Witness our bold President, crossing a taboo line to deliver a socially important message:
“Racism, we are not cured of it. And it’s not just a matter of it not being polite to say ‘nigger’ in public,” Obama said in an interview for the podcast WTF with Marc Maron.
“That’s not the measure of whether racism still exists or not. It’s not just a matter of overt discrimination. Societies don’t, overnight, completely erase everything that happened 200 to 300 years prior.”
The usual sleight of hand here. Recall that most humans fear evolutionary pressures to improve themselves, and so make war on the idea of social standards which compel them to discipline or moral behavior. To that end, they attempt to abolish social standards. As a method of doing that, they distract from any important issue with an unimportant but emotionally simplistic one.
In this case, the real issue is the health of our civilization: it is in decline. The false issue is that our real problem is a lack of diversity. That creates the current issue, which is a tendency to (1) blame slavery for “racism” and (2) blame the failures of diversity on “racism.”
Why, you may ask, do I put “racism” in quotation marks? Simply put: “racism” does not exist. A desire to be among one’s own kind — this is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, class and values all together — is the natural state of humankind and exists for a simple reason. Similarity reduces the need for communication, negotiation and the endless rules, regulations and bureaucracy of which liberals are so enamored. Without difference, people are moving in roughly the same direction and much of the overhead that does not work well and more importantly, makes life frustrating and tedious, can be eliminated. Life becomes simpler, with less work and more play, and people are more at rest and trusting of each other.
Most of what we call “racism” consists of people like Dylann Roof who want to resist diversity, and have made the fatal mistake of confusing the visible symbol of diversity — African-Americans — with the program itself and the idea behind it. For liberals, diversity is a way to destroy national cultures and replace them with ideology. They want those rules, regulations and bureaucracy because those are inefficient and always favor anyone who can construe themselves a victim, which allows for successive abolishment of any social standards. That makes liberals happy: to them, civilization is the enemy. They will do whatever they can to subvert, hinder, sabotage, thwart, vandalize and restrain it.
A natural response might be to look at diversity through the only science that can address it, which is a combination of abstract logic and historical data. Diversity does not exist in nature; this implies that there is a reason for its non-existence, and that this must be addressed if we are to replace it. Much as we replaced rainfall with irrigation, and then learned to limit irrigation to avoid killing the plants, we have to get to the root reason for why diversity does not exist. Above we can see the most plausible reason, which is that diversity is inefficient and introduces internal conflict which then replaces actual living as the primary activity in society. Definitely our civilization over the past 200 years has seen a rise in pointless fighting over words on pages because we have no shared unity, purpose or even idea of what the good life would be. The latter is what conservatives generally idealize. With this analysis in hand, we can look to history and see that like many other evolved traits, a lack of diversity manifests itself in parallel across all successful human societies, and many if not all failed societies show a dangerous embrace of diversity. This makes diversity look like a symptom of civilization breakdown, which makes it both not wholly culpable, but also definitively not a solution. That makes it a distraction, beloved of liberals as mentioned above.
When opposition to diversity is criminalized, that act puts critics of diversity in a corner. And like all cornered animals, they lash out at the closest approaching hand, not the set of hands that cornered them and definitely not the metal spikes or rifles hemming them in. This is what Dylann Roof did: he murdered black people instead of doing something productive like killing off pro-diversity whites, or lashing out at the government which supports this program. Anders Breivik in Norway took a more practical approach and shot the children enrolled in liberal indoctrination camp, showing Norwegians that conformity indeed has a high cost and just following the herd to doom sometimes has consequences. While the great love-in after that event raged strong at first, it died down quickly, mostly because people realized that Breivik killed fundamentally unimportant people on a practical level. These were not future leaders, but future parasites. Had Roof gunned down nine teachers at a Mix It Up! conference, or simply chewed his way through a herd of good liberals watching Roots, he might have achieved something closer to his aim. Instead, he murdered people with whom he might have found a lot of common ground, namely that they wanted to associate with their own, too.
There are actual racists, of course. These are people who use African-Americans (or other ethnic, religious and gender minorities) as scapegoats for the failure of Western civilization. That approach ignores the fact that the failure of Western civilization began with egalitarianism, the same ideology that propelled the Soviets, which is a malignant form of individualism that demands an absence of social rules and standards that might compel individuals to self-discipline and hence, upward trajectory on the evolutionary curve instead of stagnation. But the herd wants stagnation because it fears challenging itself, both on a group and individual level. The perennially popular message is that everything is fine, there is no need to strive, and what we really should be doing is enjoying the quality donuts, beer and television (or circuses) that our ancestors have provided for us. Civilization reaches an evolutionary dead end when it succeeds because it loses all of its objectives, and what replaces it is the inherent venality, mental laziness and corrupt inertia of most people.
What racists should do is look to their own race. If, for sake of argument, an artificial intelligence was created which could reliably separate the sheep from the goats, it could strengthen any race by removing the 90% who are useless and keeping the 10% (approximately) who are capable of thought. These would span caste barriers, with those at the top capable of more thought covering more variables, but you would get a net of good people. Sending the 90% away, whether up a smokestack or on boats, would achieve a society of three very different groups that nonetheless acted toward a common goal: the bulk power laborers, the coordination based warriors and artisans, and the brainpower-driven priests and philosophers. If you think about what an ideal society would be like, this is the one, and if it had sufficient technology to defeat the remainder of humanity which would immediately see it as a golden land and want to plunder it (and destroy it in the process) it would thrive at a level hereto unknown by humanity. That goal, while it seems lofty, is more practical and useful than murdering the symptoms of diversity as they pray in church.
One of our long-time and well-respected readers here, crow, has requested an analysis of those who wish us to ban Confederate flags, remove Confederate monuments and erase the Confederacy from history. I consider his question prophetic in that it cuts to the core of the issue: those who wish to eradicate the Confederacy from memory are making the same mistake Roof did, which is to attack the visible symbol of a problem instead of cutting to the root. The problem for such people is that most people wish to live among their own and do not want diversity forced upon them. The more such people, who are indeed ‘butts’ in the sense of being numb and useless, pressure the rest of us to accept diversity, the more incidents like this occur. Not being able to critique their own behavior and see where they are wrong, such people turn those events to their own advantage by blaming mysterious “racists” instead of resistance to the insane program of diversity, and use that to justify even more incursion.
It is this kind of Soviet-style feedback loop that uses its self-confirming assumptions to force itself upon societies, promptly destroying all that allows them to function and entering a death spiral of enforcement and resistance. In the Soviet Union, the ideology jihad took the form of class warfare; here, Democrats insist that racism is a class warfare issue. Draw your own conclusions there, but yes, crow, these anti-Confederates are indeed “butts” or as the older terms had it, fools, blockheads, nitwits and ziggies. They are eternally zero the hero, born losers and back the classroom nerds because their own minds are disorganized and as a result, they are capable of nothing more than basic function, and this makes them miserable. Instead of owning up to that, they scapegoat those who lack the same problem, and find “meaning” in life through their attack on such people. Needless to say, they would be in the 90% who in any sane society would find themselves on a fast boat to Destination Elsewhere.
Chasing symbols and not reality is a side-effect of our need to scapegoat, which arises from the liberal need to distract. Liberals are defined by their denial of actual problems and their preference for illusive schemes that conceal the actual liberal objective of preventing oversight of the individual by social standards or anyone who knows more than the average liberal. For this reason, liberals prefer symbolically-significant acts like burning books, tearing down flags and erasing history. However, this backfires because it forces on a people an ideology that does not relate to their lives, and creates in consequence a distrust of all things related to ideology. This resistance eventually culminates, as it did in Soviet Russia, in a passive culture of futility and consequent national attitude of apathy except when facing threat of execution. That reveals the problem of strong power, which is that instead of as Machiavelli said was ideal being both hated and loved, government is merely avoided because, by the reflexive property of strong actions, anything important is a death penalty and everything else can be ignored. The West has reached the same point in its manic crusade for diversity.
A third option exists to forcing diversity on people and its opposite, allowing us to avoid the issue entirely. That was what Conservatives originally attempted with Affirmative Action, which allowed government to give preference to minorities. This however turned out to be a disaster because it spread far beyond its original intent to become a standard in all things government such that non-minorities were at a distinct disadvantage, and some people were hired or promoted for their racial status alone despite being incompetent. That, too, has been a disaster. I dislike advancing an argument which says “You should just let me do what I want to do, because you cannot do otherwise,” but when facts, history and truth are on the side of that argument, it is pointless to not advance it. Affirmative Action reveals a tendency of centralized government which is that it makes universal rules which, by the nature of universality, become too artificially abstract to help.
This leads us back to the original idea of the Confederacy which was that a centralized state was destructive because of its tendency to universalize from conditions in Massachusetts and New York and apply those in the South; while slavery (and opposition to diversity) were touchstone issues, they were not the underlying issue, which was the belief that local areas should have more power. In the South, slavery was already on its way out thanks to new technology and the general worldwide trend to reduce it; the wild profits had gone out of certain industries as well, which were what had driven the expansion of slavery in Latin, Central and North America because of the trade in these products with Europe. However, liquidating a large portion of its investment would have destroyed the economy, so the Confederate states resisted while behind the scenes quietly downsizing that institution. Many of us oppose the idea of chattel slavery for a number of reasons, including the idea of “chattel” as opposed to sacred role and the fundamental fact that it is a form of diversity. Many in the South did as well. But they wanted to handle the problem locally because the “Massachusetts solution” would not work for the South, and the North knew this but like drunken bullies kept on with their manic charade. We all know how well that turned out: a nation permanently divided.
More people are turning to the idea of local rule at the present time. Diversity enforced by a central government is clearly a disaster, as are the anti-poverty programs and other paperwork-creating wastes of time. As the United States sees its power fade, many are (slowly…slowly) making the connection between the increased regulatory state and its social justice mandate and the slowdown in efficiency, purpose and quality here in these neurotic States. Letting states decide their own diversity rules might have a positive effect. If Texas were to get rid of Affirmative Action, indemnify companies for equality lawsuits, and send to the dustbin whole realms of Federal legislation, Texas might find itself with a faster-moving economy, a more trusting society and an actual sense of purpose. It seems this is what the craven Yankees in Massachusetts and New York fear the most, and so whenever the failures of liberal programs pop out all over the place, they rally the hive-mind around some racist incident to re-fight the Civil War all over again, with ongoing disastrous consequences which they quickly conceal or refuse to acknowledge, treating “out of sight, out of mind” as the cardinal principle of democracy, which it well may be.