfare, healthcare and other signs of a dying franchise turned into a cash cow. But, these two people are merely advocating for their ethnic groups, acting in self-interest.
The majority wants to have its own society, with its own standards, control of its future, and an ability to regulate itself by something more important than money, namely culture and its seed, genetics/biology. The minority group wants the same for itself, but finds itself in a multicultural or “diverse” society where it cannot have that.
What if all the sides had legitimate points of view?
The problem we face here is not that certain groups — whites, blacks or other — are bad, but that diversity is bad. In fact, like most bad things, it is error: a stupid idea, based in our arrogant pretense, designed to make us feel like we control the world with our intent. It is a stupid idea more than anything else since its fatal flaw is immediately visible.
Every group has its own self-interest. It works for itself. Part of this self-interest consists of asserting its own language, customs, values, calendar, philosophy, ethnic/racial biology/genetics, identity, standards, image and self-determination. It needs control over itself and its future, and a reason to feel pride in itself, which only comes from being in a civilization of its own creation and in control.
For this reason, we can see that contrary to the media narrative, no one is wrong here. Sharpton has a point; Sessions has a point. The kids who tortured the mentally disabled guy have a point. That point is: diversity works for no one, which means it is a terrible policy, advanced only for our ideological symbolism and destructive to normal lives. Ergo, end diversity, like we would any other policy that fails this hard.
We know that diversity is over, meaning that the policy of diversity has failed. This does not reflect badly on any race or races, but on the idea of diversity — different ethnic, cultural and religious groups co-existing in the same civilization — as a realistic principle. We have seen what it brings, and done our best to salvage it, but it still self-destructed, so now we know it is just an unstable policy.
The question then becomes how to end diversity, and ideally how to do so in a realistic but not unkind manner. We have seen enough of the horrors of Leftist government, with its mass executions and secret police, to shy away from anything like those solutions. We also on the Right know we are on notice regarding the crimes of the Nazis: repeat anything like those, and your popular support will evaporate.
Let us visualize how our civilization could get rid of diversity entirely in a few easy steps.
Ditch the benefits. People come here for the same reason trick-or-treaters arrive at your house on Halloween: you are handing out free stuff. We give out free healthcare, welfare, education, food, cell phones, retirement benefits, legal advice, jobs, entertainment, clothing and housing to people who arrive in the West. Even better, the less they have, the more they get. To stop the flood from arriving, we need to lose all these social programs and make people pay for this stuff instead, which will be reducing externalized/socialized cost in turn make it cheaper.
End the one-sided protections. Under our anti-discrimination laws including Affirmative Action, if someone from a minority group shows up to a job interview and does not get the job, they can sue and will likely win. For that reason, they will get hired every time instead of a white person. The same applies to renting, purchasing housing and getting service in public. If those protections were removed, and people were able to freely associate in business and private life, another attractor goes away.
Shift culture toward identity. Without laying a hand on anyone, we can make our culture clearly ours again in the images we show in public and the behaviors we expect. If people go around saying “Merry Christmas!” and advertisements show smiling white families, the attractiveness of this society to the Other will diminish. If all they see is our culture and we make it clear that our direction involves our identity and no other, the place becomes outright hostile.
Offer reparations with repatriation. A good businessperson knows that when a deal works out badly, the right way to end is to do so decisively: offer a fair amount of money to the other party in exchange for their time and trouble, and from that, extract a contractual obligation to end the deal. That is: we tell minorities that diversity did not work after all, and so we are ending it, and they can receive a reasonable amount of money but only if they surrender their passports, their citizenship is revoked, and they are shipped to their continent of origin (Asias to Asia, Africans to Africa, Australids to India).
Build up ethnic identity for all. For us to have strong nationalism, every other group will need strong nationalism as well, so that they can take pride in their identity and believe a positive future is coming their way. With this change in outlook, they will want to be with their people in lands they exclusively control, as opposed to being part of the multicultural morass. Strong ethnic identity allows them to see the empowerment in ethnic separation.
Emphasize self-interest. When we participate in the universalist delusion, which is a kind of pacifism that pretends that all humans are looking out for each other, diversity seems to make sense as a way of eliminating ethnic strife. When we advance the contrary and factual notion that every person, group and nation acts in its own self-interest, it becomes clear that those self-interests will clash with immigration and diversity.
Let ethnic communities police themselves. Currently, white police and firefighters sacrifice themselves to protect communities of other ethnic groups. If we end this, those communities will need to have their own governments, and will take on the burden of doing so, which will make them see the true cost of living here as opposed to back home where culture not government enforces standards. If shouldering the costs of their own governments, courts, fire, police, medical and social services, these groups will find living in the West far less hospitable than being back home.
Right now Western people are addicted to our welfare states. The reason for this is that we have become addicted to self-pity and the corresponding low self-esteem it creates, which makes us inclined to view work and society as obligations which compete with us for our time. This gives us a sense of entitlement as expressed in “muh freedom” and “muh social security.”
In our view, we suffer for our society — this part is true — and therefore we deserve benefits, which is psychologically appealing because others are paying those benefits to us. This is like hazing; we did our time, now they do their time, and we get to enjoy the fruits of their labor. This applies to anything free the government hands out, even while we are working, because we visualize this process as similar to the process in our jobs where employees take turns doing particularly disliked tasks.
However, these benefits are not just attractors to others, but have ruined us. Our low self-esteem comes from the fact of our dependence on government and society — we can never be free from it. Our self-pity comes from miserable nature of interacting with a society that is basically a bureaucracy where being at work is the highest ideal, and the ideological obligation to all people. Remember, our Leftist government is like all Leftist entities a “worker’s party,” which means that the only people with rights and respect are workers.
These conditions have created a sick feedback loop. To be good Communists patriots, we work all the time. That makes us miserable, so we take revenge on others by soaking up whatever benefits, luxuries, indulgences and vices we can. That further sabotages us because for all of our angsty behavior, we are still enslaved to the system, and the anger at that knowledge drives us to further parasitism.
Escaping this modern lifestyle provides the basis for ending diversity: when we stop working all the time and demanding “free” benefits to match, those who are free riders on our wealth will then begin to disappear, which makes it easy to implement the rest of this list and gradually shrink our excess population without sabotaging our economy. Diversity is over; all that remains is for us to formalize this.
The fallacy of democracy is assuming that the average person has the aptitude, concern or self-discipline to make leadership decisions. We know that only about 1% of the population at most make good surgeons, SEALs or fine artists; why do we assume that leadership is any different?
People like democracy because in theory it neutralizes government. Trying to get a group of humans to agree to anything more complex than putting water on a burning house is nearly impossible, so democracy creates impotent governments. This seems wise until one realizes that laws and decisions are cumulative through precedent, so that any group that keeps pushing in one direction will turn that impotent government into a raging tyrant.
As it has, in the modern West.
Groups of that nature make themselves powerful through pretexts, or preemptive excuses for action. The earliest of these is inclusion; if anyone wants to exclude anyone else, they must be bad, the thinking goes, because if we include everyone, there will be no one hurting and therefore no cause for conflict. Naturally this is insane because it assumes that conflict and all actors are realistic thinkers, but that is an outpouring of The Enlightenment™ which assumes that all people have “reason” equally, when in fact the degree of realistic thinking they can manage is what creates social hierarchy, with proles at one end and kings at the other.
The latest pretext is racial inclusion, which is a variation on regular inclusion, which was mostly used to try to make proles equal to kings in an early form of class warfare, a pattern that racial inclusion resembles. The argument is that anyone who refuses to accept anyone anywhere anytime (A3) is a bigot, racist, and just like Hitler and/or the monarchs, who are the real target of the Leftist since they know that when their system fails, it will be replaced by the same aristocracy it interrupted before it failed.
CNN’s Don Lemon said he doesn’t think the black thugs who kidnapped, beat and cut a disabled white person were evil. He chalked it up to ‘bad home training’.
In the grand tradition of Typical Leftist Behavior (#TLB) Lemon begins with a partial truth. This makes us assume that this is the root of the matter, and rationalize all other data to fit that model. This causes our big brains to filter out all other considerations and to re-interpret all future facts in this context.
Taken in isolation, his statement is correct: these kids — legally adults — clearly grew up without effective parental or social guidance. However, that is only part of the story. In addition, they are motivated by racial hatred and formulated the intent to find, beat and humiliate a white person to make incarnate that emotional resentment.
They differ little from Dylann Roof, who similar was motivated by racial hatred and formulated the intent to harm black people, so he went to a black church and shot nine people. Ironically, he harmed one of the more productive and sane segments of the African-American community, people who could otherwise have been his allies.
If his crime was a hate crime — a political distinction applied to punish white people for acting out racial resentment against minorities — then theirs was, too, even if that goes against the intent of hate crimes law as originally written.
How could the law be so one-sided? The answer is in this: white people are presumed guilty because we assume that white people have all the power, wealth and influence in society. For this reason, they are seen as stewards of minorities and responsible for the success or failure of minorities.
All anti-discrimination law — including affirmative action, civil rights, HUD, disparate impact and the like — is based in this idea: whites are the group in power, so if something goes wrong for minorities, whites are to blame. Whites are presumed guilty in all cases. This is based on the narrative enacted by Leftists from the Civil War through WWII, and echoed endlessly in Hollywood, of cruel white Southerners and angelic black victims.
Naturally, anyone who has been around humans for any decent length of time does not believe in angelic victims of any race or ethnic group. None of us are angels, not even Gandhi (who disliked Africans) or Mother Theresa. In reality, conflicts are never between an evil person and an angel, but between two groups of flawed people each representing their interests, as exacerbated by their degree of personal lack of emotional control.
For example, Dylann Roof exhibited a lack of emotional control. He was mad at the policies of his country that emphasized black interests over white, so he went to a church and shot nine praying black people. In the same way, these four who tortured the mentally disabled white person were acting out an emotional agenda, but it reflected an underlying political or social position.
Now we must approach the situation with compassion.
What does an African-descended person see in America? A state created by white people, for white people, through the use of African labor in addition to mostly white labor. The rules, laws, mores, and values of this society reflect Western European civilization. This puts African-Americans at a disadvantage, but even more, deprives them of pride in themselves as creators of their civilization and those who are directing it.
For an African-American, to be in the West is to forever be a visitor. No matter how many rules we make to defend them against whites, benefits we pay to them, or black presidents we elect, they will never feel at home here. They will forever be a tacked-on group which exists at the whim of society at large.
This gets even worse when America shifts to a mixed-ethnic identity. In this format, what rules over us all is a lowest common denominator designed to include all groups, but as a result, necessarily focused on none. This deprives African-Americans of what they need, which is a society created for them and directed by them toward their own values, standards and philosophies. They will never be “at home” among us, nor will any ethnic group in a diverse society.
And so we see two competing models for our interpretation of the ongoing and intensifying ethnic unrest in America: in the first, we choose the “presumed guilty” attitude toward whites; in the more realistic “clash of civilizations” model, we see that each ethnic group acts in self-interest, and its primary concern is with self-determination, or having the knowledge that it created its civilization and guides its own future. The presumed guilty model, like diversity itself, has failed.
Several African-Americans abducted, beat and tortured a mentally disabled white fellow and posted the video to social media. Among other things, statements against white people and Donald J. Trump were made, and the victim was humiliated with these statements.
Video below — warning, this contains cruelty and violence:
This is an obvious hate crime. If white people did the same thing to black people, with appropriate substitutions for racial slurs and choice of candidate, this would be non-stop national news coverage with much agitation for charges to be filed in as extreme a manner as possible.
The current incident follows a similar incident from the near past. Given that victims do not always report crimes, it would be foolhardy to assume these are isolated.
While emotions run high, and all sorts of lunacies are being suggested, a cold and sober view suggests that this event is a symptom of diversity failing: each group in our multiculture is competing to be on top, and when one group gets ahead of the others, retribution follows.
In that sense, this incident is as much a product of the failure of diversity as lynchings in the past. When groups are thrown into the same society, friction results, in addition to total social alienation caused by the lack of a standard of behavior specific to a group, and in the sinking sensation of unease that comes with discovering that society is not geared toward the well-being of the group to which an individual belongs.
When diversity failures appear, the following can be said loudly and clearly:
Diversity Is Over
For the last 70 years, we have attempted to make diversity work in its most liberal form, after it was nothing but a series of problems in its more restricted variety since the founding of the nation. Every attempt we have made has failed and left the problem worse than it was before.
Ann Coulter correctly identified the problem as diversity itself instead of a specific race or races:
It cannot be said often enough that the chief of staff of the United States Army, Gen. George Casey, responded to a massacre of 13 Americans in which the suspect is a Muslim by saying: “Our diversity … is a strength.”
As long as the general has brought it up: Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.
Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare — I mean the “beautiful mosaic” — in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.
“Diversity” is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: “Cancer is a strength!” “Pollution is our greatest asset!”
At Amerika, we have noted this argument for some time, following up on the same argument being made on USENET in the 1990s: the problem is not blacks or whites or any other group, but diversity itself, which puts groups in conflict with one another.
Many of these texts predate Neoreaction, the Alt Right and the new Traditionalist revival of the turn of the millennium. They represent the original position taken by this author in the late 1980s through early 1990s that our problem was something like what Samuel Huntington would later write about as “the clash of civilizations,” namely that each group — ethnic, cultural, religious, class/caste, sexual — needs its own areas and control of its own future so that it can establish its own standards and direction.
While the nation boils with discontent over this latest event, which will lead to positive results for no one, it makes sense instead to go back to our most basic understand and to see that regardless of who is at fault this time, we are all at fault if we continue trying to make the defective and paradoxical policy of diversity (also called internationalism and multiculturalism) function at all.
Keeping pressure high on the cultural change wave that is carrying us into 2017 through the defeat of Leftist illusions, activists on social media are using the hashtag #StopWhiteGenocide to raise this issue against the general obliviousness and brainwashed complacency of the public. You can participate by going on social media and posting to the hashtag channel using the links below:
The best content features stories about how white people are the targets of Leftist governments, insane corporations and the angry mob of Leftist cultist zombies who want to destroy us. They want to kill us off through soft genocide. Visit our newsfeed for some ideas and help wreak havoc on the big media with a blitz of our own!
Amerikan Leftists have no legitimate right to bitch about ¡RACISM!
They voted to elect and then re-elect a president who described lower income white people as bitterly clinging to their Bibles and their guns. It was sweet of the first president elected for his race alone not to over-generalize. They then proceeded to unsuccessfully attempt to install Hillary “Basket of Deplorables” Clinton.
Remember Van “Whitelash” Jones? Guess who gave him his big break in politics? So why do the clearly hypocritical and disingenuous scam artists still accuse people they don’t see in the mirror every morning of being ¡RACISM!?
That’s easy. Like terrorism, it works like hell. It inspires Leftists to violence and hatred toward the system. That hatred then offers them the chance to disrupt. ¡RACISM! is a subversive tactic.
What excuse do we hear when Twitter censors the Alt-Right? !RACISM! What happens when a black person dissents from liberal gospel. As TJ Sotomayor puts it. “They call us all kinds of n*gg*s.” Malcolm X described this phenomenon in his own life and times.
There are many whites who are trying to solve the problem. But you never see them going under the label of liberals. That white person that you see calling himself a liberal is the most dangerous thing in the entire western hemisphere. He’s the most deceitful. He’s like a fox. And a fox is always more dangerous in the forest than the wolf. You can see the wolf coming, you know what he’s up to. But the fox will fool you. He comes at you with his mouth shaped in such a way that even though you see his teeth you think he’s smiling and take him for a friend.
Liberals will never lay off from flogging ¡RACISM! They find it too effective of a marketing strategy. They thrive on the fact that diversity plus proximity incites racial warfare. From FDR to LBJ to BHO the divisive strategy laid out in the writings of Saul Alinsky dictates how past racial grievances are used to sell divisiveness and hatred in current electorates. So what do?
Solutions on the Alt-Right vary. Some are more fundamentally radical than what I put on offer. All, however, seek to give people of all races, cultures and religions the right to set up their own enclave of safety. A place that is uniquely theirs and that gives them a unique sense of cultural honor and pride.
What I would personally like President Trump to pursue on this issue is a concerted effort to strip the Diversity Police of their teeth and to encourage Freedon of Association throughout the private sector of the US economy. That would include who businesses hire, who businesses serve and who can buy and sell real estate at what price and in what location.
This would require a concerted effort to change the ideological complexion of who makes decisions in Federal Court. It would require a difficult and prolonged effort to amend Civil Rights Laws to concentrate specifically against de jure discrimination rather than the specious and overbroad concept of disparate impact. Civil Rights need to be actual rights not the premise by which we block the natural freedom of people that we object to or blame for historical injustices our relatives may have suffered.
An America that allowed people to swirl when they wanted to swirl and to segregate when they wanted to segregate would ultimately become a more segregated America, if not an America composed of different and isolated ethnic nations.
It would also be a peaceful America and a more prosperous and safer America. For people of all races. It would also be a much less Liberal America so Progressives will fight to prevent Freedom of Association from ever being a truly beneficent right enjoyed by the majority of Americans.
Fresh on the heels of several victories, the Alt Right appears to be bogging down slightly in the practical decisions that follow any transfer of power. This gives the Alt Right a chance to solidify its focus on diversity.
Diversity, or the notion that multiple identifiably different groups can co-exist in the same society, has died, but this must be illustrated to our population. The simplest example before us now can be seen in the riots that are tearing up our cities.
As Jonathan Haidt notes, conservatives and liberals care about different things. This translates to each group wanting a different society. If placed in the same civilization, the two groups will constantly be at war, struggling for the power to implement their vision which is incompatible with that of the other.
This creates a situation where neither group gets what it wants, which causes them to be more acrimonious. After nearly seventy years of a Leftward slide, the remaining sane population issued a giant middle finger to the other side with the election of Donald J. Trump, itself following Brexit in the UK.
We cannot repair this rift. The two sides want different civilizations to live in. Any presence of the other side will ruin this vision because that side will begin agitating toward its own ideal. The notion of compromise has died, replaced by the idea that each population deserves its own space.
That idea can be extended to cultures as well. Cultures, which are encoded in the genetics of those who follow them, consist of a series of values, purposes and standards. Only one of these can triumph in a society. When multiple cultures exist, constant conflict results.
Similarly, religions have value systems that are incompatible with one another. Forcing compatibility results in a reduction of standards to the lowest common denominator, which reduces any utility those standards have in directing society.
Everyone is miserable under this minimalistic set of rules and feels deprived of knowing that they live in a culture created by their group, for itself, with the ability to shape its own future. This notion, or identity, is what people crave on an existential level, even if they cannot articulate it.
Samuel P. Huntington wrote about the “clash of civilizations” as the replacement for liberal democracy as the basis of world order. History has proven him right only two decades later as across the globe, people identify by ethnic group and religion more than political or economic system.
Beating up immigrants, and “hating” entire races, is not only stupid but ineffective. If you want non-native groups out of your natively ethnic society, be strong about it and simply say: we must preserve our ethnic consistency in order to avoid being bred into hybridization, which destroys us. You don’t have to pass moral judgment over these people, something especially dangerous since not every society shares the same values. Cite statistics to me all day about how black people commit more crime; this is “crime” as defined by Indo-European society, and the same rules don’t apply in other cultures. Let them have their culture, and you can have yours.
This provides the basis for an Alt Right critique of diversity: the problem is diversity, not the ethnic and religious groups involved. Any group, when combined with other groups, will be forced into a defensive position that ensures constant fighting. This generally stays muted, but explodes in ethnic crime, race riots, political violence and a virulent power struggle for the future of the nation.
The problem is not blacks, or whites, or any other ethnic groups — it’s that combining them destroys cultural consensus and shared values, which are genetically encoded in every population, by averaging two or more distinctive and different cultures.
Diversity is genocide. It replaces the ethnic group with a mixed-race hybrid. It is also culture war, in that every group will war against every other group to have its standards prevail, or at least to defend them. It implicates religion and politics because those also reflect the values systems of each culture.
By choosing the mixed-race path, the modern “multiculturalism” (a synonym for “diversity” and “internationalism”) has ensured that it will destroy the groups involved and replace them with a cultureless grey race, at which point it will lack any standards to speak of, and become the commercialized wasteland that liberals even decry.
In this way, anti-racism is a form of racism, and it will lead to worsening conflict before the genocide through intermarriage and outbreeding that will leave yet another mixed-race, directionless society where greatness once stood:
Even the “anti-racism” displayed proudly and sycophantically by members of our chattering classes is a form of racism. It’s racism against the majority, disguised as ignoring the problem of cultural clash.
Diversity cannot work because it is paradoxical. The root of a nation is its culture and through that, its standards; a nation without standards lacks social order and requires an increasingly powerful police state to enforce laws in place of having mutual social reinforcement of ideals in everyday behavior.
The Alt Right stands at a historical nodal point of opportunity. The old order of liberal democracy has failed, and a new order based on recognizing the clash of civilizations is coming. We must re-iterate and reinforce our message: diversity does not work. We need another way.