Like everything else in dying Rome 2.0, conservatives have become inverted. They could not talk about their original purpose because it clashed with the methods of collapsing civilization, so they talk about everything else.
This eliminated two important parts of conservatism: first, our acknowledgement of social hierarchy based in genetics, and second, our tendency to tolerate harmless eccentricity as long as it is kept private.
Those who wish to tear down civilization must have laughed and clapped their hands gleefully with that one. In one step, they eliminated two necessary pillars of a functional civilization and guaranteed that conservatives would join liberals in pushing it to doom.
No public conservative will admit this, and the Dissident Right are too brain-muddled to articulate it, but conservatives do not support egalitarianism in the same way that we do not support idol-worship.
We view such things as irrelevant and therefore dangerous because pursuing the irrelevant means forsaking the relevant while wasting all time, energy, and attention on something that can only deplete us.
The two are related, of course. If we establish a hierarchy of people, it will favor certain genetics that are continuous to our founding and future, and therefore, we can stop judging people and be more tolerant.
When you have an egalitarian society, everyone is on display because they have no social rank therefore must compete for it just as they do in the meritocracy bureaucracy for job status, which makes them prone to bully, mock, and belittle.
There is no tolerance for honest eccentricity in such a society.
Even more, hierarchy implicates genetics which pushes us past The Buckley Line, or the compromise that fake WASP William F. Buckley made in the 1960s where conservatives would become “Christian libertarians” endorsing personal conservatism instead of addressing the impending diversity genocide.
Buckley threw out the John Birch Society and others who said that not only did America need to be White, it needed to be Western European (WASP, Cro-Magnid, Nordid). That group is the root of our power and we succeed in proportion to how much of it we have.
When Buckley made this deal, the Leftists squealed with glee. They knew at that point they could turn conservatives into total cucks who worked sixty-hour weeks just to pay taxes to liberals, so that conservatives might have the privilege of attending church on the weekends, owning some guns, and reading lengthy tomes on libertarian economics.
In doing so, Buckley exiled the heart of conservatism — realism, which includes “nature over nurture,” or recognition of genetics as upstream of culture, ability, and morality — and replaced it with the Leftist notion of pluralism, or the idea that everyone does whatever they want and we quietly hate and mock each other in private.
Now we are seeing The Buckley Line get eroded because, sixty years after the Hart-Celler Act, we now see that diversity is an even bigger source of conflict than it was then, and now we see that White Genocide was always the aim of diversity or at least, its forseeable consequence.
Consequently, people are peeling back the taboo on talking about race and genetics even as the Left intensifies its propaganda, censorship, and deplatforming campaign:
Unfortunately for the left, the privileging of merit has not brought sufficient numbers of women and nonwhites into high places. So now identity politics has made gender and race into qualifications for success. Now, all demographic groups are supposed to succeed in proportion to their shares of the population, an ideal I call “equal group outcomes.” And to realize equal group outcomes, affirmative action must favor the hiring of women and minorities in visible positions, at whatever cost in fairness to white men.
To make equal group outcomes seem reasonable, we must totally reject any idea that women or nonwhites are in any way different from men or whites, except in appearance. To the establishment, sameness is a religion. In order not to contradict the tenets of this religion, we must be made to believe that all social groups have exactly the same talents and potentials.
Most whites, descended from Europeans, brought with them to America an unusual psychology that allowed them to pursue personal goals, such as making money and getting ahead, but also constrained them to observe general strictures about right and wrong. But apparently because of their non-Western origins, all racial minorities—Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans, as well as blacks—on average, lack the same inner-driven temperament. They chiefly react to outside pressures rather than pursue personal goals, and what is moral to them reflects mainly what other people expect of them rather than what conforms to general principles of right and wong.
This article gets a lot right and a lot wrong. The point is not intelligence, but abilities: every ethnic group comprises a framework of genetics which produce certain abilities and inclinations.
That is, White people are inclined toward that “inner-driven temperament” that balances “personal goals” with “general strictures about right and wrong.” Perhaps even we are motivated by doing right, at least Western Europeans.
Even more, the point is about futures. What is the future of a mixed-race or mixed-ethnic society? We have plenty of these in Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, North Africa, and the middle east. They are impoverished, corrupt wastelands.
Could we fix them? If you send away the stupid, insane, criminal, selfish, and perverse, you end up with a smaller group of reasonably good people. Over time they will breed closer to the Nordid ideal, even if never reaching it.
For example, if you took all of the Nordic-looking and Nordic-acting people in Italy, gave them the power, and made them the cornerstone of that society, people would breed toward that goal, and the society would rise.
However, the bigger point is that no society can survive multi-ethnicism. First you get Putnam’s “hunkering down” and loss of social capital, then culture is abolished in order to be tolerant, then you get constant race war disguised as crime, and finally you become the jeering mob of the third world and then your genetics are destroyed.
Countries do not rise out of third world status. The only possible way would involve radical eugenics, like sending away the 90% of the population that is lower IQ and lower self-directedness. This is politically impossible.
Therefore, the article quoted here both addresses the genetic question tentatively and dodges the larger question, which is that there is no future for a multi-ethnic state. It commits suicide and leaves behind wasteland grey people.
Luckily others are talking about the root idea of crossing The Buckley Line, which is admitting that there are two forces in our life: social and genetic. Social rewards accepting everyone and excluding no one, where genetic is built from groups isolating themselves to breed useful traits into themselves.
In this view, diversity is not only not “our strength” and a burden instead, but also a fatal decision. It kills societies and they never rise again. It is the equivalent of pulling the pin on a hand grenade and setting it on the breakfast table while your family sits down to a meal.
You get a few very nice seconds. You do not know exactly how long, since grenades have different lengths of fuse. However, at some point, everything explodes and everyone dies or is seriously maimed.
Another take on the recent Charles Murray book points out that the bigger point is that genetics trumps all else and therefore, avoiding this topic to preserve Buckleyite bipartisan sensitivities is a fatal mistake:
Charles Murray’s Facing Reality: Two Truths About Race in America challenges this prevailing dogma. Murray puts forward a simple thesis: The most consequential racial differences in our society are “in cognitive ability and crime.” These gaps cause and explain virtually all racial disparities that currently exist. It follows that discussions of “domestic policy issues involving more than one race” will virtually always prove “invalid” unless they take these facts into account.
Anyone could tell you that because, like his earlier research in The Bell Curve, Murray points out that genetic differences between social classes determine different outcomes.
Higher classes are higher g, which correlates with greater ability, longevity, health, beauty, and narrow long faces.
In fact, Murray only began writing about race because he wanted to show that his data on the lower classes was not skewed by racial diversity, since everyone is aware of the lower average IQs of third world descended populations.
The thing about racial relativity, the theory advanced by people like myself, is that we accept that different genetic groups see the world differently, have different abilities, and innately desire different things including aesthetics, morality, and daily activities.
That clashes with the old fashioned Christian racial universalism that in fact is a mirror image of Leftist racial universalism which insists that we are all the same. Consider this:
The most important rule of so-called “antiracist” analysis is that all racial inequalities are the product of white racism, whether it be “structural,” “systemic,” “institutional,” or otherwise. No inequity can be ascribed to shortcomings, personal choices, or untoward behaviors on the part of “people of color.”
He considers “shortcomings, personal choices, or untoward behaviors” but never looks at this through the eyes of a naturalist.
To a naturalist, different populations have different adaptative strategies that work for their environment. In the tropics, you had better breed early and breed often. Morality, anti-rape, and prohibitions on gang violence have nothing to do with it.
If you are a young man in such a society, it makes more sense to join a gang and have status so that you can have animalistic sex with lots of young females, therefore guaranteeing that your genes persist, than it does to try to preserve yourself by not dying by avoiding gang violence.
If you are a young man in such a society and you encounter an unattended female, it makes sense to rape her because she may have offspring with your genes. You might also claim her in this way and have multiple offspring with her.
Hominid society was probably very similar, just like our ancestors the apes have somewhat similar patterns. Is it stupid, immoral, and awful? Those are not relevant; it works, and that is what matters to nature.
Does accepting this mean that we cannot have gods? No, because clearly we are animals with something extra in the brain that lets us tap into certain parts of the divine. Some of this arises from our ability to control our environment. Give a housecat lots of time and love, and you have a spiritual being, too.
This lets us look at the crisis of diversity as it is: not as superior/inferior, but different versus same. Ethno-nationalist homogeneity works, where diverse pluralism makes disasters.
Murray disputes the fashionable assumptions “that all groups are equal in the ways that shape economic, social, and political outcomes,” and that “therefore all differences in group outcomes are artificial and indefensible.” These assumptions are “factually wrong,” he maintains. Rather, racial inequalities in a range of social indicators—such as health, wealth, occupation, educational attainment, and the composition and quality of schools and neighborhoods—can be traced most immediately to significantly greater rates of African criminal behavior and significantly lower average African intellectual ability.
Africans are tempting to a research specialist because they are distinct on the curve of simple measurements like IQ, but that really is not relevant. “Different” means incompatible, and different is a function of genetics.
Mix all the different together and you get confused genetics, therefore low ability people with no particular inclinations. All third world mixed-race states have this tendency.
It does not matter whether they are African, Irish, Arab, Italian, Greek, Levantine, Jewish, Asian, Hispanic, Eurasian, Slavic, Irish, mixed-race, or Irish. Anyone who is different does not belong here.
That requires a long term view that asks, “What should our genetic future be?” and concludes that (a) it should be ethnically homogeneous and (b) since we are from a Cro-Magnid/Nordid root, it should be mostly Nordic.
However, the path to that difficult discussion starts with crossing The Buckley Line and admitting that it is not Christianity, the Constitution, or income potential that makes a good citizen, but membership in our core genetic group.