Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘multiculturalism’

“Racism” Is Self-Preservation

Saturday, November 25th, 2017

Only Leftists care about “racism.” To a conservative, the fact that some if not most people prefer to live among their own is no more consequential than their choice of shoes or favorite beer. Welcome to freedom, liberty and every other term for allowing innocent choice.

Leftists care about racism because their goal is to destroy. They bargain through collectives, but these are designed to benefit the individual by separating cause and effect, in this case the performance of the individual and the reward it receives from society. An ideal Leftist society is “equal” so that individuals do not have to prove themselves.

That serves as an extension of the decline of societies, in which people fear life more than they are willing to engage with it, so withdraw into human social groups where each person is rewarded merely for being a person, which protects individuals from loss of social status or power because they contribute nothing or are incompetent. This appeals to their fear of being insufficient or inept, and so people are drawn to it because they fundamentally do not believe in their society and have trouble believing in themselves as a result.

The impetus behind this crowd hysteria originates in people rationalizing the decay of their civilization because they lack faith in other people to reward them for doing the right thing instead of the popular thing. At its core is individualism, or the idea that by making the individual part of the group, no one can make that individual anything less than equal to everyone else, which is required for hierarchy and the social order necessary to reverse our decline. In other words, instead of the social order of a thriving civilization, a mob of equals is created so that no individual will be below any other.

As part of this, any attribute which can make someone higher than another must also be destroyed. Their primary target is caste, manifested in the modern “class,” but inherent to the distribution of IQ and moral character through a population. To that end, they must remove religion, race, ethnicity, and even sex so that everyone is finally equal. This is a pathological pursuit which has no ability to reverse itself, sort of like a psychological endgame for civilization, and its appeal to people is that in a world where they feel helpless, they are at least given control over a subset of reality, the human social arena, in which they can feel powerful. This disease exterminates every human group over time through what we call The Human Problem: the tendency of any human group to focus inward on placating its members rather than orienting them toward producing results, which benefit all unequally.

For those who followed all of that, it means that anti-racism is a death impulse by those who wish to destroy civilization because they are underconfident and fear their own ineptitude. Good guys do not engage in anti-racism; they recognize the reality, which is first that people like to be with those like themselves — not just by race but by ethnicity, caste, religion, customs and political outlook — and second that anti-racism seeks to erase the original group through miscegenation in what amounts to a slow and passive-aggressive genocide. This is why conservatives, or at least coherent and realistic ones, do not bother themselves with anti-racism and believe that “racism” does not exist. There are only choices about whom to associate with and where.

In contrast to what the herd tells you, “racism” is not cruelty toward others, but defense of your own group. That requires being the master of other groups or having them be far away. The only way to survive being bred into a hybrid, in fact, is through xenophobia that is systematically and rigorously applied, which requires some amount of demonization of Otherness, although not necessarily any specific other groups. That in turn requires the ability to apply harsh standards to those who are Us, so that what is left are the strong and powerful representatives of that group; if you love something, you prune the weak versions of it so that you get more of the strong.

On a practical level, concerns over racism are dead, for now. The Obama-Ferguson effect — the tendency of minority groups to recognize that a mixed-race group will condescend to them, but not fully include them — manifests in more racial strife, not less, the more concessions are made. In fact, diversity causes every group to begin competing with others because the only way to avoid genocide by miscegenation is to dominate all of the other groups and demonize them to a degree that interbreeding does not occur. However, this current backlash against anti-racism is not a belief in itself, but a frustration with the failed policies that have spent billions over the past fifty years to attempt to fix a problem that is unfixable.

The future for those who care about such antiquated issues as having a civilization and not a giant cultureless mixed-race bazaar can be found in the idea that it is time to start positively nurturing our culture, and withdrawing our focus from specific other groups. What we fixate on, we become; what we tolerate, we get more of. And so instead of being good stupid democracy-bots and trying to herd together as many people as possible, we can focus on the people who have actual ability and reaching them, and then aiming to disenfranchise the rest because like all good zombie voters, they will simply go back to sleep and quite happily vote for any number of pro-diversity items if those are presented with the right soothing language and promises of more social benefits.

Our future lies in snapping out of the modern dream where civilization consists of a government, social engineering and the welfare state, and lacks culture, heritage, customs, and values of its own separate from the ideology of that government. We are here to restore Western Civilization, and we cannot do that through the modern model at all.

The first step in this consists of converting “racism,” as expressed in the media, or ethnic resentment of other groups, into a dogmatic and principled xenophobia, where we stop caring at all about these other groups and whether they are good or not. Even if they are high-IQ angels, we do not want them among us, because any diversity is a path to our genocide.

Instead, we can dedicate our time to understanding who we are, both genetically and as a culture, and then enhancing the attributes of that culture in ourselves and society. This will require removing democracy, individualism, equality, and diversity, but those are only stops on the road to being a greater civilization than ever before.

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.

Letter to the Others on the Eve of Their Departure

Saturday, October 7th, 2017

Good Morning! We hope this letter finds you well.

Look, this diversity thing just isn’t working out. It’s not you… but it’s also not us, the descendants of those who build this nation. It’s all of us, because diversity itself can never work.

In truth, this has all been a huge mistake. The people who invited you here were mentally defective and shamefully ignorant. Really, this is quite embarrassing for us as we realize how bad of a decision it was to give them power. We’re kicking ourselves about it.

Some of them were deluded into believing that there are no real biological differences between us, which apart from being just plain pseudoscience, raises the question of why they felt it was so important to bring you here in the first place. If there’s no difference between us and you, then why did they think it was so important to bring you here?

Most likely they did not think things through to that point. Actually, they were likely not thinking at all; they were just repeating what people they foolishly esteemed said in an attempt to gain for themselves some of that esteem. Others claimed to be trying to help you, but rather than simply try to help you where you were, they vainly believed that the best way to help you was to bring you into our presence, as if denying you from basking in our wondrous proximity was somehow cruel. Yes, their low estimation of you and their paternalistic attitude truly is shameful. As I said, it’s really become clear how stupid it was for us to put any trust in these clowns.

This series of bad decisions has led us all (you and us together) to where we are now: as fractured and mutually resentful as we are diverse. In this mixed environment, any interaction between members of these groups carries with it an inherent group aspect. One is forced to consider whether a disparity or an offense was due to a group preference. Did he get ahead because members of his group treated him more beneficially than members of other groups? Was her attack on a member of an out-group motivated by an in-group preference? Even if we wanted to, how can we expect to remove each group’s in-group preference without destroying that which makes them unique? Because of the obvious benefits an in-group preference give a group, this is a Mexican standoff in which the last group to disarm itself of its group identity wins, and the other groups are suckers.

By attempting to share a nation-state, we find ourselves in a zero-sum situation, where the ascendance of any one group is necessarily the decline of the others. Ignoring these group dynamics puts one at a disadvantage as surely as any ignorance. In addition, any direction we as a whole might choose to pursue would necessitate a set of standards of behavior and success that could be achieved in differing degrees by different groups, with the inevitable result being that any direction or goal is unfair to some group. This has made it impossible have any standards but the most basic. Ultimately, beneath their rationalizations, this may be what those who invited you here wanted. Those who have no confidence in themselves and believe themselves to be weak can find a selfish comfort in tearing down all standards.

But enough about them and the problems they’ve caused; let’s get to the solution. We find ourselves in a situation where we cannot coexist safely, sanely, or satisfactorily within the same nation-state, and yet we have no desire to treat you ill. If you understand this, and similarly harbor no ill intent towards us, then the solution is clear: you will return home with mutual goodwill and our aid.

We know this will not be too much trouble because for the vast majority of you, either you or your parents came here as a simple “move” not too much more involved than moving from New York to Los Angeles, and so a return will have a similar simplicity.

Those of you who have known no homes but ours because you were born in our nations may feel concern that your home nations will be foreign to you. This is understandable, but we would like to point out to you that there will be many others like you, and that amongst them you will find a community that is most fitting. Further, the skills and knowledge you’ve gained here may prove quite valuable to your group as a whole.

In addition to the wealth you have accumulated in our nations, which may be worth more in your new old homes, we would like to provide you with a cash award to help get you settled. Consider this an apology for the regrettable misunderstandings that brought you into this mess.

We wish you well and have great hope that you will all flourish and thrive in your own ways when you are finally free to decide for yourselves just exactly what success means for you. If you’d like to keep in touch, we’d be excited to hear all about it.

America Wakes Up To The Multi-Dimensional Nature of “Racism”

Friday, October 6th, 2017

In the old days, we viewed our race problem as simple: white people oppressed others, and now discriminated against them, so our goal was to raise up these others while holding white people back from beating them down.

This follows the pattern of all egalitarian thinking, which is that if there is an unequal group, those who are doing better than others must be holding the others back, because we assume that they are equal. This is why the trope “equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome” is nonsense; once you assume equality, unequal results conflict with that, and so you will be forced to impose limits on opportunity for whatever groups are thriving and not flailing.

Those of us who criticized diversity generally took another approach: the problem was not white oppression, or minority subversion of the white order, but diversity itself. Each group needs to define its own future, have its own rules and standards, and exclude all other groups. When you try to combine multiple groups, you have a conflict of the interests of those groups.

Starting in the early 1990s with this analysis, I found few takers. The far-Right wanted to talk about how horrible Negroes and Jews are; the Left wanted to talk about how horrible white men are. No one wanted to criticize diversity itself. My point was that even with angelic minority groups, we would end up with the same conflicts we have now.

Almost thirty years later, I have been proven right, and thanks to a rise in violence between minority groups, the case against diversity is replacing the case against specific racial or ethnic groups.

The passerby was caught completely unaware by the blow which instantly knocked him unconscious with such force that it sent his hat flying off his head.

Bystanders failed to help the man after he thudded to the floor in footage released by local cops.

…Cops have now named 18-year-old Alejandro Maldonado as a suspect in the crime.

From the video, it seems as if the victim is not white or Hispanic, and may be light-skinned African-American. The point here is that instead of white people beating black people, or black people beating up with people in what we are taught to assume is a response to centuries of oppression, we have two “oppressed” groups beating up each other.

Like most things in natural, tribalism represents a mathematical optimum. If a group is to survive, it must exclude all other groups, which means fight or flight. When flight is not possible — diversity — then the option becomes fighting alone. Any group that does not do this will find itself genetically replaced, and its laws, customs, language, culture and values will be re-interpreted by the new group.

In order to feel better about the decline of their civilization which began its endgame with the French Revolution, Western Civilization has become a competition for who is more “virtuous” according to the principle of human equality, which we enacted as part of a lower caste revolt. Caste revolts — the numerous r-strategy lower echelons deposing the fewer, smarter K-strategy higher echelons — destroy most civilizations.

Our virtue competition took on its final form during WW2 and was strengthened during the Cold War, where we sold ourselves as more free than the Nazis or Soviets. To be free, we had to make everyone free, which eventually entailed confronting the paradox of freedom that did not extend to other races. Once we gave it to the Africans, we might as well give it to everyone, and so in 1965, we decided to become “multicultural.”

Since that time, trillions of dollars and many lives — some lost in race riots, some destroyed for having the “wrong” opinion — have been sacrificed at the altar of this ideological quest.

Up until the election of Barack Obama, most people believed that the narrative was as simple as ending white discrimination against others. With his reckless and politically-motivated behavior occurring at the same time the economy collapsed and race riots increased in places like Ferguson, Americans finally had enough of the diversity narrative.

Now all that remains is for the slow-thinking humans to stop looking for good guys and bad guys, and to realize that instead the question we should be asking is whether or not diversity is a workable policy. With no examples of it working throughout history, and the United States having been upheld as the example of it “working,” the diversity myth is now in full free-fall decline.

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.

“Unite The Right” Went Better Than People Think

Monday, September 4th, 2017

We live in a relative universe where it would not be possible to have good without having bad, and sometimes to see what is good, you have to see who the bad guys are. This is what happened in Charlottesville, and it is why the Alt Right is rising: despite the media chiming in about Nazi flags and “Jews Will Not Replace Us” chants, the world shrugged and thought, “If other ethnic groups can have identity politics, I guess it’s only fair that white people do as well.”

This flipped the narrative.

Among other things, it rendered the Nazi flags obsolete because now simple statements of European identity are something the media fears more, and so the Hollywood Nazis have lost their power. It introduced many people to the idea of European identity politics which, when presented by well-spoken normal-looking people wearing polo shirts, seems less of a hateful diatribe than another take on a political scene that desperately needs different ideas to escape from its echo-chamber ideological spiral.

Even more, it showed us who the bad guys were. The media, government, police, and big corporations are all on one side, designing a technocratic egalitarian utopia which sounds as boring as Soviet architecture. On the other side were normal people arguing for an organic view of human life which emphasizes positive values, in contrast to the resentment politics of the Left.

It also showed us that our authorities are negligent and seek to instigate violence:

The vast majority of our people enter Lee Park and begin socializing. The shield wall takes up a defensive position at the entrances to Lee Park. This was due to the failure of the police to enforce a neutral barrier. You can also see the shield wall race into the crowd to rescue people who are attacked. #UniteTheRight protesters actually show little interest in engaging with the Antifa.

I’ve been to dozens of events and have never seen anything resembling the policing on display in the video below. It is incomprehensible. Everywhere else I have been the police established and enforced a neutral barrier. It makes even less sense when you consider the fact that the Department of Homeland Security warned McAuliffe and Charlottesville about the potential for violence.

At every protest where Antifa were unmasked, violence did not occur; at Charlottesville, where the police not only refused to unmask Antifa as required by state law but also pushed the two groups together, violence and chaos resulted. This was their plan: the Leftist mayor wanted to cause violence, then goad the Leftist media into blaming it on the Right, so that Leftist government would act against the Alt Right. This failed because the public did not pick up the media outcry, and Donald Trump made a statement about bad actors “on both sides,” implicitly condemning Antifa for their part in instigating the mess.

This negligent policing is going to get these cities sued at some point, but we are lucky they did it. America woke up to a media narrative about Right-wing violence, and saw the opposite, at which point the Left turned on Antifa because politicians like Nancy Pelosi realizes that the Left thrives in the polls, like Angela Merkel, on appearing to be a stable order who is holding back the bad guys who want to take over and wage race war and Holocaust 2.0.

It was the reaction to Charlottesville, rather than the event itself, which fully put the Alt Right on the map: people took the Alt Right seriously and became more vocal in their criticism of the Leftist ideal of multiculturalism, which is to most minds unfair if it allows one group to have an identity and self-advocacy and denies it to another group.

When you get normal-looking people marching on the streets and saying, “If every other group can have identity politics, we want that right, too,” then you have a rebellion against the dominant paradigm which is going mainstream; it’s not weird guys on meth, living in trailers and dating their sisters, planning for the great race war because they have personally failed at life, as the media narrative repeats to us daily.

Years ago, some rebellious students founded The Hessian Studies Center with two objectives: to parody identity politics, and to encourage the study of heavy metal:

The Hessian Studies Department believes that any truly diverse multicultural population will contain representatives of this world-wide underground culture, with its rich and spanning historical and social contributions.

The Alt Right is similarly part comedy and part serious: we believe that European-descended peoples have the same need for ethnic self-determination as other groups, and by doing this, we turn multiculturalism against itself and reveal it for the parodic idiocy that it is. If we can have black, Asian, Hispanic, LGBT+ studies and other advocacy groups, college majors and politics, why not white versions of the same?

Maybe we can make the casserole our symbol. White people can show up and do typically white things like program computers, have block parties, go to museums, watch nature documentaries and trade stock tips. By adopting the normal white guy attire of polo shirts, slacks and loafers, the white studies team is winning the war of optics.

The point is that either no group gets an identity — this is what assimilationists want, believing that if we unite people with economic and legal systems, they all become good citizens who carry on whatever it is that we’re doing — or every group gets its own identity, and there is no way for these groups to exist, but instead they will each live in balkanized “Chinatowns” if not their separate continents.

Americans and Europeans have opened their countries and their wallets and hearts to The Diversity Project only to find their countries broke, themselves marginalized and discriminated against, and their societies converted into alien places that do not resemble any form they recognize from the past. Diversity has failed.

The police at “Unite the Right” were the bad guys, hired by Leftist unions and commanded by a Leftist mayor, and this meant that the Alt Right was the scrappy underdog in an old American trope updated for the present era. The bad guys bet on the wrong trend because they were looking at society as it was during the early Obama years, when praising diversity was a path to government approval and success, and not the later Obama years, when the wreckage of Leftism and diversity left people overworked, feeling persecuted and exhausted.

By the end of Obama term #2, people worldwide had seen quality of life in America collapse alongside American prestige, in the hands of a government which not only refused to recognize the problem, but was doubling down on its ideological agenda. Instead of having fewer racial troubles because it elected a black president, America experienced all of them but worse as a Leftist/minority coalition, emboldened by multicultural propaganda, went on the warpath.

Ironically, this came about because of the rise of neoliberalism, which hybridized socialism and capitalism to make a conservative type of society which was waging war for Leftist ideals:

The book’s central indictment is that President Clinton, in submitting his welfare, budget, and tax bills from 1995-1997, “signaled surrender: the Reagan revolution was going to achieve its major goals.” The Reagan neoliberal program of small government, tax cuts, deregulation, free trade, and monetarist financial policies was more than just consolidated. In signing the Welfare Reform Bill of 1996 and the subsequent 1997 budget compromise, Clinton broke the back of the New Deal. The government commitment, however modest and poorly implemented, to protect the poor against the worst ravages of the market was thus ended. A central redistributional bargain crumbled as well: the top 20 percent of income earners in the United States would gain after-tax relief, while the bottom 20 percent of Americans would further suffer the marginalization of deepening poverty.

Presidents after Clinton essentially followed his ideal: keep the core of the economy capitalist, then tax the heck out of it and use that to buy the allegiance of a permanent underclass of third world minorities, blue-haired obese feminists, pajama boys and angry single women. This same coalition brought Obama into power and, heavily employed by media and academia, quashed notice of the failure of these policies.

This unstable situation morphed into globalism, or a worldwide extension of both American capitalism and the Leftist ideology, creating misery everywhere as it produced Soviet levels of demands for obedience to dogma while reducing the quality of life for most. Third world nations found themselves lifted up, only to become overpopulated sources of raw labor, and discarded as soon as costs rose; the first world discovered that it was planned to be the host for the world, importing that cheap labor to drive the fires of industry and pay the taxes that bought votes for Leftist leaders.

Globalism brought itself down because of its tendency to homogenize humanity, which put it at odds with the idea of multiculturalism, which is that different cultures would exist. This paradox detonated when it confronted those in minority-majority cities, who realized that the dynamic was not white-versus-black, but many groups, each striving for its own control, laws, leaders, culture and values:

When I recently mentioned, to a friend at the local Pacifica radio station in Houston, the “melting pot” as a concept that had worked well for us throughout most of our history, I was met with utter befuddlement, and the firm rejoinder, “But we should all hold onto our cultures!”

When minorities become the majority, we see that the narrative is not as simple as white oppression of the other, but many others, all struggling against everyone else, because biology, genetics, standards and desires differ. One cannot have multiculturalism and make war against Islam, nor can one be multicultural and deny the right of Germany to be German.

The “diversity is our strength” mantra hit the floor, and the Alt Right has picked up the narrative and re-directed it toward a future where we can escape both multiculturalism and globalism.

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.

Recommended Reading