Posts Tagged ‘multiculturalism’

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.


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.

Letter To Dylann Storm Roof

Saturday, July 1st, 2017

Dylann Storm Roof 28509-171
USP Terre Haute
U.S. Penitentiary
P.O. Box 33
Terre Haute, IN 47808

Dear Mr. Roof,

I have great sympathy for your position, although I have ended up in an entirely different direction.

For me, the problem is entirely within the Western European race: we have big hearts, and we were in the midst of class warfare that started with The Renaissance,™ so we extended that to tolerance of diversity.

Our ancestors saw diversity in terms of Chinatowns. Other races here would have their own communities, and we would trade with them. This made sense in a culture-driven society, but the 1960s put an end to that, at the hands of the Irish.

I see no reason to blame Africans for this (or any other group, really). They are the instruments used by Western Leftists to destroy what is left of Western society.

For this reason, I do not want to shoot them, although sometimes the inevitable ethnic friction between groups has me ready to defend my family, property and business from those who are not Western European. The Irish are the worst, but the Italians are not far behind. Mexicans are better than Russians. Africans are kinder than Asians. So it goes.

All of these stereotypes miss the point: diversity does not work, but diversity is necessary for Leftism, so we must end Leftism.

The ultimate goal of Leftism is to genocide my people by breeding them with random groups until the original fragile, precise and detailed genetic profile of Western Europeans is gone, thus ensuring that Western Civilization will never arise again.

This is why I support Anders Breivik more than your acts, Mr. Roof. I do not want to shoot decent black people praying in church. I want to round up white Leftists and put them on boats to Brazil, and if that fails, into mass graves.

Food for thought. You have aided us all in bringing these issues to light, and both you and those you have killed are sacrifices toward the advancement of history.



Aristotle And Plato On Why Diversity Is Tyranny

Thursday, June 22nd, 2017

Some have noticed recently that the ancients realized that diversity was a means to an end, namely of the power of tyrants. Guillaume Durocher quotes Aristotle on the topic of multiculturalism:

Aristotle’s ideal of citizenship, entailing civic duties and group solidarity, necessarily requires a strong common identity and a sharp differentiation between citizens and foreigners. Conversely, foreign mercenaries had no solidarity with the people, and were thus frequently used by tyrants to enforce their unjust rule:

The guard of a legitimate king is composed of citizens: that of a tyrant is composed of foreigners.

It is a habit of tyrants never to like anyone who has a spirit of dignity and independence. The tyrant claims a monopoly of such qualities for himself; he feels that anybody who asserts a rival dignity, or acts with independence, is threatening his own superiority and the despotic power of his tyranny; he hates him accordingly as a subverter of his own authority. It is also a habit of tyrants to prefer the company of aliens to that of citizens at table and in society; citizens, they feel, are enemies, but aliens will offer no opposition.”

This passage brings to mind the Bolshevik tyranny in the early decades of the Soviet Union, when the government, and especially the secret police, was dominated by people from non-Russian ethnic groups.

Interestingly enough, Plato observes the exact same thing, namely that tyrants import foreigners as replacements for non-compliant citizens:

And who are the devoted band, and where will he procure them?
They will flock to him, he said, of their own accord, if lie pays them.

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

Yes, he said, there are.
But will he not desire to get them on the spot?
How do you mean?
He will rob the citizens of their slaves; he will then set them free and enrol them in his bodyguard.

To be sure, he said; and he will be able to trust them best of all.
What a blessed creature, I said, must this tyrant be; he has put to death the others and has these for his trusted friends.

Yes, he said; they are quite of his sort.
Yes, I said, and these are the new citizens whom he has called into existence, who admire him and are his companions, while the good hate and avoid him.

It would be foolish to imagine that anything about human behavior has changed for the last 2400 years. The same tactics still work: if you want to rule forever, subjugate people by destroying their culture and importing scabs to supplant them. The EU and US have pursued the same policy since 1965.

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.

Enemies And Friends

Monday, June 12th, 2017

Most of our human thinking is defensive, or based on avoiding or subverting those who we perceive will wrong us. That type of thinking does not extend well to politics or the underlying question, which is how to create a civilization that both prospers on its own and encourages good people under it to prosper.

Instead of assuming that other ethnic groups are enemies, let us place them in a middle category: like other people in our own society, other groups are motivated by self-interest. Since for any group to survive, it must assert itself, that includes domination of any other groups within their reach. This is subconscious and not “intended,” but instinctual.

Nature has made no better creature than the dog, but if you put two dog packs in the same valley, soon you will have only one dog pack. The usual pattern is for one to kill off the males in the other, take its females, and then grow larger and more powerful. Of course, the strongest of dog species simply kill all of the other, since they want to remain as they are, and not as a hybrid, which would be defeat as surely as being conquered.

What this means is that other ethnic groups are not bad people, but people in the wrong place. Yes, they have their habits and tendencies which — by our lights — might also be unwanted, but they are not objectively bad. They just are what they are. Thinking like a nihilist, we then recognize that this group and its behaviors are appropriate to its needs in its homeland.

Some groups may be further along in different ways than other groups. We cannot say that any way is definitively better until we see how it turns out, and we want them to be able to develop on their own as is appropriate for them. Or not: they may choose to stay at a lower level of development because it works for them. There are sparrows, hawks, nightingales and hummingbirds.

This lets us see that this is a war against ideas. Sure, groups like Muslims, Africans and Jews may have their highly visible negative effects, but these are issues on top of the basic issue that any foreign group will cause instability, reduce our ability to have social standards, increase distrust and eventually, genetically replace us.

For too long, our dialogue on race has taken the form of a description of victims and victimizers. The white victimizer preys on non-white victims, or we reverse that, and talk about non-white crime and subterfuge harming whites. In reality, ethnic identity is not binary, although it seems that way because each country has a national group and everyone else is Other.

But looking past national boundaries, we see that instead there is a universe of different groups, each attempting to preserve itself:

Blogger Dani Ishai Behan took to the Times of Israel with an incisive defense of the uniqueness, historically and ethnically, of Jewish identity. Characterizing Jews as white, Behan argued, erases Jewish experience across every pogrom, torture table, oven and ghetto that has decorated our painful past. The people who persecuted Jews never thought of Jews as either white or European — and Jews never thought of themselves that way, either. Categorizing Ashkenazi Jews as white, Behan argues, deprives Jews of the legitimate protection that all indigenous, oppressed ethnicities deserve, and engages in dangerous historical revisionism.

Instead of continuing the victim narrative, where one tribe must be wrong for defending itself against others or trying to dominate a multicultural society, we should face the truth: for us to remain friends, each ethnic group needs its own place where it can engage in its historical behaviors. Otherwise we make enemies of each other and oppress everyone in our quest to avoid oppression.


Thursday, June 8th, 2017

Conservatives are those who wanted the old order (“1788”) but accepted that they had to work with the victorious Left, and so have bent their beliefs to fit within an egalitarian spectrum.

From this idiocy comes conservative praise of liberty, justice, peace, freedom, equality, and diversity, all of which are symbols or proxies for doing actual good, which is the main concern of conservatism.

Even more, all of these require us to accept the status quo as permanent and therefore to consider it good, even though as is evident it is not just mediocre but outright evil.

The mental hobbling that ensues turns conservatives into the defenders of values that are the precursors to Leftist issues, effectively making the Right into agents of the Left.

Perhaps the worst and most common form of this is “Dems R the Real Racists,” or DR3, in which conservatives use the Leftist idea of equality to argue for conservative ideas, but instead merely strengthen Leftist ones.

Egalitarianism is the singular idea of the Left. If you are egalitarian, you are at least partially Leftist; most conservatives are in fact hybrid Leftists, which is why conservatism usually fails. Diversity is merely racial egalitarianism, and “anti-racism” is a political movement to suppress criticism of or resistance to diversity.

For this reason, any conservative expressing DR3 has not only been subverted, but has joined the other side. Conservatives recognize realism plus qualitative concerns; nothing in that requires enforcing equality or diversity. Further, we are not ideologues but realists, and so we have no need to enforce symbolic obedience to a singular political agenda. Conservatives consider racism part of freedom.

DR3 can be easily spotted by the trope of confusion over the party polarity shift in the 1960s and the Leftist mental chewing gum that is their incessant bloviation about the “Southern Strategy”:

Whenever a Democrat accuses a Republican of being racist, the talk show host will immediately go on a pre-programmed rant about how the Democrats supported slavery, the Democrats founded the Klan, Robert Byrd was a Klansman, Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act blah blah.

…Whenever Republicans try the “Democrats are racist” line, liberals retort that the Republicans simply absorbed the racist segregationist Southern Democrats as well as their agenda.

We can spot DR3 in its current form wherever conservatives accuse the Left of racism or reverse racism, inadvertently strengthening the Leftist argument against nationalism:

Many on the Dissident Right mock cuckservatives for engaging in “DR3” or DemsRRealRacists i.e. incapable of defending their values on their merits, they concede the Left’s moral premises, but accuse them of being the “real racists”, homophobes, sexists etc.

The Right will never win this debate unless we reframe it as follows:

  1. Anti-racism is censorship. As long as we are in a democracy that makes the pretense of having free speech and free thought, we need to stop witch-hunts against people for having the wrong opinion. We may smash those who are actively traitors to an enemy, but adopting racism is no more allegiance to Hitler than advocating socialism makes one an agent of the Soviet Union (although many turned out to be that anyway).
  2. We are nationalists. Racists concern themselves with whether specific other races are up to snuff; nationalists point out that diversity never works, and therefore it does not matter if the specific racial groups are good or bad because for our purposes, any racial, ethnic and cultural group but our own is bad.
  3. Theory is not always reality. The ideas of equality and diversity are assumptions, not theories proven to work over the long-term in the real world. No one should be forced to adopt an assumption as real without some indication of a corresponding tendency of reality to reward the implementation of that assumption.

Any time we turn tail and run, or worse accept Leftist precepts as our conclusions, we have self-defeated. This gives the Left a double victory: they are the party left standing, and we self-destruct, appearing incompetent (and rightfully so) to all who are watching.

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.

Taboos Fall As Upper Middle Class Turns Against Diversity

Wednesday, May 31st, 2017

Diversity was once a rarity and a way to make your local area seem exotic. The more it has been implemented, however, the more it has become visible even to the gated communities set that diversity is not working:

In the same year I decided to no longer talk to white people about race, the British social attitudes survey recorded a significant increase in the number of people who were happy to admit their own racism. The sharpest rise, according to a Guardian report, was among “white, professional men between the ages of 35 and 64, highly educated and earning a lot of money”.

This is what structural racism looks like. It is not just about personal prejudice, but the collective effects of bias. It is the kind of racism that has the power to drastically affect people’s life chances. These highly educated, high-earning white men are very likely to be in positions that influence others’ lives – teaching, prosecuting, examining college applicants and hiring staff. They are almost certainly the kind of people who set workplace cultures.

When your most competent and affluent citizens start to notice that diversity has failed (again) and no longer censor themselves in talking about it, the demise of diversity as a program is not far behind.

After having been told for the decades since 1945 that we are horrible and racist for wanting to live among people like us, the citizens of the West are no longer believing the propaganda, and they want out.

This does not mean they are racist, per se, but have more of a generalized intelligent xenophobia. They recognize that having different groups in the same nation shatters the nation, alienates everyone and leads to social collapse.

When a program like diversity fails on that scale, there is nothing left to do but openly make fun of it, since its demise is now certain.

Diversity Destroys Social Order

Wednesday, May 31st, 2017

Following up on the work of Robert Putnam and Peter Thisted Dinesen, a new study from Sweden reminds us that diversity obliterates social order:

Respondents said they feel the least affinity with people with different ethnic backgrounds, who practice a different religion, or who were brought up in other cultures.

Overall, however, researchers said the study shows that “social cohesion is strong” in Sweden, because 95 per cent of respondents said they feel like a part of society.

The groups which were least likely to profess a sense of belonging to Swedish society were people on low incomes, and people who hold citizenship of nations other than Sweden.

In other words, we understand people like ourselves, because out of the ten million attributes assigned to a human being, we have the most in common with those like ourselves, and therefore do not need to ask, negotiate or legally arbitrate decisions. We can simply act as our instinct commands, knowing that we are roughly correct according to the values of our group.

When this condition is suspended — like breaking surface tension in water — then we no longer know that what we instinctively think is right to do will in fact be rewarded by the group. At that point, the only safe response is to not act, which creates a kind of “active apathy” in which people ignore disasters and threats around themselves and focus on social, political and economic symbols which unite the group instead because they are simpler and more universal.

Diversity never works. It always fragments a society, makes the citizens cowed and paranoid, and results in ongoing low-grade racial conflict culminating in the collapse of the society. No one wins, but the stupid monkey inside of all humanity will keep trying to win. That is just how he is wired.

For the past two centuries, our future direction has been determined by what people think is good because it beats back nature and asserts a human omniform in its place. When we exclude all forms but the human, we stop fearing natural selection, disease, randomness and other threats to the continuity of us as perceiving, choice-making entities. Diversity is just part of this human projection.

However, as liberal democracy fades away and tribalism takes its place, diversity is failing, and so we can finally see research confirming what common sense told us centuries ago.

They Admit It: “American Prosperity Depends On A Non-White Future”

Thursday, May 25th, 2017

Listen. Listen quietly. Wait patiently. If you take enough time, your enemies will tell you exactly what they think. Give them the space and they will eventually justify themselves to you, and then you can see the plan in full.

One of the leading business publications in the world, Bloomberg News offers us the clearest statement of white genocide ever offered in the media:

If the U.S. economy is going to prosper, it needs to keep taking in immigrants. Fertility is below replacement levels, and no country has discovered a way to raise native birthrates. That means that immigration is necessary for the survival of the Social Security system and the solvency of pension funds.

It is so blatant that you might have missed it: immigration is needed to pay for the pensions for Baby Boomers, and it is necessary because we are not having as many babies as occurred in that boom. Our largest and most Leftist generation ever is fading out, and in the ruins of a society ravaged by their political ideals, there is not enough wealth to keep them in a state of comfortable retirement.

They even tell you in the next few lines:

Immigrants will allow small cities to grow and expand their tax bases, instead of shriveling into ghost towns. Immigrants support the housing market and the stock market. They take care of elderly Americans and provide invaluable skills for U.S. corporations. Without continued robust immigration, the U.S. population will shrink and gray, and the country will start having the same problems as aging societies like Japan, South Korea, and East Europe.

They are promising yesterday its retirement funds by sacrificing today. As usual, drugged by the dogma of egalitarianism, business and voters assume that all people are the same, so they can move in a bunch of third world people and have America keep operating just as it has. They are relying on their laws, economic theories, Constitution, and police power.

We know this is true because Europe is doing the same thing:

Western governments are broke because of their social programs and yet cannot reduce them because the voters will panic and rage.

The demographic squeeze could be eased by the influx of more than a million migrants in the past year. If many of them eventually join the working population, the result could be increased tax revenue to keep the pension model afloat. Before migrants are even given the right to work, however, they require housing, food, education and medical treatment. Their arrival will have effects on public finances that officials have only started to assess.

There are many problems with the immigration plan. First, it stimulates overpopulation by creating an escape valve from the already-overburdened third world, which in turn causes people to breed more because the cause of that overpopulation is a Tragedy of the Commons style need to have a large enough family to subsidize each person in old age, so when that family leaves, they make more of them. Second, it destroys Western civilization entirely by ethnically replacing its one unique component, namely its people and their genetics. Third, it assumes that people from third world countries will produce at the level needed, when if they could have done that, they would have back at home where living is cheaper.

Now you see the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News telling you what the rest of the mainstream media will not: the great rush toward diversity has always been about ensuring an easy retirement for people raised on the socialist programs of the 1930s.

They were told back in the day that these programs could not sustain themselves; they paid out more than they took in, and investing the money only made it unpredictable as to how much would be there in the future. And so, our society slipped itself on the needle of stealing from everyone to give to a subset of the group. We are addicted to funding our retirees.

Socialism always kills societies this way. When you give out free things, people shape their lives around a negative incentive to save and be responsible. For them, it is easy; all they have to do is keep going to work for thirty five or forty years and then they retire with a pension or generous social security. It is a paradise for workers, much like Soviet Communism promised to be.

But like all our great human failings, this one starts with a simple pitfall. People who are working for the system, instead of working to achieve results, are not effective or efficient. They phone it in and do the minimum they must do in order to avoid criticism from others. In turn, the quality of output falls, and so does the value of the economy.

This rushes us into a death cycle. Millions work long hours at jobs doing tasks that ultimately are not necessary, just so their bosses can get promoted for being effective at the ineffective. They are taxed mercilessly and that money is dumped on the underclass, which spends it on consumer products. This puts money into fast motion, and causes the economy to switch to demand-based economics.

Right now, we are being erased as a people so that a generation can get the benefits it voted for after being promised them by people who knew the scheme would never work. What do they care, they got their retirement benefits already, and all of them are hoping to be very dead by the time the bubble pops.

Look at what else they are celebrating:

But even more encouraging are the numbers on interracial marriage. Marriage is proof that diversity isn’t just creating tensions between new and unfamiliar neighbors, but positive and lasting social bonds. A new report by the Pew Research Center provides some amazing numbers. Half a century after laws against interracial marriage were struck down by the courts, the share of new marriages that are interracial has risen from 3 percent to 17 percent. For black Americans, the rise in intermarriage has been particularly strong.

With unique races gone, you will have nothing but your job, government ideology and consumer shopping. This will create the perfect citizens: a grey race of people without culture, values, heritage, customs or religion. The perfect raw material to be shaped by the machine of government and media.

Amazingly, your leaders think this is a good idea. To them, the voters are dupes — here they are correct: even smart people in groups vote like morons through compromise, the lottery mentality and gaming the system — who will approve ridiculous schemes. A politician realizes that either he offers free stuff, or the next guy will, and that guy will take the election. So they all lie.

We know this means the end of the chance for the West, shattered by two world wars, to rebirth itself. With the loss of its people, so goes the possibility of their civilization. And all of this to pay for votes, bought with social welfare entitlements programs we could not afford, so that people would feel comfortable in an obviously declining, unstable society!

The U.S. is becoming more integrated at the regional, neighborhood and household level. Americans say they like diversity, and they are voting with both their feet and their ring fingers. The future of the U.S. as a successful multiracial nation isn’t assured, but it’s looking more and more likely. And that should be good news for the U.S. economy, since it means growth won’t create noxious social divisions.

Listen again. They tell you their fears: they fear noxious social divisions, meaning that they know diversity will not work. This is why they are rushing toward intermarriage, because if you destroy all of the races, then you have no social divisions. In other words, the same reason why they wanted class warfare; they want to eliminate all conflict through pacifism, and make us all obedient sheep.

The only way out of this mess is to stand up against diversity and its parent theory, egalitarianism. You cannot say that all people are equal and not invite the world to come live among you. But a group composed of every race has no race, and a country for everyone is a country for no one. Oh well, at least the Me Generation will have comfortable retirements as civilization dies out around them.

Recommended Reading