Posts Tagged ‘internationalism’

Asian Assimilation

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2017

There is no reason to assume that just because you have chosen a sane position on an issue that you are sane in everything else you decide. In fact, most likely, the choice of a sane issue is the anomaly and you will become an agent of introducing the opposite viewpoint into your new point of view because you never understood why you took it on.

Even those who have learned that diversity is a path to doom usually miss the point: instead of blaming diversity, they target specific groups, which exonerates diversity itself.

The problem with this is that diversity has many effects that are independent of the groups involved:

  1. Loss of trust. Researchers found that diversity creates lowered social trust and destroys a sense of community even among people of the same ethnic group. When you cannot anticipate what another person values and intends as their purpose, all people become “super-anonymous” in that their motivation is entirely unknown, thus they are untrustworthy by definition, and so everyone hunkers down in their homes and ignores the world, which then decays in the resulting apathy.
  2. No standards. A society designed to be facilitative, or to fulfill the needs of individuals instead of the group or the principles of its culture, expands to fit the values of its people. When multiple groups are dumped into this population, it reduces its values to the lowest common denominator because that alone will enclose the many different values systems within it. This means it cannot set any standards, but is driven in the opposite direction, resulting in a condition where none of the groups in the society get the standards, values systems and moral baselines that they desire. Every group acts in self-interest, but with diversity, those self-interests clash and tear society apart.
  3. Egalitarianism/Tyranny. When a society becomes even a tiny bit diverse, cooperation falls apart because people are no longer working toward the same purpose using the same principles. Even more, they may have different abilities. This requires that the civilization enforce equality in order to avoid internal competition leading to social dissolution. This then removes the most promising people from that society because they, in reacting badly to both diversity and equality, are ideological enemies of the society even if they are the only ones noticing its fatal flaw.
  4. Loss of Identity. When a group of people can see that they have a common origin, are related like a big family, are ruled by leaders and ideas of their own creation, and share a common purpose, they have a sense of identity and can cooperate toward maintenance of a civilization and furtherance of its goals. Without this identity, the only option left is control, or forcing everyone to obey the same bureaucratic process so that government achieves its aims in the name of the citizens, because with nothing in common people are like most employees, not particularly committed to results as much as the appearance of conformity.
  5. Genocide. People choose partners when young and often make thoughtless choices unless guided by those around them toward the group of people most likely to provide good mates. Couple that with the lowered self-confidence of someone who grows up without identity in a distrustful society, and you have a formula for miscegenation, or racial hybridization. Instead of keeping the best traits of each race, this process erodes all unique traits and creates a generic beige-grey population, replacing the original. This is a form of “soft genocide.”
  6. Throughout history, the most likely fate of white populations has been to have civilization collapse and then, in the ensuing diversity, to be hybridized with Asiatics. This is what happened in Southern Europe, Israel and Eastern Europe.

    Having Asian immigrants among us is a joy on some levels because the high Asians (Chinese, Korean, Japanese) do not commit the crime we associate with brown groups. However, those are Asians too, or at least Arabs and Amerind indios are, having similar rates of crime to Vietnamese and Filipino communities.

    But even if we had nothing but high-IQ Chinese, Korean and Japanese immigrants, over time the inevitable would happen. The races would mix a little, then a lot more, since there would be nothing left to conserve. And so we would become erased, in the process losing the traits that made each ethnic group powerful, leaving behind generic people with generic abilities.

    Luckily, diversity can be easily reversed. Like any other failed government policy, we remove the laws and institutions that perpetuate it, clean up the mess as best as we can, and move forward instead of staying in holding pattern with a failed idea.

Black Nationalism As Independence From All Other Ethnic Groups

Monday, February 20th, 2017

Nationalism was restyled as “racism” by Leftists who wanted ideology to replace culture, family, religion, heritage and morality. This leaves us in a time where most people believe that nationalism is about one race being superior to others.

In reality, Nationalism means that each ethnic group needs command of itself so that it can direct its future, establish its own laws and cultural standards, and work for the benefit of its people. This contrasts the modern idea that sees people as a means to political and economic ends, and wants to standardize them for convenience of control.

One African-descended writer recently expressed Nationalism as independence from all other tribes, even in thought:

The day I know the black man is free, is when we can write and speak for ourselves without inciting unnecessary hate or love for that matter, for whiteness. The day we feel our words hold power all on their own without a single reference, positive or negative, about whiteness. Kind of like the same maturity required to go on a date without talking about your ex. You’ve written a lot of word to in essence say you don’t care about what white people think or say about whatever the show is going to be about. But in writing it at all you already show just the opposite.

…You are not doing us a favor by insisting that all of the black experience for over 1.5billion people all over the world who have a darker skin tone, can be reduced to one moment in our history 200 years ago. A moment that by perpetuating endlessly, you and others like yourself, imprison us to. You cant say you don’t care about something when it’s all you talk about. We don’t need you or shows like this attempting to defend us or claiming to speak or write on all our behalf. We are not a hive mind and we are not all stricken by this black slavery PTSD thing that leaves you triggered and shooting articles from the hip at every thing white people do or say about one arguable poorly conceived title.

No ethnic group really exists when it must define itself in terms of other groups, but diversity forces this on all groups because of the question of whether to accept assimilation into a beige-grey cultureless race and reap the benefits of the economic and political system, or resist it and be outsiders much like Black Panthers, La Raza, Kahanists and White Power groups have been in democratic societies.

In this sense Nationalism is independence for the group from the dominant trend toward entropy that occurs through miscegenation, cultural dissolution through ideology, and other “right” ideas that humans idealize because they emphasize individualism. Nationalism rejects individualism and replaces it with the idea of shared purpose and meaning, but it cannot do that in the presence of Others.

For this reason, all who are Nationalist are joined in the same fight, even if they are from groups that consider themselves enemies or if they are accepting of some groups (“model minorities”). The problem is not the other groups; the problem is diversity. Very few can wrap their head around that argument, but more can do it now that over two decades ago when I was first writing about it.

You Heard It Here First: Diversity Is The Problem

Tuesday, February 7th, 2017

Very early in life, the problem of special interest groups and divided purpose became apparent to me. In our kindergarten class, a small group of girls decided to monopolize the clay as a means of excluding others from playing with it. They poised themselves to rush in a herd over to the clay as soon as it was playtime, and “shared” it with each other, but no one else.

Of course this strategy was massively effective. Technically, they were not breaking any rules. In fact, they were doing what the teacher loved to see, which was “sharing,” but they had broken its purpose by sharing only within their special group. The rest of the class acted as people normally do, which is that they found other toys and mentally rationalized those as the ones they wanted all along.

This shows us the problem of rules: they are easily subverted by obeying them in public, and in private, subverting them. Rules give the advantage to those who recognize that rules are made to be used as offensive weapons against others. When everyone in the class had the same purpose, the situation worked; once that purpose became divided, it worked against the class itself.

As childhood went on, different special interest groups become apparent. The obvious one is the clique of popular kids, but at every level, people formed like gangs/cults that they used to control something that others might want. These retarded learning and advancement by enforcing a static structure within a dynamic one, forcing the larger group to work around it in a type of passive aggression.

Fast forward to the early 1990s. Campus culture was raging with political correctness at that time, and in protest and satire, The Hessian Studies Center was born. In the template of politically correct protected groups, it asserted a right to have long hair and play loud music because Hessians were an identifiable minority group.

This led to writings on USENET, and from there early blogs, in which the point was strongly made: our enemy is not a particular ethnic group, but diversity itself.

Naturally this was controversial. The cucks freaked out because it attacked their ideal of the proposition nation; the spergs freaked out because they wanted a mentally easy solution like killing off blacks and Jews so that we could then live in, well, basically the status quo. This revealed the nature of both of these groups as essentially conformist to the existing idea of our society.

Two and a half decades later, other voices are picking up the call that I initiated back then, including insightful writers like Scott Greer:

Greer is unique in that he specifically identifies Affirmative Action (aka racial discrimination against whites and Asians) as the key policy which enabled the destruction of the American university.

…“Diversity in today’s America simply means having fewer whites around,” he writes. “Segregation, such as universities having racially exclusive dorms and events, is great as long as that racial exclusion doesn’t mean ‘white only.’”

…As he notes, there is little real evidence suggesting “diversity” provides any real benefit to institutions and quite a bit suggesting it imposes real costs like the collapse of social trust. His book is a sign that mainstream conservatives are slowly, painfully beginning to understand it is “diversity” itself which causes dysfunction.

To this excellent write-up by James Kirkpatrick it makes sense only to add the following: any diversity is a threat, even if from “model minority” groups like East Asians, and that diversity is a form of equality, and equality always (without fail) occurs by penalizing the strong and transferring what they create to the perceived weaker group.

Greer’s book sounds fascinating and like mandatory reading for those on the Right. Even more, the recognition that diversity is a toxic policy no matter which groups are involved represents an evolution of thought for conservatives: instead of doing the Left’s work by looking for glitches in Leftist policies, we are realizing that Leftists policies are the glitches and must be removed.

Soft Genocide

Saturday, February 4th, 2017

Diversity, or the policy of putting different ethnic groups with their different self-interest vectors into the same group, is a type of genocide, albeit a “soft” or legislative and slow-moving variety:

The United Nations (UN) defines genocide as:

Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.1

Diversity “inflicts on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.” When different ethnic or religious groups have been placed nearby, they have fought each other in a pattern that has been consistent since the dawn of time. Then, as we can see by observing the remains later, the two groups assimilate each other, and in the process lose what made them unique. These leftover groups never attain the characteristics of the original groups and generally fade away, like the ruins of a once-great civilization. This is what our leaders have in store for us.

Our leaders want this because it will make us easy to control. When religion, race and culture are out of the way, they can have a grey tribe with no values in common, which makes it easy to sell products to or manipulate with political ideology. They are the perfect consumers and perfect voters because they have no higher allegiances — like culture, heritage or belief — that conflicts with the government propaganda and advertising. As the Greek philosopher, Plato, wrote 2400 years ago:

And the more detestable his actions are to the citizens the more satellites and the greater devotion in them will he require?

And who are the devoted band, and where will he procure them?

They will flock to him, he said, of their own accord, if lie pays them.

By the dog! I said, here are more drones, of every sort and from every land.2

Those who rule over us are using the same strategy as the tyrant Plato describes: import new people from former colonies, or satellites, and use them to displace the existing population. This new population is chosen because it can be bribed with benefits, sometimes called “welfare” or “socialism,” and it will then always support the tyrant. The problem is, as Plato notes, that it requires bringing in foreign people from many lands. This effectively destroys the ability of a society to have any rules of its own, and through time and interbreeding, it is replaced by a new population.

In the meantime, the invisible rules which one made society livable, called “culture,” have been removed. You cannot have culture when the population is made up of people who did not grow up under this culture, and evolved in their own lands to have different cultures. Culture is in the blood because to succeed in a society, you must be compatible with its culture. After a few generations, only those who took to the culture naturally remain.

The loss of culture through loss of heritage makes society paranoid. People no longer trust each other, and for that reason, they no longer invest effort into the shared future that is our society. As Robert Putnam found:

New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.3

Add it up, and you can see that diversity destroys society. It does not matter which groups are involved and it is not their fault. Diversity destroys any society no matter which groups are involved. So if you think this is about a “bad” religion, ethnic group or race, you have missed the point. The point is that diversity will destroy us because it is genocide of all of our populations.

Like all egalitarian programs, its goal is to destroy those who might rise above the rest. This is the resentful and hence vengeful nature of a crowd of people, which is to scapegoat those who do not share its problems for its problems, allowing it to feel more comfortable with its own degree of mediocrity.

With soft genocide, those who wish to destroy populations have a new weapon: passive aggression. They can avoid direct action, but by offering up their insane ideas as normal and then reacting defensively, as if attacked, when others recoil from the insanity, they can use social guilt to manipulate those others into accepting the insanity.

The only solution is to articulate what is sane and insane, avoiding the emotionality of both hate groups and anti-discrimination groups, and instead to point ourselves toward the solutions that work for every group in every age, starting with a removal of diversity and a focus on excellence instead of scapegoating.

Seattle / Kinshasa is Again a National Embarassment

Thursday, February 2nd, 2017

Diversity is not our strength. It is not even tenable. To become “Woke” or “aware” is to realize that the coercion of diversity at gunpoint will only lead to war. People like #BLM don’t want to gel. They don’t want to chill. Put all of your stupid #Cuck fantasies away before they get you killed.

Here’s the real deal. They want your stank, white butt dirt-napped, worm-chewed and pushing up the pretty little daisies. No, really, Kimohonkie; they want you dead.

Don’t just take cranky, old JPW’s word for it. Get it straight from the malignant jack-asses’ mouthes.

Fuck white supremacy, fuck the U.S. empire, fuck your imperialist ass lives. That shit gotta go. At 1:50 in the video clip, she goes, “And we need to start killing people. First off, we need to start killing the White House. The White House must die. The White House, your fucking White House, your fucking Presidents, they must go! Fuck the White House.”

My, my, my…A promiscuous little darling, wasn’t she? I guess you can take the Congolese out of Kinshasa, but you can’t take Kinshasa out of the mob. But I gotta warn ya’ Boyoes. She’s quite the little gold-digger.

“Pay the fuck up, pay the fuck up. It ain’t just your fucking time, its your fucking money, and now your fucking life is devoted to social change,” she said. According to the channel that uploaded the clip to YouTube, the activist saying these things is a teacher.

People like her are why we need a Second Amendment. Train, carry and use without the slightest twinge of remorse if you are attacked by #BLM. They want you dead. It wouldn’t be neighborly to not want company. See you on the other side, Sunshine.

But to aavoid it ever getting that bad or that evil; America needs a set of rights that America was deprived of by Evil Amerikan Emperor Lyndon Baines Johnson. To Make America Great Again, we desperately need Freedom of Association. More importantly, to bring the real hate truth to bear, we need the dark side – Freedom of Disassociation.

When people like #BLM form dyspeptic mobs of turd-chucking howler monkeys, you need to get away from them. Physically remove yourself and your family from any city or town these rodentia infest. If your children are in school with them; they need to be removed. If you have to work with them in any capacity, guard your every word or action and cut them out of your circle whenever possible.

Certainly not every person of African genetic inheritance deserves this contempt. Limit this remorselessness to those who go into league with #BLM and demand your possessions, your position and your life on the basis of you being born different than them. When #Cucks lie to you and sanctimoniously cuck that “Diversity is our strength,” let them take the one-way trip Kinshasa, Seattle. Let them pray their next ride isn’t on that sad, old night train to The Big Adios.

Why Diversity Is Over

Monday, January 23rd, 2017

Human beings react to life much like a sapling being pushed back by an unwary hiker. They will bend until they are about to break and then, because they have nothing to lose, will become an equal and opposite force — but released in an instant — to what has pushed them down. The sapling will snap or snap back, and the hiker will go home bloodied.

Since The Enlightenment,™ the best minds of humanity have been spent trying to invent “hacks” — unorthodox improvisations — which will make the idea of government-by-equality work. Our first stab was democracy, but that proved unstable, so in 1789 the Americans came up with a brilliant document, the Constitution, which was designed through an extensive system of hooks and levers to limit the impulses of the herd that come with pure democracy, or “mob rule” as it is more accurately described.

People put great faith in each one of these hacks because they know, on some instinctual level, that Western Civilization is in decline and totally unstable. As a result, they are under constant stress which is (somewhat) alleviated by the illusion of stability. Since WWII, the prevailing doctrine has been what came out of the American civil war: we had to destroy democracy in order to save it, and instead must have a powerful government that enforces the “correct” ideology on all of us. That was kept in check until its competition, the Soviet Union, fell, and in the ensuing monopoly the American experiment truly went off the rails, taking Europe with it, ending up with a new USSR in the US/EU.

One of the cornerstones of this new empire is diversity, or the idea that equality extends beyond class to race, and therefore, that the correct ideology is to accept having people from many ethnic origins in the same society. Like most Leftist programs, this clashes with reality and so requires constant laws, arrests, censorship, lawsuits and ostracism lynchings in order to make it appear to work in the short-term at least.

The perceived necessity of diversity made it a type of superpower for government. Much as they once found the voters were afraid not to approve of any help destined for “the poor,” big governments now found that voters were afraid not to approve of anything that benefited diversity. And so, diversity crept into every aspect of our lives, following “civil rights” agendas where anyone who excluded a diverse person was assumed to be guilty and punished monetarily, which brought business on-line with the regime.

But in 2016, something extraordinary happened. People looked around and said, “We did everything the politicians told us to do, and even elected a black president. But this has made the diversity crisis — ‘race relations’ — worse, as if it only emboldened these diverse groups. They behave as if, in the private truths they keep to themselves, they believe they are our enemies. And in fact, it makes sense that they would want to conquer us, since that is the only way they are really going to feel victorious about having come here as hired help from failed civilizations.”

The sapling whips back.

The founding group of America — Western Europeans, also called WASPs — tend to be non-confrontational people until they are actually endangered. For them, it is easier than for most to simply work around impediments and then go on to do what they enjoy doing, which is being effective at work, play and invention. This is classic behavior of a high-IQ society.

But, now that diversity has revealed itself as exactly what all of the bad boys of history said it was — an invasion, a conquest and a genocide — American Western Europeans (AWEs) are striking back. Their first step is to put themselves in a defensive posture: buy guys, buy gold and canned goods, and get away from the problem:

It’s about how many white people have reacted to increasing exposure to nonwhite populations, who are following in their footsteps and pursuing the traditional American dream. The reaction is not always articulated or even intentional; in fact, most people say they want to live in a diverse and integrated community; they, too, have the dream that no one will be judged by the color of their skin.

But data shows that as minorities move into suburbs, white families are making small and personal decisions that add velocity to the momentum of discrimination. They are increasingly choosing to self-segregate into racially isolated communities — “hunkering down,” as Lichter likes to call it — and preserving a specific kind of dream.

…A growing number of people are worried about the country becoming majority minority, including one in three Trump supporters. And more than half of white Americans believe the country’s “way of life” needs to be protected against foreign influences.

These new white enclaves are different from the old type of white flight which saw people going to whitopias, or areas that were at least mostly white so that they could avoid the problems of diversity. The new flight is not from problems, but from diversity itself, because diversity savages trust and trust is essential for high IQ societies to function.

This is echoed by statements made by those who retreat to white enclaves:

“A country can have racism without racists.” Writing in an opinion piece for The Washington Post in 2009, Benjamin noted that racial discrimination isn’t necessarily as deliberate and intentional as it used to be. In Idaho and Georgia, for example, Benjamin found that many white people emigrate to these predominantly white communities not necessarily because they’re racist, but for “friendliness, comfort, security, safety—reasons that they implicitly associate to whiteness in itself.” But these qualities are subconsciously inseparable from race and class—thereby letting discrimination and segregation thrive “even in the absence of any person’s prejudice or ill will.”

The first inklings of changing white attitudes came during the early years of the Barack Obama presidency, when a petition to stop white genocide made the news, even in the big liberal papers:

“Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for EVERYBODY?” he writes. “White countries are being flooded with third world non-whites, and Whites are required by law to integrate with them so as to ‘assimilate,’ i.e. intermarry and be blended out of existence.”

He says that this is a violation of the United Nations Convention against genocide. Thus, he is petitioning President Obama to “end White Genocide in the United States, and to call for the end of White Genocide in Europe, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.”

And Albert ends with this. “Supporting White Genocide is not anti-racist. It’s anti-white!”

This means that white people no longer think of the threat of diversity as a threat from individual groups or individuals within those groups. If they did, they would have laughed off the white genocide petition instead of reading about it eagerly. Now they recognized that the threat is diversity itself, and that they will not be allowed to have whitopias; instead, they will be milked for tax money and then eliminated.

Here is where government understands nothing of the human mind. Diversity is strictly speaking not necessary; that is, if it went away, white people would resume doing the things they once did that are now served by a minority underclass, and costs would go up, but other costs — taxes, insurance, crime, riots — would go down and so things would equalize.

The problem for politicians with policies that are not strictly necessary is that people treat them as binaries. They either support them, or want them gone entirely. The politicians, smelling money and power, managed to sell diversity for many decades. But now that it has shown us its true nature, people want it gone. They are leaving it behind and have elected Donald Trump to prevent them from being obligated to it.

If Trump really wants to go down in history as the best American president, he will find a way to abolish “civil rights” style laws like affirmative action through a bill passed in Congress or an amendment to the Constitution. This way, his work cannot be undone when we have a few really good years and the voters go back to sleep and elect the next Leftist parasite.

Trump instead is taking a difficult path, probably moving indirectly to make immigration to the United States so uncertain and expensive that few will attempt it, while squeezing the illegals by going after those who hire them, thus strengthening his government with an infusion of fines. Currently his attempt is to reinforce the “proposition nation”, but add qualifiers that amount to being obstacles for most immigrants worldwide:

Trump espoused his worldview in remarkably few words. He is a vituperative critic of the post-Cold War international system. Where the architects of that system see it as a bulwark of stability and global prosperity, Trump sees it as diminishing the United States in favor of foreign countries and an international class of wealthy political and financial elites. Washington has been serving its own interests, he said, and not the people’s. That ends now. His America will turn inward, focusing on domestic stability, education, infrastructure, and jobs. The one exception will be the fight against Islamic terrorism, where Trump is prepared to join with autocracies in pursuit of common goals.

Trump forcefully rejected identity politics. Racial and ethnic identities, he said, are less important than our status as American citizens. “When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.” There are no hyphenated Americans in this worldview, only Americans and outsiders. And Americans are to be privileged over outsiders. It’s been said that American presidents are replaced by their opposites. What a contrast to Barack Obama’s second inaugural address, where he called for a “world without walls.”

As others have observed, this is dangerously close to JFK’s policy. We know Trump admires both JFK and Reagan, both of whom were moderates to a realistic person but are far-right to mob rule crazed egalitarians, but his spin on the JFK rule is to stop accepting lower-value immigrants. This defers the diversity problem, legally, but may have ripple effects by making an application for citizenship the opposite of a sure thing, encouraging would-be immigrants to look elsewhere. Watch Europe adopt similar rules in the coming months.

Trump is acting indirectly and it remains to be seen whether he will cuck or not. However, a rising tide of acknowledgement that diversity has failed — following the recognition in Samuel P. Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations And The Remaking Of World Order that after liberal democracy comes world nationalism — shows us that the people want this to be the first step, an indirect stab at removing diversity, because it is now becoming clear that coexistence between different groups is fatal:

When asked by Jamie Weinstein, senior editor and columnist for The Daily Caller, whether a Jew could be elected mayor of Ramallah in an independent Palestinian state, Areikat said, “after the experience of 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it will be in the best interests of the two peoples to be separated first.”

Areikat added that “Well, I personally still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated, and we can contemplate these issues in the future.”

The die is cast. Americans and Europeans want escape from diversity. This is not limited to opposing immigration; they want diversity to end, at least as a compulsory policy, and if the mood is consistent, as a policy at all. They want us to go back to the order before diversity, having recognized that we have been misled by feelings of guilt, but that any obligation we have to other groups lies in the past, not the future.

This was apparently even a few years ago, when the UK discussed its guilt-fetishism:

Mr Hague said he was not alive when the then prime minister Harold Macmillan made his famous “wind of change” speech in 1960 – acknowledging independence movements across Africa.

…”Britain in seen in a different light. We have to get out of this post-colonial guilt. Be confident in ourselves. The lessons we should take from the admitted need for austerity, saving money, is that we actually need to be more ambitious, not less.”

The UK, he suggested, should “just relax” about its role as an imperial power and the legacy of that period in its history, adding that “it is a long time ago, the retreat from empire”.

If history is any guide, the pendulum of Hegel has swung one way and then the other, and has settled in the middle. We tried colonialism, then we tried inverse colonialism by inviting everyone here, and neither contributed to our well-being, so it is time to try something new and yet time-proven, namely nationalism, the idea that each nation consists of one ethnic group only and that it belongs to whatever group founded that society.

How The French Revolution Created The Proposition Nation That Created Globalization

Saturday, January 14th, 2017

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.

As it turned out, Roosevelt was wrong about the nature of America, which was designed by its founders to be a Western European nation, which was made explicit through legislation passed in the same year as the Bill of Rights:

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.

After Modernity, A Clash Between Nationalist And “Post-National” Countries

Tuesday, January 10th, 2017

As predicted here some time ago, nationalists worldwide are finding commonality over their mutual desire to be able to exclude ethnically foreign people from their lands:

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 coming dot-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.

How #BLM is Ending America’s Patience With Diversity

Tuesday, January 10th, 2017

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.

So “Scientific” American tells me. Yet clearly we have a ¡HATECRIME! Clearly it was inspired by ¡RACISM! What does Political Amerikan have to say*?

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.

How We Know That Diversity Cannot Work

Monday, January 9th, 2017

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.

Let us look at another point of view, this time from the man some call a race-baiter and others a black nationalist, Al Sharpton, who joined with other minority rights advocates to condemn Jeff Sessions for being a majority advocate:

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.