Amerika

History and markets both work the same way: most people, using the methods that worked in the past, react to a new event by doubling down on those methods, even though those methods will obviously not achieve the goals they need.

These people are doing what is defensively “safe” in a social context: others will not attack them for doing what “everyone” agrees is the right response.

This means that history, like markets, follows a Hegelian stepladder of reactions to reactions without anyone going back, re-analyzing the situation from first principles, and figuring out what needs to be done so that they can then figure out how (right methods) to do it.

Right now, we are divided between two groups; let us call them “transactionalists” and “unifiers.” The transactionalists think every action we take should have demonstrable value, and the unifiers want all things to keep the group together through subsidies, compromises, and focus on the individual.

On diversity, the transactionalists look at it through a question of “assimilation” and “integration.” They are fine with foreign DNA walking among us, so long as it pretends to be like us. This is the sum total of their argument.

Because they have committed to this argument, they suffer from confirmation bias, and therefore see only the question of immigrant behavior: if they are not acting just like us but with a tan, outrage ensues.

The unifiers — who will sacrifice any goal so that the group feels safe and represented, basically a collectivized individualism — see the question as one of individual importance. If foreigners are individuals, they should be included, they argue.

Deep down we see the pathologies of both. The transactionalists are Darwinists who believe that not all people are good, so people must demonstrate utility to be important; the unifiers are individualists who want to remove any rules, mores, or goals that constrain their individual desires.

Unfortunately for us, this means that the conversation about diversity focuses on irrelevant tangents like which groups commit which crimes, who is getting free government money, and how to force people to behave (as “we” see fit) through social engineering.

The libertarians tell us that immigration is good for the market, the socialists want it to take over the vote, and the Republicans want to Christianize and educate the diversity so that it behaves like versions of our founders, but with tans.

The real question is biological not political, economic, or social.

Benevolent xenophobia is logical. If you want to keep your culture, keep your genetics, which means excluding everyone else. Above all else, you must preserve who you are.

If you let in foreigners, someone will mate with them. Those offspring will mate with others. That DNA will be mixed into your bloodline. It does not disappear; you disappear. A hybrid of you and something else is no longer you, but the new mixture.

We see the painful results of this in SEMI (Southern, Eastern, Mediterranean, and Irish) europids who are mixed with Asian and north African groups. Rome was once great, but Italy never will be, nor will Greece rise to those heights again. The DNA is no longer there.

It exists in traces, of course, but traces mean some of the ability of the original, not all of those abilities, and this imbalance creates someone with enough intelligence to get in trouble but not enough to build their way out of it.

Once you get mixed, you never rise again.

What made the West great was its people: Nordic-Germanic nomads and farmers coming together to make a permanent civilization. However, permanent civilization breeds purposeless people who attend jobs but do not build civilization. These then doom it.

Every human civilization in history has followed this path. Purposeless people hate strength, health, wisdom, sanity, and most of all, nature and natural things like culture. Those compete with their fragile self-image which they assert through individualism.

Individualism means valuing the individual above nature, civilization, and the transcendental. The individualist hates the strong because they make him feel weak, since he has no purpose other than himself, therefore is categorically not destined for real glory, only social accolades.

Individualists always seek to import foreigners to use as a weapon against the successful. The individualist thinks he will be happy when everyone is equal because then no one is above him, therefore no one can point out that he is being unrealistic.

The more a civilization succeeds, the more it breeds purposeless people to work its jobs.

Those join together, forming a libertarian and then liberal party, and seize power by importing foreigners to vote for them. This was true 2400 years ago in Athens just as we can see it happening today in the EU, UK, and US.

Their ultimate goal is to obliterate the founding genetics in order to break the continuity of the society from its founding to its future. That way, there can be no goal, which means that no one is prized more than others because he helps achieve the goal.

Having a goal always leads to social hierarchy. Reward the producers, punish the reducers, and leave everyone else in their natural state, and you get social hierarchy. If you have a goal, some will help reach it, and they are the producers.

The individualist wants the goal gone and to be replaced with a bourgeois sense of tolerating everyone and believing all opinions at once (pluralism). Individualism is anti-realistic and pro-social, but leads to civilizational erasure.

Instead of jawing about “assimilation” and “integration,” or using ethnic slurs and pejoratives for other groups, we should focus on the bottom line: to preserve our genetics, we need a mono-ethnic society.

Like most accurate representations of reality, this will not gain anyone ten million Twitter followers or make them rich. But it is what we must do to survive, and anyone who is not pursuing this goal is working to destroy us, even if they do not consciously know it.

Tags: assimilation, diversity, individualism, integration, mono-ethnicism