In this election, the central question involved whether America would continue down the path of Leftism. The trigger to this question, or the issue that raised it in the minds of voters, concerned double standards.
Leftism claims to protect the less-equal by transferring wealth from the more-equal, with a hefty percentage deducted as a fee paid to our brave Leftist politicians, all of whom seem to act like career criminals.
Since the second World War, Leftism has found itself with a guaranteed argument in the Hitler/not-Hitler dichotomy. If the Leftists find a brown victim, they can demand anything they want by calling any opposition “Hitler” (or some equivalent).
This means that in the hands of government, whites become kulaks and non-whites become deserving comrade peasants. The goal is to destroy the kulaks and give their wealth to the peasants, at which point civilization collapses because we destroyed the more competent people.
As a means to implementing this, the Left created the double standard. In this view, it is good for the putative victims (non-whites) to express self-interest at the expense of others, but the kulaks must never express any self-interest.
With election 2016, people are questioning this double-standard. “If they can have ethnic self-interest, why can’t we?” people asked. This applies to the white, the rich, the smarter, the healthier and other categories.
In short, the momentum favored reversing the direction of Leftism, which is always to take from the higher and give to the lower, while enriching the parasites who work in government. Every Leftist state goes down this path.
But it starts with this simple question: why can’t we have what the ideologues have gifted to others? The Leftists will give lies in response, but there are two actual reasons.
1. Diversity Does Not Work Because It Is Paradoxical.
The relationship between homogeneity and diversity is much like that between capitalism and socialism: the former are practical, and the latter ideological, or figurative arguments taken literally that history has proven to fail because they are not just unrealistic but reality-denying.
The main argument for homogeneity is simply that diversity does not work. Each group has self-interest, and when you combine them, you get either clashing self-interests or a lowest common denominator so low that it leads to breakdown of all social order.
This is why throughout history, diversity has been a harbinger of doom:
Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.
Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare — I mean the â€œbeautiful mosaicâ€ — in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.
“Diversity” is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought.
Coulter says it as well as anyone, but she is focusing on history, which shows us zero record of successful diversity. In fact, it shows that diversity or a program very like it is generally what dying societies adopt before becoming third-world wastelands.
We could instead use logical fact and look at it this way: every ethnic group has its own self-interest in mind, namely that it wants its own standards, rules, customs, image and beliefs to be the ones under which it lives.
When you put multiple ethnic groups together, these self-interests clash. The only solutions are either (a) one group rules the rest or (b) you boil those conflicting interests down to a lowest common denominator, at which point no one gets what they want, and social order is diluted to the point of being inconsequential. We are in that latter state now.
This is why diversity always fails, and it is not the fault of the ethnic groups that comprise the diverse state, i.e. there is nothing “wrong” with them — they are merely asserting self-interest. But diversity negates self-interest and causes endless conflict, ending in either tyranny or low standards.
2. Cause And Effect Are (Visually) Different
Every week, your field of wheat seems to burst into flame at about the same time the noon train passes by. That train uses coal, and so you assume that a burning cinder has hit the field.
The train guys deny it. You say to yourself, of course these evil corporate money-grubbers want to ignore this problem! They are just greedy. And then, you find out the truth because you dig deeper.
Two fields over from yours, there is a church with a steeple. In the steeple is stained glass. Pigeons hide out in the steeple, and when they defecate, the guano builds up on the shelf above the glass, and the acidic nature of the guano causes that shelf to warp. This bends the glass slightly so that it is convex, and the sun shining through it is focused on any number of spots two fields away, where it starts fires at roughly noon.
Cause and effect do not visually resemble one another.
Leftism can be viewed as a systematic denial of cause and effect. For example, they are fond of saying that you are more likely to die of a snakebite than a terrorist attack, but that is only part of the story. You can avoid both snakebite and terrorist attack, but only the terrorist attack needs to be avoided at the policy level because it is not, like the snakebite, the result of individual choices.
When we talk about the haves and have-nots, we have to face an ugly fact that most of us got over in kindergarten but Leftists resisted: people are not equal, nor are most of them any damn good.
There, I said it. This is the greatest taboo in the world and I fully expect to get droned within the next few minutes for having done so. Better type fast and hit publish, because surely the missile is not far behind…
People are not equal and most of them are not much good. Even more, intelligence is a gradient, like every other ability, with only a few at the far right end. This does not mean that people who are not super-smart are bad, only that because they are not super-smart, there are (a) some things they will be biologically unable to understand and (b) they are biologically compelled to reject the understanding of others of these things.
This means that those who are competent at some task will forever be misunderstood by those without that competence. This means you have two options: either (a) put the competent in charge and have them restrain the incompetent or (b) by default, put the incompetent, who are more numerous, in charge through mob rule and have them restrain the competent from doing what is necessary.
Path B leads to poverty and the third world; Path A is what made the West great.
How does this apply to haves and have-nots, you might ask? Wealth generation is a task for which some are more competent than others. This means that there will always be poor people. In fact, poverty is how they are kept from influencing society, because they are not competent at making the decisions that society needs.
Feel the weight of that other taboo. But it is true: poverty is as much a necessary part of human life as natural selection is of nature. It is the only way to ensure competence, and without competence we get the opposite, like our leaders.
Leftism has one idea, which is that it wants to create “equality.” At first this meant equal legal representation for career criminals as well as normal citizens, which put the normal citizens at a disadvantage. Eventually it came to mean wealth transfer so we could subsidize the poor.
Not surprisingly that brought about a wave of incompetence and increased poverty. That is why the double standard exists: we must deny the competent a voice over the incompetent, or we will see that Leftism itself is a lie.
In this election, the double standard was rejected in favor of a libertarian view that competition is good because it enables the competent to rise. Since Leftism is conjectural, or “ideological,” it is an opposite to any real-world based viewpoint like libertarianism. This election was thus a refutation of Leftism by reaching beyond it toward something better.
Part of that means that the competent must no longer have an obligation to save the incompetent from themselves. This is achieved by making no group obligated to help another group. In reality, this translates to the ability for white people to have self-interest advocacy groups just like have been historically active for African, Asian and Aboriginal peoples. Black Power = White Power.
Leftist critiques of the alt-right boil down to this: you’re racist! Our answer should be short and sweet. If they can have it, we can have it too, even when “it” is the right to act in our ethnic self-interest for ourselves alone, a.k.a. nationalism, and if Leftism opposes that, we will just have to remove them.