Furthest Right

Anti-Diversity FAQ

Among all of the other websites out there, Amerika might be the most extreme because it opts for hardline realism instead of emotional manipulation. We give it to you straight and consequently, state fairly boring but comprehensive positions.

One of these is “anti-diversity,” which almost no one understands. The Left and mainstream Right see it as “racism,” while the underground Right thinks it is inferior to their own plans for race war and genocide. Both groups are incorrect; anti-diversity is the only sensible policy and, while extreme, allows civilization survival.

Anti-diversity means simply this: we recognize that diversity, in any form, meaning that there is more than a single ethnic group in the society, destroys that civilization.

Instead we suggest Nationalism, or one ethnic group per nation, for all nations. We recognize that diversity is simply an idea which produces bad results despite being popular, like rent control or socialism, and that it must be avoided for humanity to survive and thrive.

  1. What does anti-diversity mean?

    Diversity is shorthand for multiple races, cultures, ethnic groups, and religions living in the same society. We think this is a bad idea, so we suggest only a single ethnic group — this is a finer measurement than “race,” which tends to blur at the edges through admixture — per nation, contiguous with its founding group.

    For example, America, which was founded and created by ethnic Western European (English, Scots, northern German, Dutch, Scandinavian, and northern French) pioneeers, would go back to its western-side-of-Hajnal-Line (“WASP”) origins and repatriate everyone else:

    • Africans Africa
    • Asians/Amerinds Asia
    • Semites/Irish middle east
    • Slavs Eurasia

    In this way, we would be left with a single ethnic group, which means that culture could exist. Culture only occurs when everyone is ethnically the same because culture arises organically from people having approximately the same abilities, inclinations, aesthetics, and goals.

    Bureaucracy and government seek to remove culture and replace it with ideology for the convenience of perpetual government by a certain party or ideal, but culture and race go hand-in-hand as a method for protecting a population from the never-ending stream of “new” bad ideas that appeal to the idle mind.

    Anti-diversity is therefore a pro-culture and anti-government position, not to mention a rejection of ideology itself. We do not need “new” theories about how to manage society through bureaucracy and entitlements; we need to choose what always works, which is having a culture to manage day-to-day affairs so that we can minimize government.

  2. How would a post-diversity society function?

    Most of the daily red tape would go away because this would be a higher trust civilization that passes on social capital through culture to subsequent generations, meaning that you would not need as many rules because people would innately know how to behave.

    Government would reduce its role to defense and the production of natural monopoly goods and services like roads, police, fire, and courts. Everyday enforcement of social standards would pass to culture, which would cause people to ostracize violators and promote exemplars of the culture ideal.

    This would be a type of society that no one has experienced for centuries. Instead of trying to accumulate whatever they can for themselves, people would aim to fit within the framework of culture, and in doing so find a place where their abilities are used to the maximum.

    Naturally, the main factor would be that every day you would only see people from your own ethnic group. There would be no outsiders, therefore no need to accommodate other cultures and sensitivities based on people noticing the difference between groups.

    Many of the laws we encounter daily would simply not be needed because in order to succeed, people would need to avoid obvious bad behavior while pursuing obvious good behavior as defined by the culture. Rules would no longer need to be justified; they would merely reflect culture, itself a compilation of learning.

  3. Why is diversity harmful?

    Diversity abolishes culture. When you have multiple ethnic groups in the same place, you need to accommodate each by removing cultural prohibitions against the activities it tends to pursue. This ends the role of culture, which is to penalize some activities and reward others.

    Instead of many cultures in parallel, where you experience one culture in a certain area and another when you go a block away, you get anti-culture or a permissive society that is afraid to prohibit any behaviors because doing so might offend one of the many cultures that is required to be supported.

    Anti-culture consists of many things which must be tolerated, as opposed to culture which recognizes that for a society to have a direction, it must have some things which it wants and some it rejects. When you have multiple cultures, however, having rules that say NO will alienate at least one, so culture becomes disposable.

    Into its place come government, commerce, and symbolic thinking, since these are short-term things which do not require the lengthy involvement that culture does.

    Eventually genocide happens through trace admixture. At first, your kids marry someone who is one-sixteenth foreign, then the next generation one-eighth, and finally everyone is a little bit of something else. The original population disappears and is replaced by a mixed-race one which has none of its abilities.

    The planet is littered with grey race groups. These tend to have low ability but high personal drama because that is the type of person who survives a cultureless mixed-race society such as the ones that diversity creates. In short, diversity destroys your culture and then your people, leaving behind a ruined civilization.

  4. Is it against human rights to end diversity?

    Human rights seem like absolute rules, but often you find that the rights of some are in conflict with others. For example, the rights of a population to exist find itself at odds with the large polluting corporation that just bought much of their land.

    In the case of diversity, people have a right to exist, and allowing foreign ethnic groups to intrude on that guarantees a slow genocide that demolishes the human rights of those who simply want to exist. There is no easy solution to this except to say that we should avoid creating genocide by bad policy.

    Even more, diversity creates a situation where the minority opinion of anti-diversity people is shut down for threatening the rest of the group, leading to a runaway reaction of censorship and repression in the name of human rights but ultimately serving the power of tyrannical government.

  5. Is ethnic isolation necessary to have culture?

    Culture can take many forms, mostly strong and weak. Strong culture is wired in the blood; most weak culture is taught, bribed, coerced, or otherwise forced on a population. Other examples include elective subcultures like Star Trek fandom, heavy metal, furries, Christian Scientists, and the like.

    Weak cultures are not whole cultures. They are more accurately lifestyles or single-issue voting blocs. You can get people of different races to collaborate on a baseball team or in a factory, but other than their instructed tasks, they have nothing in common.

    Strong culture gives people not just a set of rules to live by but a whole framework that comprises a goal and way of life. These are specific to ethnic groups because different groups have different needs, but far more pervasive than elective cultures, which is why government — ideology is an elective culture — seeks to squash them.

  6. Is it hateful to oppose diversity?

    We oppose diversity itself, not the groups involved. It does not matter which groups they are, only the fact that there is more than one ethnic group in that society, a condition which is invariably fatal.

    We can want to love everyone and have the best results for them since this is natural and noble. However, the question is whether that intention is served by diversity or ending diversity.

    Making everyone into a cultureless grey race mob under the thumb of government and consumerism does not serve the end goal of having each race thrive. It in fact is the opposite, and over time genocides those groups by turning them into mixed-race herds that lack the qualities of the original.

    Diversity could be seen as a clash between good intentions and reality. If your actions do not achieve your intentions, even if it seems like they should, you are doing bad, not good; wanting to love everyone cannot be directly written into policy, only supported by avoiding destructive acts.

    With nationalism, each group has its own autonomy, ability to set standards, and control over its future and destiny. This means that even if it is not receiving free stuff from the first world, its people have greater self-esteem and confidence in themselves.

    With this method, all of their successes belong to them alone; with diversity, it will always be supposed that their successes and failures are in fact created by whatever race is seen to be in power, which makes these groups defensive and paranoid and unaware of their own abilities.

    Diversity seems like love, but it is in fact hatred. No crook worth his salt will tell you what he intends to do, but will instead encode it in something that you are afraid to criticize, which is why governments adore diversity. They can create a permanent minority to vote against the majority and keep the government in power.

  7. Is anti-diversity un-Christian?

    The Christian religion expresses its view that humans, by being unrealistic, commit blasphemous and destructive acts while fooling themselves with Utopian visions. Like worshipping a golden calf, these symbolic ideals are categorical (thesis in search of data; means-over-ends) instead of descriptive (data in search of thesis; ends-over-means).

    Consequently, they lead humanity astray because the thinking behind them is unrealistic. The Garden of Eden mythos starts out the Bible talking about how humans, in a desire to play God, destroy their best hopes and dreams. The parable of the five talents talks about differences between people and how the best outcomes come from the competent.

    Perhaps the most on-point Biblical story, other than Phinehas slaughtered a race-mixer and delivering the Israelites from the wrath of God, is the Tower of Babel. In a desire to have total control, humans make a massive United Nations and cram in all sorts of different ethnic groups. This fails and crumbles to ruin.

    So too go diverse societies, which makes us think the authors of that book had more going on that most modern sources recognize.

Tags: , , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn