Furthest Right

Even Dishonest Abraham Lincoln Recognized That Diversity Is Death

Way back in the day, when I started writing, it struck me that most of the “pro-European” sites I encountered spent most of their time talking about African-Americans and Jews. This seemed ludicrous since you cannot be pro-European if you spent little time figuring out how to be European!

I suggested that instead of targeting specific groups, we look at the logical fact that diversity itself is toxic, no matter how “good” the other groups are. I mentioned how much trouble we have had in integrating Southern and Eastern Europeans into the United States, and the damage it has done to our political system and society.

The point is not that these groups are bad, but that society functions best when everyone is heading in the same direction, has roughly the same abilities and aesthetic sense, and is inclined toward similar behaviors as a result. Any diversity upsets this and creates an uncertain society where values and rules are overbroad to avoid offending.

In this way, I said, we are anti-racists: there is no racism without diversity. If only your tribe occupies a nation, then people are not going to spend their time thinking of other tribes. They have no reason to resent them or spend much time talking about them. That is not so when a society is diverse; tensions are everyday events.

Amazingly, this was common knowledge in the past. Even Abraham Lincoln — a diehard Leftist who wanted to free the slaves — realized that diversity was a disaster, and so it should be avoided through a reparations-with-repatriation style regime, namely that Lincoln wanted to send the slaves to Liberia:

“Hodge reported back to a British minister that Lincoln said it was his ‘honest desire’ that this emigration went ahead,” said Mr Page, a historian at Oxford University.

… Yet as late as that autumn, a letter sent to the president by his attorney-general showed he was still actively exploring whether the policy could be implemented, Mr Page said.

“It says ‘further to your question, yes, I think you can still pursue this policy of colonisation even though the money has been taken away’,” he said.

Many of us on the Right subscribe to the Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure view of the universe, namely “be excellent to each other.” That requires us to understand what excellence is in terms of results, not methods. Diversity is a feel-good method, but giving each group autonomy produces the best results.

History shows us many times such events would considered and would have produced better results, such as the Madagascar Plan:

One of those lesser-known “what ifs” is the Madagascar Plan, which nearly came to fruition during World War II. The Madagascar Plan was a suggested policy by the Nazi government of Germany to relocate the Jewish population of Europe to the island of Madagascar at the height of the war.

The idea, put forth by Franz Rademacher, head of the Jewish Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was to hand over Madagascar, then a French colony, to Germany as part of the French surrender terms. The project was approved by Adolf Hitler. On Aug. 15, 1940, he ordered Adolf Eichmann to start the resettlement of a million Jews per year for four years to Madagascar as a police state under the SS.

In Europe, the problem was the same: diversity creates enmity, especially as each group works toward its own self-interest alone, which is what all groups do until paralyzed by the cordyception of equality. Similarly, the solution was to end diversity by relocation, but Hitler bungled it somehow.

Our outlook can either be driven by a response to perceived negatives, or aim for a positive purpose, which is a type of affirmative and ongoing goal that we hope to achieve, such as improving ourselves. If we react to negatives, we miss the bigger point, which is to make civilization not just “safe” but thriving.

Recent research suggests that replacing pointless activity with purposeful activity can revitalize ruined communities:

The group started holding frequent neighborhood cleanup days to fix up vacant lots and abandoned buildings, symbolically “owning” them by adding lighting, sidewalk repair, benches and plantings. The owners were usually happy to allow neighbors to fix up their private property for free. Sometimes, they even pitched in.

Those changes, we observed, inspired other homeowners and businesses on this flat, three-lane road to spruce up their properties, too – what one local resident called the “spreading effect of pride.”

…Over time, community members reported fewer mental health problems, said they’d been victims of crime less often, and felt less afraid. That’s probably because crime did go down along the University Avenue Corridor: According to the coalition’s latest report, assaults decreased 54 percent, robberies 83 percent and burglaries 76 percent between 2013 and 2018.

…This finding is similar to data from other cities. From 1999 to 2008, for example, the city of Philadelphia cleaned up 4,436 vacant lots, signaling “ownership” with fencing, benches, plantings and the like. Gun assaults in areas where the interventions occurred dropped by 29 percent over three years.

The theory offered in this article, “busy streets,” claims to be an update to “broken windows,” a philosophy that says visible damage or bad behavior attracts more of the same. Basically: what you tolerate, you get more of.

In a more sensible analysis, “busy streets” is “broken windows” reborn. Broken windows lowers crime by signaling that criminal behavior is not acceptable; busy streets does the same but from a positive perspective, signaling what behavior is desirable and facilitating it.

Our civilization — the remains of Western Civilization — resembles a large economically depressed neighborhood. Corruption, crime, filth, deception, and pointless activity are common; ugly architecture, pointless consumer businesses, fundamentally useless people, vandalism, and stupidity cover most of the terrain.

Instead of choosing targets, we should choose a way of life and a structural type of civilization in which we want to live. We can then create that by setting it as the standard, and clearing out anything incompatible, instead of trying to slash away at heads of the hydra without getting to the cause of the problem.

Drunken on democracy, we implemented equality everywhere for centuries, and now we see the results, so it is time to cease this pointless policy including its offshoots like feminism and diversity. We do not want to “turn back the clock,” we want to turn away from failing ideas and their real-world consequences.

Even Abraham Lincoln knew better than to implement obviously paradoxical schemes. He saw that if slavery had to go, then the two races could not coexist; he knew how much of a problem Amerind coexistence had been over the past century.

As someone who did not hate any of these racial groups — Amerinds, Chinese, Mexicans, and Africans — present in early America, Lincoln opted for a sensible middle path. He would not allow them to be harmed, but he would not keep them around, either. As diversity fails, more people are following his lead.

Tags: , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn