Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘internationalism’

Refuting The Latest Media Lie About Racial Purity

Friday, November 10th, 2017

As the Left regroups after experiencing political rejection in the UK, US and EU it has begun constructing the next wave of assumptions it will use in order to justify its arguments. Most of these are simply updated versions of the old; as part of this, the Left has moved from “race does not exist” to “everyone is mixed-race” as seen in this bit of silliness arguing for mass migration:

But one self-described neo-Nazi on the district council told The New York Times that by allowing the influx, the German people faced “the destruction of our genetic heritage” and risked becoming “a gray mishmash.”

In fact, the German people have no unique genetic heritage to protect. They—and all other Europeans—are already a mishmash, the children of repeated ancient migrations, according to scientists who study ancient human origins. New studies show that almost all indigenous Europeans descend from at least three major migrations in the past 15,000 years, including two from the Middle East. Those migrants swept across Europe, mingled with previous immigrants, and then remixed to create the peoples of today.

First, we need not argue for racial “purity” so much as racial “consistency.” Whoever the Germans are, they are a consistent continuum of genetics, as are other Europeans, which we can see through genetic maps of the distances between European ethnic groups:

These maps also reveal where admixture has occurred, and it stands out in contrast to the native European.

Then, we should revisit history. Europeans were wandering tribes who colonized many areas throughout Europe, Asia and the middle east. These were fundamentally the same people, but at some point, they migrated back into Europe, probably related to changes in climate and politics.

We can tell the difference between a German and a Somali by looking, and now we can do so with genetic evidence. But this offends the Left, so they concocted an updated version of Lewontin’s fallacy, which argued that because there was no single gene for race, race did not exist.

Instead, they argue that because European groups may have come from multiple groups, even from the same root, race does not exist and therefore you might as well mix Germans with Somalis because you will have the same people. As always, the Left reveals a willingness to lie in addition to their multiple mental health issues.

The answer is to this new idiocy is that European groups are consistent, have been so for some time, and are more similar to each other than they are to foreigners. The Left wishes to conceal that truth so that they can invert the definition of race, and leave you helpless to object to their importation of many extremely foreign people into your lands. Laugh at it, because it is ludicrous.

Science Confirms It: Diversity Destroys Civilization

Thursday, November 2nd, 2017

The analysis offered on this site of diversity does not look at the unique traits of groups, only the necessary idea that any group is constituted around a unique values system and in order to defend that, needs to have control over its destiny and the ability to exclude other groups. This means that more than one group in the same area causes social dissolution and civilization collapse.

In fact, for more than twenty-five years, the writers collected here have been pointing out that diversity destroys social order and is dysfunctional as a policy as a result. We cannot make it work because it is paradoxical and therefore will always fail, but will fail slowly, taking our civilization down with it as that society expends all of its resources to try to make an illusion into reality, although tyrants and rioting plebs love it because the perceived goodness of diversity gives them virtually unlimited power.

As if conjured up from our laboratories, confirms that diversity results in conflict (via Heartiste via hbdchick:

However, in countries where ethnicity is more strongly predictive of culture, as captured by a high χ2, violent conflict is more likely, and public goods provision tends to be lower. Our interpretation of this empirical result is that in societies where individuals differ from each other in both ethnicity and culture, social antagonism is greater, and political economy outcomes are worse.

In other words, wherever there are groups that have united genetics to value systems (“culture”) there is conflict if more than one occupies a space.

This should not baffle us because the same condition exists in nature. Wherever two groups attempt to co-exist, conflict expands until whichever group breeds more slowly is destroyed, as we see in the case of the brown anoles versus green anoles:

Although green anoles are very territorial, the invasion of the brown anoles have chased the natives into the treetops. The brown anoles, having few enemies, have taken over the former habitat of the greens, forcing them into new territories and farther from our sight. In addition to taking the natural territories from them, the brown anoles, especially mature males, will actually kill and eat the baby green anoles. Their populations are greatly reduced from former numbers.

The invasive species, which is less discriminate in its consumption and more aggressive, has begun bullying the native species, with disastrous results that resemble the constant ethnic conflict created by diversity:

The green anole and the Cuban brown anole both occupy the same niche, or place in the ecosystem. This means that they both live on the ground and in low lying branches, and eat the same food, insects. But the brown anoles tend to out-compete green anoles on the ground and lower boles of trees. They have even been described as being more aggressive than the native green anole. Instead of toughening up, the green anoles who used to occupy these lower spaces are now more commonly found feeding in higher, flimsier branches and leaves. This is considered a shift in behavior due to resource partitioning.

…Since the encroachment of the Cuban brown anole, studies have shown that our native green anole has begun to show some morphological and behavioral changes. What scientists have found, and what you can probably witness at home, is that the green anole is now choosing to live higher off the ground and they have developed larger toe pads.

As the newer group comes in, more voracious and less thoughtful, it displaces the more capable — and therefore less preemptively defensive through aggression — native group.

This resembles the flight of those who became Europeans into the far less hospitable climates to the North: when food is abundant, intelligence is not rewarded, and so the coarser take over from the finer. When each decision about survival becomes more difficult, then nature rewards the more intelligent finer species.

It also explains the clashes we have over diversity. One group is displacing another; that group, realizing that taking to the trees will only delay its demise by outbreeding, is finding its own identity in response.

This places us in a situation where the political conflict of diversity threatens our future. We have justified diversity as an economic program, but the inevitable conflict has destabilized us:

As rich countries have fewer babies, they need immigration to grow their prime-age workforces. But as the foreign-born share of the population rises, xenophobia often festers and threatens egalitarian policymaking.

…But there is a growing body of evidence that as rich majority-white countries admit more foreign-born people, far-right parties thrive by politicizing the perceived threat of the foreign-born to national culture. That concept will sound familiar to anybody who watched the 2016 U.S. presidential race, but it’s a truly global trend. A 2015 study of immigration and far-right attitudes in Austria found that the proximity of low and medium-skilled immigrants “causes Austrian voters to turn to the far right.” The effect was strongest in areas with higher unemployment, suggesting that culture and economics might reinforce each other in this equation. Last week, the far-right Austrian party triumphed in the nation’s election.

In other words, exactly as the study — and common sense, and the parable of the anole — predicts, diversity creates endless conflict, and the only way to survive it is to end diversity.

How Ethnic Diversity Leads To Racial Diversity

Sunday, October 29th, 2017

At this point it has dawned on most in the modern West that diversity causes civilizations to decompose from within through internal ethnic conflicts, race guilt and the massive costs of a permanent underclass.

People are simply over diversity. They believed in it because it promised to take an existing situation, where white and black were in tension, and resolve it by accepting everyone. Like most pacifism, it encountered the maxim of history, which is that what you tolerate you get more of, and soon we had ethnic and racial tension exploding in direct proportion to how much we tried to placate it.

What fewer understand is that ethnic diversity destroys civilizations through the same method that racial diversity uses to do so, namely because each group wants to act in self-interest, which means having command of its future, which requires it to have the ability to set standards, which in turn requires it to be the dominant group.

We can witness this in the progression of nursing textbooks over the decades. First, the early struggles with ethnic diversity:

After this tension fragmented American society, displaced the ruling group (WASPs) and polarized citizens against each other, it led to racial diversity:

In each case, we find ourselves aliens in our lands because while we have a common economic system, political ideology and language, we do not have cultural standards, customs, values, traditions, identity and purpose in common. This kills the nation.

Diversity Never Works

Monday, October 16th, 2017

History runs in cycles because human behavior follows a cyclic pattern. A truth is discovered, and then the only way to make a name for yourself is to assert the anti-truth, so people pursue the anti-truth as a way to succeed socially, and eventually it takes over and then is realized to be not true, so people begin the long process of crawling past convention, conformity and denial to reach the truth again.

Our ancestors knew that diversity never works because it cannot work. For us to believe in diversity, we must convince ourselves that different groups do not have different aims. Other than people giving up on their culture and heritage entirely, and agreeing to become generic citizens motivated by ideology and paycheck alone, there is no possibility of this happening, because culture is central to how humans understand their world and socialize within it.

Culture sets down a series of values, rules, and customs which are unique to a specific group. This enables them to both keep outsiders away, and police themselves for those who — probably through the rise of deleterious mutations leading to pathologies — are not going to be able to act in the best interests of the group. Culture is knowing what actions will be approved of by the group, and which will be censured, and enables people to understand how to find a place in their society.

On the other hand, diversity represents anti-culture. When you have multiple cultures in the same place, there can be no commonality except at levels that are both extremely simplified and very abstract. Anti-culture replaces culture with ideology, legal systems, economic systems, political systems and most of all, socializing, which now occurs without a sense of shared values except those of the abstract “systems” mentioned earlier in the list. Diversity destroys culture and to fully succeed in that, it has to destroy the genetic roots of culture.

Genetics underlies culture because culture is how human groups replace natural selection. Culture rewards those who uphold the values and ideals of the group; by definition, it excludes those who do not. People enjoy the idea of anti-culture because it frees them from the task of having to understand reality and their culture, and act according to it; without culture, they can do anything and as long as they follow the abstract and thus loose rules of the systems, they will be fine. But in reality, culture is both shaped by genetics and shapes genetics as Jonathan Haidt writes:

Cultural and genetic evolution are intertwined. The human capacity for culture — a strong tendency to learn from each other, to teach each other, and to build upon what we have learned — is itself a genetic evolution that happened in stages over the last few million years. But once our brains reached a critical threshold, perhaps 80,000 to 100,000 years ago, cultural innovation began to accelerate; a strong evolutionary pressure then shaped brains to take further advantage of culture. Individuals who could best learn from others were more successful than their less “cultured” brethren, and as brains became more cultural, cultures became more elaborate, further increasing the advantage of having a more cultural brain. All human beings today are the products of the co-evolution of a set of genes (which is almost identical across cultures) and a set of cultural elements (which is diverse across cultures, but still constrained by the capacities and predispositions of the human mind). For example, the genetic evolution of the emotion of disgust made it possible (but not inevitable) for cultures to develop caste systems based on occupation and strongly supported by disgust toward those who perform “polluting” activities. A caste system then restricts marriage to within-caste pairings, which in turn alters the course of genetic evolution. After a thousand years of inbreeding within castes, castes will diverge slightly on a few genetic traits — for example, shades of skin color — which might in turn lead to growing cultural association of caste with color rather than with occupation. (It only takes twenty generations of selective breeding to create large differences of appearance and behavior in other mammals.) In this way, genes and cultures co-evolve; they mutually affect each other, and neither process can be studied in isolation for human beings.

Diversity never works. It requires us to believe that different groups, each seeking to establish its own standards and genetics, can co-exist through the singular fact of dependence on a shared economic, political and social system. In doing so, it denies what makes each group unique, which is its system of values, its heritage, and its identity, or self-conception as a unit moving toward autonomy.

Since culture is encoded in genetics, and designed to accommodate those genetics thus effectively encoding them in culture, diversity necessarily possesses the ultimate goal of genocide: it seeks to replace a population or populations by mixing them, destroying the original genetic groups and their unique clusters of traits.

We might refer to diversity as a form of ethnic vandalism which has already failed, like liberal democracy, as once-strong faith in it has evaporated. Now that we have seen what is on the end of the fork, we realize that diversity will do nothing but replace us, no matter what race we are, and because of that, we have thought about identity and intuited that it is important.

Without social order, civilization becomes a giant shopping mall ruled by security guards in which your money is taken to subsidize a huge group of impoverished and angry people hidden behind the parking center. In fact, diversity is a tactic for seizing power, as we have known for longer than Christianity has been around. It is simply a dead-end policy enacted by dying nations in the hands of parasitic mercantile classes and mass culture.

We can easily end diversity and can see examples of the end of diversity in our world today. Those who experience it, dislike it; those who have suffered under it want it to end. Since the early 1990s, I have differed from the rest of the Right in that instead of criticizing specific ethnic groups, I have pointed out that diversity itself is the problem. We cannot place multiple groups together and not either destroy them, destroy ourselves, or as is most likely, both. This is true even with “nice” ethnic groups like Asians. Even ethnic diversity is destructive but allows the Left to seize power, so it is popular on the Left, of course.

You will often hear people argue something ill-advised like, “All this diversity stuff is really just special privileges. What we need instead is to just treat everyone equally.” However, this is a variation of DR3: we are claiming that we are more egalitarian than the Left, which forgets that egalitarianism is the philosophical root of diversity. A better path is to realize that diversity never works, and diversity has failed again, and so now we are headed toward balkanization as a path to tribal/ethnic separation, an idea once known as nationalism. The people who argue for meritocracy miss the point, which is that homogeneity creates stable nations, and heterogeneity — diversity, multiculturalism, internationalism, and globalism; these mean roughly the same thing — creates unstable, self-destructing nation-states. We cannot use equality to get out of the problems created by equality; we have to reject equality, and embrace hierarchy instead, which requires a single value system and therefore cannot happen under any form of diversity.

Diversity is the direct result of egalitarianism, or the idea that all people are equal. Humans tend to rationalize future decisions based on their current situation, and in the 1940s-1960s, Americans became concerned about the fact that our founding documents claimed that “all men are created equal” and that our country provided “liberty and justice for all,” when in reality African-Americans, Hispanics, Chinese and Amerinds were relegated to the back of the bus. Since we were at the time fighting a Cold War against the Soviet Union, we decided to beat them by being more liberal than they were, and in so doing, sacrificed our social order. Starting in the early 1960s, diversity became a core tenet of the Left and, once they had successfully demonized any racial preference as “racism” and equated it with Adolf Hitler, the Left was able to batter down any resistance to its multicultural vision. This then spread to Europe and accelerated after the fall of Communism as the ruined West tried to re-define itself — rationalize itself — in some way that explained its decline as a positive thing.

Egalitarianism is a form of individualism. Individualism defends the individual against obligations outside of the self-interest, or in a utilitarian sense the desires, of the individual. Individualism is the belief that the individual should do what the individual wants without regard for impact on society, nature, other people, culture, heritage, values, and religion. This form of atomization, or separating the individual from any context except itself, creates a society where the largest possible group is a unit of one person. This addresses the fundamental concern of individualists, which is that they will be judged by their actions, which can fall short of either social standards or how reality works, reflecting an inability to understand reality on the part of the individual. Individuals know that every time they act, they can reveal an inability to understand reality, or a failing according to the values of culture, and so they advocate for equality, which defends the individual against the needs of nature, logic, history and the larger social group. This atomized approach appears to benefit the individual, but in fact it cuts them off from participation in anything larger than themselves, and so it creates empty, depressed, alcoholic, and frustrated people. The futility is crushing like gravity inside of a black hole.

Individualism, equality, hubris, solipsism, diversity, and democracy have made the West a living hell on an existential level. We expend ourselves at jobs that are mostly pointless, as if designed by a mocking demon, and then wait in lines for mediocre products and endless red tape. We are alienated from our community, and even from our own families, because everyone acts in the individualist style of working toward their own immediate desires by using everything else, including love and family, as a means to that end. Thanks to diversity, we have no culture, and therefore can have no purpose, so there is no way to restrain the mercantile takeover of our society, which spirals into oblivion because we have nothing in common except paychecks and staying on the side that won the Cold War. Even worse, we have committed ourselves to a series of illusions beginning with equality and ending in diversity, so most people are offered the unappetizing choice between admitting that we have massively failed and rationalizing the present, doubling down on the same ideals, and trying again because that way our egos can remain intact.

Contemporary people suffer by being forced to hover at the moment of transition between parts of the cycle. This is a gradual transition, so we are left with the assumptions of the past, but realizing that those are empty and deceptive, while waiting for them to fully fail so that we can move on to the next part of the cycle. The sooner we realize that diversity never works because it is paradoxical and designed as a control method, a means-to-the-end of power and nothing more, the sooner we can reject it and then start peeling back the ideas that justify it, throwing out the illusions and replacing them with wisdom, so that we can restore Western Civilization and escape this evil, tedious, and narcissistic era.

Watching History Shift on Race, Nationalism

Wednesday, September 27th, 2017

Barack Obama famously referred to people on the Right as being “on the wrong side of history,” but that only makes sense if you believe that history is a process that starts at point A (cavemen) and runs straight to point B (world Leftism). In reality, history is like the stars: moving in cycles within cycles.

As a result, we see people discover the same truths, time and again, then abandon them and face the same type of failure. This is why history is a record of failed civilizations, and they all went out the same way: caste warfare, or those of lower natural ability overthrowing those of higher natural ability.

Leftism — a philosophy of egalitarianism — has its roots in a type of quasi-civilized caste revolt that attempts to take power by appealing to the fears of humankind. We fear being inferior, not being accepted, or being victims of those who are naturally stronger, smarter, healthier, better-looking or wiser than us, so we unite to declare that reality is not what it is so that these people no longer prevail.

That in turn, as anyone who is mentally alert can anticipate, leads to domination by the incompetent. The rest oppress the best, so that the best do not oppress the rest, but unlike that latter condition, putting the rest in charge leads to lower levels of competence, and soon civilization collapses. On a historical scale, that takes a few centuries, but it happens every time.

As this revolution builds, its cornerstone issue becomes pathological denial of the differences between people in ability and character. If people are actually different, we realize, it does not make sense to exclude our natural elites from power. But if we can insist that all people are the same, and some have specific “talents” but none are more generally talented at thought and leadership than others, then we can justify replacing those natural elites with mob rule so that all of us feel safe to be mediocre or even outright bad. The herd punishes deviation more than it is concerned about those who are merely parasitic.

Part of that denial of differences between people takes the form of denying the differences between races and ethnic groups. Examples of races might be Caucasian and Asian; for ethnic groups, consider the difference between Irish and Germans. Because multiculturalism means the destruction of original ethnic group in a nation, it is controversial.

Suppression of this controversy drove the Left to global victory in the years following WW2. They established the principle that, in order to have egalitarianism, we must have racial and ethnic egalitarianism, or diversity, multiculturalism and internationalism; those three terms mean the same thing, which signifies racial erasure of European populations.

However, once the Left gained power, things went badly as they usually do, from the fall of Athens to the Napoleonic crusades after the French Revolution or even the collapse of the Soviet Union. Egalitarianism abolishes the rule of the competent, and when it gets enough power, it turns into idiocracy. The backlash has begun, first with Brexit, then Trump, and now, Germany:

German chancellor Angela Merkel has paid a steep price for her controversial 2015 decision to let in millions of people fleeing Middle Eastern and African countries.

Merkel’s party, the Christian Democratic Union, came in first in Sunday’s elections, but its 33 percent haul was its worst result since the party’s founding in 1945, at the end of WWII.

…Similarly, many Germans believed that the “grand coalition” of Merkel’s Christian Democrats and the left-wing Social Democrats had suffocated political debate in Germany, closing out real discussion over the migrant problem, crime, bailouts of countries hurt by the faltering euro, and the loss of German sovereignty.

…After the votes were in, Left-party leader Katja Kipping mourned that “the progressive Left has fallen below 40 percent of the vote” for the first time in any modern German election.

What is called “populism” means simply opposition to the globalist Leftist elites who have made themselves powerful by preaching what the crowd wants to hear, which is that we do not need to strive to be good, but are all “equal,” and therefore there is no difference in quality between people and so everyone is fine just the way they are.

This amounts to saying that Darwin was wrong, and that we do not need to adapt to life, but life needs to adapt to us. With our internal combustion engines, computers and massive overpopulation, it seems like humanity has won over life. But we cannot beat the life within, which is a mathematical organization that exists in all human populations, and it requires that we either have the competent rule us, or elect whoever the crowd favors and end up with a Reich of incompetence.

Humanity has an inbuilt flaw and it is hubris, or our tendency to be individualistic, or think of ourselves as existing outside of the natural hierarchy of human quality, the social order and its standards, and even any kind of spiritual or moral framework to reality. We wanna do what we wanna do, and we want society to foot at least some of the bill.

The root of hubris is fear. We are afraid to admit that we are small, and subject to the whims of the universe, and if there are challenges or standards, we can fail, and lose social status and the esteem of others in consequence. Our fear of failing to adapt rules us, so we gang up and form a clique that is dedicated to denying the need to adapt, like a cult or mob rule.

This clique is willing to destroy society and even humanity in order to have safety from its fear. When it finds a powerful tool, like opposition to “racism,” it quickly converts it into a weapon for forcing people not to publicly state that there are qualitative differences between individuals, families, castes, sexes, religions, ethnic groups and races.

From this erroneous outlook comes inversion, or a situation where all things affirmed in public to be truths are lies because all things that are actually true are taboo, requiring us to invent ersatz inferior substitutes, sort of like how fast food is not real food and modern art is not real art. Even worse, this inversion leads to multiculturalism, which is ethnic replacement:

For the third straight Jewish year, the most popular baby names in Israel were Tamar and Muhammad.

…Some 166,450 babies were born during the year, down from 176,230 in the previous year, while 42,172 Israelis died during the same time period.

This, too, is caste revolt: the populations which could not make great civilizations emigrate to those civilizations, then set up shop and because simpler groups have more children, outbreed the original group in part thanks to the mechanisms of advanced civilizations which allow more infants to survive. That new group then out-votes the original occupants and replaces them.

If a third world group invades a first world nation, it stands to win by demographic prevalence because smarter groups have fewer children. Even if it merely gains a majority, it will then destroy the original group by interbreeding, absorbing the more evolved groups with whom it has common ancestors. The original group ceases to be.

This means that someday, there will be no Israeli Jews, only Arabic people with one Jewish grandparent. There will be no Germans, only African and Muslim people with one Jewish grandparent. In Texas, there will be no Western Europeans, only Mexicans (Siberian-descended indios and mestizos) with one Anglo grandparent. Diversity is genocide.

Donald Trump revealed that he is aware of this shift when he refused to condemn the Alt Right and pointed out that the Left had participated in the violence, which in fact Antifa, Black Bloc and other Leftist protesters had initiated:

I think especially in light of the advent of Antifa, if you look at what’s going on there. You have some pretty bad dudes on the other side also and essentially that’s what I said. Now because of what’s happened since then, with Antifa.

“When you look at really what’s happened since Charlottesville, a lot of people are saying and people have actually written, ‘Gee, Trump may have a point.’ I said there’s some very bad people on the other side also.

He is not merely playing partisan there. Since Samuel Huntington wrote “The Clash of Civilizations,” it has become clear that Leftism had reached the peak of its arc in the 1990s, and since that time, has been in decline, although growing in popularity as a “long tail” of people who imitate socially-successful trends pick it up and use it as a means of drawing attention to themselves.

Part of that long tail trend was the election of Barack Obama, which signaled a complete shift to the Left on race, but then brought surprises:

It’s difficult to overstate the significance of the election of President Barack Obama.

As recently as the 1950s, polls showed that the majority of Americans said they would never vote for a black person for president, no matter how qualified.

…the election of a black person did not bring about the expected “hope and change.” In fact, the percentage of blacks living in poverty increased under Obama.

As it turned out, the problems of American blacks and other minorities were not related at all to racism, which had been abolished for all practical purposes by affirmative action during the 1970s. Instead, with Barack Obama we got a Soviet-style ideological regime, complete with relocating minorities to white suburbs, penalizing wrongthink, and other acts against the Western European majority that founded the nation.

If there was a “Berlin 1945 Moment” for Leftism, it was at its peak or shortly after, when it was revealed that Obama left America as an economic, cultural, social and military wasteland.

We are now heading toward a different view of race and ethnicity which might be broadly termed as “preservationism.” People want to remain what they are, and they realize that any admixture — even one drop — replaces them with a hybrid. A German with one Irish parent is no longer a German. A Nigerian with one Anglo parent is no longer a Nigerian. A Japanese person with one Mexican parent is no longer Japanese.

This rule of totality is becoming more common as majority groups ask why, if Leftism endorses identity politics, these majority groups cannot have the same. This leads to a re-validation of the exclusion of all others:

As Irish-Nigerian writer Emma Dabiri notes: “Whiteness is ‘pure’ and doesn’t extend to brown girls, even those who can trace their Irish ancestry back to the 10th century.” It was for that reason I once turned down my mother’s offer of Irish dancing lessons.

There are two parts to the above: first, the Irish do not feel than an Irish-Nigerian is Irish, and second, the Irish-Nigerian person does not feel as if she can support the Irish culture, mainly because she does not feel Irish.

In fact, all ethnic groups that want to survive adopt a policy of racial and ethnic survival, which means the exclusion of all other racial and ethnic groups:

“Helmuth Kopp remembered how, on the few occasions he saw him during the 1920’s and early 1930’s, his Jewish grandfather, Louis Kaulbars, hit him with a whip and called him goy. Although he had a Jewish mother, his grandfather did not consider him Jewish. One day his grandmother protested this treatment, telling her husband, “That’s our daughter Helen’s child!” The grandfather replied, “No that’s Wilhelm’s goy!” My soul was damaged, Kopp said in 1995. Mother died in 1925, he went to live with his Jewish aunt and uncle. He attended orthodox school, and had a belated bris. He entered the Wehrmacht in 1941.”

…Mischling Hanns Rehfeld told Riggs:

“I have been discriminated against in my life for three things I could do nothing about. First, my Jewish relatives discriminated against me because I had a Christian mother (Schickse). Secondly, the Germans discriminated against me because I had a Jewish father. And (after the war), when I worked in the foreign service for many years, people discriminated against me because I was a German (i.e., I must be a Nazi.).”

Every group wants to know that it has an unbroken line to the past, extending into the future, and that it controls its own destiny. The racial and ethnic unity is essential for that sense of “Us” which allows a group to work together, instead of becoming atomized and individually competitive, which also strips all meaning from work as it is merely in exchange for money, and not to further the health and strength of the nation.

As this becomes clear, the “racism narrative” is falling, as exemplified by the above citations from the article on Obama:

In 1992, the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics examined the 75 most populous counties. Turns out the jury is less likely to convict a black defendant of a felony than a white defendant. The study found that “in 12 of the 14 types of crimes (felonies including murder, rape and other serious crimes) for which data was collected, the conviction rate for blacks is lower than that of whites.” Similarly, in 2013, the National Institute of Justice, the research and evaluation agency of the DOJ, published their study of whether the police, as a result of racial bias, stop blacks more than other drivers. The conclusion? Any racial disparity in traffic stops is due to “differences in offending” in addition to “differences in exposure to the police” and “differences in driving patterns.”

It turns out that the social justice agenda was never about helping minority groups, but about using perceived minority plights as a method of destroying the majority group, fully atomizing the population so that hubris, known by its modern name of “individualism,” could win out. People naturally seek to avoid dedicating themselves to activities beyond their immediate wants, but it is those activities that give life meaning, which is why people are seeking them out again.

In fact, with the shift away from the ideological assumption that all people are identical, and therefore share only material needs, we are seeing a broader shift toward the search for a life of meaning:

The first is what you might call The Four Kinds of Happiness. The lowest kind of happiness is material pleasure, having nice food and clothing and a nice house. Then there is achievement, the pleasure we get from earned and recognized success. Third, there is generativity, the pleasure we get from giving back to others. Finally, the highest kind of happiness is moral joy, the glowing satisfaction we get when we have surrendered ourselves to some noble cause or unconditional love.

The second model is Maslow’s famous hierarchy of needs. In this conception, we start out trying to satisfy our physical needs, like hunger or thirst. Once those are satisfied we move up to safety needs, economic and physical security. Once those are satisfied we can move up to belonging and love. Then when those are satisfied we can move up to self-esteem. And when that is satisfied we can move up to the pinnacle of development, self-actualization, which is experiencing autonomy and living in a way that expresses our authentic self.

The big difference between these two schemes is that The Four Kinds of Happiness moves from the self-transcendence individual to the relational and finally to the transcendent and collective. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, on the other hand, moves from the collective to the relational and, at its peak, to the individual. In one the pinnacle of human existence is in quieting and transcending the self; in the other it is liberating and actualizing the self.

For too long we have lived without self-actualization because we have been avoiding the task of adaptation. Equality guaranteed this, and diversity finally provided the weapon that the egalitarians needed. But that made us miserable, not just from the Soviet-style malaise that settled over our economy, nor from the transformation of America, but the lack of purpose that stranded us in ourselves without an exit.

Subsequent Generations of Immigrants Turn To Terrorism, Proving Diversity and Assimilation Wrong

Saturday, August 26th, 2017

People invent lore to justify what they believe is convenient. This means that all of our reasoning as a society is backward, because it is people using the reasons they claim that they did things, in order to argue for what they want next.

In the post-Irish mythos of America, different groups from all over the world come here to a “melting pot” where they lose their original identity and become generic Americans because we have brought them the Bible, taught them capitalism, and indoctrinated them in the ideology of human universalism, or equality.

Europe has followed the American lead, but as seems to be happening here, things are not turning out well for the diversity narrative as cultural confusion leads second-generation immigrants to become terrorists because of the disorientation wracked by diversity:

“An estimated 60 percent of those who espouse violent jihadism in Europe are second-generation Muslims who have lost their connection with their country of origin and have failed to integrate into Western societies,” Roy says.

They are subject to a “process of deculturation” that leaves them ignorant of and detached from both the European society and the one of their origins. The result, Roy argues, is a dangerous “identity vacuum” in which “violent extremism thrives.”

Giving up a native culture means to go from someone with a place in the world to someone who must adopt a foreign nation and who must signify status through income only, having given up the values system of their homelands and having replaced it with what is effectively an ideology of anarchy.

This cultural erasure is responsible for the radicalization of second generations of immigrants, who find that they cannot become members of the founding group of the nation because that group was biologically different from their own, and at the same time, they have been made into merely economic units, which deprives them of any context, leading to the atomized lifestyle which creates both libertinism and radicalism.

In other words, even if we pretend that people can exist without a culture, they need one, and our attempts at “assimilation” and “integration” simply deprive them of their inherent nation and fail to replace it with something more compelling:

To call America a melting pot is hostile to marginalized groups because, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, multiculturalists “reject the ideal of the ‘melting pot’ in which members of minority groups are expected to assimilate into the dominant culture in favor of an ideal in which members of minority groups can maintain their distinctive collective identities and practices.” Multiculturalism pervades liberal thinking in our time. As a result, assimilation is “a concept many on the left currently hate,” Beinart writes.

To assimilate is to make oneself, or be made by others, similar to those others, a process that necessarily means becoming dissimilar from the people the immigrant left behind in his native land. The melting-pot metaphor implies that the assimilated will modify the culture they are assimilated to, rendering it as American as pizza pie. But that isn’t good enough. For the zealous multiculturalist, assimilation demands “that the marginalized conform to the identities of their oppressors,” to quote the Stanford Encyclopedia again, which “looks suspiciously like the erasure of socially subordinate identities rather than their genuine incorporation into the polity.”

Note that applying the logic of multiculturalism to the case of immigration requires positing that immigrants are dominated, oppressed, and subordinated.

First generation immigrants generally do not care about cultural loss because they do not perceive they have lost it; born abroad, they still have that identity and the memory of living among their people, thus easily gravitate toward immigrant groups and family in the new nation. Their children however, having grown up as attendees of a market rather than participants in a cultural identity.

Even more important, they lose out on the social trust that exists in non-diverse societies, and so have no sense of unity with others in their host nation:

Government, Roger Scruton argues, “requires a ‘we,’ a prepolitical loyalty that causes neighbors…to treat each other as fellow citizens.” Without the “legacy of social trust” derived from this sense of belonging to a highly specific subset of mankind, political stability is impossible.

No one was thinking of that when immigration programs were designed because those programs were created to fund the entitlements payments which had to go to the huge generation of people born from 1944-1964, a.k.a. the “Baby Boomers” or “Me Generation.” In Europe, the immigrants were intended as a tax base to pay for Boomer retirement:

But, Krieger added, one of the big caveats here is the effect that immigrants have on pension or retirement systems, which constitute a huge chunk of the public budget in many countries. Pension systems are typically pay-as-you-go programs, which means everyone currently working gets taxed and that money immediately goes to current retirees. Immigrants tend to have a tremendously positive impact on the pension system, he said. In fact, their arrival triggers what “pension economists usually call an ‘introductory gift.’ If you find a job, you start paying contributions and all these contributions—because it’s a pay-as-you-go system—go directly to the retirees.” That can swiftly shore up government finances in countries with an aging population, which describes most of Europe. Plus, “There’s been research showing that even if the people are net beneficiaries of the pension system [i.e. if, by the time these immigrants grow old, the state has committed to larger pension payouts], even then it would have a positive effect on pay-as-you-go simply because they will have children who become contributors, and immigrants tend to have more children than natives.” In Germany, said Krieger, that kind of effect on the pension system “is a factor of three or four compared to all the other benefits.”

In America, a similar rationale was advanced in that immigrant payments into social security were anticipated to fund retirement programs so that existing citizens could exit the workforce and still receive benefits:

Stephen Goss, chief actuary for the Social Security Administration, told the Daily Beast, “Even as it stands under current policy, unauthorized immigrants contribute positively to the financing of social security not only in terms of their own contributions, but in the succeeding generations when they have children on our soil that are citizens from day one.”

…“The biggest problem we have with social security is there are fewer Americans to pay into the system to support people who are currently retired or about to retire,” says Ornstein, “so the more people working and paying into the system is better for everybody.”

Henry Aaron, an expert on social security at the Brookings Institution, says that looking ahead 75 years into the future, the legalization of some five million immigrants by executive order would be “like a boost in population—and a higher population is typically good for the (social security) trust fund. It’s equal to an increase in net migration, and when people enter the system, and that group is young and working, that’s positive.”

When all you look at is economics, this makes sense. If you look at multiple silos of social benefits and detriments, it becomes clear that what is happening with immigration is merely cost-shifting, namely putting money into retirement programs while taking it out of other areas of the economy, including the benefits which most immigrants rely on.

At that point, it is hardly surprising that the children of immigrants — realizing that they are essentially part of a large retirement insurance scam created by democratic governments — become indifferent to life, and thus radicalize. Immigration benefits no one, and assimilation destroys identity, further increasing the misery necessary for successful suicidal terrorist recruitment.

Anti-Diversity Distinguished From Racialism, Human Biodiversity and “Racism”

Saturday, August 26th, 2017

We know that diversity is dysfunctional because throughout history, we see no examples of societies which adopted diversity continuing to thrive after that point. In fact, all of them dove straight into third-world disorder and consequent erasure from history.

There are many arguments against diversity. Some are based on genetics, others on culture, and some on looking at current examples of diversity. These are often convincing, but a more fundamental argument can be made which we might call the “Machiavellian argument”:

Every ethnic group has its own agenda, which is to be dominant in any lands where it is present. The reason for this is that any ethnic group is unstable if it is not dominant, because one can only be dominant or conquered. There is no middle ground, but diversity pretends to be this, which more resembles a temporary truce than a long-term plan. Each ethnic group seeks to make its culture, values, language, standards, beliefs and behaviors into the norm wherever that ethnic group resides, because if it does not do this, those are quickly supplanted by either those from other groups, or the standard-of-no-standards that occurs when a standard is designed to incorporate the standards of multiple ethnic groups. Ethnic groups have their own self-interest, or goal of dominating so that they are not dominated, and no amount of laws, economic incentives or government propaganda can change that.

This means that it does not matter who the racial or ethnic minorities that make up a diversity society are, only that different groups be present. They do not need to have pre-existing culture; if cultureless people of different groups were put on a desert island, they would quickly separate by appearance, and invent a culture that makes each group feel as if it has a unique purpose and quite possibly, is the best group in the world. We know that all cultures do this, as do groups within cultures. As Tom Wolfe writes, this is the “fiction-absolute”:

Even before I left graduate school I had come to the conclusion that virtually all people live by what I think of as a “fiction-absolute.” Each individual adopts a set of values which, if truly absolute in the world — so ordained by some almighty force — would make not that individual but his group…the best of all possible groups, the best of all inner circles. Politicians, the rich, the celebrated, become mere types. Does this apply to “the intellectuals” also? Oh, yes…perfectly, all too perfectly.

The human beast’s belief in his own fiction-absolute accounts for one of the most puzzling and in many cases irrational phenomena of our time. I first noticed it when I read a book by Samuel Lubell called The Future of American Politics. Lubell was a political scientist and sociologist who had been as surprised as everybody else by the outcome of the 1948 presidential election. That was the election in which the Democratic incumbent, Harry Truman, was a president whose approval rating had fallen as low as 23 percent. Every survey, every poll, every pundit’s prediction foresaw him buried by the Republican nominee, Thomas E. Dewey. Instead, Truman triumphed in one of the most startling upsets in American political history. Lubell was determined to find out why, and so he set out across the country. When he reached a small Midwestern town that had been founded before the turn of the 19th century by Germans, he was puzzled to learn that the town had gone solidly for Dewey despite the fact that by every rational turn of logic, every economic motivation, Truman would have been a more logical choice. By and by Lubell discovered that the town was still predominantly German. Nobody had ever gotten over the fact that in 1917, a Democrat, President Woodrow Wilson, had declared war on Germany. That had set off a wave of anti-German feeling, anti-German prejudice, and, in the eyes of the people of this town, besmirched their honor as people of German descent. And now, two World Wars later, their minds were fixed on the year 1917, because like all other human beasts, they tended to champion in an irrational way their own set of values, their own fiction absolute. The question Lubell asked was very much like the question that Thomas Frank asked after the election of 2004 in his book What’s the Matter with Kansas? By all economic and political logic, the state of Kansas should have gone to John Kerry, the Democrat, in 2004. But it didn’t. Had Frank only looked back to Samuel Lubell, he would have known why. The 2004 election came down to one state: the state of Ohio. Whoever won that state in the final hours would win the election. Northern Ohio, the big cities of Cleveland, Toledo on the Great Lakes, were solidly for Kerry. But in southern Ohio, from east to west, and in the west was the city of Cincinnati, Ohio went solidly for George Bush. And the reason? That great swath of territory was largely inhabited by the Scots-Irish. And when the Democrats came out in favor of gun control, the Scots-Irish interpreted this as not merely an attack on the proliferation of weaponry in American life but as a denunciation, a besmirching, of their entire way of life, their entire fiction absolute. Guns were that important in their scheme of things.

For a group to be living the best of all possible lives, it would have to be the best group on Earth, and for that to be true, there can be no competing groups, which means that even if at a glacial pace, that group will work to subvert and conquer all nearby groups that are discernibly different. This is as much part of nature as natural selection.

The fiction-absolute guarantees that every ethnic group will act in self-interest, and over time realize that this self-interest includes conquest of others. This was once recognized as a principle of human nature, but even more, it is a principle of nature, and we see it in other species as well:

Slave-making ants—yes, that’s actually their common name—also stage raids on other ant species, notes Katy Prudic, an entomologist at Arizona State University.

…“There’s good evidence that chimpanzees conduct deliberate raids on neighbouring communities, and that this can lead to annexing of territory.”

For instance, during a ten-year study of a chimp family in Uganda’s Kibale National Park, the primates killed or injured 18 chimps from other groups and took over their land. (Related: “Chimp Gangs Kill to Expand Territory.”)

“The behaviour of chimpanzees is much more akin to a guerrilla band”—wearing down the enemy—than what we think of as a traditional battle, Newton-Fisher says.

Others point out that there are battles between groups within the same species, usually over who predominates in a certain territory, such as ants and termites whose competing colonies frequently go to war:

Insects, particularly ants, have become popular examples of this form of warfare, where tens of thousands of members from rival colonies will do battle, often tearing one another apart, and engaging in other strategies and tactics that might be seen on a human battlefield from the Middle Ages.

These insect battles, which are also seen in termites and other colony-based species of insects, are typically started over territory.

In other words, ethnic battles within species are common in the animal kingdom, and for the same reasons that human ethnic groups clash: only one group can predominate. That group gets to choose its destiny instead of having it chosen for it, and can set standards, cultural values, habits, cuisine, customs, language and other identifiers that support the fiction-absolute of its members.

Examined in the context of a logical racialist analysis of diversity, we can see how our refusal to admit that each group has self-interest dooms us to race riots, violent crime, political agitation and other forms of guerrilla warfare:

Race or any of the fashionable victim statuses may and must be substituted for sex. Further, race doesn’t exist. This is why strict mandatory quotas based on race must be enforced, to teach people that race doesn’t exist. There are thus no differences among people based on race. Yet Diversity is our strength, so ensuring quotas based on race, which doesn’t exist, will make outcomes better, outcomes which must be the same, since there is no such thing as race, therefore there can’t be differences in performance among peoples of different races. This is why Diversity is our strength.

All disparities are formed and held in place by power. Where there are more men than women in a position, or more whites than blacks, it is because of the power men have over women, or whites over others. Yet Equality says men and women and the races, which do not exist, are not inherently different, therefore this power must be illusory. This is why the men who think men and women are different, or those who say race exists, must be fired from, or kept from securing, their positions, so that they may not wield the dangerous power they by theory cannot have.

This sardonic view correctly deciphers the Leftist attitude toward race and diversity: the only idea of Leftism is that all people are equal, which enables the caste revolt they seek, so this means that diversity must exist in order to prove that we are all equal, which requires quashing anything and anyone who is not 100% on board with diversity.

In this way, even diversity logic recognizes that groups have different interests. In order to prove equality, diversity must be enforced, which means that some groups must be favored over the others in order to erase natural differences and make those groups equal, which makes diversity a weapon of the guerrilla war. It is a deceptive weapon, in that the end goal of diversity is a beige race, not any one ethnic group becoming victorious. Diversity will destroy whites, blacks and Asians as it has in the past, leaving behind populations like those in Latin America, North Africa, the Middle East and parts of near Asia where the people are mostly Caucasian, a good bit Asian, and traces of any other groups. This mixture corresponds to how well those groups do in a civilization, namely through commerce and productivity, and the mixing occurs as people find others on their socio-economic level and have children with them, even though they are of another race, mainly because the increased disorder of social chaos caused by a lack of trust then forces people to become insular on the basis of class.

This view liberates us from the notion that other racial and ethnic groups (even The Irish) are our enemies. Instead, they are symptoms of a broader problem, which is the adoption of diversity by a civilization dying from caste revolt. The actual enemies are the ideas of diversity, equality, and pluralism, and these create a civil war within the civilization that, being a guerrilla war, grinds on until there is nothing left to destroy:

The war for civilization is almost entirely between groups of whites, in fact mostly white Christians. The white Left has drawn in other groups, but mostly as auxiliary forces. The same battle would be going on, as it has been in much of Europe, if we were only dealing with white opponents. None of the multiculturalists I have known has been black; and calling white multicultural fanatics “race traitors” is a gross oversimplification because the object of leftist hate goes well beyond their own racial group. It now includes all normal people who have not been reconstructed by the managerial therapeutic state or are fighting the scourge of Political Correctness.

Our struggle is not a race war. It is a war against the collapse of civilization, and we cannot fight that directly, but instead can only orient ourselves toward a renewal of civilization. That process automatically excludes those who wish to, like parasitic insects, devour civilization for their own sustenance. There is no middle ground in this fight.

When we refocus our views on the failure of diversity along with other civilization destroyer programs, we reveal exactly why there is no middle ground: as in the struggle against Communism, or against any tyranny or power which serves itself, we are waging a war of ideas through culture. Through that, the necessity of our struggle becomes evident.

After Charlottesville, the battle lines are drawn and the sides are polarized. Those in the middle are realizing that to waffle makes them a double target, and they are looking for a side that will win so that they will not be targeted. Since our side is the only side that includes the survival of our civilization, and thus the comfortable life to which people aspire in the West, we will win over time.

Affirmative Action Is Ready To Fall

Sunday, August 6th, 2017

As predicted by Samuel Huntington, with the fall of the Soviet Union all restraints on Leftism also fell, and it assumed its final form: a controlling, manipulative, lower-caste revolt designed to remove all sense, sanity, goodness, decency and normalcy from the West. As a result of that, a cultural wave has arisen which rejects not just Leftism but ideology in general.

People are turning back to the time-honored and functional traditions. These have two aspects: first, they work, and second, they point toward something that is morally good, or virtuous. Traditions aim toward a union of man, God and nature on the same parallels of understanding, with the idea of suppressing natural human hubris and raising our consciousness of the world beyond us.

Although it was not clear at the time, the election of Barack Obama was the “Berlin 1945 moment” for liberal democracy, Leftism and ideology, all of which converge on the same end result. As was apparent to anyone with an IQ over 120 and a sense of history, Barack Obama trashed the USA at the same time Left-leaning politicians in Europe like “ex”-Communist Angela Merkel trashed Europe.

Not surprisingly it was those higher echelon voters who drove Trump into the presidency, not so much from financial concerns, but because they realized that their society was being destroyed. They realized that people make bad decisions in groups, and so liberal democracy always moves Leftward, and that any Leftism is a toxic path to a Soviet-style ultra-modernist society.

Last week, Donald Trump broadened the Overton Window by attacking the sacred cow of the Left and their means of replacing us, affirmative action. This has prompted much response, blunted by the supposed replacement of Jeff Sessions, who initiated the attack on affirmative action in academia.

Over the weekend, a viral memo from Google began circulating which criticized affirmative action:

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber

Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.

This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.

Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression

Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression

Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Google’s biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Left Biases

  • Compassion for the weak
  • Disparities are due to injustices
  • Humans are inherently cooperative
  • Change is good (unstable)
  • Open
  • Idealist

Right Biases

  • Respect for the strong/authority
  • Disparities are natural and just
  • Humans are inherently competitive
  • Change is dangerous (stable)
  • Closed
  • Pragmatic

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]

At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:

  • They’re universal across human cultures
  • They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
  • Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
  • The underlying traits are highly heritable
  • They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

Personality differences

Women, on average, have more:

  • Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
  • These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
  • Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
  • This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
  • Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

Men’s higher drive for status

We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:

  • Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
  • We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
  • Women on average are more cooperative
  • Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
  • Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
  • Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
  • The male gender role is currently inflexible
  • Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.

Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The Harm of Google’s biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

  • Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
  • A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
  • Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
  • Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
  • Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

Why we’re blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

Suggestions

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.

As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

Stop alienating conservatives.

Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.

In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.

Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

Confront Google’s biases.

I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.

I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.

There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.

These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.

I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.

We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity

Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

De-emphasize empathy.

I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

Prioritize intention.

Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.

Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Be open about the science of human nature.

Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.

Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.

Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

[10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”

[11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.

There is quite a bit to like in this mini-manifesto, which tackles the essential problem with diversity and political correctness: they originate from the Leftist ideology of equality, and aim to achieve it by “inverting” society or making it so that the lower echelons are ranked highest, which makes everyone else a beggar for the approval of these castes.

In its place, the manifesto proposes a different form of equality commonly known as meritocracy, or the idea of making people jump through hoops to gain approval, instead of merely doing it by mob rule. While this is a good start, any institution will inevitably be corrupted and shift the goal posts to reward those who are rote memorization fans or otherwise obedience and successful within a narrow scope, but not necessarily effective at life.

Google learned that meritocracy by academia and “brainteasers” did not work in the past [2013]:

Google has admitted that the headscratching questions it once used to quiz job applicants (How many piano tuners are there in the entire world? Why are manhole covers round?) were utterly useless as a predictor of who will be a good employee.

“We found that brainteasers are a complete waste of time,” Laszlo Bock, senior vice president of people operations at Google, told the New York Times. “They don’t predict anything. They serve primarily to make the interviewer feel smart.”

In addition, the article is confused about the nature of conservatism, which is that which emphasizes those things which are both time-proven and oriented toward virtue. It is a classic American confusion to see conservatism as that which resists change and wants to revisit the past; conservatism recognizes the continuity of the past, and the need for reality-based (not test-based, academic, or money-based) standards which affirm both competence and moral character.

The core of it however is a rejection of ideology, which consists of philosophies based on how reality “should” be versus how it is, in particular the patterns of nature. That core can be seen here:

De-moralize diversity.

As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

In other words, this is a shift to the Right: the writer wants a reality-based standard that emphasizes best results, or qualitative improvement of the way the world works, instead of trying to make the world work a different way.

Quite a bit of thought went into this memo, and it may be that Google itself leaked it. The company has faced increased criticism for the failure of its diversity programs and other accusations of discrimination, and since it cannot seem to hire women and minorities fast enough, and make them succeed enough, to defend against these, it is clear that in the future it will get beaten around the head with more legal and possibly regulatory action. Having a revolt in the ranks allows Google to gracefully back down from these commitments. If someone from the Trump administration reached out to them before this memo and proposed it as a solution, that would not exactly be surprising either.

In the meantime, affirmative action and similar programs (civil rights, anti-discrimination, disparate impact, unofficial quotas) are increasingly being revealed as exploitative:

British A-level students are being “discriminated” against by many of the UK’s top universities as they recruit more lucrative overseas applicants instead, often with poorer qualifications, a Sunday Times investigation discloses.

The former education minister Lord Adonis said the findings were “seriously alarming”, attacking elite universities for “crowding out British students” and “betraying their mission” to widen access. Some pupils with top A-level grades were being turned away.

Half the top-flight Russell Group, including Oxford and Cambridge, and 23 of The Sunday Times’s top 50 universities have cut British undergraduate numbers, often substantially, since 2008. Across all universities British undergraduate numbers have also fallen since 2008, even though UK applications for university rose by 17% in that time. Numbers of non-EU students, who pay as much as four times the fees charged to British and EU ones, have increased by 39%.

This comes on the heels of news that American industries may also have overplayed diversity to the point of nearly excluding the founding group of the nation in preference for the new foreign Leftist voters, as exemplified by the ideological success story that is Harvard’s diversity program:

Of the freshmen students admitted to Harvard this year, 50.8 percent are from minority groups, including African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, and Native Hawaiians. That’s up from 47.3 percent last year, according to the university.

…Last year, the US Supreme Court, in a 4-to-3 vote, decided that college admissions officers could continue to use race as one of several factors in deciding who gets into a school. The decision surprised university officials and disappointed those who had hoped to end race-based admissions.

But the ruling does require universities, if they are challenged, to show that they had no choice but to use race to create diversity on campus and that other factors alone, such as family income or an advantage to first-generation college students, couldn’t create a similar mix of students, said Vinay Harpalani, a law professor at the Savannah Law School, who specializes in affirmative action.

As the cultural wave turns against ideology, the viral knowledge spreads that diversity, affirmative action, civil rights, and anti-discrimination laws are part of a systematic campaign to transform America into a majority-minority society and replace its founding Western European group. This empowers government and ideologues, but has also wrecked America.

In the future, people will speak out about how diversity also causes people, because the majority of them marry and reproduce based on who is nearby, to outbreed and thus is a type of “soft genocide” which hopes to replace an ethnic population with a mixed-race, cultureless group dependent on ideology.

This cultural wave is now appearing in many places at once, readying the fall of not just affirmative action, but all policies based on “creating equality,” since those invariably end up taking from the thriving to give to the flailing, and in doing so invert society, creating a bias in favor of incompetence and political obedience as if in emulation of the Soviet state.

Anti-Diversity Goes Mainstream In The Wall Street Journal

Monday, June 19th, 2017

In the pages of The Wall Street Journal, we find a welcome summary of the argument against diversity. Couched in analysis of the European immigration disaster, the article examines some of the points and issues I have been writing about since the early 1990s:

It is as though some great hole lies at the heart of the culture of Dante, Bach and Wren.

When people point out the downsides of this approach—not least that more immigration from Muslim countries produces many problems, including terrorism—we get the final explanation. It doesn’t matter, we are told: Because of globalization this is inevitable and we can’t stop it anyway.

All these instincts, when put together, are the stuff of suicide. They spell out the self-annihilation of a culture as well as a continent. Conversations with European policy makers and politicians have made this abundantly clear to me. They tell me with fury that it “must” work. I suggest that with population change of this kind, at this speed, it may not work at all.

Diversity is a way of engineering a permanent Leftist majority because the new group will always vote for more benefits, which are the province of the Left (and when conservatives embrace entitlements culture, they rapidly shift Leftward). It eventually means ethnic replacement of the population first through trace admixture, where your son or daughter marries someone who is 1/8 or 1/4 something else, and eventually everyone is a little bit newcomer, and the original racial group is erased. Genocided. Gone forever.

Diversity never works because each ethnic group wants to be in control so that it can set standards, values, customs, practices, procedures, aesthetics and cultural memes. This means that in a nation-state with multiple ethnic groups, they are subtly at war with one another as they compete for dominance. Even when one wins, the others struggle, at least until everyone is mixed into a grey cultureless nu-race.

The intellectually difficult point here is that we do not have an enemy. Our problem is not Muslims, but diversity itself; even “nice” other groups will invade us and genetically replace us. A Germany that is genetically 1/4 Japanese is no longer Germany, for example. They do not mean to do this, but it is the way of tribes that want to prevail, that they assert themselves and dominate others.

Diversity itself is a bad policy because it is paradoxical in this way, promising peace and freedom but delivering constant ethnic conflict. It cannot work because it is illogical given the innate needs of different populations. Every individual and every group acts in self-interest, and diversity makes those interests clash.

In America, people are fleeing diversity because it destroys social trust in their communities, causing them to distrust even people of their own ethnic group. Minority communities suffer because of diversity as well because it deprecates their own prospects and makes them subject to the same social distrust. The nation-state itself becomes corrupt with the introduction of diversity.

Healthy nations recognize homogeneity not as a fanatical goal, but a prerequisite for health and so are abandoning diversity just like the people in the West who are fleeing it. Energy is growing behind the idea of ending diversity without acrimony.

The WSJ article goes on to point out the core reason for diversity:

The reasons lie partly in our history, not least in the overwhelming German guilt, which has spread across the Continent and affected even our cultural cousins in America and Australia. Egged on by those who wish us ill, we have fallen for the idea that we are uniquely guilty, uniquely to be punished, and uniquely in need of having our societies changed as a result.

There is also, for Europe, the sense of what I call tiredness—the feeling that the story might have run out: that we have tried religion, all imaginable forms of politics, and that each has, one after another, led us to disaster. When we taint every idea we touch, perhaps a change is as good as a rest.

Modernity — equality, consumerism, individualism, democracy, social mobility, pluralism, class warfare — is the monkey on our back. No matter what we change, we bring our fundamental egalitarian assumptions with us, and so like an inverse King Midas we destroy everything we touch.

This “tiredness” was first chronicled by the generation of writers after World War One, who noted that “the war to end all wars” had convinced no one, and that people had become fatalistic because it was clear that society was heading down a path to doom and yet our pretense of equality prevented us from stepping off that path. Drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die, and life has no point.

This leads to a condition like the present day:

The migration policies of the political and other elites of Europe suggest that they are suicidal.

The West has to decide whether it wants to keep committing suicide for the pretense that every person is good, and that we all have equal potential and abilities and moral character, or whether it wants to admit that we need an external order above the human individual. Around here, I suggest the eternal social order that made Golden Ages in the past and can do so in the future, even as we prepare to take to space for the next phase of our great human adventure.

Why People Oppose Diversity

Thursday, June 1st, 2017

As the current narrative on race crumbles, the Left struggles to invent a new reason to trivialize anti-diversity sentiment:

It’s easy to blame the anti-immigrant impulses driving so much Trump administration policy on basic bigotry. But a recent line of research has asked whether this visceral disdain for outsiders is not just psychological, but biological.

Evolution, after all, has programmed us to be wary of potential sources of disease or infection. For people who are particularly sensitive to such threats, that can translate into a desire to stay far away from suspect strangers — such as immigrants from a far-away land.

Look, what an interesting shift! Instead of blaming us for bigotry, the Left has changed tack and is blaming us for our ignorance again. Their paternalistic condescending viewpoint is that we primitive dirt people are simply in the grips of a basic instinct that helps us avoid disease.

Spray those immigrants down with Lysol, they reason, and diversity can suddenly work again! The empire is saved.

Not so fast. The classic Leftist gambit is to choose one detail of many about a situation, turn it into a symbol, and make it stand for the whole. If you dislike getting run over by red cars, the reason for your fear is the color red, not the speeding ton of metal heading right for you. If we can just psychoanalyze that fear of red-ness out of you…

There are many reasons that people dislike diversity, and they tend to overlap with one another as do the parts in all instincts, but we can boil them down to this:

  1. Disease. As noted above, there is a fear of foreign disease. Outbreaks of measles, tuberculosis and other diseases in the American Southwest suggest that this fear is entirely reasonable.
  2. Genetic Interests. Very few want to admit this, but most people want their children to look like them and their ancestors. What has worked in the past usually continues working, and most sane people take pride in what their families did because they have achievements, no matter how small, that they can point to. In addition, people want their children to carry on their own traits that they find valuable. In a group, people are co-related and so can share traits and pass them on together, which is why groups break away from larger populations and settle alone; your neighbors pass on your genes as well as their own. This way, they can optimize themselves through selective breeding, and then pass on those traits. This is no different than teaching future generations about the right way to do things, or values or any other social capital, except that genetics is innate, and so provides a starting point for future generations that gives them a chance to succeed.
  3. Logic. Here is the big one: logical fact is stronger than fact, because fact is assessed from data and necessarily streamlined, which misses details which may turn out to be more crucial than the ones included in the calculus. We know that all animals act in self-interest; people do the same. This means that human groups, also, act in self-interest, which much like the goals of an individual organism, consists of reproducing themselves and raising strong offspring. In order to do this, they must bash down every other group in the area or absorb them, which requires dominating the political, cultural, philosophical and religious life of their new country. Diversity creates nothing but enmity because these groups are competing under the guise of coexisting. People who endorse diversity are classic pacifists who would rather lose than engage in conflict, and so they rationalize diversity as “peace” when it is in fact the exact opposite.

Trust the Left to continue alternating between calling us ignorant, bigoted and afraid as their means of perpetuating the rationalization of the ongoing conflict that is diversity. For the Left, there is only one truth and it is called equality, and so all other language merely serves as a pretext for advancing equality over the natural order which is its opposite.

Recommended Reading