Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘racism’

White Intersectionality

Friday, June 16th, 2017

During the past decade, a theory was advanced on the Left to counter the rising observation that “equality” programs in fact enforce inequality by transferring money and power from the thriving to the rest.

To destabilize claims of reverse racism, the Left invented “intersectionality,” or the idea that discrimination is only important if done by those in power, and that power can be assessed through the intersection of race and social status. By this calculus, only whites — presumably in power, something called “privilege” — can be racist.

Rising voices are pointing out that intersectionality is an artificial standard:

In the loftier precincts of progressive journalism, higher education, and the non-profit world, those hecklers tend to be proponents of “intersectionality,” a voguish theory purporting that power is inextricably linked to aspects of identity like race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation, and that an individual’s “marginalization” is thus determined by their accumulation of various traits.

To a conservative, equality is not a fundamental question; fairness, however, is important, and it states that those who engage in productive behavior toward the realization of shared goals should be rewarded while those who do not work toward those goals should either not be rewarded or experience negative consequences.

This forms an opposite to control, or the idea that everyone does the same thing as commanded, because it requires that individuals understand the goal and the methods used to reach it. In fairness, which is part of cooperation, the question is not who started behind — because people are unequal in ability and status by nature — but how well they were treated.

For this reason, a conservative sees reverse racism as just as bad as racism, even if it is intended as an over-compensation.

But what is white intersectionality? There are a collection of traits of Western Europeans that together provide a point for our position that fairness is needed not just at the individual level, but the civilizational level, which means we have the right to dwell alone separated from all others:

  1. Uniqueness. Western Europeans have a culture like none other on Earth, and they have different ideas from the rest about how civilization should be organized and people should relate to one another.
  2. Minority. Globally, Western Europeans are 2% of the population and occupy a relatively small area in Western Europe and North America. Compared to Africa, Asia and South America, we are tiny. We are also highly sociable and so unlikely to defend our minority position.
  3. Perceptive. Our population is “sensitive” in the intersection of thoughtful, able to distinguish fine details, contemplative and reflective. We are easily distracted by new ideas and can be misled quickly.
  4. A target. Any group which has achieved success on its own terms despite a lack of vast natural wealth will naturally be a target for the wealth it has produced, especially if it is also highly sociable.

Taking the intersection of these, we see a population which needs defending not from specific “racism” but from the desire of the rest of the world to be us, conquer us and occupy us. In that view, white racism is defensive, where reverse racism is punitive, and this suggests we need to throw out the entire “racism” debate and focus on nationalism, which works better than diversity.

DR3

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.

Bipartisan Racial Bungle

Friday, June 2nd, 2017

You voters asked for — no, demanded — bipartisanship, or for liberals and conservatives to reach across the aisle and join hands to get something done.

Unfortunately, you did not specify what they were supposed to do, and so this bipartisan compromise has gifted you with a new dimension of racial angst:

Where to draw the line on self-identification is an obvious question, and a fundamental one, Ms. Tuvel suggests in her paper. Think transracialism is tricky? It only gets more complicated from there. Her paper briefly considers other exotic forms of self-identification. How do progressives reckon with people who say they’re really “otherkins,” identifying as nonhuman animals? Are we morally required to accept “transabled” people, who are born physically normal but feel one of their limbs transgresses on their identity?

As with gender, Ms. Tuvel writes, “we need an account of race that does not collapse into a position according to which all forms of self-identification are socially recognized, such as one’s self-identification as a wolf.”

The Left insists that race is a golden ticket to permanent grievance politics; this advances the agenda of the Left, which is to break down organic civilization and replace it with artificial government, which defends the individual against the consequences of his actions by dissipating the damage as socialized cost.

The Right, in response, has claimed that noticing race at all is a form of “identity politics,” which is how mainstream conservatives slander identitarianism. The cost of their participation in democratic politics, which always lean Left, is that they deny any form of natural inequality and insist that we can all be made perfect through patriotism, religion and working hard.

In response to that rather silly gambit, the Left has doubled-down on race as Professor Tuvel did in her paper: they are insisting that it is, after all, biological and cannot be ignored. If the game is played as usual, the talking heads will be thankful for this misdirection and spend the next decade haranguing one another about it.

Reality as always hides behind the lies, partially overlapping each of them, which is what gives them believability to their audience. Identity is innate to each person much as sex, family, caste and natural abilities are. Those traits however are not equal, so egalitarians wage war against them in the most smug and passive manner possible.

Until the Right is pushed hard enough by the Alt Right, it will not publicly acknowledge that equality is a lie. Once we start saying that equality is a lie, as loudly and proudly as possible, the Left will be forced into a defensive position, and in so doing, will reveal further its actual agenda.

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.

A Tale Of Two Terrorists

Saturday, May 27th, 2017

Politics is mass manipulation. It speaks the language of emotions and current events that polarize people. It never gets to the root causes of these events because to do so would implicate politics itself. Mass manipulation is a form of control. Control leads only to more control. This requires ignoring real problems and chasing after symbolic ones.

Almost all of us are accustomed to being manipulated in this way. The right way to become socially popular is to have emotional reactions that other people find similar to their own. The right way to become politically popular is to offer symbols instead of reality. Consumerism and democracy create a bubble around us, in which our own fascinations are more important than reality itself.

This is how we domesticate animals: block out the world, and reduce all questions to the carrot, or the stick.

As a result of this, very few are willing to look at the actual causes of their problems, and focus on the symbol instead, like a bull in a bull fight lunging for that red cape. Even the supposedly “superior” Aryan types do this. And so they are led around by the nose, and find that despite exerting all of their energy in fighting against symbols, they still lose. Again and again.

Consider how this symbolic reality fails with the term “terrorist.” A terrorist is a member of another group waging guerrilla warfare, but doing it in your civilian territory. We recognize some as terrorists, but not others. For example, consider this set of wannabe terrorists:

Abdullah Alrifahe, 27, and Majid Alrifahe, 26, were arrested on May 11 outside a senior housing project in north Minneapolis.

The elder brother has been charged with a single weapons felony and is being held in the Hennepin County Jail on $200,000 bail.

…Police were called and allegedly found a loaded AK-47, a rifle, handgun, a grenade, ammunition, bomb-making materials and a drone inside the car.

These individuals obviously intended to stage terrorist attacks. We know this because they are from a foreign group, they were prepared for war in a civilian area, and their group competes with ours.

While it is never a bad thing to remove such individuals, they serve as pawns of a bigger division. The Left imports them to advance its agenda of breaking down all cultures, tribes and religions so that it can replace them with more mass control. But in turn, you can count on Useful Idiots from both sides to start doing what monkeys do, which is cheer for their team, and in doing so miss the point.

For example, look at this Useful Idiot acting out the Narrative:

A man who was yelling ‘anti-Muslim’ slurs at two young women on a light-rail train fatally slashed the throats of two men and injured a third person when they tried to intervene, police said.

…Police don’t know if the suspect, described as a white man between the ages of 20 and 40, has mental health issues or whether was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time.

When people say they want a party that is neither Left nor Right, what they are reacting to is the fact that our public parties both Left and Right manipulate us with emotional symbols, and both try to hide the source of decay.

For example, Right-wing commentators on Fox News have been demonizing Muslims for some time. They do this because it motivates their audience, a giant herd of people bloated on boring jobs and abundant shopping, to act in a way that supports those commentators and the candidates they depend on to make the news that keeps them employed.

It is not politics, it is business.

At the same time, having a Right-wing Useful Idiot attack some passive Muslims allows the Left to motivate its audience by portraying Muslims as victims and the white majority as bad, therefore Leftism which opposes it must be seen as good.

Both sides serve to hide the actual truth, which is that diversity does not work. It makes enemies out of groups because they are competing for power. Every group wants power, if for no other reason to have its own symbols prevail.

Consider these famous terrorists:

Malvo was 17 when he and his accomplice, the 42-year-old John Allen Muhammad, began their crime spree, robbing and killing people across California, Arizona, Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Maryland, DC and Virginia.

Police did not initially realize the killings, which often involved a single bullet from a distance, were connected.

But the shootings intensified over the course of three weeks in October 2002, and Malvo and Muhammad killed strangers in innocuous places like parking lots, gas stations, and outside schools.

The killings struck fear in Washington DC and surrounding areas in Virginia and Maryland.

The captive Right will immediately point to their Muslim leanings as a way to distract from the obvious truth, which is that they are African and resent (perceived) white dominion over America.

We also tend to use “Muslim” as a proxy for those of middle eastern or African races who seem less familiar with the Koran than a familiar litany of racial grievances against whites. Contrary to what the conservatives will tell you, this is not a religious war; it is a race war. The same was true of the Crusades, the Mongol invasions and the conflict with Mexico.

Just as the race riots in LA helped elect Bill Clinton, having Black snipers wandering around America spurred the fearful sheep into electing Barack Obama. Both candidates promised to end racial strife by pacifying minority groups.

These attacks also help the Fox News style idiots who get a chance for their own burst of cleansing hatred, sort of like they exercise thirty minutes a day. Maybe they spend another thirty minutes screaming at a television screen. Once that is done, they stop thinking about it and go back to jobs, hobbies and shopping. Bloated.

If there is a point to all of this, it is that democracy misleads us by symbols. The symbol is the Muslim fanatic hating us; the reality is that every other ethnic group wants to conquer us, and while we are focused on Muslims, a race war is eliminating us while we stumble forward in the stupor of democratic feeling.

White People Oppress Other Races Simply By Existing

Thursday, May 25th, 2017

People speak the best truth when they do not know the implications of what they are saying. Consider this rant about white privilege:

White women, especially the monied ones, are so dangerous because they are allowed to be so soft. Stroke by stroke, they construct a type of womanhood that viciously negates the fact their bodies still function as agents of white supremacy. They are so gentle with themselves that they simply cannot comprehend that they could be oppressed and yet still oppressive.

…About two years ago, I walked into some art event in downtown Manhattan, realized I was the only person of color there, and immediately walked out. I guess my time being a token was over. In this city where emergency vehicles wail like mothers, like the worst has already happened, I have learned not to live in the shadow of whiteness.

The solution becomes obvious: if being white even while oppressed is still white supremacy, and people who are not white do not like being surrounded by white people, the solution is ethnic separation, which conveniently pairs with the presence of root continents for third world peoples to which they can return. That is not privilege; it is common sense.

Cultural Appropriation Goes Both Ways

Thursday, May 25th, 2017

The Left constantly invents new theories to justify what it wants, which means that the reason really is “whatever, I want it,” and all of their theories are pretexts, justifications, excuses and deceptions.

One of their more recent inventions is “cultural appropriation,” which is the idea that anything one learns from another culture is actually “stolen” and can only be used by members of that culture. This is sort of like a union demanding that only its members can work on a certain job site; it is the same parasitic mentality behind Communism, unions, and paying “protection” to organized crime.

This manifests in hilarity like the recent takedown of a Portland restaurant for “cultural appropriation”:

The Mic news website bought (sic) national attention to Kooks Burritos with its coverage, titled, “These white cooks bragged about stealing recipes from Mexico to start a Portland business.” It reads, “The problem, of course, is that it’s unclear whether the Mexican women who handed over their recipes ever got anything in return.”

Today, the Merc released its coverage, beginning with the claim, “Portland has an appropriation problem.” The article continues:

Week after week people of color in Portland bear witness to the hijacking of their cultures. Several of the most successful businesses in this town have been birthed as a result of curious white people going to a foreign country. Now don’t get me wrong: cultural customs are meant to be shared. However, that’s not what happens in this city.

And a spreadsheet featuring “white-owned appropriative restaurants” in Portland has also emerged.

Let us call this what it is: a shakedown, much like all of diversity politics in white nations are, much as Tom Wolfe wrote about in his immortal “Mau-Mauing The Flak Catchers.”

These people want you to spend your money at minority-owned restaurants instead of white owned ones.

As others have pointed out, cultural appropriation is a two-way street. These articles were written in a European language, using technology based on European learning and funded by European aristocracy, in legal systems which use philosophies of wholly European origin, in a nation made stable by the sacrifice of millions of European lives.

Let us call these people what they are: parasites.

The people who are really concerned with their ethnic group are at home in their homelands, fighting corruption, disease, disorganization, apathy, narcissism and the other problems that these nations have struggled with for a long time. That is the hard work: do not emigrate to the place where living is easier, but stay home and clean your house. The good ones do that.

These people are just grifters.

White Racism Is Disguised As Anti-Racism, And Anti-White Racism Does Not Help

Wednesday, May 24th, 2017

After the last election, the ripple wave passing through the Black community is notice of what has been obvious but forbidden because of a perceived need to ally with the Left.

African-Americans are recognizing that white SWPLs are anti-racist in theory, but discriminatory in action:

It got so bad in 2014 – 2015 that I stopped renting farmland on estates where I could be easily seen from the road, and I stopped making food deliveries into wealthier neighborhoods because of how often police would “happen by” and sometimes even question me five or ten minutes after I got a strange look from a passerby (usually someone jogging, but occasionally someone in a car). I’m not a paranoid kinda guy, but this happened way too often to be a coincidence.

It isn’t Richard Spencer calling the cops on me for farming while Black. It’s nervous White women in yoga pants with “I’m with Her” and “Coexist” stickers on their German SUVs.

Second is the sheer degree of cultural appropriation going on with businesses in the city proper. It’s little things – e.g. shops and other businesses incorporating wide swaths of hiphop culture into their branding while having not a single Black owner, partner, employee, or vendor. And those businesses are KILLING IT here. This is a town where Blackness advances White-owned brands and subjects Black-owned businesses to inspection by law enforcement.

Do you really think that problem comes from people like Richard Spencer?

White anti-racism is often designed to mask a Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) attitude to diversity. There is no better way to hide sins than to virtue signal the opposite, so that if someone calls you a racist you can point to your Black Lives Matter participation, Bob Marley posters, membership in the Diversity Council and massive collection of old school hip-hop on vinyl.

Richard Spencer is not the problem the black community faces; it struggles with the fact that white America wants to be white America, and this requires excluding everyone else but a few token minorities. At the same time, it will gladly appropriate the massive perceived authenticity of black culture and use it to sell more worthless consumer products.

On the flip side of this, anti-white racism (also called “anti-racism”) is not helping the black community either. It shields the guilty and exacerbates the problem by making white people afraid to interact with or speak truthfully to minorities. Only recognizing that every group wants to live with and interact with only its own leads out of this puzzle.

Evil Hubristic Crowdists Gaslight Your Sense Of Inner Knowledge

Monday, May 22nd, 2017

What is hubris, which the Greeks identified as the great evil of humankind? It is “me first”: a tendency to put oneself above one’s rightful station in the social order. This can be men pretending to be gods, proles pretending to be kings, or people who care nothing for social order or consequences in reality and claw their way above others from some mild sociopathic impulse.

Crowdists, or those who unite individualism and collectivism into a force designed to legitimize hubris, gaslight us constantly by creating the impression that what “everyone knows” contradicts our inner knowledge, found in deep in the self in the intuition, aesthetics and moral wisdom nature has fashioned for us. These forms of knowledge are unique in that they are qualitative, or accept reality as it is but aim for the best possible versions of it, and while found in the inner self are directed toward the world which is seen as a continuity between physical reality, intuitions and any thought-like or metaphysical reality.

You can witness this gaslighting — a reference to an Alfred Hitchcock film in which a character deftly manipulates another by making events seem to be the opposite of how they were observed — whenever the Leftist-fueled media talks about what “intelligent” people know:

The researchers examined different models that had been proposed for explaining why believers are allegedly less intelligent. It selected and revised evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa’s Savanna-IQ Principle. This suggests that what we do and believe has its foundation in the environment of our ancestors.

The researchers concluded that religion is an evolved instinct, while intelligence “involves rising above our instincts.” After all, intelligence and all that comes with it does often involve controlling our instincts in order to allow our minds to reach rational conclusions.

Indeed, as Hawking told Spain’s El Mundo last year: “Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation.”

This is the ultimate in human hubris: researchers telling us that those who see more than they do are in fact wrong, and that “intelligence” arises by denying any logical facts which require more sensitivity to perceive. In other words, dumb it down to what the herd thinks is right so we can all stop worrying about any duty to know reality or moral right. Anarchy is saved!

Intelligence cannot be made into a mass-produced, identical creation as this article implies. But what they can do is a classic egalitarian technique: reduce everyone to a level called “equal” by claiming that since all of us do not understand what the most perceptive among us are going on about, those things are simply not real and we are smarter for excluding that wisdom.

As usual, this is an inversion, or the tendency of a group (herd, crowd, mob, gang, cult, clique) to make a term mean the opposite of what it was intended to mean by eliminating the parts that do not apply equally to the group. In that sense, intelligence is reduced to ignorance, beauty to utilitarianism, and justice to treating people of unequal contribution as if they were equal.

You can see this inversion pathology at work in this herd analysis of another idea familiar to readers here, in which having the mental ability to notice differences becomes not higher ability but lower in the wisdom of the crowd:

In a scholarly journal called Social Bias: Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination written by Sabrina Keene, Keene explains social bias, prejudice, and stereotyping and how it affects the lives of individuals from day to day. She explains that:

Individuals who do not fall victim to bias are often able to use such circumstances as motivating factors. Individuals are often afraid of what they do not know. The best defense against ignorance is knowledge. Education and familiarization with the object of a prejudice or stereotype allows the truth to be discovered and applied. Being educated allows an individual the ability to embrace and accept differences in other, and aids in bringing society together.

As Keene perfectly explains, a person who falls victim to stereotypes and prejudice is likely to feel defeated and have negative connotations towards others. People of color that experience color-blind racism everyday can either fall victim or use this newly found ignorance to their advantage. When people begin to familiarize themselves with racial discrimination toward people of color, even if it doesn’t apply to them personally, there are able to gain a newly found sympathy for the individual.

Once a social bias is destroyed, society gets one step closer to eliminating racial discrimination due to less people spreading the negative ideals and more people being educated on the effects of discrimination and why they can cause people of color to feel anger toward those trying to suppress them.

Read this one in inverse: the real social bias is the notion that pleases everyone, which is that we are all the same. This allows individualists to bond together into a group united on the selfish notion that we do not need standards, purpose or values in common, but we can all do whatever we want and society should foot the bill.

Diversity, or racial egalitarianism, emerged from egalitarian thought in the early days of the French Revolution. It lives on through the idea of “workers of the world unite,” which is a handy way of saying that if you discard any allegiance but to a paycheck, a crowd of great power can be formed to seize wealth and authority from those who are naturally more competent at using them.

In both of these circumstances, Leftist propagandists identify thinking that requires inner knowledge and contemplation of reality as ignorant, and replace it with their own dogma, essentially arguing against depth of knowledge in favor of having the “correct” knowledge according to egalitarianism.

Distrust Of Diversity Is Not Limited To Any One Group

Friday, May 19th, 2017

Amerika has long taken the position that the problem is diversity itself and not any of the groups involved. No matter who those groups are, so long as there is diversity, the situation unravels.

We see occasional confirmation of this in the news, such as a striking statement from the UK:

He told the jury that fellow Pakistanis would regard him as having “infested” their community by sleeping with a white girl. “It’s not just them who are racist. We are racist too”.

…Ahmed blamed the white community for allowing teenage girls to go around unsupervised, so that at a young age they were “trained” in both sex and drinking.

He is right on both counts. Every group distrusts every other group because conquest is the way of nature. And, the seemingly permanent mental stupor of white people compels them to be oblivious not just to the problem of diversity, but all other illnesses of modernity, which they seem to view as insoluble and therefore necessary to accept and ignore.

Recommended Reading