Imagine that: the least diverse places have the lowest internal friction, therefore the least amount of homicide.
He is not wrong. Diversity is genocide. When you force together different groups, they outbreed and soon all original groups are destroyed.
The United Nations definition of genocide agrees:
Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
New Zealand recognizes that it must remove invasive generalist species — stoats, rats and possums — in order to preserve biological diversity. Soon we will see that the same is true of human sub-species (racial and ethnic groups) as well.
When you keep dumping immigrants into a society, you run out of housing, which means that prices go up. When you tax the natives to fund the immigrants, costs get passed to the consumer, and so wages fall (to keep costs as low as possible) and prices go up (which eats up more of their income). Diversity is a death-trap, financially and demographically.
The question of this case: are words actions? We know that screaming “fire!” in a crowded theater is more of an action than protected speech, but what about encouraging someone to kill himself? At some point, we have to decide whether people have agency and can make their own decisions, or if people are so weak that words are commands and taboo ideas are infectious. The truth is probably in the middle, but the law does poorly with middles.
What is wrong about wanting a doctor of your own racial or ethnic group? We know from history that each group favors its own, so laws will not restrain that practice, which cannot be accurately measured anyway. Instead, we must sacrifice more lives on the holy altar of diversity.
Principal gently points out that for many students, including Muslims, the Holocaust is not a matter of faith:
“I can’t say the Holocaust is a factual, historical event because I am not in a position to do so as a school district employee,” Latson responded, according to the school district.
According to the paper, Latson went on to write, “Not everyone believes the Holocaust happened. And you have your thoughts, but we are a public school and not all of our parents have the same beliefs.”
Welcome to the end result of diversity. Nothing is true, because each group believes different things. We will never be able to achieve unity on anything with this system. We will never be able to act. We are rudderless in a death spiral, thanks to diversity!
Wait, our hippie neighbors to the north are OK with this? Also of note: even Hispanics are getting uneasy about the flood over our border. They realize that at some point, the flood will make America into Mexico, destroying the advantages for which they came here in the first place. They are a few generations off from realizing that diversity will do the same.
When you make information public for anyone to see, you bring in people who have not done the groundwork to understand the why behind the how, and they promptly take over and ruin it. This is the process of Crowdism, or how humanity ruins everything that it touches; we send in our best, they figure it out, and then write it down, at which point the largest group of humans — thoughtless, somewhat witless, selfish — use that procedure and exploit whatever it is that was written about. This has implication for laws and religion. Is it really a good idea to have ordinary people interpreting the Bible? What about filing lawsuits?
We still see the fallout from our unions of auto workers, which were heavily linked to organized crime and drove up the costs of American labor. Now, we manufacture everything abroad because we priced ourselves out of the labor market not just with unions, but regulations, lawsuits, and taxes. Everywhere you look, unions are raising costs above market prices, with those costs then passed on to the consumer, of course. These unions also always lean Left and encourage their greedy constituents to vote Left. In addition, union rules — like Communism — ensure that the worst workers get the benefits of the best, effectively vandalizing quality of output. American cars in the 1980s hit a nadir of quality from manufacturing defects. Who would buy an English car, short of a Rolls-Royce? They are heaps of manufacturing defects. If we simply ban unions, all of this ends and we can be self-sufficient and autonomous.
Is there something wrong with having a Right-wing opinion? The way people in public act, you would assume that it was so, but that is only because we have shifted so far Left that the center is actually far-Left. Do we live in free and open societies, or merely Leftist ones? If the latter, we should just change the flag to the Soviet hammer and cycle and be done with it.
The world is a horror. People are dropping out. Some live in trailers and sell junk on eBay; others take monastic orders.
Genius researchers find that interrupting communications helps limit those who have noticed that this society is failing. In actuality, it simply makes them more alienated and likely to do destructive things, instead of organizing and overthrowing the mess that is our dysfunctional system of government.
If Trump cannot block critics, why is it legal for social media to block critics before they can even get to his profile? Those of us who are banned on Twitter are also denied a voice on Trump’s profile.
The anti-vax movement is growing because vaccines are being used as policy tools. Some children — those from the lower-IQ end of the spectrum, or abuse cases — are promiscuous, and years later get cervical cancer as a result. The wisdom of the egalitarian state holds that we must inoculate every youngster to protect those that are ill-behaved, instead of simply having social standards and allowing natural selection to remove the dysfunctional. These scientists are advocating for promiscuity.
The framers of the Constitution wanted to avoid any laws that took from some and gave to some other group. They had no problem with laws that took from all and gave to all. If we decide to remove wealth transfer programs on the basis of their unconstitutionality, we get rid of the entitlements state, civil rights, affirmative action, and all of that other neurotic Leftist nonsense.
They are feeling vulnerable not because of economic factors, but because we are politically unstable and still trying to get rid of the Obama-era and Clinton-era programs that are taxing them into oblivion, raising prices and reducing wages, and generally beating them down. If we cut all entitlements, regulations, unions, and civil rights programs tomorrow, people would have breathing room again, and the Left is fighting this kicking and screaming because they know that it is their inevitable end.